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 | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-485. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Vice Admiral Nancy A. Norton, United States Navy, and her advancement to the grade of vice admiral on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec. 502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-486. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Vice Admiral Michael J. Dumont, United States Navy Reserve, and his advancement to the grade of vice admiral on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec.502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-487. A letter from the Congressional Assistant II, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Amendments to Capital Planning and Stress Testing Requirements for Large Bank Holding Companies, Intermediate Holding Companies and Savings and Loan Holding Companies [Regulations Q, Y, LL, and YY; Docket No.: R-1724] (RIN: 7100-AF95) 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-488. A letter from the Policy Advisor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; Motorcycle Controls and Displays [Docket No.: NHTSA-2020- 0110] (RIN: 2127-AL48) 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-489. A letter from the Policy Advisor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection, Ejection Mitigation; Technical Corrections [Docket No.: NHTSA-2020- 0111] (RIN: 2127-AM31) 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-490. A letter from the Program Analyst, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls [CG Docket No.: 17-59] 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-491. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Ukraine that was declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-492. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Venezuela that was declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-493. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Zimbabwe that was declared in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-494. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting fourteen (14) notifications of a federal vacancy, designation of an acting officer, nomination, action on nomination, or discontinuation of service in an acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-495. A letter from the General Counsel, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, transmitting the Agency's FY 2020 No FEAR Act report, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107- 174, 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-496. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the report on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending June 30, 2019, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 621; June 8, 1938, ch. 327, Sec. 11 (as amended by Public Law 104-65, Sec. 19); (109 Stat. 704); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-497. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's notice -- Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts 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-498. 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-2020-1135; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01363-T; Amendment 39-21373; AD 2020-26-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-499. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Modification of Class D and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hayward, CA [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0766; Airspace Docket No.: 20-AWP-38] (RIN: 2120- AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-500. 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-2020-0858; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00949-T; Amendment 39-21370; AD 2020-26-15] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-501. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0465; Product Identifier 2020-NM-074-AD; Amendment 39-21363; AD 2020-26-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-502. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0844; Product Identifier 2020-NM-100-AD; Amendment 39-21364; AD 2020-26-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-503. 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-2020-0458; Product Identifier 2020-NM-029-AD; Amendment 39-21348; AD 2020-25-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-504. 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-2020-0841; Product Identifier 2020-NM-087-AD; Amendment 39-21366; AD 2020-26-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-505. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31347; Amdt. No.: 3936] 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-506. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31346; Amdt. No.: 3935] 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-507. 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-2020-0792; Project Identifier 2018-SW-049-AD; Amendment 39-21368; AD 2020-26-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-508. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0468; Product Identifier 2018-SW-046-AD; Amendment 39-21365; AD 2020-26-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-509. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0796; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00902-T; Amendment 39-21367; AD 2020-26-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-510. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Trenton, MO [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0750; Airspace Docket No.: 20-ACE-17] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-511. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace; Newburyport, MA [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0924; Airspace Docket No.: 20-ANE-1] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-512. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E3 Airspace; Fresno, CA [Docket No.: FAA-2018-1001; Airspace Docket No.: 18-AWP-24] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-513. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0842; Product Identifier 2020-NM-101-AD; Amendment 39-21350; AD 2020-25-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-514. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0840; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00907-T; Amendment 39-21344; AD 2020-25- 02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-02-pt2-PgH1011-2 | null | 2,400 |
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-485. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Vice Admiral Nancy A. Norton, United States Navy, and her advancement to the grade of vice admiral on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec. 502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-486. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Vice Admiral Michael J. Dumont, United States Navy Reserve, and his advancement to the grade of vice admiral on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec.502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-487. A letter from the Congressional Assistant II, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Amendments to Capital Planning and Stress Testing Requirements for Large Bank Holding Companies, Intermediate Holding Companies and Savings and Loan Holding Companies [Regulations Q, Y, LL, and YY; Docket No.: R-1724] (RIN: 7100-AF95) 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-488. A letter from the Policy Advisor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Motorcycle Brake Systems; Motorcycle Controls and Displays [Docket No.: NHTSA-2020- 0110] (RIN: 2127-AL48) 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-489. A letter from the Policy Advisor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection, Ejection Mitigation; Technical Corrections [Docket No.: NHTSA-2020- 0111] (RIN: 2127-AM31) 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-490. A letter from the Program Analyst, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls [CG Docket No.: 17-59] 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-491. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Ukraine that was declared in Executive Order 13660 of March 6, 2014, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-492. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Venezuela that was declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-493. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Zimbabwe that was declared in Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-494. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting fourteen (14) notifications of a federal vacancy, designation of an acting officer, nomination, action on nomination, or discontinuation of service in an acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-495. A letter from the General Counsel, U.S. Trade and Development Agency, transmitting the Agency's FY 2020 No FEAR Act report, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107- 174, 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-496. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the report on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending June 30, 2019, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 621; June 8, 1938, ch. 327, Sec. 11 (as amended by Public Law 104-65, Sec. 19); (109 Stat. 704); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-497. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's notice -- Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts 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-498. 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-2020-1135; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01363-T; Amendment 39-21373; AD 2020-26-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-499. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Modification of Class D and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hayward, CA [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0766; Airspace Docket No.: 20-AWP-38] (RIN: 2120- AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-500. 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-2020-0858; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00949-T; Amendment 39-21370; AD 2020-26-15] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-501. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0465; Product Identifier 2020-NM-074-AD; Amendment 39-21363; AD 2020-26-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-502. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0844; Product Identifier 2020-NM-100-AD; Amendment 39-21364; AD 2020-26-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-503. 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-2020-0458; Product Identifier 2020-NM-029-AD; Amendment 39-21348; AD 2020-25-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-504. 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-2020-0841; Product Identifier 2020-NM-087-AD; Amendment 39-21366; AD 2020-26-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-505. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31347; Amdt. No.: 3936] 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-506. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31346; Amdt. No.: 3935] 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-507. 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-2020-0792; Project Identifier 2018-SW-049-AD; Amendment 39-21368; AD 2020-26-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-508. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0468; Product Identifier 2018-SW-046-AD; Amendment 39-21365; AD 2020-26-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-509. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0796; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00902-T; Amendment 39-21367; AD 2020-26-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-510. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Trenton, MO [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0750; Airspace Docket No.: 20-ACE-17] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-511. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace; Newburyport, MA [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0924; Airspace Docket No.: 20-ANE-1] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-512. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E3 Airspace; Fresno, CA [Docket No.: FAA-2018-1001; Airspace Docket No.: 18-AWP-24] (RIN: 2120-AA66) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-513. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0842; Product Identifier 2020-NM-101-AD; Amendment 39-21350; AD 2020-25-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-514. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Support and Services (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0840; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00907-T; Amendment 39-21344; AD 2020-25- 02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) 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 Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-02-pt2-PgH1011-2 | null | 2,401 |
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 Foreign Affairs 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 Executive Order 13288 of March 6, 2003, with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic proceses or institutions is to continue in effect beyond March 6, 2021. President Emmerson Mnangagwa has not made the necessary political and economic reforms that would warrant terminating the existing targeted sanctions program. Throughout the last year, government security services routinely intimidated and violently repressed citizens, including members of opposition political parties, union members, and journalists. The absence of progress on the most fundamental reforms needed to ensure the rule of law, democratic governance, and the protection of human rights leaves Zimbabweans vulnerable to ongoing repression and presents a continuing threat to peace and security in the region. The actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe's democratic processes or institutions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13288, as amended, with respect toZimbabwe and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this threat. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 2, 2021. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgH1038 | null | 2,402 |
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 Foreign Affairs 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 Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, with respect to the situation in Venezuela is to continue in effect beyond March 8, 2021. The situation in Venezuela continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13692 with respect to the situation in Venezuela. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, March 2, 2021. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgH1039-2 | null | 2,403 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the American Rescue Plan, as early as tonight, the Senate will move to take up the American Rescue Plan, a bill designed to immediately deliver help to American families, workers, and businesses struggling under the weight of the pandemic and to lay the foundation for our Nation's recovery, so needed. Every day, we see signs of hope and signs of caution in our fight against the COVID pandemic. As of today, in good part because the Biden administration is really doing a good job, over 78 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been administered in the country and over 100 million have been shipped--well ahead of the rosiest expectations at the start of the year. Just yesterday, President Biden announced that there will be enough vaccines for every adult in the United States by the end of May--by the end of May--far sooner than most had thought. Again, President Biden and his team are doing a great job in moving the vaccine out quickly but fairly. Still, the United States averages 66,000 cases of COVID per week. That exceeds anything we saw last summer during the worst months of the spread. So we cannot relax, and the need for the legislation that is before us is stronger than ever before. It is a similar story with the economy. There are green shoots, but unemployment is still over 6 percent and 9 percent for African Americans. The economy has lost 10 million jobs compared to a year ago. Tens of millions of Americans report being thousands of dollars behind in rent and utilities. As Treasury Secretary Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Powell have repeatedly warned us, our economy and its recovery remain deeply uncertain. There are bumps but mainly because of the stimulus bills we have done. We did a bill in March, and the May and June numbers looked pretty good but then sunk again over the summer and fall. We did a bill in December, and the January numbers looked pretty good. But that is not evidence that the economy is able to sustain things on its own; that is evidence that the Federal Government needs to continue its role to get us back on track. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. The American Rescue Plan is designed to build on our early progress and finish the job, to help our country get through the final months of the crisis and then, equally important, bring our economy roaring back. We cannot go through the situation we did back in 2009, where the stimulus wasn't strong enough and we stayed in recession for years. So just because the numbers are not as bad as they were doesn't mean we don't need a continued strong push to get us out of this ditch and go upward and forward. Now, we had always hoped that this very important work would be bipartisan. Regrettably, it seems that too many of our Republican colleagues are resorting to the same predictable objections they raise about nearly every proposal supported by a Democrat. It doesn't matter what is in the bill; everything my colleagues oppose is ``a liberal wish list''. That is what many of them call it. Let me tell you, this bill is not a liberal wish list; this is an American wish list. When people want checks to help them get out of the morass, that is not a liberal wish list; that is what the American people want. It is an American wish list. When people want resources to open schools quickly and safely, that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. When people want assistance for the hardest-hit small businesses, that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. Funding to keep teachers, firefighters, transit workers, first responders in Red States and Blue on the job, it is not a liberal wish list; it is an American wish list. So many of the people affected by this bill are not liberals or Democrats. They may be Republicans, they may be Independents, they may be conservatives, but they are Americans who want some help to get out of this morass. Money to expand the testing and speed of the distribution of vaccines, the cornerstone of ending this crisis once and for all--that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. Everyone wants the vaccine out there. Direct checks, as I mentioned, as promised to Americans struggling to keep up with expenses, to buy their groceries, medicine, to pay the rent and utilities--that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. I would ask my Republican colleagues to go ask their constituents which of these things their constituents oppose. None. That is what the data shows. The American Rescue Plan will be the single largest anti-poverty bill in recent history, with crucial assistance for American families, particularly those struggling with the cost of childcare. It will give tax breaks for low-income workers, so when they work hard, they can afford the necessities of life. So these things are ``the liberal wish list'' that Republicans are talking about--support for schools and jobs and families and workers and the vaccine? No way. Ironically, the ``liberal wish list'' includes a whole bunch of bipartisan amendments that were accepted, including provisions to help restaurants, sponsored by Senators Sinema and Wicker; a vaccine public awareness program, sponsored by Senators Cardin and Portman; and a provision to better target direct payments, sponsored by Senators Manchin and Collins. Make no mistake, the American Rescue Plan is a very, very strong bill that will move our country forward in amazing ways. It should come as no surprise that support of the American Rescue Plan is coming from all over the country. Hundreds of business leaders--not the most liberal bunch--have urged Congress to pass this bill. More than 435 mayors and State leaders, Democrats and Republicans, have said the same: They want the bill. As one Republican mayor from Michigan put it, ``The need is real, and not just in Democratic communities.'' He went on to tell his fellow Republicans in Washington who oppose the bill to ``talk to some of the Republican mayors.'' But if my Republican colleagues here in the Senate don't want to listen to the words of their fellow Republican mayors and Governors, they can look at the polls, which show the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support this bill. It seems like the only people who are dead set against this bill are Republican Senators--not Republicans out in the country, not Republican mayors, not Republican businesspeople, not Republican small businesses. I guess all of this should be expected. COVID-19 is not a Red State or a Blue State crisis. Our Republican friends should know that. It is not a Democratic or Republican concern. They should know that too. COVID-19 is a menace to all of us, and we should be banding together to fight. The economic crisis has affected all of us, and the plan that we are going to vote on this week is going to provide real, robust relief for all of us. Whatever our Republican colleagues decide to do, the Senate majority is intent on going forward and helping the American people with bold action quickly. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1000 | null | 2,404 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the American Rescue Plan, as early as tonight, the Senate will move to take up the American Rescue Plan, a bill designed to immediately deliver help to American families, workers, and businesses struggling under the weight of the pandemic and to lay the foundation for our Nation's recovery, so needed. Every day, we see signs of hope and signs of caution in our fight against the COVID pandemic. As of today, in good part because the Biden administration is really doing a good job, over 78 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been administered in the country and over 100 million have been shipped--well ahead of the rosiest expectations at the start of the year. Just yesterday, President Biden announced that there will be enough vaccines for every adult in the United States by the end of May--by the end of May--far sooner than most had thought. Again, President Biden and his team are doing a great job in moving the vaccine out quickly but fairly. Still, the United States averages 66,000 cases of COVID per week. That exceeds anything we saw last summer during the worst months of the spread. So we cannot relax, and the need for the legislation that is before us is stronger than ever before. It is a similar story with the economy. There are green shoots, but unemployment is still over 6 percent and 9 percent for African Americans. The economy has lost 10 million jobs compared to a year ago. Tens of millions of Americans report being thousands of dollars behind in rent and utilities. As Treasury Secretary Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Powell have repeatedly warned us, our economy and its recovery remain deeply uncertain. There are bumps but mainly because of the stimulus bills we have done. We did a bill in March, and the May and June numbers looked pretty good but then sunk again over the summer and fall. We did a bill in December, and the January numbers looked pretty good. But that is not evidence that the economy is able to sustain things on its own; that is evidence that the Federal Government needs to continue its role to get us back on track. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. The American Rescue Plan is designed to build on our early progress and finish the job, to help our country get through the final months of the crisis and then, equally important, bring our economy roaring back. We cannot go through the situation we did back in 2009, where the stimulus wasn't strong enough and we stayed in recession for years. So just because the numbers are not as bad as they were doesn't mean we don't need a continued strong push to get us out of this ditch and go upward and forward. Now, we had always hoped that this very important work would be bipartisan. Regrettably, it seems that too many of our Republican colleagues are resorting to the same predictable objections they raise about nearly every proposal supported by a Democrat. It doesn't matter what is in the bill; everything my colleagues oppose is ``a liberal wish list''. That is what many of them call it. Let me tell you, this bill is not a liberal wish list; this is an American wish list. When people want checks to help them get out of the morass, that is not a liberal wish list; that is what the American people want. It is an American wish list. When people want resources to open schools quickly and safely, that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. When people want assistance for the hardest-hit small businesses, that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. Funding to keep teachers, firefighters, transit workers, first responders in Red States and Blue on the job, it is not a liberal wish list; it is an American wish list. So many of the people affected by this bill are not liberals or Democrats. They may be Republicans, they may be Independents, they may be conservatives, but they are Americans who want some help to get out of this morass. Money to expand the testing and speed of the distribution of vaccines, the cornerstone of ending this crisis once and for all--that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. Everyone wants the vaccine out there. Direct checks, as I mentioned, as promised to Americans struggling to keep up with expenses, to buy their groceries, medicine, to pay the rent and utilities--that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. I would ask my Republican colleagues to go ask their constituents which of these things their constituents oppose. None. That is what the data shows. The American Rescue Plan will be the single largest anti-poverty bill in recent history, with crucial assistance for American families, particularly those struggling with the cost of childcare. It will give tax breaks for low-income workers, so when they work hard, they can afford the necessities of life. So these things are ``the liberal wish list'' that Republicans are talking about--support for schools and jobs and families and workers and the vaccine? No way. Ironically, the ``liberal wish list'' includes a whole bunch of bipartisan amendments that were accepted, including provisions to help restaurants, sponsored by Senators Sinema and Wicker; a vaccine public awareness program, sponsored by Senators Cardin and Portman; and a provision to better target direct payments, sponsored by Senators Manchin and Collins. Make no mistake, the American Rescue Plan is a very, very strong bill that will move our country forward in amazing ways. It should come as no surprise that support of the American Rescue Plan is coming from all over the country. Hundreds of business leaders--not the most liberal bunch--have urged Congress to pass this bill. More than 435 mayors and State leaders, Democrats and Republicans, have said the same: They want the bill. As one Republican mayor from Michigan put it, ``The need is real, and not just in Democratic communities.'' He went on to tell his fellow Republicans in Washington who oppose the bill to ``talk to some of the Republican mayors.'' But if my Republican colleagues here in the Senate don't want to listen to the words of their fellow Republican mayors and Governors, they can look at the polls, which show the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support this bill. It seems like the only people who are dead set against this bill are Republican Senators--not Republicans out in the country, not Republican mayors, not Republican businesspeople, not Republican small businesses. I guess all of this should be expected. COVID-19 is not a Red State or a Blue State crisis. Our Republican friends should know that. It is not a Democratic or Republican concern. They should know that too. COVID-19 is a menace to all of us, and we should be banding together to fight. The economic crisis has affected all of us, and the plan that we are going to vote on this week is going to provide real, robust relief for all of us. Whatever our Republican colleagues decide to do, the Senate majority is intent on going forward and helping the American people with bold action quickly. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1000 | null | 2,405 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the American Rescue Plan, as early as tonight, the Senate will move to take up the American Rescue Plan, a bill designed to immediately deliver help to American families, workers, and businesses struggling under the weight of the pandemic and to lay the foundation for our Nation's recovery, so needed. Every day, we see signs of hope and signs of caution in our fight against the COVID pandemic. As of today, in good part because the Biden administration is really doing a good job, over 78 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been administered in the country and over 100 million have been shipped--well ahead of the rosiest expectations at the start of the year. Just yesterday, President Biden announced that there will be enough vaccines for every adult in the United States by the end of May--by the end of May--far sooner than most had thought. Again, President Biden and his team are doing a great job in moving the vaccine out quickly but fairly. Still, the United States averages 66,000 cases of COVID per week. That exceeds anything we saw last summer during the worst months of the spread. So we cannot relax, and the need for the legislation that is before us is stronger than ever before. It is a similar story with the economy. There are green shoots, but unemployment is still over 6 percent and 9 percent for African Americans. The economy has lost 10 million jobs compared to a year ago. Tens of millions of Americans report being thousands of dollars behind in rent and utilities. As Treasury Secretary Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Powell have repeatedly warned us, our economy and its recovery remain deeply uncertain. There are bumps but mainly because of the stimulus bills we have done. We did a bill in March, and the May and June numbers looked pretty good but then sunk again over the summer and fall. We did a bill in December, and the January numbers looked pretty good. But that is not evidence that the economy is able to sustain things on its own; that is evidence that the Federal Government needs to continue its role to get us back on track. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. The American Rescue Plan is designed to build on our early progress and finish the job, to help our country get through the final months of the crisis and then, equally important, bring our economy roaring back. We cannot go through the situation we did back in 2009, where the stimulus wasn't strong enough and we stayed in recession for years. So just because the numbers are not as bad as they were doesn't mean we don't need a continued strong push to get us out of this ditch and go upward and forward. Now, we had always hoped that this very important work would be bipartisan. Regrettably, it seems that too many of our Republican colleagues are resorting to the same predictable objections they raise about nearly every proposal supported by a Democrat. It doesn't matter what is in the bill; everything my colleagues oppose is ``a liberal wish list''. That is what many of them call it. Let me tell you, this bill is not a liberal wish list; this is an American wish list. When people want checks to help them get out of the morass, that is not a liberal wish list; that is what the American people want. It is an American wish list. When people want resources to open schools quickly and safely, that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. When people want assistance for the hardest-hit small businesses, that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. Funding to keep teachers, firefighters, transit workers, first responders in Red States and Blue on the job, it is not a liberal wish list; it is an American wish list. So many of the people affected by this bill are not liberals or Democrats. They may be Republicans, they may be Independents, they may be conservatives, but they are Americans who want some help to get out of this morass. Money to expand the testing and speed of the distribution of vaccines, the cornerstone of ending this crisis once and for all--that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. Everyone wants the vaccine out there. Direct checks, as I mentioned, as promised to Americans struggling to keep up with expenses, to buy their groceries, medicine, to pay the rent and utilities--that is not a liberal wish list; that is an American wish list. I would ask my Republican colleagues to go ask their constituents which of these things their constituents oppose. None. That is what the data shows. The American Rescue Plan will be the single largest anti-poverty bill in recent history, with crucial assistance for American families, particularly those struggling with the cost of childcare. It will give tax breaks for low-income workers, so when they work hard, they can afford the necessities of life. So these things are ``the liberal wish list'' that Republicans are talking about--support for schools and jobs and families and workers and the vaccine? No way. Ironically, the ``liberal wish list'' includes a whole bunch of bipartisan amendments that were accepted, including provisions to help restaurants, sponsored by Senators Sinema and Wicker; a vaccine public awareness program, sponsored by Senators Cardin and Portman; and a provision to better target direct payments, sponsored by Senators Manchin and Collins. Make no mistake, the American Rescue Plan is a very, very strong bill that will move our country forward in amazing ways. It should come as no surprise that support of the American Rescue Plan is coming from all over the country. Hundreds of business leaders--not the most liberal bunch--have urged Congress to pass this bill. More than 435 mayors and State leaders, Democrats and Republicans, have said the same: They want the bill. As one Republican mayor from Michigan put it, ``The need is real, and not just in Democratic communities.'' He went on to tell his fellow Republicans in Washington who oppose the bill to ``talk to some of the Republican mayors.'' But if my Republican colleagues here in the Senate don't want to listen to the words of their fellow Republican mayors and Governors, they can look at the polls, which show the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support this bill. It seems like the only people who are dead set against this bill are Republican Senators--not Republicans out in the country, not Republican mayors, not Republican businesspeople, not Republican small businesses. I guess all of this should be expected. COVID-19 is not a Red State or a Blue State crisis. Our Republican friends should know that. It is not a Democratic or Republican concern. They should know that too. COVID-19 is a menace to all of us, and we should be banding together to fight. The economic crisis has affected all of us, and the plan that we are going to vote on this week is going to provide real, robust relief for all of us. Whatever our Republican colleagues decide to do, the Senate majority is intent on going forward and helping the American people with bold action quickly. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1000 | null | 2,406 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last year, Congress rallied five times around historic bipartisan legislation to meet urgent and unprecedented needs. Our COVID-19 packages reinforced the healthcare frontlines, fueled the sprint for vaccines, and cast lifelines for the workers and small businesses hit hardest by shutdowns. Together, those bills cost about $4 trillion, but none of those measures passed the House of Representatives with less than a bipartisan supermajority of about 80 percent--completely overwhelming support. Then, last week, House Democrats rammed through the American Rescue Plan Act on a razor-thin margin of 50.7 percent. The only thing bipartisan about their bill was the opposition to it. Their bill costs about $2 trillion. That is roughly the same size as the entire CARES Act that saved our health system and economy through months of shutdowns last year. Even liberal experts admit this is far out of proportion to what is needed now, with vaccines going into arms and the economy already primed to literally roar back. Amazingly, Democrats managed to allocate less than 9 percent--9 percent--of their massive bill to the entire healthcare response; 9 percent of the $1.9 trillion related to the healthcare response, and--listen to this--even less than 1 percent of the $1.9 trillion to the vaccines that will actually finish the fight. They needed to save the other 91 percent of the borrowed money for a vast catalog of liberal spending with basically no relationship whatsoever to beating COVID-19. For example, they want to send wheelbarrows of cash to State and local bureaucrats to bail out mismanagement from before the pandemic. They are changing the previous bipartisan funding formula in ways that will especially bias the money toward big blue States. This outraged a bipartisan group of Governors, largely from middle America, who went on record this week. There are generous new benefit packages for government employees. There are provisions to let abortion providers drain money from rescue programs that were built to save Main Street small businesses. There is a strange new Acela corridor kickback where they will make Medicare send more money to just New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Just looking at the timeframe for all of their spending belies any notion that this is an urgent rescue plan. Take the K-12 funding which, contrary to science, Democrats say is a prerequisite for opening schools. Ninety-five percent of that supposedly urgent money would not be spent this fiscal year but, instead, over the next 7 years. Let me say that again. Ninety-five percent of the money for K-12 is not going to be spent this year, but over the next 7 years. That is not my definition of an emergency. Grants for rural healthcare would be on a slow drip out through fiscal 2024. Agriculture-related funds would trickle out over the next--listen to this--over the next decade. It doesn't sound very urgent to me. What the American people need are fast-acting plans to get schools reopened now, get laid-off workers back into jobs, and finish the fight against this virus right now. The Democrats have, instead, drawn up a liberal omnibus to fund miscellaneous government spending over the next decade. We are adding all this money to the national debt, and they have a rescue package with most of the money being spent out far in the future. That is why there was bipartisan opposition over in the House. That is why aspects of the House bill are already dropping like flies before this thing even hits the Senate floor. A pet project for the San Francisco Bay area is gone. Special upgrades for a bridge connecting New York to Canada, gone. Even CNN had to admit these were ``controversial.'' Senator Sanders' far-left minimum wage policy that would have killed 1.4 million jobs just as we try to recover appears to be gone, too--at least for now. According to public reports, right now, as we speak, several of our Democratic colleagues are frantically trying to trim back other crazy provisions: the runaway government bailouts, the policies that will keep workers at home when we should be focusing on rehiring. Just a few days ago, President Biden's Chief of Staff bragged that this smorgasbord of borrowed money will add up to ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' So that is what you get when the Democratic leader persuades all of my distinguished friends across the aisle that their first undertaking as Senate committee chairmen should be to outsource all their gavels to the House. The Senate wrote the CARES Act. In the earliest days of the crisis, this Chamber took the bull by the horns. I personally assembled bipartisan task forces that crafted urgent solutions to help America weather the storm. This time around, on the substance, the Senate has been largely missing in action. House Democrats are bristling and publicly pushing back if our Senate Democratic colleagues even try to make their mark on this partisan bill in small ways. So these two radically different processes have generated two radically different pieces of legislation. The Democrats had a choice. They chose to go it alone, tack to the left, leave families' top priorities on the cutting-room floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1001-3 | null | 2,407 |
formal | government spending | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last year, Congress rallied five times around historic bipartisan legislation to meet urgent and unprecedented needs. Our COVID-19 packages reinforced the healthcare frontlines, fueled the sprint for vaccines, and cast lifelines for the workers and small businesses hit hardest by shutdowns. Together, those bills cost about $4 trillion, but none of those measures passed the House of Representatives with less than a bipartisan supermajority of about 80 percent--completely overwhelming support. Then, last week, House Democrats rammed through the American Rescue Plan Act on a razor-thin margin of 50.7 percent. The only thing bipartisan about their bill was the opposition to it. Their bill costs about $2 trillion. That is roughly the same size as the entire CARES Act that saved our health system and economy through months of shutdowns last year. Even liberal experts admit this is far out of proportion to what is needed now, with vaccines going into arms and the economy already primed to literally roar back. Amazingly, Democrats managed to allocate less than 9 percent--9 percent--of their massive bill to the entire healthcare response; 9 percent of the $1.9 trillion related to the healthcare response, and--listen to this--even less than 1 percent of the $1.9 trillion to the vaccines that will actually finish the fight. They needed to save the other 91 percent of the borrowed money for a vast catalog of liberal spending with basically no relationship whatsoever to beating COVID-19. For example, they want to send wheelbarrows of cash to State and local bureaucrats to bail out mismanagement from before the pandemic. They are changing the previous bipartisan funding formula in ways that will especially bias the money toward big blue States. This outraged a bipartisan group of Governors, largely from middle America, who went on record this week. There are generous new benefit packages for government employees. There are provisions to let abortion providers drain money from rescue programs that were built to save Main Street small businesses. There is a strange new Acela corridor kickback where they will make Medicare send more money to just New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Delaware. Just looking at the timeframe for all of their spending belies any notion that this is an urgent rescue plan. Take the K-12 funding which, contrary to science, Democrats say is a prerequisite for opening schools. Ninety-five percent of that supposedly urgent money would not be spent this fiscal year but, instead, over the next 7 years. Let me say that again. Ninety-five percent of the money for K-12 is not going to be spent this year, but over the next 7 years. That is not my definition of an emergency. Grants for rural healthcare would be on a slow drip out through fiscal 2024. Agriculture-related funds would trickle out over the next--listen to this--over the next decade. It doesn't sound very urgent to me. What the American people need are fast-acting plans to get schools reopened now, get laid-off workers back into jobs, and finish the fight against this virus right now. The Democrats have, instead, drawn up a liberal omnibus to fund miscellaneous government spending over the next decade. We are adding all this money to the national debt, and they have a rescue package with most of the money being spent out far in the future. That is why there was bipartisan opposition over in the House. That is why aspects of the House bill are already dropping like flies before this thing even hits the Senate floor. A pet project for the San Francisco Bay area is gone. Special upgrades for a bridge connecting New York to Canada, gone. Even CNN had to admit these were ``controversial.'' Senator Sanders' far-left minimum wage policy that would have killed 1.4 million jobs just as we try to recover appears to be gone, too--at least for now. According to public reports, right now, as we speak, several of our Democratic colleagues are frantically trying to trim back other crazy provisions: the runaway government bailouts, the policies that will keep workers at home when we should be focusing on rehiring. Just a few days ago, President Biden's Chief of Staff bragged that this smorgasbord of borrowed money will add up to ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' So that is what you get when the Democratic leader persuades all of my distinguished friends across the aisle that their first undertaking as Senate committee chairmen should be to outsource all their gavels to the House. The Senate wrote the CARES Act. In the earliest days of the crisis, this Chamber took the bull by the horns. I personally assembled bipartisan task forces that crafted urgent solutions to help America weather the storm. This time around, on the substance, the Senate has been largely missing in action. House Democrats are bristling and publicly pushing back if our Senate Democratic colleagues even try to make their mark on this partisan bill in small ways. So these two radically different processes have generated two radically different pieces of legislation. The Democrats had a choice. They chose to go it alone, tack to the left, leave families' top priorities on the cutting-room floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1001-3 | null | 2,408 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on a completely different matter, just 6 weeks into unified Democratic government, we already have another crisis brewing on our southern border. In January, Customs and Border Protection logged more than 78,000 encounters on our southwest border, more than double the figure from January of 2020. Last week, HHS sources told reporters we just logged the busiest February in the history of the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. The number of kids turning up on our border with no parents is soaring, and everyone expects the numbers to keep climbing. Now the Biden administration is reportedly planning to reopen the same kinds of emergency shelters over which Democrats vilified the Trump administration a couple of years back. Both President Biden and his Secretary of Homeland Security have said this week they don't think this is a crisis. Not a crisis, they say? Well, if this isn't a crisis, with unaccompanied kids pouring in and exceeding the capacity in a pandemic, I would hate to see what one looks like. The cause of this emergency is not some mystery. It is not mysterious at all. Everybody knows exactly what happened. The new administration explicitly campaigned on weakening border security, and 6 weeks in, they have reversed the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, begun letting more people in in a haphazard way, and broadcast confusing mixed messages. The L.A. Times says: ``Biden immigration policy stirs confusion at Mexico border.'' They interviewed one woman who crossed the Rio Grande ``on a smuggler's raft'' and was only briefly detained before being released into our country. She explained she had specifically come because of the new Biden administration: ``That gave us the opportunity to come.'' Another reporter put it this way: ``The message received in Tijuana and other Mexican border cities wassimpl[e]: Joe Biden was now letting people in.'' We are not just talking about the fine details of border policy. The big backdrop behind this whole discussion is the sweeping leftwing amnesty plan that the Biden administration unveiled before they were even sworn in. They want to fast-track 11 million illegal immigrants into temporary legal status, then green cards, and then full citizenship. The far left loves this approach, but so does a certain cross section of Big Business. There is a whole lot of cultural power and economic power pushing the liberal vision. As for the best interest of American workers, well, that is not as trendy a cause in certain circles. The truth is that it is not helpful or compassionate to just open up our borders. It is not fair to American citizens and workers, but neither is it fair to the people who are being lured into a humanitarian crisis in the middle of a pandemic because they believe this Democratic administration just conspicuously turned on a neon ``Vacancies'' sign. Republicans just spent 4 years making major headway on the security and humanitarian crisis at our border. It took serious policy changes. It took international diplomacy with multiple countries, and it took border enforcement. The American people would be better served if the Biden administration had chosen to build on this progress instead of rapidly trying to tear it down. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1001-4 | null | 2,409 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on a completely different matter, just 6 weeks into unified Democratic government, we already have another crisis brewing on our southern border. In January, Customs and Border Protection logged more than 78,000 encounters on our southwest border, more than double the figure from January of 2020. Last week, HHS sources told reporters we just logged the busiest February in the history of the Unaccompanied Alien Children Program. The number of kids turning up on our border with no parents is soaring, and everyone expects the numbers to keep climbing. Now the Biden administration is reportedly planning to reopen the same kinds of emergency shelters over which Democrats vilified the Trump administration a couple of years back. Both President Biden and his Secretary of Homeland Security have said this week they don't think this is a crisis. Not a crisis, they say? Well, if this isn't a crisis, with unaccompanied kids pouring in and exceeding the capacity in a pandemic, I would hate to see what one looks like. The cause of this emergency is not some mystery. It is not mysterious at all. Everybody knows exactly what happened. The new administration explicitly campaigned on weakening border security, and 6 weeks in, they have reversed the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, begun letting more people in in a haphazard way, and broadcast confusing mixed messages. The L.A. Times says: ``Biden immigration policy stirs confusion at Mexico border.'' They interviewed one woman who crossed the Rio Grande ``on a smuggler's raft'' and was only briefly detained before being released into our country. She explained she had specifically come because of the new Biden administration: ``That gave us the opportunity to come.'' Another reporter put it this way: ``The message received in Tijuana and other Mexican border cities wassimpl[e]: Joe Biden was now letting people in.'' We are not just talking about the fine details of border policy. The big backdrop behind this whole discussion is the sweeping leftwing amnesty plan that the Biden administration unveiled before they were even sworn in. They want to fast-track 11 million illegal immigrants into temporary legal status, then green cards, and then full citizenship. The far left loves this approach, but so does a certain cross section of Big Business. There is a whole lot of cultural power and economic power pushing the liberal vision. As for the best interest of American workers, well, that is not as trendy a cause in certain circles. The truth is that it is not helpful or compassionate to just open up our borders. It is not fair to American citizens and workers, but neither is it fair to the people who are being lured into a humanitarian crisis in the middle of a pandemic because they believe this Democratic administration just conspicuously turned on a neon ``Vacancies'' sign. Republicans just spent 4 years making major headway on the security and humanitarian crisis at our border. It took serious policy changes. It took international diplomacy with multiple countries, and it took border enforcement. The American people would be better served if the Biden administration had chosen to build on this progress instead of rapidly trying to tear it down. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1001-4 | null | 2,410 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a different subject, I listened to the speeches of Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell about the American Rescue Plan--Joe Biden's proposal, his initial proposal as President--to deal with the pandemic, the state of the economy, and many other aspects of American culture and life that need to be addressed. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion. I couldn't help but think, as Senator McConnell was recounting our experience last year, that when it came to the CARES Act a year ago--the $2 trillion plan to respond to the state of the pandemic and the economy, the plan that was engineered by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a member of the Trump administration, who argued and negotiated with Republicans and Democrats alike--that, when they finally agreed, the vote was 96 to nothing in this Chamber. Every Democrat voted for the proposed CARES Act that was engineered by the Trump administration. Party was pushed aside because the priority was our Nation. It happened again in December of last year. In President Trump's administration, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin at the table and with Democrats and Republicans bargaining, the final vote was 92 to 6 in the Senate--not bad--and the 6 noes were all Republicans. Again, the Democrats stepped up and said: We will support this bipartisan effort because that is why we are here. The American people sent us here to do a job. Now comes the new President, Joe Biden, who says: Good work last December, but that was temporary, and that was supposed to be a special effort. Now we have to finish the year. We have some deadlines coming. Just 2 weeks from now--or in less than 2 weeks--the unemployment insurance programs will be running out for millions of Americans, and the rental assistance program as well. Some will face eviction, and some will not have enough money to feed their families. So get to work. Pass the American Rescue Plan on a bipartisan basis. We have yet to hear from one Republican Senator who will support President Biden's plan. Some of them havelegitimate differences with his policy, and I wish they would come to the table and be a part of the conversation, but none of them has really stepped up and said: We are in for the big effort that the President is calling for. That is what it will take. Unfortunately, because of that, in a 50-50 Senate, we will need every Democratic Senator to support the President's plan and to pass a version of what the House is sending over to us. We will go through an exercise called ``reconciliation'' in just a few days. It is not a pretty scene if you follow legislative history, but it is long overdue. Do you know the one thing that should drive us on? It is not only the obvious need for this but the fact that the American people overwhelmingly support what President Biden has proposed. The American people believe, as he does, that we should be investing billions into more vaccines and more people to administer them. The American people believe that a cash payment to families is essential in some parts of this country. They would like to see the $600 in last December's bill complemented with the $1,400 in this proposal. They would like for us to put money on the table for people who are unemployed so they can put food on that same table, and they would like for us to get the schools ready to deal with reopening and classes that are safe for the kids and the teachers. There is no argument about that. While 20 percent of the people may oppose it, 80 percent support it. Yet we can't find one Republican Senator to support President Biden's plan. They say it costs too much. Well, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has told us to be careful that you do too little. This economy is fragile. It needs to be strengthened. We need to inject into this economy enough of our resources so that people are back, purchasing again, and businesses are reopened. He has warned us, if you do too little and if you cut it off too soon, you are going to pay for it for years to come with unemployment and problems with the sluggish economy. My Republican colleagues say it is just too much money. Well, I think they are wrong, and at this moment in history, I am prepared to err on the side of investing in the American people and American businesses and making certain that we have a fighting chance to put this behind us. Our constituents know about the cost of this situation. They want us to provide the solutions. They want results from Congress. If we were to delay this payment, people would see their unemployment insurance lapse and hardships continue. We shouldn't play politics with it either. In the two big bills last year, the Democrats were on board for plans engineered by the Trump administration. Economists believe that we need to move and move decisively. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, passing a comprehensive plan like the American Rescue Plan could produce a 4-percent growth in U.S. GDP this year. Moody's estimates that passing the same plan would create 7\1/2\ million American jobs. How about that? We got good news over the weekend with the arrival of another safe and effective vaccine. This is the third one, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, in our arsenal--perhaps more to follow. It holds the promise of finally getting America inoculated, vaccinated, and breaking the back of this pandemic. This new vaccine prevents hospitalizations and deaths, stored at normal temperatures, a single shot--all good news. But we need more than a promise of a vaccine. We need a plan. These vaccines are of no good to us sitting on a shelf or not being produced in volumes necessary. President Biden's rescue plan, which not a single Republican supports, would provide 100 and--I think I have got the number right--$160 billion in resources for the production of vaccines and the distribution. If we ever needed it, this was the moment. Thankfully, President Biden's leadership has led to allocations to Illinois of vaccines that have increased by 70 percent since he took over as President. We still have our challenges at the local level. I want to salute the Governor, JB Pritzker; the mayor of the city of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot; the Cook County Board President Preckwinkle; and all the others who are doing their best. I announced with Senator Duckworth just last Friday that we are going to put a new facility in the parking lot of the United Center, where the amazing Chicago Bulls play basketball from time to time, and it is going to be able to vaccinate thousands of people every single day. It is Federal assistance that is making it happen, and it happens to be in a neighborhood where African Americans and Latinos are nearby, and we need to protect them with even more effectiveness than we have to date. They account for 33 percent of the population of that area, and only 16 percent have been vaccinated. The American Rescue Plan provides $20 billion to expand our vaccine distribution capacity. You would think that that would maybe attract one Republican supporter. It should. There are certainly some who argue against all vaccines and spending any money for it and all the rest, but they are such a small minority. The vast majority of Americans of both political parties understand that we have got to go to vaccinations as quickly as possible. The Biden rescue plan does that. I wish they would join us in supporting it. There is also a need for money for education. There is $128 billion in this bill for additional education funding K-12, and there have been arguments made on the floor here by the Republicans that we just don't need it. They point to data showing that the school districts haven't spent the money that we provided in previous relief packages. Well, just talk to the principals and the teachers in your home State about that conclusion. You will find the money is desperately needed and that the money that has been appropriated before will be spent in an orderly way and not shoveled out the window. We are looking ahead to the entire year and making certain that we have a real school year--perhaps the remainder of this year but certainly for next year. Illinois needs these funds and America does. When it comes to State and local support, I have to tell you, we have paid a heavy price in our State of Illinois and our major cities. We have seen expenses go up and we have seen revenue go down and we need help, not unreasonable. This helping hand will save jobs that are necessary for us--some of them healthcare jobs, some of them security and safety jobs, but they will save jobs, and that is why the State and the local resources included in this bill are so important and timely. Over the past year, States and localities have lost 1.3 million jobs of their payrolls, far more than the 750,000 lost in the great recession. There is needed help from the Federal Government, and it is needed now. We have recovered just 12 million of the 22 million jobs we have lost since the start of the pandemic. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, more than 8 million rental households and 2 million homeowners were behind on housing payments at the end of last year. The burden is tough, and for those of us lucky enough to have escaped it, we may not know the feeling, the empty feeling of eviction or the loss of a home that you have paid a mortgage on for years. I am going to close. I see one of my colleagues on the floor preparing to speak, but I would like to close with the story of Galen Hensen from Midlothian, IL. For 34 years, Galen has supported touring artists through his work in live concert production for some of America's most iconic musicians. When the American economy was upended by the pandemic, his industry froze to save other lives and to avoid crowds. Like so many others, Galen went on unemployment. Yet, even with the Federal $600 supplement to State unemployment, he had only half of his regular income replaced. He struggles--still struggles to make ends meet. He wrote to me urging that we put aside our partisan differences and pass the American Rescue Plan. Let's listen to Galen, and let's listen to many others like him. They are counting on us. I hope when all is said and done after all the speeches, that just as we came together on a bipartisan basis to pass the rescue plan twice last year--96 tonothing, 92 to 6--under the Trump administration, with all Democrats supporting it, wouldn't it be great if we showed that same bipartisanship again I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1002-2 | null | 2,411 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a different subject, I listened to the speeches of Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell about the American Rescue Plan--Joe Biden's proposal, his initial proposal as President--to deal with the pandemic, the state of the economy, and many other aspects of American culture and life that need to be addressed. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion. I couldn't help but think, as Senator McConnell was recounting our experience last year, that when it came to the CARES Act a year ago--the $2 trillion plan to respond to the state of the pandemic and the economy, the plan that was engineered by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a member of the Trump administration, who argued and negotiated with Republicans and Democrats alike--that, when they finally agreed, the vote was 96 to nothing in this Chamber. Every Democrat voted for the proposed CARES Act that was engineered by the Trump administration. Party was pushed aside because the priority was our Nation. It happened again in December of last year. In President Trump's administration, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin at the table and with Democrats and Republicans bargaining, the final vote was 92 to 6 in the Senate--not bad--and the 6 noes were all Republicans. Again, the Democrats stepped up and said: We will support this bipartisan effort because that is why we are here. The American people sent us here to do a job. Now comes the new President, Joe Biden, who says: Good work last December, but that was temporary, and that was supposed to be a special effort. Now we have to finish the year. We have some deadlines coming. Just 2 weeks from now--or in less than 2 weeks--the unemployment insurance programs will be running out for millions of Americans, and the rental assistance program as well. Some will face eviction, and some will not have enough money to feed their families. So get to work. Pass the American Rescue Plan on a bipartisan basis. We have yet to hear from one Republican Senator who will support President Biden's plan. Some of them havelegitimate differences with his policy, and I wish they would come to the table and be a part of the conversation, but none of them has really stepped up and said: We are in for the big effort that the President is calling for. That is what it will take. Unfortunately, because of that, in a 50-50 Senate, we will need every Democratic Senator to support the President's plan and to pass a version of what the House is sending over to us. We will go through an exercise called ``reconciliation'' in just a few days. It is not a pretty scene if you follow legislative history, but it is long overdue. Do you know the one thing that should drive us on? It is not only the obvious need for this but the fact that the American people overwhelmingly support what President Biden has proposed. The American people believe, as he does, that we should be investing billions into more vaccines and more people to administer them. The American people believe that a cash payment to families is essential in some parts of this country. They would like to see the $600 in last December's bill complemented with the $1,400 in this proposal. They would like for us to put money on the table for people who are unemployed so they can put food on that same table, and they would like for us to get the schools ready to deal with reopening and classes that are safe for the kids and the teachers. There is no argument about that. While 20 percent of the people may oppose it, 80 percent support it. Yet we can't find one Republican Senator to support President Biden's plan. They say it costs too much. Well, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has told us to be careful that you do too little. This economy is fragile. It needs to be strengthened. We need to inject into this economy enough of our resources so that people are back, purchasing again, and businesses are reopened. He has warned us, if you do too little and if you cut it off too soon, you are going to pay for it for years to come with unemployment and problems with the sluggish economy. My Republican colleagues say it is just too much money. Well, I think they are wrong, and at this moment in history, I am prepared to err on the side of investing in the American people and American businesses and making certain that we have a fighting chance to put this behind us. Our constituents know about the cost of this situation. They want us to provide the solutions. They want results from Congress. If we were to delay this payment, people would see their unemployment insurance lapse and hardships continue. We shouldn't play politics with it either. In the two big bills last year, the Democrats were on board for plans engineered by the Trump administration. Economists believe that we need to move and move decisively. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, passing a comprehensive plan like the American Rescue Plan could produce a 4-percent growth in U.S. GDP this year. Moody's estimates that passing the same plan would create 7\1/2\ million American jobs. How about that? We got good news over the weekend with the arrival of another safe and effective vaccine. This is the third one, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, in our arsenal--perhaps more to follow. It holds the promise of finally getting America inoculated, vaccinated, and breaking the back of this pandemic. This new vaccine prevents hospitalizations and deaths, stored at normal temperatures, a single shot--all good news. But we need more than a promise of a vaccine. We need a plan. These vaccines are of no good to us sitting on a shelf or not being produced in volumes necessary. President Biden's rescue plan, which not a single Republican supports, would provide 100 and--I think I have got the number right--$160 billion in resources for the production of vaccines and the distribution. If we ever needed it, this was the moment. Thankfully, President Biden's leadership has led to allocations to Illinois of vaccines that have increased by 70 percent since he took over as President. We still have our challenges at the local level. I want to salute the Governor, JB Pritzker; the mayor of the city of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot; the Cook County Board President Preckwinkle; and all the others who are doing their best. I announced with Senator Duckworth just last Friday that we are going to put a new facility in the parking lot of the United Center, where the amazing Chicago Bulls play basketball from time to time, and it is going to be able to vaccinate thousands of people every single day. It is Federal assistance that is making it happen, and it happens to be in a neighborhood where African Americans and Latinos are nearby, and we need to protect them with even more effectiveness than we have to date. They account for 33 percent of the population of that area, and only 16 percent have been vaccinated. The American Rescue Plan provides $20 billion to expand our vaccine distribution capacity. You would think that that would maybe attract one Republican supporter. It should. There are certainly some who argue against all vaccines and spending any money for it and all the rest, but they are such a small minority. The vast majority of Americans of both political parties understand that we have got to go to vaccinations as quickly as possible. The Biden rescue plan does that. I wish they would join us in supporting it. There is also a need for money for education. There is $128 billion in this bill for additional education funding K-12, and there have been arguments made on the floor here by the Republicans that we just don't need it. They point to data showing that the school districts haven't spent the money that we provided in previous relief packages. Well, just talk to the principals and the teachers in your home State about that conclusion. You will find the money is desperately needed and that the money that has been appropriated before will be spent in an orderly way and not shoveled out the window. We are looking ahead to the entire year and making certain that we have a real school year--perhaps the remainder of this year but certainly for next year. Illinois needs these funds and America does. When it comes to State and local support, I have to tell you, we have paid a heavy price in our State of Illinois and our major cities. We have seen expenses go up and we have seen revenue go down and we need help, not unreasonable. This helping hand will save jobs that are necessary for us--some of them healthcare jobs, some of them security and safety jobs, but they will save jobs, and that is why the State and the local resources included in this bill are so important and timely. Over the past year, States and localities have lost 1.3 million jobs of their payrolls, far more than the 750,000 lost in the great recession. There is needed help from the Federal Government, and it is needed now. We have recovered just 12 million of the 22 million jobs we have lost since the start of the pandemic. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, more than 8 million rental households and 2 million homeowners were behind on housing payments at the end of last year. The burden is tough, and for those of us lucky enough to have escaped it, we may not know the feeling, the empty feeling of eviction or the loss of a home that you have paid a mortgage on for years. I am going to close. I see one of my colleagues on the floor preparing to speak, but I would like to close with the story of Galen Hensen from Midlothian, IL. For 34 years, Galen has supported touring artists through his work in live concert production for some of America's most iconic musicians. When the American economy was upended by the pandemic, his industry froze to save other lives and to avoid crowds. Like so many others, Galen went on unemployment. Yet, even with the Federal $600 supplement to State unemployment, he had only half of his regular income replaced. He struggles--still struggles to make ends meet. He wrote to me urging that we put aside our partisan differences and pass the American Rescue Plan. Let's listen to Galen, and let's listen to many others like him. They are counting on us. I hope when all is said and done after all the speeches, that just as we came together on a bipartisan basis to pass the rescue plan twice last year--96 tonothing, 92 to 6--under the Trump administration, with all Democrats supporting it, wouldn't it be great if we showed that same bipartisanship again I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1002-2 | null | 2,412 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a different subject, I listened to the speeches of Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell about the American Rescue Plan--Joe Biden's proposal, his initial proposal as President--to deal with the pandemic, the state of the economy, and many other aspects of American culture and life that need to be addressed. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion. I couldn't help but think, as Senator McConnell was recounting our experience last year, that when it came to the CARES Act a year ago--the $2 trillion plan to respond to the state of the pandemic and the economy, the plan that was engineered by Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, a member of the Trump administration, who argued and negotiated with Republicans and Democrats alike--that, when they finally agreed, the vote was 96 to nothing in this Chamber. Every Democrat voted for the proposed CARES Act that was engineered by the Trump administration. Party was pushed aside because the priority was our Nation. It happened again in December of last year. In President Trump's administration, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin at the table and with Democrats and Republicans bargaining, the final vote was 92 to 6 in the Senate--not bad--and the 6 noes were all Republicans. Again, the Democrats stepped up and said: We will support this bipartisan effort because that is why we are here. The American people sent us here to do a job. Now comes the new President, Joe Biden, who says: Good work last December, but that was temporary, and that was supposed to be a special effort. Now we have to finish the year. We have some deadlines coming. Just 2 weeks from now--or in less than 2 weeks--the unemployment insurance programs will be running out for millions of Americans, and the rental assistance program as well. Some will face eviction, and some will not have enough money to feed their families. So get to work. Pass the American Rescue Plan on a bipartisan basis. We have yet to hear from one Republican Senator who will support President Biden's plan. Some of them havelegitimate differences with his policy, and I wish they would come to the table and be a part of the conversation, but none of them has really stepped up and said: We are in for the big effort that the President is calling for. That is what it will take. Unfortunately, because of that, in a 50-50 Senate, we will need every Democratic Senator to support the President's plan and to pass a version of what the House is sending over to us. We will go through an exercise called ``reconciliation'' in just a few days. It is not a pretty scene if you follow legislative history, but it is long overdue. Do you know the one thing that should drive us on? It is not only the obvious need for this but the fact that the American people overwhelmingly support what President Biden has proposed. The American people believe, as he does, that we should be investing billions into more vaccines and more people to administer them. The American people believe that a cash payment to families is essential in some parts of this country. They would like to see the $600 in last December's bill complemented with the $1,400 in this proposal. They would like for us to put money on the table for people who are unemployed so they can put food on that same table, and they would like for us to get the schools ready to deal with reopening and classes that are safe for the kids and the teachers. There is no argument about that. While 20 percent of the people may oppose it, 80 percent support it. Yet we can't find one Republican Senator to support President Biden's plan. They say it costs too much. Well, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Powell, a conservative Republican economist, has told us to be careful that you do too little. This economy is fragile. It needs to be strengthened. We need to inject into this economy enough of our resources so that people are back, purchasing again, and businesses are reopened. He has warned us, if you do too little and if you cut it off too soon, you are going to pay for it for years to come with unemployment and problems with the sluggish economy. My Republican colleagues say it is just too much money. Well, I think they are wrong, and at this moment in history, I am prepared to err on the side of investing in the American people and American businesses and making certain that we have a fighting chance to put this behind us. Our constituents know about the cost of this situation. They want us to provide the solutions. They want results from Congress. If we were to delay this payment, people would see their unemployment insurance lapse and hardships continue. We shouldn't play politics with it either. In the two big bills last year, the Democrats were on board for plans engineered by the Trump administration. Economists believe that we need to move and move decisively. According to an analysis by the Brookings Institution, passing a comprehensive plan like the American Rescue Plan could produce a 4-percent growth in U.S. GDP this year. Moody's estimates that passing the same plan would create 7\1/2\ million American jobs. How about that? We got good news over the weekend with the arrival of another safe and effective vaccine. This is the third one, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, in our arsenal--perhaps more to follow. It holds the promise of finally getting America inoculated, vaccinated, and breaking the back of this pandemic. This new vaccine prevents hospitalizations and deaths, stored at normal temperatures, a single shot--all good news. But we need more than a promise of a vaccine. We need a plan. These vaccines are of no good to us sitting on a shelf or not being produced in volumes necessary. President Biden's rescue plan, which not a single Republican supports, would provide 100 and--I think I have got the number right--$160 billion in resources for the production of vaccines and the distribution. If we ever needed it, this was the moment. Thankfully, President Biden's leadership has led to allocations to Illinois of vaccines that have increased by 70 percent since he took over as President. We still have our challenges at the local level. I want to salute the Governor, JB Pritzker; the mayor of the city of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot; the Cook County Board President Preckwinkle; and all the others who are doing their best. I announced with Senator Duckworth just last Friday that we are going to put a new facility in the parking lot of the United Center, where the amazing Chicago Bulls play basketball from time to time, and it is going to be able to vaccinate thousands of people every single day. It is Federal assistance that is making it happen, and it happens to be in a neighborhood where African Americans and Latinos are nearby, and we need to protect them with even more effectiveness than we have to date. They account for 33 percent of the population of that area, and only 16 percent have been vaccinated. The American Rescue Plan provides $20 billion to expand our vaccine distribution capacity. You would think that that would maybe attract one Republican supporter. It should. There are certainly some who argue against all vaccines and spending any money for it and all the rest, but they are such a small minority. The vast majority of Americans of both political parties understand that we have got to go to vaccinations as quickly as possible. The Biden rescue plan does that. I wish they would join us in supporting it. There is also a need for money for education. There is $128 billion in this bill for additional education funding K-12, and there have been arguments made on the floor here by the Republicans that we just don't need it. They point to data showing that the school districts haven't spent the money that we provided in previous relief packages. Well, just talk to the principals and the teachers in your home State about that conclusion. You will find the money is desperately needed and that the money that has been appropriated before will be spent in an orderly way and not shoveled out the window. We are looking ahead to the entire year and making certain that we have a real school year--perhaps the remainder of this year but certainly for next year. Illinois needs these funds and America does. When it comes to State and local support, I have to tell you, we have paid a heavy price in our State of Illinois and our major cities. We have seen expenses go up and we have seen revenue go down and we need help, not unreasonable. This helping hand will save jobs that are necessary for us--some of them healthcare jobs, some of them security and safety jobs, but they will save jobs, and that is why the State and the local resources included in this bill are so important and timely. Over the past year, States and localities have lost 1.3 million jobs of their payrolls, far more than the 750,000 lost in the great recession. There is needed help from the Federal Government, and it is needed now. We have recovered just 12 million of the 22 million jobs we have lost since the start of the pandemic. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, more than 8 million rental households and 2 million homeowners were behind on housing payments at the end of last year. The burden is tough, and for those of us lucky enough to have escaped it, we may not know the feeling, the empty feeling of eviction or the loss of a home that you have paid a mortgage on for years. I am going to close. I see one of my colleagues on the floor preparing to speak, but I would like to close with the story of Galen Hensen from Midlothian, IL. For 34 years, Galen has supported touring artists through his work in live concert production for some of America's most iconic musicians. When the American economy was upended by the pandemic, his industry froze to save other lives and to avoid crowds. Like so many others, Galen went on unemployment. Yet, even with the Federal $600 supplement to State unemployment, he had only half of his regular income replaced. He struggles--still struggles to make ends meet. He wrote to me urging that we put aside our partisan differences and pass the American Rescue Plan. Let's listen to Galen, and let's listen to many others like him. They are counting on us. I hope when all is said and done after all the speeches, that just as we came together on a bipartisan basis to pass the rescue plan twice last year--96 tonothing, 92 to 6--under the Trump administration, with all Democrats supporting it, wouldn't it be great if we showed that same bipartisanship again I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1002-2 | null | 2,413 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, history was made on Monday. Judge Merrick Garland finally got a vote before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was a long time in coming. His nomination was approved by a bipartisan vote of 15 to 7. I am not surprised. He is superbly qualified to be the next Attorney General of the United States. With experience, judgment, and integrity, he checks all the boxes. He served with distinction on the DC Circuit Court for 23 years and, in that time, developed a reputation for fidelity to the rule of law, a strict adherence to judicial independence, and a commitment to treat people with fairness, dignity, and respect. It is no surprise that he has been endorsed by 60 former Federal judges and by judges, of course, who have been appointed by Presidents of both political parties. In addition to his experience on the bench, he is a longtime veteran of the Department of Justice, where he served before he ascended to the DC Circuit. He is uniquely qualified at this moment in history to lead the Department and to investigate and prosecute, for example, the January 6 insurrection--the mob that invaded this Capitol Building. The reason he is qualified is that he led the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing. We remember that very well. That was clearly a case of domestic terrorism. His work on that project won praise from across the political spectrum. He also personally understands the Department's role in protecting civil rights. I believe he is the person to restore honor and dignity to this Department. He has support from every major law enforcement organization in the country, from 150 former Justice Department officials of both parties, from the Nation's leading civil rights organizations, and from many others--left, right, and center. His credentials are second to none, and his character--in particular, his selflessness--is a model to us all. When we held the markup on his nomination in the committee, the most significant witness may have been a lady by the name of Mrs. Tucker. She testified on the second panel. She is the mother of two DC public school students who were tutored and mentored by Judge Garland. After the first child had received his helping hand for several years, the second child asked if she could be included in the next round, and then they both won the help of Judge Garland. Doesn't it speak volumes of a man who has reached that station in life that he would be so humble as to sit down and help children whom he had never met before find their way through life? It was a touching moment when she testified. It really was an insight into his character. So you would think, with a 15-to-7 vote, you would think with all of these endorsements, and you would think that the fact of there being four members on the Republican Senate side of the Senate Judiciary Committee behind him that this would be a nomination of an Attorney General so important to this Nation that it would be given expedited treatment on the floor of the Senate. No. Unfortunately, there was an objection to expediting his nomination so he could get to work for the Department of Justice, and, as a consequence, we face the Senate procedure, which means that it could be days, maybe even into next week, before he can take the job. That is unfortunate. We need him now more than ever. Even Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said he would support him. Chuck Grassley, my friend and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted for him. There is just no reason the Senate should not immediately hold a vote for Merrick Garland's nomination. He is the last remaining member of President Biden's national security team to be chosen. It is time for him to take this job. The Attorney General is needed to fight the threat of domestic terrorism, which the FBI Director spoke to yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee, to reorganize this Department and get it moving in the right direction, and to face the many challenges when it comes to national security and the administration of justice. We should confirm Merrick Garland immediately. I sincerely hope that whoever is holding his nomination on the other side can be persuaded to give him his chance | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1002 | null | 2,414 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, President Biden emphasized a theme of unity at his inauguration. ``Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this,'' he said. ``Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.'' Admirable words, but so far they haven't been met with much action. On the first big legislative test of his Presidency, coronavirus legislation, President Biden and Democrats in Congress have pursued a resolutely partisan course. They have not only failed to invite Republican input in any meaningful way, they deliberately excluded it by passing their coronavirus package using budget reconciliation. This allows them to pass the bill in the Senate by a simple majority vote, instead of requiring the concurrence of 60 Senators to move to a vote on the bill, which is typically how legislation is passed here in the Senate, including the five coronavirus bills that we passed last year, when the Republicans had the majority here in the Senate. Now, Democrats' decision to use reconciliation might be understandable if Republicans had declared our opposition to any further coronavirus legislation, but, of course, that is not the case. Republicans made it clear that we were willing to work with Democrats on additional coronavirus legislation. In fact, 10 Republican Senators put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss a bipartisan agreement. But while the President listened to them graciously, Democrats and the President quickly made it clear that they intended to move forward without Republican input. Two days after Republicans met with President Biden, the House passed its partisan budget resolution to pave the way for reconciliation here in the Senate. Two days later, the Senate followed suit. Clearly, there were no plans to let negotiations with Republicans slow down the partisan juggernaut. In fact, Democrats have been pretty determined to make sure Republicans don't have a voice in this legislation at all. During markups of the COVID relief package in House committees, Republicans offered a number of amendments: 245 amendments, to be exact. Out of those 245 amendments, Democrats accepted exactly one for the final bill--one. Among the amendments House Democrats rejected were commonsense proposals to tie school funding to the reopening of schools. There was an amendment to unfreeze funding for the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program for farmers and ranchers. There were amendments to target funding to overlooked rural communities and an amendment to protect healthcare providers from frivolous lawsuits. The one thing that can be said for the House is at least it gave Members in the House a chance to review the bill in committee. Here in the Senate, Democrats' COVID package will come to the floor without any committee consideration. Senators are just supposed to accept whatever the House sent over or whatever changes the Senate Democratic leader makes, minus those items that are excluded from a reconciliation package by Senate budget rules. Democrats' partisan course on COVID legislation 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 was overwhelmingly bipartisan. The Republican-led Senate took up and passed COVID relief legislation by margins of 96 to 1, 90 to 8, 96 to 0, 92 to 6, and one even went by voice vote here in the Senate. Back then, of course, Democrats thought that the minority party should have a voice in the process. In fact, the Democratic leader filibustered the original CARES Act, our largest COVID bill to date, multiple times until he got a version that he was satisfied with. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, however, they have decided minority representation can be dispensed with. It is Democrats' way or the highway on COVID legislation. Republicans and the Americans that they represent will not be allowed to contribute. I guess it is not surprising. After all, if the Democrats had pursued a bipartisan process, they would probably have had to eliminate some of the non-COVID-related provisions in this legislation, like the $86 billion bailout of multiemployer pension plans, hardly a coronavirus emergency. They might have been forced to trim their slush fund for States and ensure that the distribution formula wasn't weighted heavily in favor of blue States. The Senator from Illinois was just down here talking about the importance of helping out the States. Well, under the formula that they have designed for this relief package, the dollars skew heavily, surprisingly, to States like New York, where the Democratic leader is from, or California, where the House Speaker is from, or Illinois, where the Senate Democratic whip is from. It seems like a lot of States around the country sort of got left out when it came to how to distribute what is going to be a huge amount of money that is going to go out to State and local governments if the Democrats have their way with this bill. They might have had to reject the measure to give labor unions and Planned Parenthood access to loans designed to help small businesses--again, hardly something that we ought to be doing in a coronavirus relief bill that is designed to make sure that small businesses stay viable, but it does satisfy a lot of Democrat special interest groups. They might have had to tie funding for schools to school reopening--seems like a fair consideration. There was an amendment offered during the budget resolution when it was being considered on the floor of the Senate that would have required schools where every teacher had the vaccination to reopen in order to qualify for Federal assistance under this legislation, but there is nothing about that in this bill. There is nothing that, of all the money, the $128 billion that will go out to schools--by the way, we put $68 billion out there already, much of which hasn't been spent. But with all this money that would go out to schools, there is no stipulation anywhere in this legislation that would attempt to tie funding for schools to their reopening so that we can get our kids back to school and learning again in that environment. In fact, it would be arguable, I think, that the schools, if the teachers can get vaccinated--and that was the very language of the amendment that was offered in the budget resolution by Republicans. It was defeated here in the Senate on a 50-50 vote. All Republicans voted for it, all Democrats against it. But again, all it simply said was that if you are going to get Federal funding under this bill and all of the teachers in your school are vaccinated against the coronavirus, then you have to reopen. If you don't reopen after all the teachers have been vaccinated, then you don't get funding under this bill. That seems like a fairly straightforward request, given the fact that so many schools across this country and so many of our kids continue to have to learn virtually at a time when we need to have them in the classroom. This is obviously something that wasn't included in this legislation. I would argue that all the changes that I have just mentioned would have made the bill better, but they might not have made the Democrat allies as happy. This whole process could have been different. We could be here today with another bipartisan COVID bill that would speed up vaccination and help our country through the rest of the pandemic. In fact, as I said, there were lots of Republicans who were interested in negotiating, sitting down with Democrats to do just that. The Democrat whip, the Senator from Illinois, was down here saying: Wouldn't it be great if this could be bipartisan like the other bills we havedone earlier that were bipartisan? I would simply point out the obvious, and that is that all of the bills that were done last year when Republicans had the majority here in the Senate were bipartisan because we did them under regular order. We did them under the 60-vote threshold that is required to move legislation through the Senate. What the Democrat leadership has opted to do is to use a rarely used legislative vehicle here--budget reconciliation--to do a bunch of things that they could do simply with 51 votes, and it was pretty clear to me that they had no intention ever of including Republican ideas or involving Republicans in developing this legislation or, ultimately, having Republican support for at the end. In fact, that was probably made most clear by a statement made by the Chief of Staff to President Biden in the White House when he described this as ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation,'' suggesting, of course, that this is filled with all kinds of liberal priorities, most of which have very little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, if you look at where the funding goes in this, the $1.9 trillion, less than 10 percent--less than 10 percent--deals with funding for public healthcare; in other words, funding for vaccines, either for production or distribution; funding for providers; funding more mental health; funding for anything related to healthcare. If you look at the $1.9 trillion, it is less than 10 percent. Less than 10 percent of it is actually directed at addressing the actual healthcare crisis that we are facing as a nation. I would simply say that it is pretty clear to me that if Democrats had wanted to, they could have had--easily could have had--a bipartisan bill. There are 10 Republicans I know of today who would have voted for a bill that would include funding for vaccines, that would include funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, that would include funding for unemployment checks, that actually would have included funding for direct checks to go out, which I know is a very popular thing. But that consultation never occurred. That desire to get input never happened--that offer to allow the committees of jurisdiction to even have a voice or any input into this. Frankly, if I am a Democrat here in the Senate, I would be outraged that my committees were bypassed completely. There was no consideration at any committee--any committee--here in the Senate about what the contents of this legislation should be or what the substance of it should look like in the end. It was literally ramrodded, coming from the House of Representatives, taken up by the Democratic leadership with no input from the committees--Republicans, for sure, but also Democrats, of all people, who you think would want to be heard. I mean, they got these chairmanships of these committees for a reason. They finally got the majority, and they have committee gavels and all that, and here we are, talking about $1.9 trillion in spending, and the committee chairs, the committees themselves had no action when it comes to shaping or in any way producing this legislation. So to suggest, as the Democrat whip, Senator Durbin, did earlier, that he really hopes that this will be bipartisan, I just--it is hard to take that even seriously, given how this is proceeding and how the Democrats opted to do this relative to how the other five coronavirus relief bills were passed last year under the Republican majority. We are looking instead at a partisan bill that directs billions of taxpayer dollars to projects and policies that have nothing to do with overcoming COVID. And just as one observation--again, I made this point on the floor yesterday. But one thing that we need to remember here is that we are talking about real money here, and we are talking about it all being borrowed money. This is all money that goes on the debt. Every dollar that we are going to provide of the $1.9 trillion that is proposed in this Democrat bill is a borrowed dollar. These are all dollars that go on the debt, the debt which has grown dramatically in this last year, in some cases because we had to move aggressively, as we did last year at this time in March with a bill that would get immediate assistance out there to people who desperately needed it. We were fighting at that time a major emergency, a major crisis. Well, here we are, a year later. We have a very different perspective on the world today than we did 12 months ago. But that $1.9 trillion, when added to the other coronavirus relief bills, ends up being about $6 trillion--$6 trillion. That amount of money is absolutely hard to comprehend and hard to fathom. And we are talking about compounding the $4 trillion or so already out there with another $2 trillion with this bill, and as I pointed out yesterday, at some point--at some point--the chickens come home to roost. You cannot continue down this path without consequence on the economy. Now, the argument in support of this legislation made by Democrats is that we need to do more; we have got to get this out there; we have got to stimulate the economy. My fear in a lot of respects right now is that the economy could be overstimulated. The Congressional Budget Office said just recently that without any additional assistance, the economy is going to grow in 2021 at 3.7 percent, and we are flooding the zone with so much money that the money supply numbers have been exploding. The 2020 money supply was up--the M2 as they measure it--was up 26 percent. Year over year, from 2000 to 2019, it averaged about 6 percent. This year it is going to be up another 12 percent. There is a lot of money out there in the economy. What does that mean long-term for our economy and for the individual workers in our economy? Well, first off, it means that as there are more and more dollars chasing fewer goods, you are going to get inflation. That is inevitable. When you get inflation, typically what happens is interest rates follow because those who are buying that debt, if it is being lost to inflation, want to make sure that they are getting a return on their investments, so interest rates start to go up. When interest rates go up, the amount of money we borrow becomes even more expensive because we have to pay interest. We have to finance that debt. So the amount of interest--the amount of Federal tax dollars that we will be using to pay for interest on the debt will explode and will swamp--it will swamp, literally--the amount of tax revenue coming into this country. We know that because the debt is so large already, and we know that because interest rates have been low for a long time, which has lulled everybody into a sense of complacency that this is not going to have any impact, that there is no downside. We can just keep borrowing because interest rates are low. Well, if you keep putting as much money out there as we are--another $2 trillion out into the economy--I would argue that you are not only going to unleash inflation, which has a dramatic consequence for our fiscal situation as a country, but it also has a dramatic consequence for the personal financial situation of the American family because when inflation takes off, everything that people have to buy, from food to gasoline to clothing--all those things go up. Inflation pushes the prices of things higher, which means they are more expensiv to the average family in this country. Then the other effect, long-term, is when inflation starts to go up, as I said, interest rates start to follow. We are already starting to see some evidence of that. When interest rates go up, not only does the Federal Government fiscal picture get much, much worse because the amount of tax dollars that we have to spend to finance our debt grows dramatically, but the American consumer is also faced with higher interest rates. So mortgage payments go up if somebody is trying to finance a home. Interest rates on cars, automobiles, will go up. Interest rates on student loans go up. That also has a direct impact on the pocketbooks of people in this country. Mr. President, I am going to conclude, but I think it is really important to point out--and I know that my State is not indicative of every State around the country. There are States that have legitimate, different financial situations. But in South Dakota right now, we have 3-percent unemployment. We have a growing economy. We have a State that has already benefited significantly from earlier coronavirus relief legislation to the point where there are dollars that theyare still trying to figure out how to use from the previous installations of Federal spending that we have put out there. It just seems to me that we ought to, given the potential adverse consequence of higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher debt and spending, think about that what we are doing here should be very targeted. It should be very specific. We know now--we have a lot more insight into where the needs are in the economy than we did at this point last year, in March, when we did the first CARES package. We are at a time now when it is very clear where those needs are, and we could come up with a much more targeted bill. Those 10 Republicans that I have mentioned have come up with a bill that is in the $600 billion to $700 billion range, which addresses the healthcare issues, addresses the unemployment insurance issues, addresses the PPP program. It deals with direct checks, as I mentioned. It has got funding for education. I think some funding is in there for State and local governments, which, frankly, as I said, I am not for. I would rather see us take those dollars, if we are going to put them somewhere, put them toward something that is more targeted, at least a formula that makes more sense. But let me just say that in my view it is really important right now that we be circumspect. We are talking about borrowed money. This is now--this is the house of dollars. This is not--this isn't just magic money that appears out of nowhere. Every single dollar that we are using is borrowed, will be added to the debt, will be a liability for somebody to have to pay back--for our kids and our grandkids. And if the potential economic impacts that I mentioned actually occur and interest rates start to tick up, it is going to be a lot more expensive money to finance in the future, and I think that is a very real consideration. It is something we ought to be thinking long and hard about, not just because of the fiscal situation that the country faces right now but because of the financial situation every American family, as they sit around the kitchen table and talk about these pocketbook issues, will be looking at. If we see higher inflation, if we see higher interest rates, it is going to affect their jobs; it is going to affect their cost of living; and it is going to make it that much harder for them to make ends meet. Less than 2 months after the President committed himself to unity at his inauguration, the first major bill of his Presidency will be a resolutely partisan piece of legislation. I hope--I hope--that this is not a sign of things to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1004 | null | 2,415 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, President Biden emphasized a theme of unity at his inauguration. ``Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this,'' he said. ``Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.'' Admirable words, but so far they haven't been met with much action. On the first big legislative test of his Presidency, coronavirus legislation, President Biden and Democrats in Congress have pursued a resolutely partisan course. They have not only failed to invite Republican input in any meaningful way, they deliberately excluded it by passing their coronavirus package using budget reconciliation. This allows them to pass the bill in the Senate by a simple majority vote, instead of requiring the concurrence of 60 Senators to move to a vote on the bill, which is typically how legislation is passed here in the Senate, including the five coronavirus bills that we passed last year, when the Republicans had the majority here in the Senate. Now, Democrats' decision to use reconciliation might be understandable if Republicans had declared our opposition to any further coronavirus legislation, but, of course, that is not the case. Republicans made it clear that we were willing to work with Democrats on additional coronavirus legislation. In fact, 10 Republican Senators put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss a bipartisan agreement. But while the President listened to them graciously, Democrats and the President quickly made it clear that they intended to move forward without Republican input. Two days after Republicans met with President Biden, the House passed its partisan budget resolution to pave the way for reconciliation here in the Senate. Two days later, the Senate followed suit. Clearly, there were no plans to let negotiations with Republicans slow down the partisan juggernaut. In fact, Democrats have been pretty determined to make sure Republicans don't have a voice in this legislation at all. During markups of the COVID relief package in House committees, Republicans offered a number of amendments: 245 amendments, to be exact. Out of those 245 amendments, Democrats accepted exactly one for the final bill--one. Among the amendments House Democrats rejected were commonsense proposals to tie school funding to the reopening of schools. There was an amendment to unfreeze funding for the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program for farmers and ranchers. There were amendments to target funding to overlooked rural communities and an amendment to protect healthcare providers from frivolous lawsuits. The one thing that can be said for the House is at least it gave Members in the House a chance to review the bill in committee. Here in the Senate, Democrats' COVID package will come to the floor without any committee consideration. Senators are just supposed to accept whatever the House sent over or whatever changes the Senate Democratic leader makes, minus those items that are excluded from a reconciliation package by Senate budget rules. Democrats' partisan course on COVID legislation 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 was overwhelmingly bipartisan. The Republican-led Senate took up and passed COVID relief legislation by margins of 96 to 1, 90 to 8, 96 to 0, 92 to 6, and one even went by voice vote here in the Senate. Back then, of course, Democrats thought that the minority party should have a voice in the process. In fact, the Democratic leader filibustered the original CARES Act, our largest COVID bill to date, multiple times until he got a version that he was satisfied with. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, however, they have decided minority representation can be dispensed with. It is Democrats' way or the highway on COVID legislation. Republicans and the Americans that they represent will not be allowed to contribute. I guess it is not surprising. After all, if the Democrats had pursued a bipartisan process, they would probably have had to eliminate some of the non-COVID-related provisions in this legislation, like the $86 billion bailout of multiemployer pension plans, hardly a coronavirus emergency. They might have been forced to trim their slush fund for States and ensure that the distribution formula wasn't weighted heavily in favor of blue States. The Senator from Illinois was just down here talking about the importance of helping out the States. Well, under the formula that they have designed for this relief package, the dollars skew heavily, surprisingly, to States like New York, where the Democratic leader is from, or California, where the House Speaker is from, or Illinois, where the Senate Democratic whip is from. It seems like a lot of States around the country sort of got left out when it came to how to distribute what is going to be a huge amount of money that is going to go out to State and local governments if the Democrats have their way with this bill. They might have had to reject the measure to give labor unions and Planned Parenthood access to loans designed to help small businesses--again, hardly something that we ought to be doing in a coronavirus relief bill that is designed to make sure that small businesses stay viable, but it does satisfy a lot of Democrat special interest groups. They might have had to tie funding for schools to school reopening--seems like a fair consideration. There was an amendment offered during the budget resolution when it was being considered on the floor of the Senate that would have required schools where every teacher had the vaccination to reopen in order to qualify for Federal assistance under this legislation, but there is nothing about that in this bill. There is nothing that, of all the money, the $128 billion that will go out to schools--by the way, we put $68 billion out there already, much of which hasn't been spent. But with all this money that would go out to schools, there is no stipulation anywhere in this legislation that would attempt to tie funding for schools to their reopening so that we can get our kids back to school and learning again in that environment. In fact, it would be arguable, I think, that the schools, if the teachers can get vaccinated--and that was the very language of the amendment that was offered in the budget resolution by Republicans. It was defeated here in the Senate on a 50-50 vote. All Republicans voted for it, all Democrats against it. But again, all it simply said was that if you are going to get Federal funding under this bill and all of the teachers in your school are vaccinated against the coronavirus, then you have to reopen. If you don't reopen after all the teachers have been vaccinated, then you don't get funding under this bill. That seems like a fairly straightforward request, given the fact that so many schools across this country and so many of our kids continue to have to learn virtually at a time when we need to have them in the classroom. This is obviously something that wasn't included in this legislation. I would argue that all the changes that I have just mentioned would have made the bill better, but they might not have made the Democrat allies as happy. This whole process could have been different. We could be here today with another bipartisan COVID bill that would speed up vaccination and help our country through the rest of the pandemic. In fact, as I said, there were lots of Republicans who were interested in negotiating, sitting down with Democrats to do just that. The Democrat whip, the Senator from Illinois, was down here saying: Wouldn't it be great if this could be bipartisan like the other bills we havedone earlier that were bipartisan? I would simply point out the obvious, and that is that all of the bills that were done last year when Republicans had the majority here in the Senate were bipartisan because we did them under regular order. We did them under the 60-vote threshold that is required to move legislation through the Senate. What the Democrat leadership has opted to do is to use a rarely used legislative vehicle here--budget reconciliation--to do a bunch of things that they could do simply with 51 votes, and it was pretty clear to me that they had no intention ever of including Republican ideas or involving Republicans in developing this legislation or, ultimately, having Republican support for at the end. In fact, that was probably made most clear by a statement made by the Chief of Staff to President Biden in the White House when he described this as ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation,'' suggesting, of course, that this is filled with all kinds of liberal priorities, most of which have very little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, if you look at where the funding goes in this, the $1.9 trillion, less than 10 percent--less than 10 percent--deals with funding for public healthcare; in other words, funding for vaccines, either for production or distribution; funding for providers; funding more mental health; funding for anything related to healthcare. If you look at the $1.9 trillion, it is less than 10 percent. Less than 10 percent of it is actually directed at addressing the actual healthcare crisis that we are facing as a nation. I would simply say that it is pretty clear to me that if Democrats had wanted to, they could have had--easily could have had--a bipartisan bill. There are 10 Republicans I know of today who would have voted for a bill that would include funding for vaccines, that would include funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, that would include funding for unemployment checks, that actually would have included funding for direct checks to go out, which I know is a very popular thing. But that consultation never occurred. That desire to get input never happened--that offer to allow the committees of jurisdiction to even have a voice or any input into this. Frankly, if I am a Democrat here in the Senate, I would be outraged that my committees were bypassed completely. There was no consideration at any committee--any committee--here in the Senate about what the contents of this legislation should be or what the substance of it should look like in the end. It was literally ramrodded, coming from the House of Representatives, taken up by the Democratic leadership with no input from the committees--Republicans, for sure, but also Democrats, of all people, who you think would want to be heard. I mean, they got these chairmanships of these committees for a reason. They finally got the majority, and they have committee gavels and all that, and here we are, talking about $1.9 trillion in spending, and the committee chairs, the committees themselves had no action when it comes to shaping or in any way producing this legislation. So to suggest, as the Democrat whip, Senator Durbin, did earlier, that he really hopes that this will be bipartisan, I just--it is hard to take that even seriously, given how this is proceeding and how the Democrats opted to do this relative to how the other five coronavirus relief bills were passed last year under the Republican majority. We are looking instead at a partisan bill that directs billions of taxpayer dollars to projects and policies that have nothing to do with overcoming COVID. And just as one observation--again, I made this point on the floor yesterday. But one thing that we need to remember here is that we are talking about real money here, and we are talking about it all being borrowed money. This is all money that goes on the debt. Every dollar that we are going to provide of the $1.9 trillion that is proposed in this Democrat bill is a borrowed dollar. These are all dollars that go on the debt, the debt which has grown dramatically in this last year, in some cases because we had to move aggressively, as we did last year at this time in March with a bill that would get immediate assistance out there to people who desperately needed it. We were fighting at that time a major emergency, a major crisis. Well, here we are, a year later. We have a very different perspective on the world today than we did 12 months ago. But that $1.9 trillion, when added to the other coronavirus relief bills, ends up being about $6 trillion--$6 trillion. That amount of money is absolutely hard to comprehend and hard to fathom. And we are talking about compounding the $4 trillion or so already out there with another $2 trillion with this bill, and as I pointed out yesterday, at some point--at some point--the chickens come home to roost. You cannot continue down this path without consequence on the economy. Now, the argument in support of this legislation made by Democrats is that we need to do more; we have got to get this out there; we have got to stimulate the economy. My fear in a lot of respects right now is that the economy could be overstimulated. The Congressional Budget Office said just recently that without any additional assistance, the economy is going to grow in 2021 at 3.7 percent, and we are flooding the zone with so much money that the money supply numbers have been exploding. The 2020 money supply was up--the M2 as they measure it--was up 26 percent. Year over year, from 2000 to 2019, it averaged about 6 percent. This year it is going to be up another 12 percent. There is a lot of money out there in the economy. What does that mean long-term for our economy and for the individual workers in our economy? Well, first off, it means that as there are more and more dollars chasing fewer goods, you are going to get inflation. That is inevitable. When you get inflation, typically what happens is interest rates follow because those who are buying that debt, if it is being lost to inflation, want to make sure that they are getting a return on their investments, so interest rates start to go up. When interest rates go up, the amount of money we borrow becomes even more expensive because we have to pay interest. We have to finance that debt. So the amount of interest--the amount of Federal tax dollars that we will be using to pay for interest on the debt will explode and will swamp--it will swamp, literally--the amount of tax revenue coming into this country. We know that because the debt is so large already, and we know that because interest rates have been low for a long time, which has lulled everybody into a sense of complacency that this is not going to have any impact, that there is no downside. We can just keep borrowing because interest rates are low. Well, if you keep putting as much money out there as we are--another $2 trillion out into the economy--I would argue that you are not only going to unleash inflation, which has a dramatic consequence for our fiscal situation as a country, but it also has a dramatic consequence for the personal financial situation of the American family because when inflation takes off, everything that people have to buy, from food to gasoline to clothing--all those things go up. Inflation pushes the prices of things higher, which means they are more expensiv to the average family in this country. Then the other effect, long-term, is when inflation starts to go up, as I said, interest rates start to follow. We are already starting to see some evidence of that. When interest rates go up, not only does the Federal Government fiscal picture get much, much worse because the amount of tax dollars that we have to spend to finance our debt grows dramatically, but the American consumer is also faced with higher interest rates. So mortgage payments go up if somebody is trying to finance a home. Interest rates on cars, automobiles, will go up. Interest rates on student loans go up. That also has a direct impact on the pocketbooks of people in this country. Mr. President, I am going to conclude, but I think it is really important to point out--and I know that my State is not indicative of every State around the country. There are States that have legitimate, different financial situations. But in South Dakota right now, we have 3-percent unemployment. We have a growing economy. We have a State that has already benefited significantly from earlier coronavirus relief legislation to the point where there are dollars that theyare still trying to figure out how to use from the previous installations of Federal spending that we have put out there. It just seems to me that we ought to, given the potential adverse consequence of higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher debt and spending, think about that what we are doing here should be very targeted. It should be very specific. We know now--we have a lot more insight into where the needs are in the economy than we did at this point last year, in March, when we did the first CARES package. We are at a time now when it is very clear where those needs are, and we could come up with a much more targeted bill. Those 10 Republicans that I have mentioned have come up with a bill that is in the $600 billion to $700 billion range, which addresses the healthcare issues, addresses the unemployment insurance issues, addresses the PPP program. It deals with direct checks, as I mentioned. It has got funding for education. I think some funding is in there for State and local governments, which, frankly, as I said, I am not for. I would rather see us take those dollars, if we are going to put them somewhere, put them toward something that is more targeted, at least a formula that makes more sense. But let me just say that in my view it is really important right now that we be circumspect. We are talking about borrowed money. This is now--this is the house of dollars. This is not--this isn't just magic money that appears out of nowhere. Every single dollar that we are using is borrowed, will be added to the debt, will be a liability for somebody to have to pay back--for our kids and our grandkids. And if the potential economic impacts that I mentioned actually occur and interest rates start to tick up, it is going to be a lot more expensive money to finance in the future, and I think that is a very real consideration. It is something we ought to be thinking long and hard about, not just because of the fiscal situation that the country faces right now but because of the financial situation every American family, as they sit around the kitchen table and talk about these pocketbook issues, will be looking at. If we see higher inflation, if we see higher interest rates, it is going to affect their jobs; it is going to affect their cost of living; and it is going to make it that much harder for them to make ends meet. Less than 2 months after the President committed himself to unity at his inauguration, the first major bill of his Presidency will be a resolutely partisan piece of legislation. I hope--I hope--that this is not a sign of things to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1004 | null | 2,416 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, less than 2 months ago, President Biden emphasized a theme of unity at his inauguration. ``Today, on this January day, my whole soul is in this,'' he said. ``Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.'' Admirable words, but so far they haven't been met with much action. On the first big legislative test of his Presidency, coronavirus legislation, President Biden and Democrats in Congress have pursued a resolutely partisan course. They have not only failed to invite Republican input in any meaningful way, they deliberately excluded it by passing their coronavirus package using budget reconciliation. This allows them to pass the bill in the Senate by a simple majority vote, instead of requiring the concurrence of 60 Senators to move to a vote on the bill, which is typically how legislation is passed here in the Senate, including the five coronavirus bills that we passed last year, when the Republicans had the majority here in the Senate. Now, Democrats' decision to use reconciliation might be understandable if Republicans had declared our opposition to any further coronavirus legislation, but, of course, that is not the case. Republicans made it clear that we were willing to work with Democrats on additional coronavirus legislation. In fact, 10 Republican Senators put together a plan and met with President Biden for 2 hours to discuss a bipartisan agreement. But while the President listened to them graciously, Democrats and the President quickly made it clear that they intended to move forward without Republican input. Two days after Republicans met with President Biden, the House passed its partisan budget resolution to pave the way for reconciliation here in the Senate. Two days later, the Senate followed suit. Clearly, there were no plans to let negotiations with Republicans slow down the partisan juggernaut. In fact, Democrats have been pretty determined to make sure Republicans don't have a voice in this legislation at all. During markups of the COVID relief package in House committees, Republicans offered a number of amendments: 245 amendments, to be exact. Out of those 245 amendments, Democrats accepted exactly one for the final bill--one. Among the amendments House Democrats rejected were commonsense proposals to tie school funding to the reopening of schools. There was an amendment to unfreeze funding for the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program for farmers and ranchers. There were amendments to target funding to overlooked rural communities and an amendment to protect healthcare providers from frivolous lawsuits. The one thing that can be said for the House is at least it gave Members in the House a chance to review the bill in committee. Here in the Senate, Democrats' COVID package will come to the floor without any committee consideration. Senators are just supposed to accept whatever the House sent over or whatever changes the Senate Democratic leader makes, minus those items that are excluded from a reconciliation package by Senate budget rules. Democrats' partisan course on COVID legislation 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 was overwhelmingly bipartisan. The Republican-led Senate took up and passed COVID relief legislation by margins of 96 to 1, 90 to 8, 96 to 0, 92 to 6, and one even went by voice vote here in the Senate. Back then, of course, Democrats thought that the minority party should have a voice in the process. In fact, the Democratic leader filibustered the original CARES Act, our largest COVID bill to date, multiple times until he got a version that he was satisfied with. Now that the Democrats are in the majority, however, they have decided minority representation can be dispensed with. It is Democrats' way or the highway on COVID legislation. Republicans and the Americans that they represent will not be allowed to contribute. I guess it is not surprising. After all, if the Democrats had pursued a bipartisan process, they would probably have had to eliminate some of the non-COVID-related provisions in this legislation, like the $86 billion bailout of multiemployer pension plans, hardly a coronavirus emergency. They might have been forced to trim their slush fund for States and ensure that the distribution formula wasn't weighted heavily in favor of blue States. The Senator from Illinois was just down here talking about the importance of helping out the States. Well, under the formula that they have designed for this relief package, the dollars skew heavily, surprisingly, to States like New York, where the Democratic leader is from, or California, where the House Speaker is from, or Illinois, where the Senate Democratic whip is from. It seems like a lot of States around the country sort of got left out when it came to how to distribute what is going to be a huge amount of money that is going to go out to State and local governments if the Democrats have their way with this bill. They might have had to reject the measure to give labor unions and Planned Parenthood access to loans designed to help small businesses--again, hardly something that we ought to be doing in a coronavirus relief bill that is designed to make sure that small businesses stay viable, but it does satisfy a lot of Democrat special interest groups. They might have had to tie funding for schools to school reopening--seems like a fair consideration. There was an amendment offered during the budget resolution when it was being considered on the floor of the Senate that would have required schools where every teacher had the vaccination to reopen in order to qualify for Federal assistance under this legislation, but there is nothing about that in this bill. There is nothing that, of all the money, the $128 billion that will go out to schools--by the way, we put $68 billion out there already, much of which hasn't been spent. But with all this money that would go out to schools, there is no stipulation anywhere in this legislation that would attempt to tie funding for schools to their reopening so that we can get our kids back to school and learning again in that environment. In fact, it would be arguable, I think, that the schools, if the teachers can get vaccinated--and that was the very language of the amendment that was offered in the budget resolution by Republicans. It was defeated here in the Senate on a 50-50 vote. All Republicans voted for it, all Democrats against it. But again, all it simply said was that if you are going to get Federal funding under this bill and all of the teachers in your school are vaccinated against the coronavirus, then you have to reopen. If you don't reopen after all the teachers have been vaccinated, then you don't get funding under this bill. That seems like a fairly straightforward request, given the fact that so many schools across this country and so many of our kids continue to have to learn virtually at a time when we need to have them in the classroom. This is obviously something that wasn't included in this legislation. I would argue that all the changes that I have just mentioned would have made the bill better, but they might not have made the Democrat allies as happy. This whole process could have been different. We could be here today with another bipartisan COVID bill that would speed up vaccination and help our country through the rest of the pandemic. In fact, as I said, there were lots of Republicans who were interested in negotiating, sitting down with Democrats to do just that. The Democrat whip, the Senator from Illinois, was down here saying: Wouldn't it be great if this could be bipartisan like the other bills we havedone earlier that were bipartisan? I would simply point out the obvious, and that is that all of the bills that were done last year when Republicans had the majority here in the Senate were bipartisan because we did them under regular order. We did them under the 60-vote threshold that is required to move legislation through the Senate. What the Democrat leadership has opted to do is to use a rarely used legislative vehicle here--budget reconciliation--to do a bunch of things that they could do simply with 51 votes, and it was pretty clear to me that they had no intention ever of including Republican ideas or involving Republicans in developing this legislation or, ultimately, having Republican support for at the end. In fact, that was probably made most clear by a statement made by the Chief of Staff to President Biden in the White House when he described this as ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation,'' suggesting, of course, that this is filled with all kinds of liberal priorities, most of which have very little to do with the coronavirus. In fact, if you look at where the funding goes in this, the $1.9 trillion, less than 10 percent--less than 10 percent--deals with funding for public healthcare; in other words, funding for vaccines, either for production or distribution; funding for providers; funding more mental health; funding for anything related to healthcare. If you look at the $1.9 trillion, it is less than 10 percent. Less than 10 percent of it is actually directed at addressing the actual healthcare crisis that we are facing as a nation. I would simply say that it is pretty clear to me that if Democrats had wanted to, they could have had--easily could have had--a bipartisan bill. There are 10 Republicans I know of today who would have voted for a bill that would include funding for vaccines, that would include funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, that would include funding for unemployment checks, that actually would have included funding for direct checks to go out, which I know is a very popular thing. But that consultation never occurred. That desire to get input never happened--that offer to allow the committees of jurisdiction to even have a voice or any input into this. Frankly, if I am a Democrat here in the Senate, I would be outraged that my committees were bypassed completely. There was no consideration at any committee--any committee--here in the Senate about what the contents of this legislation should be or what the substance of it should look like in the end. It was literally ramrodded, coming from the House of Representatives, taken up by the Democratic leadership with no input from the committees--Republicans, for sure, but also Democrats, of all people, who you think would want to be heard. I mean, they got these chairmanships of these committees for a reason. They finally got the majority, and they have committee gavels and all that, and here we are, talking about $1.9 trillion in spending, and the committee chairs, the committees themselves had no action when it comes to shaping or in any way producing this legislation. So to suggest, as the Democrat whip, Senator Durbin, did earlier, that he really hopes that this will be bipartisan, I just--it is hard to take that even seriously, given how this is proceeding and how the Democrats opted to do this relative to how the other five coronavirus relief bills were passed last year under the Republican majority. We are looking instead at a partisan bill that directs billions of taxpayer dollars to projects and policies that have nothing to do with overcoming COVID. And just as one observation--again, I made this point on the floor yesterday. But one thing that we need to remember here is that we are talking about real money here, and we are talking about it all being borrowed money. This is all money that goes on the debt. Every dollar that we are going to provide of the $1.9 trillion that is proposed in this Democrat bill is a borrowed dollar. These are all dollars that go on the debt, the debt which has grown dramatically in this last year, in some cases because we had to move aggressively, as we did last year at this time in March with a bill that would get immediate assistance out there to people who desperately needed it. We were fighting at that time a major emergency, a major crisis. Well, here we are, a year later. We have a very different perspective on the world today than we did 12 months ago. But that $1.9 trillion, when added to the other coronavirus relief bills, ends up being about $6 trillion--$6 trillion. That amount of money is absolutely hard to comprehend and hard to fathom. And we are talking about compounding the $4 trillion or so already out there with another $2 trillion with this bill, and as I pointed out yesterday, at some point--at some point--the chickens come home to roost. You cannot continue down this path without consequence on the economy. Now, the argument in support of this legislation made by Democrats is that we need to do more; we have got to get this out there; we have got to stimulate the economy. My fear in a lot of respects right now is that the economy could be overstimulated. The Congressional Budget Office said just recently that without any additional assistance, the economy is going to grow in 2021 at 3.7 percent, and we are flooding the zone with so much money that the money supply numbers have been exploding. The 2020 money supply was up--the M2 as they measure it--was up 26 percent. Year over year, from 2000 to 2019, it averaged about 6 percent. This year it is going to be up another 12 percent. There is a lot of money out there in the economy. What does that mean long-term for our economy and for the individual workers in our economy? Well, first off, it means that as there are more and more dollars chasing fewer goods, you are going to get inflation. That is inevitable. When you get inflation, typically what happens is interest rates follow because those who are buying that debt, if it is being lost to inflation, want to make sure that they are getting a return on their investments, so interest rates start to go up. When interest rates go up, the amount of money we borrow becomes even more expensive because we have to pay interest. We have to finance that debt. So the amount of interest--the amount of Federal tax dollars that we will be using to pay for interest on the debt will explode and will swamp--it will swamp, literally--the amount of tax revenue coming into this country. We know that because the debt is so large already, and we know that because interest rates have been low for a long time, which has lulled everybody into a sense of complacency that this is not going to have any impact, that there is no downside. We can just keep borrowing because interest rates are low. Well, if you keep putting as much money out there as we are--another $2 trillion out into the economy--I would argue that you are not only going to unleash inflation, which has a dramatic consequence for our fiscal situation as a country, but it also has a dramatic consequence for the personal financial situation of the American family because when inflation takes off, everything that people have to buy, from food to gasoline to clothing--all those things go up. Inflation pushes the prices of things higher, which means they are more expensiv to the average family in this country. Then the other effect, long-term, is when inflation starts to go up, as I said, interest rates start to follow. We are already starting to see some evidence of that. When interest rates go up, not only does the Federal Government fiscal picture get much, much worse because the amount of tax dollars that we have to spend to finance our debt grows dramatically, but the American consumer is also faced with higher interest rates. So mortgage payments go up if somebody is trying to finance a home. Interest rates on cars, automobiles, will go up. Interest rates on student loans go up. That also has a direct impact on the pocketbooks of people in this country. Mr. President, I am going to conclude, but I think it is really important to point out--and I know that my State is not indicative of every State around the country. There are States that have legitimate, different financial situations. But in South Dakota right now, we have 3-percent unemployment. We have a growing economy. We have a State that has already benefited significantly from earlier coronavirus relief legislation to the point where there are dollars that theyare still trying to figure out how to use from the previous installations of Federal spending that we have put out there. It just seems to me that we ought to, given the potential adverse consequence of higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher debt and spending, think about that what we are doing here should be very targeted. It should be very specific. We know now--we have a lot more insight into where the needs are in the economy than we did at this point last year, in March, when we did the first CARES package. We are at a time now when it is very clear where those needs are, and we could come up with a much more targeted bill. Those 10 Republicans that I have mentioned have come up with a bill that is in the $600 billion to $700 billion range, which addresses the healthcare issues, addresses the unemployment insurance issues, addresses the PPP program. It deals with direct checks, as I mentioned. It has got funding for education. I think some funding is in there for State and local governments, which, frankly, as I said, I am not for. I would rather see us take those dollars, if we are going to put them somewhere, put them toward something that is more targeted, at least a formula that makes more sense. But let me just say that in my view it is really important right now that we be circumspect. We are talking about borrowed money. This is now--this is the house of dollars. This is not--this isn't just magic money that appears out of nowhere. Every single dollar that we are using is borrowed, will be added to the debt, will be a liability for somebody to have to pay back--for our kids and our grandkids. And if the potential economic impacts that I mentioned actually occur and interest rates start to tick up, it is going to be a lot more expensive money to finance in the future, and I think that is a very real consideration. It is something we ought to be thinking long and hard about, not just because of the fiscal situation that the country faces right now but because of the financial situation every American family, as they sit around the kitchen table and talk about these pocketbook issues, will be looking at. If we see higher inflation, if we see higher interest rates, it is going to affect their jobs; it is going to affect their cost of living; and it is going to make it that much harder for them to make ends meet. Less than 2 months after the President committed himself to unity at his inauguration, the first major bill of his Presidency will be a resolutely partisan piece of legislation. I hope--I hope--that this is not a sign of things to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1004 | null | 2,417 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week, my Democratic colleagues are poised to push through the Senate here an untargeted and unfocused $1.9 trillion tax and spending package, and it is all being done under the guise of COVID relief. Some of it is very essential for COVID relief but a small part of it. This whole act is very unfortunate because it didn't have to be this way. In the past year, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together to pass more than $4 trillion in COVID relief, and it was all done with strong bipartisan support. From the start of this year, my Republican colleagues and I have stood ready to engage in good-faith, bipartisan negotiations to provide further targeted relief. However, despite all the talk of unity and bipartisanship by President Biden, the new Senate majority hasn't even attempted to reach across the aisle. Bipartisanship worked 5 times over the last 12 months, starting about 1 year ago right now. The majority, demonstrating their unwillingness to compromise, has resorted to using special budget procedures so that they may pass a partisan bill strictly along party lines. The result is going to be an unwieldy, nearly $2 trillion package that isn't shaped according to current economic realities but strictly by a partisan liberal agenda. In February, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projected that even without any further stimulus, gross domestic product will return to its prepandemic levels by mid-2021, and, for the year, the economy will grow at 4.6 percent. If those two points aren't strong enough, it was recently reported that retail sales jumped 5.6 percent during January, and the National Retail Federation is projecting retail sales for the year to grow at the fastest rate in two decades. If those four points aren't enough, at the same time, personal income is reported to have risen by 10 percent, and the personal savings rate has surged from a historically high 13.4 percent to over 20 percent. The American economy will soon be roaring without a $2 trillion further stimulus. It is no longer March of 2020 when the economy was in free fall and businesses and places of employment were shut down. And how were they shut down? By those of us right here in the Congress of the United States, the Federal Government doing it by government edict. While many individuals and certain sectors of our economy continue to struggle and, of course, deserve a helping hand, others have largely recovered and are no longer in need of assistance. At this time, instead of $2 trillion, two-thirds of it not needed, why not help those hurting and not pour gasoline on the inflationary fires? A COVID relief package should reflect this reality in both size and scope. Even longtime Democratic economists, such as Obama's former Director of the National Economic Council, have raised concerns about enacting nearly a $2 trillion stimulus package at this point when we are already in recovery. As former Secretary of Treasury Summers--I also referred to him as Director of the National Economic Council--this is what he says: ``The proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as'' the gap between actual and potential output as estimated by the CBO. Enacting a stimulus unmoored from economic reality poses real risks to our economy, including inflation and slower economic growth moving forward. In fact, a Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis of the President's proposal projects the proposed stimulus would result in a decrease in both GDP and wages in 2022 and over the next 2 decades. While inflation has been subdued in recent years, we shouldn't let that lull in inflation lull us into a false sense of confidence that we can spend with impunity with no consequences. We are in unchartered waters with debt held by the public exceeding the size of our economy and trillion-dollar annual deficits. Moreover, as economist John Greenwood and Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins, recently warned: The money supply will grow by nearly 12 percent this year. That's twice as fast as its average growth rate from 2000-19. It's a rate that spells trouble--inflation trouble. And that is without another round of stimulus that we are going to be debating in the next few days here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and probably passing before the end of the week. Concerns of inflation have been dismissed by the White House and by the Federal Reserve. This sounds too familiar to those of us who witnessed the stagflation of the 1970s. We were told by President Nixon and his advisers that they could spend their way to lower unemployment and economic growth without inflation. They were wrong. The Nixon administration's mistakes ushered in a decade of disastrous inflation. I have said for decades, if Nixon did something, we ought to learn from it, not repeat it. It was with this background of stagflation that I first ran for Congress on a platform of fighting inflation. Inflation is a regressive stealth tax on every single American. It is particularly unfair to those who have very little money to begin with, and those who have lived beneath their incomes to save for the future only to see their hard work wiped out as the value of the dollars that they put away plunges. Hopefully, Nixon inflation is only history never to return. But none of us can guarantee that inflation won't return. Not only is the size of this stimulus package detached from reality; so is the scope. A common adage for stimulus and economic relief measures is that they should be timely, they should be temporary, and they should be targeted. By this standard, the Democrats' stimulus is well wide of the mark. More than one-third, or about $700 billion, of the funding in the bill wouldn't even be spent until 2022 or beyond, according to the CBO. How does anybody know that we need a stimulus in 2022 and beyond? By what standard does the Biden administration say that we are going to need that? And doesn't that have something to do with the failure of this bill to accomplish what it wants to accomplish, or even the need for it, if some of this money won't be spent until the outer years? I don't know about you, but I don't see how spending hundreds of billions of dollars years from now is either timely or targeted. As these economists talk about a stimulus, if it is going to be any good, it needs to be timely and targeted. What does all this have to do with fighting the pandemic right now, with the people hurting right now? Are these same people going to be hurting in these out years when some of this money is going to be spent? If that is the case, this brand-new administration is already admitting that their policies of the future are a failure and a failure today. Nearly a quarter of the package, or $422 billion, is dedicated to direct payments to households with incomes up to $200,000, all regardless of whether they have lost a job or experienced any loss of income. Such untargeted payments make little sense when just this past week it was reported that personal income was up 10 percent and personal savings rates soared to over 20 percent. We clearly shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to pad the bank accounts of those with six-figure incomes when we ought to be targeting this toward those who are unemployed and those who are low income. Then we have another $350 billion of this package that is going to be allocated to bail out fiscally irresponsible States at the expense of States that have managed their State budgets wisely, like my home State of Iowa. This spending is hard to justify given recent reports indicating most States saw little to no drop in revenue between 2019 and 2020. And many States that were previously projecting shortfalls are now projecting budget surpluses. The package also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in liberal wish-list priorities that have very little to do with the current pandemic. This includes enhancements to refundable tax credits, an expansion of ObamaCare subsidies, and an $86 billion taxpayer bailout of poorly managed pension plans. On poorly managed pension plans, that is something that I have been trying to reform over the last 2 years, and reform is necessary, as much as helping them with taxpayer dollars. But there are absolutely no reforms in this stimulus of those multiemployer pension plans. It is simply an $86 billion bailout. In the case of COVID, there are some things that no amount of money can address. Until the widespread immunity is achieved, many people will not feel comfortable eating out, going to a movie, taking in a concert, or traveling on a vacation. Spending trillions of dollars will not change the attitude of those people who are going to still be very cautious. So here is what I would spend the money on--and a lot less money than $1.9 trillion. Yes, let's prioritize funding for vaccine distribution, assistance for the unemployed, and aid for small businesses in the struggling sectors. And, by all means, let's open our schools. Doing this doesn't require $2 trillion. Let's remove the pork in this bill. Let's set aside the long-term leftwing wish list and work together as we did before in those five bipartisan bills over the last 12 months. And they have passed both bodies overwhelmingly. Several of my Republican colleagues approached the White House a few weeks ago with a long list of what I just said--maybe a longer list of items proposed by President Biden that could get Republican support with minimal tweaks. A bipartisan package along those lines could well have passed a few days ago. It is still not too late. I hope we can make a bipartisan effort happen again I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1006 | null | 2,418 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week, my Democratic colleagues are poised to push through the Senate here an untargeted and unfocused $1.9 trillion tax and spending package, and it is all being done under the guise of COVID relief. Some of it is very essential for COVID relief but a small part of it. This whole act is very unfortunate because it didn't have to be this way. In the past year, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together to pass more than $4 trillion in COVID relief, and it was all done with strong bipartisan support. From the start of this year, my Republican colleagues and I have stood ready to engage in good-faith, bipartisan negotiations to provide further targeted relief. However, despite all the talk of unity and bipartisanship by President Biden, the new Senate majority hasn't even attempted to reach across the aisle. Bipartisanship worked 5 times over the last 12 months, starting about 1 year ago right now. The majority, demonstrating their unwillingness to compromise, has resorted to using special budget procedures so that they may pass a partisan bill strictly along party lines. The result is going to be an unwieldy, nearly $2 trillion package that isn't shaped according to current economic realities but strictly by a partisan liberal agenda. In February, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projected that even without any further stimulus, gross domestic product will return to its prepandemic levels by mid-2021, and, for the year, the economy will grow at 4.6 percent. If those two points aren't strong enough, it was recently reported that retail sales jumped 5.6 percent during January, and the National Retail Federation is projecting retail sales for the year to grow at the fastest rate in two decades. If those four points aren't enough, at the same time, personal income is reported to have risen by 10 percent, and the personal savings rate has surged from a historically high 13.4 percent to over 20 percent. The American economy will soon be roaring without a $2 trillion further stimulus. It is no longer March of 2020 when the economy was in free fall and businesses and places of employment were shut down. And how were they shut down? By those of us right here in the Congress of the United States, the Federal Government doing it by government edict. While many individuals and certain sectors of our economy continue to struggle and, of course, deserve a helping hand, others have largely recovered and are no longer in need of assistance. At this time, instead of $2 trillion, two-thirds of it not needed, why not help those hurting and not pour gasoline on the inflationary fires? A COVID relief package should reflect this reality in both size and scope. Even longtime Democratic economists, such as Obama's former Director of the National Economic Council, have raised concerns about enacting nearly a $2 trillion stimulus package at this point when we are already in recovery. As former Secretary of Treasury Summers--I also referred to him as Director of the National Economic Council--this is what he says: ``The proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as'' the gap between actual and potential output as estimated by the CBO. Enacting a stimulus unmoored from economic reality poses real risks to our economy, including inflation and slower economic growth moving forward. In fact, a Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis of the President's proposal projects the proposed stimulus would result in a decrease in both GDP and wages in 2022 and over the next 2 decades. While inflation has been subdued in recent years, we shouldn't let that lull in inflation lull us into a false sense of confidence that we can spend with impunity with no consequences. We are in unchartered waters with debt held by the public exceeding the size of our economy and trillion-dollar annual deficits. Moreover, as economist John Greenwood and Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins, recently warned: The money supply will grow by nearly 12 percent this year. That's twice as fast as its average growth rate from 2000-19. It's a rate that spells trouble--inflation trouble. And that is without another round of stimulus that we are going to be debating in the next few days here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and probably passing before the end of the week. Concerns of inflation have been dismissed by the White House and by the Federal Reserve. This sounds too familiar to those of us who witnessed the stagflation of the 1970s. We were told by President Nixon and his advisers that they could spend their way to lower unemployment and economic growth without inflation. They were wrong. The Nixon administration's mistakes ushered in a decade of disastrous inflation. I have said for decades, if Nixon did something, we ought to learn from it, not repeat it. It was with this background of stagflation that I first ran for Congress on a platform of fighting inflation. Inflation is a regressive stealth tax on every single American. It is particularly unfair to those who have very little money to begin with, and those who have lived beneath their incomes to save for the future only to see their hard work wiped out as the value of the dollars that they put away plunges. Hopefully, Nixon inflation is only history never to return. But none of us can guarantee that inflation won't return. Not only is the size of this stimulus package detached from reality; so is the scope. A common adage for stimulus and economic relief measures is that they should be timely, they should be temporary, and they should be targeted. By this standard, the Democrats' stimulus is well wide of the mark. More than one-third, or about $700 billion, of the funding in the bill wouldn't even be spent until 2022 or beyond, according to the CBO. How does anybody know that we need a stimulus in 2022 and beyond? By what standard does the Biden administration say that we are going to need that? And doesn't that have something to do with the failure of this bill to accomplish what it wants to accomplish, or even the need for it, if some of this money won't be spent until the outer years? I don't know about you, but I don't see how spending hundreds of billions of dollars years from now is either timely or targeted. As these economists talk about a stimulus, if it is going to be any good, it needs to be timely and targeted. What does all this have to do with fighting the pandemic right now, with the people hurting right now? Are these same people going to be hurting in these out years when some of this money is going to be spent? If that is the case, this brand-new administration is already admitting that their policies of the future are a failure and a failure today. Nearly a quarter of the package, or $422 billion, is dedicated to direct payments to households with incomes up to $200,000, all regardless of whether they have lost a job or experienced any loss of income. Such untargeted payments make little sense when just this past week it was reported that personal income was up 10 percent and personal savings rates soared to over 20 percent. We clearly shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to pad the bank accounts of those with six-figure incomes when we ought to be targeting this toward those who are unemployed and those who are low income. Then we have another $350 billion of this package that is going to be allocated to bail out fiscally irresponsible States at the expense of States that have managed their State budgets wisely, like my home State of Iowa. This spending is hard to justify given recent reports indicating most States saw little to no drop in revenue between 2019 and 2020. And many States that were previously projecting shortfalls are now projecting budget surpluses. The package also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in liberal wish-list priorities that have very little to do with the current pandemic. This includes enhancements to refundable tax credits, an expansion of ObamaCare subsidies, and an $86 billion taxpayer bailout of poorly managed pension plans. On poorly managed pension plans, that is something that I have been trying to reform over the last 2 years, and reform is necessary, as much as helping them with taxpayer dollars. But there are absolutely no reforms in this stimulus of those multiemployer pension plans. It is simply an $86 billion bailout. In the case of COVID, there are some things that no amount of money can address. Until the widespread immunity is achieved, many people will not feel comfortable eating out, going to a movie, taking in a concert, or traveling on a vacation. Spending trillions of dollars will not change the attitude of those people who are going to still be very cautious. So here is what I would spend the money on--and a lot less money than $1.9 trillion. Yes, let's prioritize funding for vaccine distribution, assistance for the unemployed, and aid for small businesses in the struggling sectors. And, by all means, let's open our schools. Doing this doesn't require $2 trillion. Let's remove the pork in this bill. Let's set aside the long-term leftwing wish list and work together as we did before in those five bipartisan bills over the last 12 months. And they have passed both bodies overwhelmingly. Several of my Republican colleagues approached the White House a few weeks ago with a long list of what I just said--maybe a longer list of items proposed by President Biden that could get Republican support with minimal tweaks. A bipartisan package along those lines could well have passed a few days ago. It is still not too late. I hope we can make a bipartisan effort happen again I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1006 | null | 2,419 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week, my Democratic colleagues are poised to push through the Senate here an untargeted and unfocused $1.9 trillion tax and spending package, and it is all being done under the guise of COVID relief. Some of it is very essential for COVID relief but a small part of it. This whole act is very unfortunate because it didn't have to be this way. In the past year, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together to pass more than $4 trillion in COVID relief, and it was all done with strong bipartisan support. From the start of this year, my Republican colleagues and I have stood ready to engage in good-faith, bipartisan negotiations to provide further targeted relief. However, despite all the talk of unity and bipartisanship by President Biden, the new Senate majority hasn't even attempted to reach across the aisle. Bipartisanship worked 5 times over the last 12 months, starting about 1 year ago right now. The majority, demonstrating their unwillingness to compromise, has resorted to using special budget procedures so that they may pass a partisan bill strictly along party lines. The result is going to be an unwieldy, nearly $2 trillion package that isn't shaped according to current economic realities but strictly by a partisan liberal agenda. In February, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projected that even without any further stimulus, gross domestic product will return to its prepandemic levels by mid-2021, and, for the year, the economy will grow at 4.6 percent. If those two points aren't strong enough, it was recently reported that retail sales jumped 5.6 percent during January, and the National Retail Federation is projecting retail sales for the year to grow at the fastest rate in two decades. If those four points aren't enough, at the same time, personal income is reported to have risen by 10 percent, and the personal savings rate has surged from a historically high 13.4 percent to over 20 percent. The American economy will soon be roaring without a $2 trillion further stimulus. It is no longer March of 2020 when the economy was in free fall and businesses and places of employment were shut down. And how were they shut down? By those of us right here in the Congress of the United States, the Federal Government doing it by government edict. While many individuals and certain sectors of our economy continue to struggle and, of course, deserve a helping hand, others have largely recovered and are no longer in need of assistance. At this time, instead of $2 trillion, two-thirds of it not needed, why not help those hurting and not pour gasoline on the inflationary fires? A COVID relief package should reflect this reality in both size and scope. Even longtime Democratic economists, such as Obama's former Director of the National Economic Council, have raised concerns about enacting nearly a $2 trillion stimulus package at this point when we are already in recovery. As former Secretary of Treasury Summers--I also referred to him as Director of the National Economic Council--this is what he says: ``The proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as'' the gap between actual and potential output as estimated by the CBO. Enacting a stimulus unmoored from economic reality poses real risks to our economy, including inflation and slower economic growth moving forward. In fact, a Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis of the President's proposal projects the proposed stimulus would result in a decrease in both GDP and wages in 2022 and over the next 2 decades. While inflation has been subdued in recent years, we shouldn't let that lull in inflation lull us into a false sense of confidence that we can spend with impunity with no consequences. We are in unchartered waters with debt held by the public exceeding the size of our economy and trillion-dollar annual deficits. Moreover, as economist John Greenwood and Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins, recently warned: The money supply will grow by nearly 12 percent this year. That's twice as fast as its average growth rate from 2000-19. It's a rate that spells trouble--inflation trouble. And that is without another round of stimulus that we are going to be debating in the next few days here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and probably passing before the end of the week. Concerns of inflation have been dismissed by the White House and by the Federal Reserve. This sounds too familiar to those of us who witnessed the stagflation of the 1970s. We were told by President Nixon and his advisers that they could spend their way to lower unemployment and economic growth without inflation. They were wrong. The Nixon administration's mistakes ushered in a decade of disastrous inflation. I have said for decades, if Nixon did something, we ought to learn from it, not repeat it. It was with this background of stagflation that I first ran for Congress on a platform of fighting inflation. Inflation is a regressive stealth tax on every single American. It is particularly unfair to those who have very little money to begin with, and those who have lived beneath their incomes to save for the future only to see their hard work wiped out as the value of the dollars that they put away plunges. Hopefully, Nixon inflation is only history never to return. But none of us can guarantee that inflation won't return. Not only is the size of this stimulus package detached from reality; so is the scope. A common adage for stimulus and economic relief measures is that they should be timely, they should be temporary, and they should be targeted. By this standard, the Democrats' stimulus is well wide of the mark. More than one-third, or about $700 billion, of the funding in the bill wouldn't even be spent until 2022 or beyond, according to the CBO. How does anybody know that we need a stimulus in 2022 and beyond? By what standard does the Biden administration say that we are going to need that? And doesn't that have something to do with the failure of this bill to accomplish what it wants to accomplish, or even the need for it, if some of this money won't be spent until the outer years? I don't know about you, but I don't see how spending hundreds of billions of dollars years from now is either timely or targeted. As these economists talk about a stimulus, if it is going to be any good, it needs to be timely and targeted. What does all this have to do with fighting the pandemic right now, with the people hurting right now? Are these same people going to be hurting in these out years when some of this money is going to be spent? If that is the case, this brand-new administration is already admitting that their policies of the future are a failure and a failure today. Nearly a quarter of the package, or $422 billion, is dedicated to direct payments to households with incomes up to $200,000, all regardless of whether they have lost a job or experienced any loss of income. Such untargeted payments make little sense when just this past week it was reported that personal income was up 10 percent and personal savings rates soared to over 20 percent. We clearly shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to pad the bank accounts of those with six-figure incomes when we ought to be targeting this toward those who are unemployed and those who are low income. Then we have another $350 billion of this package that is going to be allocated to bail out fiscally irresponsible States at the expense of States that have managed their State budgets wisely, like my home State of Iowa. This spending is hard to justify given recent reports indicating most States saw little to no drop in revenue between 2019 and 2020. And many States that were previously projecting shortfalls are now projecting budget surpluses. The package also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in liberal wish-list priorities that have very little to do with the current pandemic. This includes enhancements to refundable tax credits, an expansion of ObamaCare subsidies, and an $86 billion taxpayer bailout of poorly managed pension plans. On poorly managed pension plans, that is something that I have been trying to reform over the last 2 years, and reform is necessary, as much as helping them with taxpayer dollars. But there are absolutely no reforms in this stimulus of those multiemployer pension plans. It is simply an $86 billion bailout. In the case of COVID, there are some things that no amount of money can address. Until the widespread immunity is achieved, many people will not feel comfortable eating out, going to a movie, taking in a concert, or traveling on a vacation. Spending trillions of dollars will not change the attitude of those people who are going to still be very cautious. So here is what I would spend the money on--and a lot less money than $1.9 trillion. Yes, let's prioritize funding for vaccine distribution, assistance for the unemployed, and aid for small businesses in the struggling sectors. And, by all means, let's open our schools. Doing this doesn't require $2 trillion. Let's remove the pork in this bill. Let's set aside the long-term leftwing wish list and work together as we did before in those five bipartisan bills over the last 12 months. And they have passed both bodies overwhelmingly. Several of my Republican colleagues approached the White House a few weeks ago with a long list of what I just said--maybe a longer list of items proposed by President Biden that could get Republican support with minimal tweaks. A bipartisan package along those lines could well have passed a few days ago. It is still not too late. I hope we can make a bipartisan effort happen again I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1006 | null | 2,420 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I also come to the floor today to talk about the need for integrity in our elections. In 2020, the American people voted for a 50-50 Senate. We are in that body today. And they gave Republicans nearly a dozen more seats in the House of Representatives. In the Presidential election, 37 electoral votes were decided by less than 1 percent in those States. Without those 37 electoral votes, President Biden would have failed to achieve a majority in the electoral college. This was a close election. The reason it is a close election is it is a closely divided country. I am home every weekend in Wyoming and the two things I hear about is, one, this massive bill in front of the Senate right now--a $1.9 trillion amount of money that is all going to be added to the debt--and the concern for that spending. And the other issue is the integrity of our elections. So we have a close election. We have a closely divided country. If you would think anything, that should be a mandate to move to the middle, to find common ground, and to work for solutions. It is the kind of things that the President talked about in his inaugural address on January 20. At a time like this, Americans want to make sure that our own elections are safe and secure and fair. I think voters, no matter what their political party or predisposition is--I think all voters deserve that, and they want it. But when Republicans raise questions about the integrity of the election, well, we are attacked, and we have seen that now. In fact, earlier this very week, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate spoke of ``the pernicious and nasty guise of election integrity.'' ``Pernicious and nasty guise of election integrity''--the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He attacked the motives of millions of Americans who want to be confident in our elections. Every American ought to want to be confident in our elections. But it looks like though some Democrats may accuse us of this, many Democrats share our concerns. I hear that from both sides of the aisle. Democrats in Iowa, right now, are contesting a congressional race, and as I stand here, Democrats in the House are considering the most sweeping changes--and this is reason I am here--to election laws in decades. Their bill is nearly 800 pages long. It is called H.R. 1, No. 1. To me, that means it is their No. 1 priority. Otherwise, why would they introduce it as their first bill and label it as H.R. 1? H.R. 1, for Democrats in the House, is not the coronavirus. It is not jobs. It is not schools. It is a change in the election process for the American people and is a big mandate coming out of Washington. So the No. 1 priority of House Democrats is not those key issues. Their No. 1 issue is elections and changing elections in our country. The bill, interestingly, didn't go through a normal committee process as bills are supposed to do in the House or in the Senate. It went straight to the floor--from Nancy Pelosi's desk to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Hundreds of pages are in there ofnew mandates, and it tells each of our States how to hold elections. It doesn't read, ``States, you do it.'' It tells the States how to do it. These aren't just any mandates. These are radical leftwing mandates that people in my home State of Wyoming view as scary and say would make the elections less secure. This bill is so radical that an earlier version of it was felt to be too liberal even for the ACLU, and the latest version is even more liberal than that. I am just going to mention a few of the mandates in this bill. H.R. 1 would force every State--force every State--to give the vote to convicted felons. This would not be a State choice but a Federal mandate. One group of Democrats even tried to give the vote to felons who are still in prison right now, but that amendment failed. H.R. 1 would force every State to allow same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and even automatic voter registration. Automatic voter registration? Voter registration is something somebody should have to do, register to vote. If the bill were to become law, you would be registered to vote automatically, without even knowing it, and when the States automatically register you, you are not allowed to find out how they got your information. They can't tell you. In effect, voter registration would be a thing of the past. A thing that we all did as young people, register to vote, would be a thing of the past. H.R. 1 forces States to count provisional ballots statewide. So, if you vote Democrat in one district and are from another district, they will count it as a vote for the Democrat in your district. Mistakes like this shouldn't happen, let alone should your vote be able to be changed from the vote you actually cast. The bill also doubles down on mail-in voting. The problems with that, I think people would agree, are obvious. Amazon--and many of us shop on Amazon, if not everyone--recently tried to restrict mail-in voting for a union election at one of its facilities. That is not because Amazon has conservative leadership; it is because they say it is harder to secure mail-in voting than it is to secure in-person voting. If you want an accurate vote, in-person voting is more accurate. The reason mail-in voting was expanded last year was because of the pandemic, but now the Democrats want to carve it into stone forever. H.R. 1 would also take government funding and give it to political campaigns. The American people have some thoughts on that. The bill actually has a 6-to-1 match for campaign donations under $200. So, if you were to donate $100 to your favorite candidate, the Federal Government would take taxpayer dollars and give an additional $600 of taxpayer money to that candidate who just got a $100 check. Hard-working people would pay their taxes knowing that their hard-earned dollars would go to fund political activity, even activity that they would not necessarily agree with. Like so many liberal government programs, this is a system that could easily be defrauded. We see that now with the coronavirus bill as well. The Democrats know that they would still get their big corporate donations in New York and in San Francisco, but now they would get an added bonus--a 6-to-1 match--from taxpayers. H.R. 1 would also give government-funded vouchers for people to donate to political campaigns. Political campaigns do not need taxpayer subsidies. People can decide how they want to spend their own money. The government shouldn't be redirecting it toward the party in power. The Democrats complain about money in politics all of the time. The solution, in seeing H.R. 1, apparently, is for there to be more money in politics as long as it is the taxpayers' money. H.R. 1 ends the equal balance between the Republicans and Democrats on the Federal Election Commission. It ends it. The Democrats want to politicize the Commission that enforces our election laws. They want to make it a partisan organization. That is just another idea that would make it easier to commit fraud. H.R. 1 doesn't just politicize the Federal Election Commission; it politicizes the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. The Democrats want to break down the guardrails that currently keep the IRS out of politics. H.R. 1 gets rid of any of the limits on the IRS when giving tax exemptions to nonprofits. Now, think about this. Remember the scandal at the IRS under the Obama-Biden administration--a scandal, headlines. People are well aware. Well, H.R. 1 enshrines that into law. H.R. 1 gives a big stamp of approval to Lois Lerner and her behavior in the way she worked the IRS. Every Democrat who votes for the bill is saying that he or she will endorse what happened at the IRS under President Obama. There is more, a lot more. The bill goes on and on. It is 800 pages. It is hard to believe too many Democrats have actually read it. The bottom line is this: H.R. 1 would not reform our elections; it would deform our elections, change them dramatically. H.R. 1 makes our elections harder to secure, easier to defraud, and will cast doubt on every election into the future. That is the last thing we need in this country. This is no time to sow doubt about our elections. People want confidence in the elections. That is why I am joined with Senator Scott of Florida, Senator Hyde-Smith, and Senator Lummis to introduce a better proposal. Our bill would make our elections safe and secure and fair. It would give people more confidence in our elections. Our bill says: no automatic registration. The House bill repeals all voter ID laws. Our bill says, if you want to register to vote, let's make sure you are a citizen. We need to make sure of your identification. Let's make sure you have a Social Security number. Those are the sorts of things to provide integrity in the election process. Under our bill, States can't just send out ballots in the mail based on old information, and that happened all around the country this year. You can still vote by mail. You just need to request a ballot so your information is up to date. It is the way we have done it in Wyoming. We send out requests to say, if you would like a ballot, apply for your absentee ballot, and people do. There is no question about the integrity of that system. It was in a number of States in which ballots were mailed out based on old information and without a request by a voter for that ballot that led to so many concerns about the abuse and fraud. Our bill bans vote harvesting. It means you can't drop off somebody else's ballot. The collection boxes they have need to be monitored. When you turn in your ballot to a ballot box, that ought to be monitored. When votes are being counted, our bill makes sure that both sides are watching. Our bill prohibits delays or pauses in ballot counting. We require an audit of ballot counting systems within 30 days after the election. Now, these are basic, commonsense measures to protect against fraud and error. You want it to be accurate. You want it to be fair. The differences between our bill and the House's 800-page bill could not be more clear. The Republican bill makes it harder to commit fraud. The Democratic bill makes it easier to commit fraud. The Republican bill costs almost nothing. The Democratic bill costs billions. The Republican bill strengthens the protections of our elections. The Democratic bill weakens those protections and even gets rid of some of them. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We should all be against voter fraud. We should make it as hard to commit fraud as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to join me with Senators Scott and Lummis and Hyde-Smith. Let us stand for integrity in our elections. Let us give every American citizen confidence and the peace of mind that our system works I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1007 | null | 2,421 |
formal | election integrity | null | racist | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I also come to the floor today to talk about the need for integrity in our elections. In 2020, the American people voted for a 50-50 Senate. We are in that body today. And they gave Republicans nearly a dozen more seats in the House of Representatives. In the Presidential election, 37 electoral votes were decided by less than 1 percent in those States. Without those 37 electoral votes, President Biden would have failed to achieve a majority in the electoral college. This was a close election. The reason it is a close election is it is a closely divided country. I am home every weekend in Wyoming and the two things I hear about is, one, this massive bill in front of the Senate right now--a $1.9 trillion amount of money that is all going to be added to the debt--and the concern for that spending. And the other issue is the integrity of our elections. So we have a close election. We have a closely divided country. If you would think anything, that should be a mandate to move to the middle, to find common ground, and to work for solutions. It is the kind of things that the President talked about in his inaugural address on January 20. At a time like this, Americans want to make sure that our own elections are safe and secure and fair. I think voters, no matter what their political party or predisposition is--I think all voters deserve that, and they want it. But when Republicans raise questions about the integrity of the election, well, we are attacked, and we have seen that now. In fact, earlier this very week, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate spoke of ``the pernicious and nasty guise of election integrity.'' ``Pernicious and nasty guise of election integrity''--the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He attacked the motives of millions of Americans who want to be confident in our elections. Every American ought to want to be confident in our elections. But it looks like though some Democrats may accuse us of this, many Democrats share our concerns. I hear that from both sides of the aisle. Democrats in Iowa, right now, are contesting a congressional race, and as I stand here, Democrats in the House are considering the most sweeping changes--and this is reason I am here--to election laws in decades. Their bill is nearly 800 pages long. It is called H.R. 1, No. 1. To me, that means it is their No. 1 priority. Otherwise, why would they introduce it as their first bill and label it as H.R. 1? H.R. 1, for Democrats in the House, is not the coronavirus. It is not jobs. It is not schools. It is a change in the election process for the American people and is a big mandate coming out of Washington. So the No. 1 priority of House Democrats is not those key issues. Their No. 1 issue is elections and changing elections in our country. The bill, interestingly, didn't go through a normal committee process as bills are supposed to do in the House or in the Senate. It went straight to the floor--from Nancy Pelosi's desk to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Hundreds of pages are in there ofnew mandates, and it tells each of our States how to hold elections. It doesn't read, ``States, you do it.'' It tells the States how to do it. These aren't just any mandates. These are radical leftwing mandates that people in my home State of Wyoming view as scary and say would make the elections less secure. This bill is so radical that an earlier version of it was felt to be too liberal even for the ACLU, and the latest version is even more liberal than that. I am just going to mention a few of the mandates in this bill. H.R. 1 would force every State--force every State--to give the vote to convicted felons. This would not be a State choice but a Federal mandate. One group of Democrats even tried to give the vote to felons who are still in prison right now, but that amendment failed. H.R. 1 would force every State to allow same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and even automatic voter registration. Automatic voter registration? Voter registration is something somebody should have to do, register to vote. If the bill were to become law, you would be registered to vote automatically, without even knowing it, and when the States automatically register you, you are not allowed to find out how they got your information. They can't tell you. In effect, voter registration would be a thing of the past. A thing that we all did as young people, register to vote, would be a thing of the past. H.R. 1 forces States to count provisional ballots statewide. So, if you vote Democrat in one district and are from another district, they will count it as a vote for the Democrat in your district. Mistakes like this shouldn't happen, let alone should your vote be able to be changed from the vote you actually cast. The bill also doubles down on mail-in voting. The problems with that, I think people would agree, are obvious. Amazon--and many of us shop on Amazon, if not everyone--recently tried to restrict mail-in voting for a union election at one of its facilities. That is not because Amazon has conservative leadership; it is because they say it is harder to secure mail-in voting than it is to secure in-person voting. If you want an accurate vote, in-person voting is more accurate. The reason mail-in voting was expanded last year was because of the pandemic, but now the Democrats want to carve it into stone forever. H.R. 1 would also take government funding and give it to political campaigns. The American people have some thoughts on that. The bill actually has a 6-to-1 match for campaign donations under $200. So, if you were to donate $100 to your favorite candidate, the Federal Government would take taxpayer dollars and give an additional $600 of taxpayer money to that candidate who just got a $100 check. Hard-working people would pay their taxes knowing that their hard-earned dollars would go to fund political activity, even activity that they would not necessarily agree with. Like so many liberal government programs, this is a system that could easily be defrauded. We see that now with the coronavirus bill as well. The Democrats know that they would still get their big corporate donations in New York and in San Francisco, but now they would get an added bonus--a 6-to-1 match--from taxpayers. H.R. 1 would also give government-funded vouchers for people to donate to political campaigns. Political campaigns do not need taxpayer subsidies. People can decide how they want to spend their own money. The government shouldn't be redirecting it toward the party in power. The Democrats complain about money in politics all of the time. The solution, in seeing H.R. 1, apparently, is for there to be more money in politics as long as it is the taxpayers' money. H.R. 1 ends the equal balance between the Republicans and Democrats on the Federal Election Commission. It ends it. The Democrats want to politicize the Commission that enforces our election laws. They want to make it a partisan organization. That is just another idea that would make it easier to commit fraud. H.R. 1 doesn't just politicize the Federal Election Commission; it politicizes the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. The Democrats want to break down the guardrails that currently keep the IRS out of politics. H.R. 1 gets rid of any of the limits on the IRS when giving tax exemptions to nonprofits. Now, think about this. Remember the scandal at the IRS under the Obama-Biden administration--a scandal, headlines. People are well aware. Well, H.R. 1 enshrines that into law. H.R. 1 gives a big stamp of approval to Lois Lerner and her behavior in the way she worked the IRS. Every Democrat who votes for the bill is saying that he or she will endorse what happened at the IRS under President Obama. There is more, a lot more. The bill goes on and on. It is 800 pages. It is hard to believe too many Democrats have actually read it. The bottom line is this: H.R. 1 would not reform our elections; it would deform our elections, change them dramatically. H.R. 1 makes our elections harder to secure, easier to defraud, and will cast doubt on every election into the future. That is the last thing we need in this country. This is no time to sow doubt about our elections. People want confidence in the elections. That is why I am joined with Senator Scott of Florida, Senator Hyde-Smith, and Senator Lummis to introduce a better proposal. Our bill would make our elections safe and secure and fair. It would give people more confidence in our elections. Our bill says: no automatic registration. The House bill repeals all voter ID laws. Our bill says, if you want to register to vote, let's make sure you are a citizen. We need to make sure of your identification. Let's make sure you have a Social Security number. Those are the sorts of things to provide integrity in the election process. Under our bill, States can't just send out ballots in the mail based on old information, and that happened all around the country this year. You can still vote by mail. You just need to request a ballot so your information is up to date. It is the way we have done it in Wyoming. We send out requests to say, if you would like a ballot, apply for your absentee ballot, and people do. There is no question about the integrity of that system. It was in a number of States in which ballots were mailed out based on old information and without a request by a voter for that ballot that led to so many concerns about the abuse and fraud. Our bill bans vote harvesting. It means you can't drop off somebody else's ballot. The collection boxes they have need to be monitored. When you turn in your ballot to a ballot box, that ought to be monitored. When votes are being counted, our bill makes sure that both sides are watching. Our bill prohibits delays or pauses in ballot counting. We require an audit of ballot counting systems within 30 days after the election. Now, these are basic, commonsense measures to protect against fraud and error. You want it to be accurate. You want it to be fair. The differences between our bill and the House's 800-page bill could not be more clear. The Republican bill makes it harder to commit fraud. The Democratic bill makes it easier to commit fraud. The Republican bill costs almost nothing. The Democratic bill costs billions. The Republican bill strengthens the protections of our elections. The Democratic bill weakens those protections and even gets rid of some of them. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We should all be against voter fraud. We should make it as hard to commit fraud as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to join me with Senators Scott and Lummis and Hyde-Smith. Let us stand for integrity in our elections. Let us give every American citizen confidence and the peace of mind that our system works I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1007 | null | 2,422 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I also come to the floor today to talk about the need for integrity in our elections. In 2020, the American people voted for a 50-50 Senate. We are in that body today. And they gave Republicans nearly a dozen more seats in the House of Representatives. In the Presidential election, 37 electoral votes were decided by less than 1 percent in those States. Without those 37 electoral votes, President Biden would have failed to achieve a majority in the electoral college. This was a close election. The reason it is a close election is it is a closely divided country. I am home every weekend in Wyoming and the two things I hear about is, one, this massive bill in front of the Senate right now--a $1.9 trillion amount of money that is all going to be added to the debt--and the concern for that spending. And the other issue is the integrity of our elections. So we have a close election. We have a closely divided country. If you would think anything, that should be a mandate to move to the middle, to find common ground, and to work for solutions. It is the kind of things that the President talked about in his inaugural address on January 20. At a time like this, Americans want to make sure that our own elections are safe and secure and fair. I think voters, no matter what their political party or predisposition is--I think all voters deserve that, and they want it. But when Republicans raise questions about the integrity of the election, well, we are attacked, and we have seen that now. In fact, earlier this very week, the majority leader of the U.S. Senate spoke of ``the pernicious and nasty guise of election integrity.'' ``Pernicious and nasty guise of election integrity''--the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He attacked the motives of millions of Americans who want to be confident in our elections. Every American ought to want to be confident in our elections. But it looks like though some Democrats may accuse us of this, many Democrats share our concerns. I hear that from both sides of the aisle. Democrats in Iowa, right now, are contesting a congressional race, and as I stand here, Democrats in the House are considering the most sweeping changes--and this is reason I am here--to election laws in decades. Their bill is nearly 800 pages long. It is called H.R. 1, No. 1. To me, that means it is their No. 1 priority. Otherwise, why would they introduce it as their first bill and label it as H.R. 1? H.R. 1, for Democrats in the House, is not the coronavirus. It is not jobs. It is not schools. It is a change in the election process for the American people and is a big mandate coming out of Washington. So the No. 1 priority of House Democrats is not those key issues. Their No. 1 issue is elections and changing elections in our country. The bill, interestingly, didn't go through a normal committee process as bills are supposed to do in the House or in the Senate. It went straight to the floor--from Nancy Pelosi's desk to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Hundreds of pages are in there ofnew mandates, and it tells each of our States how to hold elections. It doesn't read, ``States, you do it.'' It tells the States how to do it. These aren't just any mandates. These are radical leftwing mandates that people in my home State of Wyoming view as scary and say would make the elections less secure. This bill is so radical that an earlier version of it was felt to be too liberal even for the ACLU, and the latest version is even more liberal than that. I am just going to mention a few of the mandates in this bill. H.R. 1 would force every State--force every State--to give the vote to convicted felons. This would not be a State choice but a Federal mandate. One group of Democrats even tried to give the vote to felons who are still in prison right now, but that amendment failed. H.R. 1 would force every State to allow same-day voter registration, online voter registration, and even automatic voter registration. Automatic voter registration? Voter registration is something somebody should have to do, register to vote. If the bill were to become law, you would be registered to vote automatically, without even knowing it, and when the States automatically register you, you are not allowed to find out how they got your information. They can't tell you. In effect, voter registration would be a thing of the past. A thing that we all did as young people, register to vote, would be a thing of the past. H.R. 1 forces States to count provisional ballots statewide. So, if you vote Democrat in one district and are from another district, they will count it as a vote for the Democrat in your district. Mistakes like this shouldn't happen, let alone should your vote be able to be changed from the vote you actually cast. The bill also doubles down on mail-in voting. The problems with that, I think people would agree, are obvious. Amazon--and many of us shop on Amazon, if not everyone--recently tried to restrict mail-in voting for a union election at one of its facilities. That is not because Amazon has conservative leadership; it is because they say it is harder to secure mail-in voting than it is to secure in-person voting. If you want an accurate vote, in-person voting is more accurate. The reason mail-in voting was expanded last year was because of the pandemic, but now the Democrats want to carve it into stone forever. H.R. 1 would also take government funding and give it to political campaigns. The American people have some thoughts on that. The bill actually has a 6-to-1 match for campaign donations under $200. So, if you were to donate $100 to your favorite candidate, the Federal Government would take taxpayer dollars and give an additional $600 of taxpayer money to that candidate who just got a $100 check. Hard-working people would pay their taxes knowing that their hard-earned dollars would go to fund political activity, even activity that they would not necessarily agree with. Like so many liberal government programs, this is a system that could easily be defrauded. We see that now with the coronavirus bill as well. The Democrats know that they would still get their big corporate donations in New York and in San Francisco, but now they would get an added bonus--a 6-to-1 match--from taxpayers. H.R. 1 would also give government-funded vouchers for people to donate to political campaigns. Political campaigns do not need taxpayer subsidies. People can decide how they want to spend their own money. The government shouldn't be redirecting it toward the party in power. The Democrats complain about money in politics all of the time. The solution, in seeing H.R. 1, apparently, is for there to be more money in politics as long as it is the taxpayers' money. H.R. 1 ends the equal balance between the Republicans and Democrats on the Federal Election Commission. It ends it. The Democrats want to politicize the Commission that enforces our election laws. They want to make it a partisan organization. That is just another idea that would make it easier to commit fraud. H.R. 1 doesn't just politicize the Federal Election Commission; it politicizes the Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. The Democrats want to break down the guardrails that currently keep the IRS out of politics. H.R. 1 gets rid of any of the limits on the IRS when giving tax exemptions to nonprofits. Now, think about this. Remember the scandal at the IRS under the Obama-Biden administration--a scandal, headlines. People are well aware. Well, H.R. 1 enshrines that into law. H.R. 1 gives a big stamp of approval to Lois Lerner and her behavior in the way she worked the IRS. Every Democrat who votes for the bill is saying that he or she will endorse what happened at the IRS under President Obama. There is more, a lot more. The bill goes on and on. It is 800 pages. It is hard to believe too many Democrats have actually read it. The bottom line is this: H.R. 1 would not reform our elections; it would deform our elections, change them dramatically. H.R. 1 makes our elections harder to secure, easier to defraud, and will cast doubt on every election into the future. That is the last thing we need in this country. This is no time to sow doubt about our elections. People want confidence in the elections. That is why I am joined with Senator Scott of Florida, Senator Hyde-Smith, and Senator Lummis to introduce a better proposal. Our bill would make our elections safe and secure and fair. It would give people more confidence in our elections. Our bill says: no automatic registration. The House bill repeals all voter ID laws. Our bill says, if you want to register to vote, let's make sure you are a citizen. We need to make sure of your identification. Let's make sure you have a Social Security number. Those are the sorts of things to provide integrity in the election process. Under our bill, States can't just send out ballots in the mail based on old information, and that happened all around the country this year. You can still vote by mail. You just need to request a ballot so your information is up to date. It is the way we have done it in Wyoming. We send out requests to say, if you would like a ballot, apply for your absentee ballot, and people do. There is no question about the integrity of that system. It was in a number of States in which ballots were mailed out based on old information and without a request by a voter for that ballot that led to so many concerns about the abuse and fraud. Our bill bans vote harvesting. It means you can't drop off somebody else's ballot. The collection boxes they have need to be monitored. When you turn in your ballot to a ballot box, that ought to be monitored. When votes are being counted, our bill makes sure that both sides are watching. Our bill prohibits delays or pauses in ballot counting. We require an audit of ballot counting systems within 30 days after the election. Now, these are basic, commonsense measures to protect against fraud and error. You want it to be accurate. You want it to be fair. The differences between our bill and the House's 800-page bill could not be more clear. The Republican bill makes it harder to commit fraud. The Democratic bill makes it easier to commit fraud. The Republican bill costs almost nothing. The Democratic bill costs billions. The Republican bill strengthens the protections of our elections. The Democratic bill weakens those protections and even gets rid of some of them. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. We should all be against voter fraud. We should make it as hard to commit fraud as we possibly can. So I urge my colleagues to join me with Senators Scott and Lummis and Hyde-Smith. Let us stand for integrity in our elections. Let us give every American citizen confidence and the peace of mind that our system works I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1007 | null | 2,423 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus. That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five pandemic relief bills that weresigned into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support. That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, also agreed on what should not be in the bills. We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White House, they have tossed that principle in the trash. The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious choice. Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody believes it or should believe it. You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and ``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's unilateral climate Executive orders. And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes. This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously. There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the payroll. But now it includes labor unions. Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into this so-called pandemic relief bill. In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded check. While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which have already been dropped from this bill. In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion. Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but because it violates the Senate rules. Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill. Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of unnecessary spending does not end there. This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to $70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated. Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in-person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Governmentaren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work. I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that benefit is simply grossly unfair. Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to make that tough choice. It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful spending, and counterproductive policy. What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent last year. Two trillion more. Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great-grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back. This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even attempt to do that. Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more. But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real results. The money we invested in treatments and research and development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done by the end of May. That is wonderful news. The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster. Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan exercise. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1008 | null | 2,424 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus. That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five pandemic relief bills that weresigned into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support. That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, also agreed on what should not be in the bills. We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White House, they have tossed that principle in the trash. The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious choice. Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody believes it or should believe it. You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and ``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's unilateral climate Executive orders. And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes. This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously. There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the payroll. But now it includes labor unions. Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into this so-called pandemic relief bill. In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded check. While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which have already been dropped from this bill. In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion. Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but because it violates the Senate rules. Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill. Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of unnecessary spending does not end there. This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to $70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated. Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in-person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Governmentaren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work. I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that benefit is simply grossly unfair. Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to make that tough choice. It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful spending, and counterproductive policy. What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent last year. Two trillion more. Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great-grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back. This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even attempt to do that. Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more. But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real results. The money we invested in treatments and research and development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done by the end of May. That is wonderful news. The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster. Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan exercise. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1008 | null | 2,425 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this Saturday will mark 1 year since Congress passed our first response to the COVID-19 virus. That legislation, you will recall, received overwhelming support. It passed by a vote of 96 to 1 here in the Senate and 415 to 2 in the House, and we know that it was not just a one-off. Each of the five pandemic relief bills that weresigned into law last year received overwhelming bipartisan support. That is not to say that everybody was in perfect agreement about the size and shape of the bills. We had more than our fair share of disagreements along the way, but both sides of the aisle understood the most pressing challenges facing our country and the types of support that were needed to sustain that fight both when it came to public health and when it came to the economic fallout and recession that resulted: resources for hospitals and healthcare workers, support for the hardest hit families, assistance for small businesses, and, of course, the development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines. Not only did we agree on what should be in the bills, but we, actually, also agreed on what should not be in the bills. We were all guided, I believe, by an understanding that the focus should remain on COVID-19 and that pandemic relief bills were no place to inject unrelated or partisan preferences, but now that our Democratic friends control the House and the Senate and the White House, they have tossed that principle in the trash. The Democrats have drafted their so-called COVID-19 relief bill without the input, the ideas, or the support of a single Republican. Now, that is not because folks on this side of the aisle were unwilling. As I remember, there were 10 Republican Senators who met with President Biden at the White House and offered a $600 billion alternative that would enjoy broad bipartisan support. This partisan legislation was a choice, not a necessity--a choice, a conscious choice. Last year, the House majority whip referred to this crisis as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' That was Mr. Clyburn. The Democrats knew that a bipartisan bill would limit the scope of discussions of policies that were actually relevant to the pandemic. So, rather than maintain that relevance to the pandemic, they chose to go it alone. This opportunity to restructure, as Mr. Clyburn said, has been months in the making, and now that the Democrats have the numbers they need to make the law without having the support of anybody but their own party, they have tacked on an entire liberal wish list and tried to call it COVID-19 relief, but nobody believes it or should believe it. You see, these are some of the things that are in the so-called COVID-19 relief bill of $1.9 trillion when hundreds of billions of dollars of money that we appropriated just in December haven't even been spent yet. Here is what is in the Trojan horse, otherwise known as the Democrats' COVID-19 relief bill: funding for climate justice. At a time when many Americans are asking ``When can I get the vaccine?'' and ``How long until my children can safely return to school?'' our Democratic colleagues are pushing funding to support President Biden's unilateral climate Executive orders. And then there is the funding--the backdoor funding--for Planned Parenthood. It is responsible for the most abortions of any other organization in America. Now, that is a personal choice for people to make, but asking taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood so it can perform more abortions is simply irrelevant to COVID-19 relief. It is exploiting another emergency for special interest purposes. This bill expands the criteria for the Paycheck Protection Program, one of the most successful parts of the CARES Act that we passed last March. It was designed specifically to keep small businesses afloat, but now Planned Parenthood can take advantage of the funding--something they were precluding from doing under bipartisan agreement previously. There is another big political ally for our Democratic friends that would be newly eligible for these small business loans--the labor unions. So now labor unions can apply for and receive money that was otherwise previously directed toward mom-and-pop businesses so they could keep their doors open, so they could keep their employees on the payroll. But now it includes labor unions. Many of the labor unions' pension plans in particular have been in dire financial straits for years, long before COVID-19 even existed. Up until now, our Democratic colleagues have not been able to find a way to bail out these mismanaged pension funds. As you can imagine, using taxpayer dollars to cover the mistakes of union bosses is incredibly unpopular, and that is because it is wrong. But the authors of this bill have found a couple of workarounds which they have tucked into this so-called pandemic relief bill. In addition to making labor unions eligible for the paycheck protection loans, the COVID-19 relief bill also creates a taxpayer fund to bail out underfunded union pension funds. That is not to help the public generally; that is to help labor union members, which is certainly their issue. I understand why it is important, but I don't understand why my taxpayers in Texas should have to bail out underfunded labor pension funds in other States. Union bosses who have mismanaged these funds and made bad choices will be rewarded with a taxpayer-funded check. While there is a range of provisions to line the pockets of our friends on the other side of the aisle across the country, the authors of this bill also tried to sneak in more localized fixes, two of which have already been dropped from this bill. In one of the most audacious examples of tone-deaf Washington politics, one of these was an underground rail system in the Speaker's home State of California--an underground rail system. That has nothing to do with COVID-19. The Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion has been in the works for years, and Californians have raised concerns over the rising cost. In 2018, it was projected to cost nearly $4.7 billion, and that estimate has already jumped to $6.9 billion from $4.7 billion. Despite the fact that this rail system has absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic and would serve only the people of one of the wealthiest areas in the country, our Democratic friends provided more than $100 million for this project in their so-called COVID-19 relief bill. Well, fortunately, not any thanks to our Democratic friends who wrote the bill, this completely unrelated project has now been removed from the bill because it violates Senate rules. You are not supposed to be able to appropriate money and authorize transportation projects in a budget reconciliation bill. That is why it is gone, not because our Democratic friends were embarrassed or had second thoughts after it was pointed out to them the hypocrisy of including that in the bill but because it violates the Senate rules. Another portion of the bill would have provided money for a bridge from New York to Canada. Let me think for a minute which Senator would have stuck money for a bridge from New York to Canada in the bill. Well, there are two Senators, one of whom is the majority leader from the State of New York. Well, that has now been struck by our colleagues because it received so much blowback. It was such an embarrassing, irresponsible money grab that it is no longer in the bill. Well, we will see if this trend continues and more of the completely unrelated partisan projects are eliminated because the long list of unnecessary spending does not end there. This legislation also establishes a bureaucrat bailout, an exclusive paid leave fund just for Federal employees. If their kids aren't in school full time because of the pandemic, these employees could take home up to $1,400 a week in paid leave. That is roughly equivalent to $70,000 a year, all to stay home and not work. And these benefits would last for months. Federal employees could take home up to 600 hours of paid leave until September 30 even though President Biden said every adult who wants to get vaccinated will be vaccinated by the end of May. This benefit, this ridiculous money grab, would last until the end of September, long after people had gained antibodies and immunity from COVID-19 as a result of having been vaccinated. Across the country, only about 35 percent of school districts have returned to fully in-person instruction. If the parents of children at the other 65 percent of school districts happen to work for the Federal Government, they can claim these benefits. Even if a school offers in-person instruction but maintains the option to learn virtually, the parent can still get paid to stay home and not perform any work. Well, parents in my State who don't work for the Federal Governmentaren't receiving these same benefits. This is clearly cherry-picking to benefit Federal employees, to pay them not to work. I respect the work that Federal employees do. I respect the work that all government employees do. But to give them preferential treatment in the midst of this pandemic by paying them not to work and using tax dollars from other States and other places that don't enjoy that benefit is simply grossly unfair. Over the last year, countless numbers of parents have balanced the impossible: work and remote learning for their children. It has been hard. I understand that. Many parents turned their kitchen tables into makeshift offices and classroom spaces until their children were able to physically return to school. Today, less than 7 percent of the school districts in Texas are fully remote. Seven percent are fully remote, and two-thirds are fully in-person in my State. They have found a way to safely return to the classroom. There is no reason why the Texans who have made that tough juggling act, working and learning remotely, should now have to pay Federal employees who have not had to make that tough choice. It is simply false advertising to call this a COVID-19 relief bill. It is deceptive and outrageously so. Only $160 billion dollars--8 percent of the total cost--is directly related to combating COVID-19. Eight percent. The rest of the bill, as I have tried to point out, is a variety of--it is a grab bag, really, of partisan priorities, wasteful spending, and counterproductive policy. What is worse, this restructuring, according to Mr. Clyburn's language, to fit the vision of the Democratic Party will cost taxpayers nearly $2 trillion. That is on top of the $4 trillion we already spent last year. Two trillion more. Well, somebody is going to have to pay that money back, and I fear it will not be us because we will be long gone. It will be our children and grandchildren, and at this rate of reckless spending, our great-grandchildren will have to be the ones to pay the money back. This bill is not the answer to the real challenges that face our country posed by the pandemic. We have shown our willingness to work together in a bipartisan way to enthusiastically support the need to provide real relief both from the public health consequences and the economic fallout associated with the virus, but this bill doesn't even attempt to do that. Fortunately, as a result of the work we did last year, including last December--and by the way, only about 20 percent of the money that we appropriated just a few weeks ago--actually, a couple of months ago in December--has actually been spent. Only about 20 percent has been spent, and here we are being asked to appropriate $1.9 trillion more. But the good news is, the money we spent last year is having real results. The money we invested in treatments and research and development of vaccines and now the distribution of vaccines--it is actually making a real difference. We are vaccinating roughly 3 million people a day in America. More than 70 million people have had shots in arms, and we are doing our best to try to get it in people's arms as fast as we safely can. President Biden said we will get that job done by the end of May. That is wonderful news. The other wonderful news is that unemployment rates are going down and State revenue is going back up. School districts across the country have safely resumed in-person learning. One in five adults in America has now received a dose of the vaccine, and a third vaccine has now been approved, so that number will climb faster and faster and faster. Every day we are moving closer to the light at the end of the tunnel, and now is not the time to squander the good will and trust that the American people have had in us to be good stewards of the public health and our economy by engaging in this sort of embarrassing partisan exercise. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1008 | null | 2,426 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I wanted to speak in particular terms about the American Rescue Plan and in particular about the provision of home- and community-based services. We know that when we speak of these kinds of services, we are talking about services that benefit seniors across the country as well as Americans with disabilities. We are also concerned as well for the heroic frontline workers who provide those services, most of whom--virtually all of whom have been underpaid and, frankly, underappreciated for far too long. Let me start with the provision of these home- and community-based services in terms of the people who are benefiting from these services. Right now, about 4 million Americans receive home care and home health services in their own homes or apartments. Receiving these services at home reduces the likelihood that that older American will be infected by the virus. Serving and supporting older adults and people with disabilities reduces pressure on nursing homes and other congregate settings. We know that these kind of services, the home- and community-based services, make sure that seniors and people with disabilities have a chance to continue to live where they want to live, as opposed to living in a congregate setting. In many cases, that means they will have more contact with their families, reducing the loneliness and social isolation that can be damaging to their mental health. So this American Rescue Plan includes temporary Federal funding to States to increase Medicaid home- and community-based services. If the bill were to pass, an additional $9.3 billion would be made available to States to ensure that workers who provide these services have the protection and resources they need to provide the care and to provide the services. More than 200 organizations from around the country wrote to Congress in support of these new dollars. For months, SEIU, one of the great unions in America representing workers--healthcare workers; the disability community, as well; advocates for older adults like AARP and others--have rallied around the need for this funding. This funding can be used to increase wages for direct-service providers, the workers. It can be used to secure additional personal protective equipment and testing supplies for workers and those that they support. Home- and community-based funds can also be used to help people transition from congregate settings back to their homes. It can also be used to provide services for the 800,000 Americans waiting for this kind of help. For example, Ira Hall from Westmoreland County, PA, just right in the southwestern corner of our State, next to Pittsburgh, in that county, Ira will continue to receive services, and he will receive that service from his direct service worker, Ray Williams. I was able to visit both of these individuals last May during a virtual home visit. Home- and community-based services make it possible for Ira, who has a developmental disability, to live in his own apartment. Ray, who is his direct service worker, helps Ira plan his day and helps him throughout his workday and helps him find the resources he needs to meet his goals. During the pandemic, Ray's support made it possible for Ira to remain in his home and to be safe from contracting the virus. The services Ray provides also helps Ira maintain his physical and mental health. We know that the American Rescue Plan makes it possible for services like those Ira receives and Ray provides. It will also mean the agencies providing these services will continue to operate and provide essential home- and community-based services throughout the public health crisis. Passage of the bill would be a down payment on securing strong and comprehensive home- and community-based services infrastructure, but it is only a down payment. This pandemic has revealed a fragile home care and home health system. These fundsshould be the first step in creating home- and community-based services infrastructure that can serve seniors and all people with disabilities who want to live in their own homes and remain in their communities with their families, friends, and neighbors. With the passage of this American Rescue Plan, we will be able to address the immediate pandemic needs of older adults, as well as people with disabilities. Let's work to ensure this first step starts to create the path to a robust, comprehensive home care and home health network in every State for every senior and every American with a disability. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1010 | null | 2,427 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I worked with my colleague from Pennsylvania on some of these home care options, and I think it is a very positive thing. In fact, it saves a lot of cost for the system, but the question is, What is it doing in a COVID relief bill? You know, I just have to say, having been involved in a bipartisan way on five different COVID relief packages over the last year, I am just so discouraged that we can't sit down, Republicans and Democrats alike, and work out a targeted, focused bill on COVID, and, by the way, then move on to other things, including healthcare reform, including issues that traditionally have also been bipartisan, like infrastructure and broadband expansion, like retirement security or dealing with China and supply chain issues. But this is not the way to start. We are looking at a $1.9 trillion package, the second largest ever written by Congress. The first one went through last year. And there was no input--virtually no input--from anybody on our side of the aisle because the administration decided they didn't want it. They wanted to jam this thing through without our participation. And it is too bad, because they will end up with a product that is not going to be as focused and targeted, but, also, it is just getting off on the wrong foot and making it more difficult for us to figure out how to come together on other issues. It is really the opposite. This process is really the opposite of what President Biden talked about. He talked about it in his campaign. I mean, he won a campaign, including in his primary, saying he wanted to work across the aisle; he wanted to change the tone in Washington. That was pretty brave of him to say, really. And, then, in his inaugural address, he did the same thing; didn't he? He talked about the need for unity. He talked about wanting to get people together and to work with Democrats and Republicans alike and kind of get back to that. This is exactly the opposite of that. I just don't get it. I have to tell you, I am mystified why they want to start off this way. I was one of the 10 Republicans who went down to the White House to meet with President Biden about this a few weeks ago, and we offered our own proposal and said we would like to work with you and negotiate with you. And, you know, there has been no interest, to be honest, and I wish it weren't the case. And $4 trillion has already been allocated to the COVID-19 issue, and it was needed. It is a crisis. It still is. It is not over yet, although things are getting a lot better, both in terms of the healthcare crisis and in terms of the economy. But we did that, again, five different times--over $4 trillion, five different times in a bipartisan way. So we know we can do it. It is hard for us to do it on other issues--let's face it--like taxes or even healthcare, but it is not with regard to COVID-19. At least it hasn't been until now. The most recent $900 billion COVID relief package passed at the end of December by a 92 to 6 vote--92 to 6. I came out to the floor to give speeches on this Senate floor over 20 times in the months prior to that legislation finally being passed, urging Congress to come out of our partisan corners, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to come up with a COVID relief package, because I saw so much middle ground. And we found it by the end of December. I was part of a group of five Democrats and five Republicans who sat down over a month-long period or so. We actually wrote a bill. The ``908 Coalition,'' we called ourselves because we wrote a bill for $900 billion that was the basis for that $900 billion legislation that eventually passed. So I have been there. I have done it. We have done it. We can do it. Yet we are looking here at an entirely different process and, unfortunately, a product that is not targeted, not focused. It is interesting to note that of the $900 billion that we appropriated just a couple of months ago, at the end of the year, more than half of that, we are told, has not been spent yet. So while we are starting a $1.9 trillion new spending project, about half of what we just did has yet to be spent. So how do we know how much is needed? It is very hard to know. I will say that it is troubling to me that this bill is loaded up with provisions that don't relate to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, because we should be targeted and focused like a laser on that issue and not on other things. In fact, when you look at the healthcare part of this, most people would think: OK, what would you do with a COVID-19 bill? You would focus on the coronavirus. You would focus on the testing and the tracing. You would focus on the vaccine development and distribution. You would focus on the healthcare side, including healthcare providers. Unfortunately, that is a very small part of the funding of this bill. It is $160 billion out of $1.9 trillion, so less than 10 percent of the bill is focused on that. And, by the way, the alternative I mentioned that we offered to President Biden--$160 billion. We totally believe in that part of the bill, and that we should put all of that in there, particularly with regard to the vaccines. So it is frustrating because not only is the process not what we have done in the past and is best for this country, but also the substance of this bill is just not targeted on COVID-19. How do I tell hard-working families in my State of Ohio that there is a provision in the bill that asks Medicare to spend more money in New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island but not in Ohio and other States? How do I explain that we need to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars that are in this bill in additional Federal funds for the arts? We can have that debate on the arts, but it has nothing to do with COVID-19. We have the highest deficit, as a share of GDP, since World War II--the highest debt as a share of GDP. You know, I don't think we should be spending that kind of money on things that don't relate to COVID-19. Beyond these kinds of unrelated provisions, there are also proposals in this stimulus that are directed at important issues, but, based on what is needed to respond to the current challenges, are simply unnecessary and add up to more wasteful spending. For example, we reached a point in this pandemic where the CDC, or the Centers for Disease Control, has said that schools can start to open safely with the right measures in place--thank goodness. We want to get our kids back to school. That should be a cause for celebration. But the plan here, the $1.9 trillion, doesn't reflect those findings. Last year, we appropriated $113 billion for schools to help navigate the pandemic, but, as of now, of that $113 billion, only $15 billion has been spent. So, roughly, $100 billion is left over from last year with regard to schools. If we are already opening classes safely with that amount, why does this $1.9 trillion plan instead call for an additional investment of $130 billion in our schools, but especially when we are told that most of that $130 billion will not be spent in this calendar year? Nobody thinks that next year, at this time, we are going to have the crisis we have now, and yet the $130 billion of new money will not be spent until the end of 2028. By the way, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that about half of the funds in the entire proposal won't even be spent in this calendar year. That is their analysis--objective, nonpartisan. No one expects, again, that we will be in this crisis at that time. So it just doesn't seem to make sense to me. There are other provisions in this bill that seem to actually take solutions we have come up with in the past COVID-19 package and make them worse. Unemployment insurance is a good example. Republicans and Democrats alike believe there needs to besome expanded help in terms of those who have been hit hardest by the pandemic and have lost a job, and the last bipartisan spending agreement reflected that consensus. But now, after finally reaching an agreement on expanded unemployment insurance, one that got people the help they need without creating a disincentive to work, Democrats want to jam through another UI proposal that increases the $300 per week that we just agreed to in December to $400 a week. Now, again, that is in the context of the healthcare crisis getting better and the economy getting better and the unemployment numbers going down that we are going to put more into unemployment insurance. That creates a problem because it will mean if you go up to $400 a week, then more than half of the workers on unemployment insurance will be earning more on unemployment than they would staying employed. We want to get people back to work. That is what we all should want, at least. So why would you do that? We shouldn't want that. It is going to result in fewer people getting to work as unemployment continues to go down, as the vaccines are more widely available. That is the opposite of what we should want. At the same time, a new provision in this bill would allow employees who are Federal employees to take 600 hours of taxpayer-funded emergency leave this fiscal year. To put that in perspective, 600 hours is about half of the total number of working hours remaining in this fiscal year. There are plenty of problems with the way this plan is written. To give you one example, a Federal employee with children in school would be eligible for this leave program as long as the school is offering a remote learning option, even if the kids are going to the classroom every day for in-person learning. Federal employees would also be eligible for this leave if they are feeling unwell, even if they don't have COVID-19, and with no oversight, no doctor's note, and no supervisory approval. This is far beyond the responsible bipartisan family leave proposal we did include, because we should have, in the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, which offered 80 hours of sick leave, about one-seventh of the time off in this new proposal, and which applies to millions of private and public sector employees, in addition to the Federal employees who are only covered by this new proposal. When none of us knew exactly how long we would be faced with the COVID-19 crisis, we decided, on a bipartisan basis, that 80 hours was sufficient. But now that we have this new proposal, at seven times that leave with no test necessary, it is at a time when we are actually turning the tide on this virus, and we all acknowledge that. When more of us are being tested and vaccinated, our numbers are going down--thank goodness--and we have a much better understanding of the dangers of COVID-19. So why does this make sense? Furthermore, Federal jobs are pretty secure. Why should taxpayers pay for Federal employees to get 600 hours of leave when private sector employees are suffering more job losses than the public sector? It hardly seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars. It is also disappointing in this bill, which all of us are expected to vote on here in the coming days, because the end result is so different than the last five. As I said, the last five times, we put it together in a bipartisan basis. The process has been frustrating, and I know many colleagues who were part of the group of five Republicans and five Democrats agree with that. We are, in effect, for the sake of expediency and partisan victory, forgetting about thoughtful policy and bipartisanship. We have to show that we have enough Republicans to work with Democrats to get this done. I understand that. That is why 10 of us went down to the White House, because along with 50 Democrats, that would be 60, which is the magic number needed. But there is more than 10 Republicans who want to work with Democrats. There have been every time we have taken this up over the past year. We proposed the $618 billion counterproposal that shares a lot of common ground with the Biden plan--not $1.9 trillion but $618 billion. Again, we take care of all the healthcare response to the virus. This is in the Biden plan. We have a similar approach on stimulus checks: Make it a little more targeted, which everyone, I think, agrees is a good idea. Again, with regard to schools, we don't waste the money, which we talked about earlier, but we would be focused on getting kids back to school. The main difference in our bill is we take a more targeted approach to address the most urgent healthcare and economic needs. We heed the advice of prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers and so many others who have now said that the $1.9 trillion Biden stimulus is not just wasting taxpayer money; it risks overheating an already recovering economy, leading to higher inflation, hurting middle-class families, and threatening long-term growth. But rather than the counterproposal leading to this productive type of bipartisan negotiations we had last year, this time we have been told Democrats want to go it alone. We will keep talking to the President's people. We will keep talking to Democrats in Congress, hoping they will follow through on the campaign message and the inaugural promise because that is what we should be doing as a Congress, not just on this issue but so many other issues as well. We shouldn't be going it alone. Reconciliation has allowed Democrats to take what is essentially a ``my way or the highway'' approach to a response package that would be among the most expensive pieces of legislation in our country's history. As a result, dozens of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are being shut out of providing their input on this bill, and we are going to be left with a partisan bill that fails to meet the most urgent and pressing needs. In fact, because all of these unrelated spending measures we talked about and others are directed toward traditional Democratic constituencies, I would argue that this bill has not just been my way or the highway, but it has been my way and the highway. The bottom line is, at the end of the road of this reconciliation process, we will have a bill that underdelivers in many respects and is overpriced, and that is sad to me. It didn't have to be this way. Again, we have done it before five times together, made it inclusive, listened to each other to come up with a bipartisan result. Let's put a stop to this runaway train that is going to add to the deficit unnecessarily and put a damper on the prospects for the bipartisanship promised by this new administration. Wanting to heal the wounds is something all of us should want. Wanting to work together is something all of us should want. Getting back to an era where we actually sit down, debate things, work them out, and help bring the country together is something all of us should want. I agree with what President Biden said in his campaign and the inaugural address about the need for unity. Let's do it. Let's not have rhetoric; let's have action. We can work together to get this done. We won't get there if we continue to operate like this. It hurts not just our new President and his hopes for getting things done; it hurts the country and the ability for us to continue to work together to deal with this crisis and get back to a more normal life. I yield back my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1011 | null | 2,428 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I worked with my colleague from Pennsylvania on some of these home care options, and I think it is a very positive thing. In fact, it saves a lot of cost for the system, but the question is, What is it doing in a COVID relief bill? You know, I just have to say, having been involved in a bipartisan way on five different COVID relief packages over the last year, I am just so discouraged that we can't sit down, Republicans and Democrats alike, and work out a targeted, focused bill on COVID, and, by the way, then move on to other things, including healthcare reform, including issues that traditionally have also been bipartisan, like infrastructure and broadband expansion, like retirement security or dealing with China and supply chain issues. But this is not the way to start. We are looking at a $1.9 trillion package, the second largest ever written by Congress. The first one went through last year. And there was no input--virtually no input--from anybody on our side of the aisle because the administration decided they didn't want it. They wanted to jam this thing through without our participation. And it is too bad, because they will end up with a product that is not going to be as focused and targeted, but, also, it is just getting off on the wrong foot and making it more difficult for us to figure out how to come together on other issues. It is really the opposite. This process is really the opposite of what President Biden talked about. He talked about it in his campaign. I mean, he won a campaign, including in his primary, saying he wanted to work across the aisle; he wanted to change the tone in Washington. That was pretty brave of him to say, really. And, then, in his inaugural address, he did the same thing; didn't he? He talked about the need for unity. He talked about wanting to get people together and to work with Democrats and Republicans alike and kind of get back to that. This is exactly the opposite of that. I just don't get it. I have to tell you, I am mystified why they want to start off this way. I was one of the 10 Republicans who went down to the White House to meet with President Biden about this a few weeks ago, and we offered our own proposal and said we would like to work with you and negotiate with you. And, you know, there has been no interest, to be honest, and I wish it weren't the case. And $4 trillion has already been allocated to the COVID-19 issue, and it was needed. It is a crisis. It still is. It is not over yet, although things are getting a lot better, both in terms of the healthcare crisis and in terms of the economy. But we did that, again, five different times--over $4 trillion, five different times in a bipartisan way. So we know we can do it. It is hard for us to do it on other issues--let's face it--like taxes or even healthcare, but it is not with regard to COVID-19. At least it hasn't been until now. The most recent $900 billion COVID relief package passed at the end of December by a 92 to 6 vote--92 to 6. I came out to the floor to give speeches on this Senate floor over 20 times in the months prior to that legislation finally being passed, urging Congress to come out of our partisan corners, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to come up with a COVID relief package, because I saw so much middle ground. And we found it by the end of December. I was part of a group of five Democrats and five Republicans who sat down over a month-long period or so. We actually wrote a bill. The ``908 Coalition,'' we called ourselves because we wrote a bill for $900 billion that was the basis for that $900 billion legislation that eventually passed. So I have been there. I have done it. We have done it. We can do it. Yet we are looking here at an entirely different process and, unfortunately, a product that is not targeted, not focused. It is interesting to note that of the $900 billion that we appropriated just a couple of months ago, at the end of the year, more than half of that, we are told, has not been spent yet. So while we are starting a $1.9 trillion new spending project, about half of what we just did has yet to be spent. So how do we know how much is needed? It is very hard to know. I will say that it is troubling to me that this bill is loaded up with provisions that don't relate to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, because we should be targeted and focused like a laser on that issue and not on other things. In fact, when you look at the healthcare part of this, most people would think: OK, what would you do with a COVID-19 bill? You would focus on the coronavirus. You would focus on the testing and the tracing. You would focus on the vaccine development and distribution. You would focus on the healthcare side, including healthcare providers. Unfortunately, that is a very small part of the funding of this bill. It is $160 billion out of $1.9 trillion, so less than 10 percent of the bill is focused on that. And, by the way, the alternative I mentioned that we offered to President Biden--$160 billion. We totally believe in that part of the bill, and that we should put all of that in there, particularly with regard to the vaccines. So it is frustrating because not only is the process not what we have done in the past and is best for this country, but also the substance of this bill is just not targeted on COVID-19. How do I tell hard-working families in my State of Ohio that there is a provision in the bill that asks Medicare to spend more money in New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island but not in Ohio and other States? How do I explain that we need to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars that are in this bill in additional Federal funds for the arts? We can have that debate on the arts, but it has nothing to do with COVID-19. We have the highest deficit, as a share of GDP, since World War II--the highest debt as a share of GDP. You know, I don't think we should be spending that kind of money on things that don't relate to COVID-19. Beyond these kinds of unrelated provisions, there are also proposals in this stimulus that are directed at important issues, but, based on what is needed to respond to the current challenges, are simply unnecessary and add up to more wasteful spending. For example, we reached a point in this pandemic where the CDC, or the Centers for Disease Control, has said that schools can start to open safely with the right measures in place--thank goodness. We want to get our kids back to school. That should be a cause for celebration. But the plan here, the $1.9 trillion, doesn't reflect those findings. Last year, we appropriated $113 billion for schools to help navigate the pandemic, but, as of now, of that $113 billion, only $15 billion has been spent. So, roughly, $100 billion is left over from last year with regard to schools. If we are already opening classes safely with that amount, why does this $1.9 trillion plan instead call for an additional investment of $130 billion in our schools, but especially when we are told that most of that $130 billion will not be spent in this calendar year? Nobody thinks that next year, at this time, we are going to have the crisis we have now, and yet the $130 billion of new money will not be spent until the end of 2028. By the way, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that about half of the funds in the entire proposal won't even be spent in this calendar year. That is their analysis--objective, nonpartisan. No one expects, again, that we will be in this crisis at that time. So it just doesn't seem to make sense to me. There are other provisions in this bill that seem to actually take solutions we have come up with in the past COVID-19 package and make them worse. Unemployment insurance is a good example. Republicans and Democrats alike believe there needs to besome expanded help in terms of those who have been hit hardest by the pandemic and have lost a job, and the last bipartisan spending agreement reflected that consensus. But now, after finally reaching an agreement on expanded unemployment insurance, one that got people the help they need without creating a disincentive to work, Democrats want to jam through another UI proposal that increases the $300 per week that we just agreed to in December to $400 a week. Now, again, that is in the context of the healthcare crisis getting better and the economy getting better and the unemployment numbers going down that we are going to put more into unemployment insurance. That creates a problem because it will mean if you go up to $400 a week, then more than half of the workers on unemployment insurance will be earning more on unemployment than they would staying employed. We want to get people back to work. That is what we all should want, at least. So why would you do that? We shouldn't want that. It is going to result in fewer people getting to work as unemployment continues to go down, as the vaccines are more widely available. That is the opposite of what we should want. At the same time, a new provision in this bill would allow employees who are Federal employees to take 600 hours of taxpayer-funded emergency leave this fiscal year. To put that in perspective, 600 hours is about half of the total number of working hours remaining in this fiscal year. There are plenty of problems with the way this plan is written. To give you one example, a Federal employee with children in school would be eligible for this leave program as long as the school is offering a remote learning option, even if the kids are going to the classroom every day for in-person learning. Federal employees would also be eligible for this leave if they are feeling unwell, even if they don't have COVID-19, and with no oversight, no doctor's note, and no supervisory approval. This is far beyond the responsible bipartisan family leave proposal we did include, because we should have, in the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, which offered 80 hours of sick leave, about one-seventh of the time off in this new proposal, and which applies to millions of private and public sector employees, in addition to the Federal employees who are only covered by this new proposal. When none of us knew exactly how long we would be faced with the COVID-19 crisis, we decided, on a bipartisan basis, that 80 hours was sufficient. But now that we have this new proposal, at seven times that leave with no test necessary, it is at a time when we are actually turning the tide on this virus, and we all acknowledge that. When more of us are being tested and vaccinated, our numbers are going down--thank goodness--and we have a much better understanding of the dangers of COVID-19. So why does this make sense? Furthermore, Federal jobs are pretty secure. Why should taxpayers pay for Federal employees to get 600 hours of leave when private sector employees are suffering more job losses than the public sector? It hardly seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars. It is also disappointing in this bill, which all of us are expected to vote on here in the coming days, because the end result is so different than the last five. As I said, the last five times, we put it together in a bipartisan basis. The process has been frustrating, and I know many colleagues who were part of the group of five Republicans and five Democrats agree with that. We are, in effect, for the sake of expediency and partisan victory, forgetting about thoughtful policy and bipartisanship. We have to show that we have enough Republicans to work with Democrats to get this done. I understand that. That is why 10 of us went down to the White House, because along with 50 Democrats, that would be 60, which is the magic number needed. But there is more than 10 Republicans who want to work with Democrats. There have been every time we have taken this up over the past year. We proposed the $618 billion counterproposal that shares a lot of common ground with the Biden plan--not $1.9 trillion but $618 billion. Again, we take care of all the healthcare response to the virus. This is in the Biden plan. We have a similar approach on stimulus checks: Make it a little more targeted, which everyone, I think, agrees is a good idea. Again, with regard to schools, we don't waste the money, which we talked about earlier, but we would be focused on getting kids back to school. The main difference in our bill is we take a more targeted approach to address the most urgent healthcare and economic needs. We heed the advice of prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers and so many others who have now said that the $1.9 trillion Biden stimulus is not just wasting taxpayer money; it risks overheating an already recovering economy, leading to higher inflation, hurting middle-class families, and threatening long-term growth. But rather than the counterproposal leading to this productive type of bipartisan negotiations we had last year, this time we have been told Democrats want to go it alone. We will keep talking to the President's people. We will keep talking to Democrats in Congress, hoping they will follow through on the campaign message and the inaugural promise because that is what we should be doing as a Congress, not just on this issue but so many other issues as well. We shouldn't be going it alone. Reconciliation has allowed Democrats to take what is essentially a ``my way or the highway'' approach to a response package that would be among the most expensive pieces of legislation in our country's history. As a result, dozens of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are being shut out of providing their input on this bill, and we are going to be left with a partisan bill that fails to meet the most urgent and pressing needs. In fact, because all of these unrelated spending measures we talked about and others are directed toward traditional Democratic constituencies, I would argue that this bill has not just been my way or the highway, but it has been my way and the highway. The bottom line is, at the end of the road of this reconciliation process, we will have a bill that underdelivers in many respects and is overpriced, and that is sad to me. It didn't have to be this way. Again, we have done it before five times together, made it inclusive, listened to each other to come up with a bipartisan result. Let's put a stop to this runaway train that is going to add to the deficit unnecessarily and put a damper on the prospects for the bipartisanship promised by this new administration. Wanting to heal the wounds is something all of us should want. Wanting to work together is something all of us should want. Getting back to an era where we actually sit down, debate things, work them out, and help bring the country together is something all of us should want. I agree with what President Biden said in his campaign and the inaugural address about the need for unity. Let's do it. Let's not have rhetoric; let's have action. We can work together to get this done. We won't get there if we continue to operate like this. It hurts not just our new President and his hopes for getting things done; it hurts the country and the ability for us to continue to work together to deal with this crisis and get back to a more normal life. I yield back my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1011 | null | 2,429 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I worked with my colleague from Pennsylvania on some of these home care options, and I think it is a very positive thing. In fact, it saves a lot of cost for the system, but the question is, What is it doing in a COVID relief bill? You know, I just have to say, having been involved in a bipartisan way on five different COVID relief packages over the last year, I am just so discouraged that we can't sit down, Republicans and Democrats alike, and work out a targeted, focused bill on COVID, and, by the way, then move on to other things, including healthcare reform, including issues that traditionally have also been bipartisan, like infrastructure and broadband expansion, like retirement security or dealing with China and supply chain issues. But this is not the way to start. We are looking at a $1.9 trillion package, the second largest ever written by Congress. The first one went through last year. And there was no input--virtually no input--from anybody on our side of the aisle because the administration decided they didn't want it. They wanted to jam this thing through without our participation. And it is too bad, because they will end up with a product that is not going to be as focused and targeted, but, also, it is just getting off on the wrong foot and making it more difficult for us to figure out how to come together on other issues. It is really the opposite. This process is really the opposite of what President Biden talked about. He talked about it in his campaign. I mean, he won a campaign, including in his primary, saying he wanted to work across the aisle; he wanted to change the tone in Washington. That was pretty brave of him to say, really. And, then, in his inaugural address, he did the same thing; didn't he? He talked about the need for unity. He talked about wanting to get people together and to work with Democrats and Republicans alike and kind of get back to that. This is exactly the opposite of that. I just don't get it. I have to tell you, I am mystified why they want to start off this way. I was one of the 10 Republicans who went down to the White House to meet with President Biden about this a few weeks ago, and we offered our own proposal and said we would like to work with you and negotiate with you. And, you know, there has been no interest, to be honest, and I wish it weren't the case. And $4 trillion has already been allocated to the COVID-19 issue, and it was needed. It is a crisis. It still is. It is not over yet, although things are getting a lot better, both in terms of the healthcare crisis and in terms of the economy. But we did that, again, five different times--over $4 trillion, five different times in a bipartisan way. So we know we can do it. It is hard for us to do it on other issues--let's face it--like taxes or even healthcare, but it is not with regard to COVID-19. At least it hasn't been until now. The most recent $900 billion COVID relief package passed at the end of December by a 92 to 6 vote--92 to 6. I came out to the floor to give speeches on this Senate floor over 20 times in the months prior to that legislation finally being passed, urging Congress to come out of our partisan corners, Democrats and Republicans alike, and to come up with a COVID relief package, because I saw so much middle ground. And we found it by the end of December. I was part of a group of five Democrats and five Republicans who sat down over a month-long period or so. We actually wrote a bill. The ``908 Coalition,'' we called ourselves because we wrote a bill for $900 billion that was the basis for that $900 billion legislation that eventually passed. So I have been there. I have done it. We have done it. We can do it. Yet we are looking here at an entirely different process and, unfortunately, a product that is not targeted, not focused. It is interesting to note that of the $900 billion that we appropriated just a couple of months ago, at the end of the year, more than half of that, we are told, has not been spent yet. So while we are starting a $1.9 trillion new spending project, about half of what we just did has yet to be spent. So how do we know how much is needed? It is very hard to know. I will say that it is troubling to me that this bill is loaded up with provisions that don't relate to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, because we should be targeted and focused like a laser on that issue and not on other things. In fact, when you look at the healthcare part of this, most people would think: OK, what would you do with a COVID-19 bill? You would focus on the coronavirus. You would focus on the testing and the tracing. You would focus on the vaccine development and distribution. You would focus on the healthcare side, including healthcare providers. Unfortunately, that is a very small part of the funding of this bill. It is $160 billion out of $1.9 trillion, so less than 10 percent of the bill is focused on that. And, by the way, the alternative I mentioned that we offered to President Biden--$160 billion. We totally believe in that part of the bill, and that we should put all of that in there, particularly with regard to the vaccines. So it is frustrating because not only is the process not what we have done in the past and is best for this country, but also the substance of this bill is just not targeted on COVID-19. How do I tell hard-working families in my State of Ohio that there is a provision in the bill that asks Medicare to spend more money in New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island but not in Ohio and other States? How do I explain that we need to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars that are in this bill in additional Federal funds for the arts? We can have that debate on the arts, but it has nothing to do with COVID-19. We have the highest deficit, as a share of GDP, since World War II--the highest debt as a share of GDP. You know, I don't think we should be spending that kind of money on things that don't relate to COVID-19. Beyond these kinds of unrelated provisions, there are also proposals in this stimulus that are directed at important issues, but, based on what is needed to respond to the current challenges, are simply unnecessary and add up to more wasteful spending. For example, we reached a point in this pandemic where the CDC, or the Centers for Disease Control, has said that schools can start to open safely with the right measures in place--thank goodness. We want to get our kids back to school. That should be a cause for celebration. But the plan here, the $1.9 trillion, doesn't reflect those findings. Last year, we appropriated $113 billion for schools to help navigate the pandemic, but, as of now, of that $113 billion, only $15 billion has been spent. So, roughly, $100 billion is left over from last year with regard to schools. If we are already opening classes safely with that amount, why does this $1.9 trillion plan instead call for an additional investment of $130 billion in our schools, but especially when we are told that most of that $130 billion will not be spent in this calendar year? Nobody thinks that next year, at this time, we are going to have the crisis we have now, and yet the $130 billion of new money will not be spent until the end of 2028. By the way, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that about half of the funds in the entire proposal won't even be spent in this calendar year. That is their analysis--objective, nonpartisan. No one expects, again, that we will be in this crisis at that time. So it just doesn't seem to make sense to me. There are other provisions in this bill that seem to actually take solutions we have come up with in the past COVID-19 package and make them worse. Unemployment insurance is a good example. Republicans and Democrats alike believe there needs to besome expanded help in terms of those who have been hit hardest by the pandemic and have lost a job, and the last bipartisan spending agreement reflected that consensus. But now, after finally reaching an agreement on expanded unemployment insurance, one that got people the help they need without creating a disincentive to work, Democrats want to jam through another UI proposal that increases the $300 per week that we just agreed to in December to $400 a week. Now, again, that is in the context of the healthcare crisis getting better and the economy getting better and the unemployment numbers going down that we are going to put more into unemployment insurance. That creates a problem because it will mean if you go up to $400 a week, then more than half of the workers on unemployment insurance will be earning more on unemployment than they would staying employed. We want to get people back to work. That is what we all should want, at least. So why would you do that? We shouldn't want that. It is going to result in fewer people getting to work as unemployment continues to go down, as the vaccines are more widely available. That is the opposite of what we should want. At the same time, a new provision in this bill would allow employees who are Federal employees to take 600 hours of taxpayer-funded emergency leave this fiscal year. To put that in perspective, 600 hours is about half of the total number of working hours remaining in this fiscal year. There are plenty of problems with the way this plan is written. To give you one example, a Federal employee with children in school would be eligible for this leave program as long as the school is offering a remote learning option, even if the kids are going to the classroom every day for in-person learning. Federal employees would also be eligible for this leave if they are feeling unwell, even if they don't have COVID-19, and with no oversight, no doctor's note, and no supervisory approval. This is far beyond the responsible bipartisan family leave proposal we did include, because we should have, in the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, which offered 80 hours of sick leave, about one-seventh of the time off in this new proposal, and which applies to millions of private and public sector employees, in addition to the Federal employees who are only covered by this new proposal. When none of us knew exactly how long we would be faced with the COVID-19 crisis, we decided, on a bipartisan basis, that 80 hours was sufficient. But now that we have this new proposal, at seven times that leave with no test necessary, it is at a time when we are actually turning the tide on this virus, and we all acknowledge that. When more of us are being tested and vaccinated, our numbers are going down--thank goodness--and we have a much better understanding of the dangers of COVID-19. So why does this make sense? Furthermore, Federal jobs are pretty secure. Why should taxpayers pay for Federal employees to get 600 hours of leave when private sector employees are suffering more job losses than the public sector? It hardly seems like a good use of taxpayer dollars. It is also disappointing in this bill, which all of us are expected to vote on here in the coming days, because the end result is so different than the last five. As I said, the last five times, we put it together in a bipartisan basis. The process has been frustrating, and I know many colleagues who were part of the group of five Republicans and five Democrats agree with that. We are, in effect, for the sake of expediency and partisan victory, forgetting about thoughtful policy and bipartisanship. We have to show that we have enough Republicans to work with Democrats to get this done. I understand that. That is why 10 of us went down to the White House, because along with 50 Democrats, that would be 60, which is the magic number needed. But there is more than 10 Republicans who want to work with Democrats. There have been every time we have taken this up over the past year. We proposed the $618 billion counterproposal that shares a lot of common ground with the Biden plan--not $1.9 trillion but $618 billion. Again, we take care of all the healthcare response to the virus. This is in the Biden plan. We have a similar approach on stimulus checks: Make it a little more targeted, which everyone, I think, agrees is a good idea. Again, with regard to schools, we don't waste the money, which we talked about earlier, but we would be focused on getting kids back to school. The main difference in our bill is we take a more targeted approach to address the most urgent healthcare and economic needs. We heed the advice of prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers and so many others who have now said that the $1.9 trillion Biden stimulus is not just wasting taxpayer money; it risks overheating an already recovering economy, leading to higher inflation, hurting middle-class families, and threatening long-term growth. But rather than the counterproposal leading to this productive type of bipartisan negotiations we had last year, this time we have been told Democrats want to go it alone. We will keep talking to the President's people. We will keep talking to Democrats in Congress, hoping they will follow through on the campaign message and the inaugural promise because that is what we should be doing as a Congress, not just on this issue but so many other issues as well. We shouldn't be going it alone. Reconciliation has allowed Democrats to take what is essentially a ``my way or the highway'' approach to a response package that would be among the most expensive pieces of legislation in our country's history. As a result, dozens of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are being shut out of providing their input on this bill, and we are going to be left with a partisan bill that fails to meet the most urgent and pressing needs. In fact, because all of these unrelated spending measures we talked about and others are directed toward traditional Democratic constituencies, I would argue that this bill has not just been my way or the highway, but it has been my way and the highway. The bottom line is, at the end of the road of this reconciliation process, we will have a bill that underdelivers in many respects and is overpriced, and that is sad to me. It didn't have to be this way. Again, we have done it before five times together, made it inclusive, listened to each other to come up with a bipartisan result. Let's put a stop to this runaway train that is going to add to the deficit unnecessarily and put a damper on the prospects for the bipartisanship promised by this new administration. Wanting to heal the wounds is something all of us should want. Wanting to work together is something all of us should want. Getting back to an era where we actually sit down, debate things, work them out, and help bring the country together is something all of us should want. I agree with what President Biden said in his campaign and the inaugural address about the need for unity. Let's do it. Let's not have rhetoric; let's have action. We can work together to get this done. We won't get there if we continue to operate like this. It hurts not just our new President and his hopes for getting things done; it hurts the country and the ability for us to continue to work together to deal with this crisis and get back to a more normal life. I yield back my time. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1011 | null | 2,430 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, America is in crisis. Today, the Federal debt sits at a staggering $27 trillion, and it has grown by more than $4 trillion in just the last year. Now, Congress is debating whether to spend another $1.9 trillion, raising our debt to nearly $30 trillion. Less than 10 percent of this massive $1.9 trillion package actually goes directly to COVID relief, and just 1 percent is dedicated to vaccine-related programs. The rest is filled with wasteful liberal priorities. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, bridges and tunnels have no business being included in a COVID relief bill. It is shameful. Only in Washington can people throw these numbers and ideasaround without a care for what it means for our future. It is dangerous, and it is time to get serious. Congress has the responsibility to thoroughly review how every single tax dollar is spent by the Federal Government and make sure we are spending wisely. Sadly, this is rare behavior in Washington. Congress spends with reckless abandon and rarely considers how today's foolishness will impact our children and grandchildren, and we are seeing President Biden and Senate Democrats continue this dangerous behavior. For them, the Obama-era thinking of ``Never let a crisis go to waste'' is alive and well. Estimates show that there is roughly $1 trillion in enacted but unspent COVID-19 stimulus funding. Last month, I wrote to President Biden's Acting Director for the Office of Management and Budget requesting any documents related to enacted but currently unspent COVID-19 stimulus funding. The response: None. Total silence. Here is what that means: The Senate has no idea how States are spending their allocated funds, and we don't know what the actual needs are. It would be completely irresponsible and an abdication of our duty as stewards of American tax dollars if the Senate continues to approve further spending without more information. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing a resolution calling on President Biden to inform the Senate of how much unspent funds are left over from the previous COVID spending bills. We want to be very clear. This resolution only asks for information from the President that will help the Senate make an informed decision. I am proud to be joined today by Senator Lankford and Senator Ernst to ask for transparency. It is pretty simple. Ever since the pandemic started, I have wanted the Federal Government to step in and help those who are hurting and have lost their jobs. I will completely agree that we need to do more to help families and small businesses that continue to suffer from the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Relief is needed, but it has to be targeted. We have to consider our debt and do only what is necessary for those in need. I grew up in public housing and watched my parents struggle to find work and make ends meet. I saw my dad's car get repossessed twice. I never want a family to go through what mine did growing up. But before another dollar is spent, especially dollars going to liberal initiatives that have nothing to do with COVID relief, there needs to be a full and clear accounting of all enacted but unspent funding. The decisions we make today have serious impacts on our children and grandchildren. But before I continue, I yield to my colleagues from Iowa and Oklahoma and thank them for their effort. I now yield to Senator Ernst. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1012 | null | 2,431 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, America is in crisis. Today, the Federal debt sits at a staggering $27 trillion, and it has grown by more than $4 trillion in just the last year. Now, Congress is debating whether to spend another $1.9 trillion, raising our debt to nearly $30 trillion. Less than 10 percent of this massive $1.9 trillion package actually goes directly to COVID relief, and just 1 percent is dedicated to vaccine-related programs. The rest is filled with wasteful liberal priorities. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, bridges and tunnels have no business being included in a COVID relief bill. It is shameful. Only in Washington can people throw these numbers and ideasaround without a care for what it means for our future. It is dangerous, and it is time to get serious. Congress has the responsibility to thoroughly review how every single tax dollar is spent by the Federal Government and make sure we are spending wisely. Sadly, this is rare behavior in Washington. Congress spends with reckless abandon and rarely considers how today's foolishness will impact our children and grandchildren, and we are seeing President Biden and Senate Democrats continue this dangerous behavior. For them, the Obama-era thinking of ``Never let a crisis go to waste'' is alive and well. Estimates show that there is roughly $1 trillion in enacted but unspent COVID-19 stimulus funding. Last month, I wrote to President Biden's Acting Director for the Office of Management and Budget requesting any documents related to enacted but currently unspent COVID-19 stimulus funding. The response: None. Total silence. Here is what that means: The Senate has no idea how States are spending their allocated funds, and we don't know what the actual needs are. It would be completely irresponsible and an abdication of our duty as stewards of American tax dollars if the Senate continues to approve further spending without more information. That is why my colleagues and I are introducing a resolution calling on President Biden to inform the Senate of how much unspent funds are left over from the previous COVID spending bills. We want to be very clear. This resolution only asks for information from the President that will help the Senate make an informed decision. I am proud to be joined today by Senator Lankford and Senator Ernst to ask for transparency. It is pretty simple. Ever since the pandemic started, I have wanted the Federal Government to step in and help those who are hurting and have lost their jobs. I will completely agree that we need to do more to help families and small businesses that continue to suffer from the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. Relief is needed, but it has to be targeted. We have to consider our debt and do only what is necessary for those in need. I grew up in public housing and watched my parents struggle to find work and make ends meet. I saw my dad's car get repossessed twice. I never want a family to go through what mine did growing up. But before another dollar is spent, especially dollars going to liberal initiatives that have nothing to do with COVID relief, there needs to be a full and clear accounting of all enacted but unspent funding. The decisions we make today have serious impacts on our children and grandchildren. But before I continue, I yield to my colleagues from Iowa and Oklahoma and thank them for their effort. I now yield to Senator Ernst. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1012 | null | 2,432 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEE. Madam President, the bill before the Senate this week is not really about COVID relief; it is about politics. Before this, COVID relief has not been a terribly partisan issue. In fact, we have passed 5 relief bills, each with at least 90 votes. That means they are overwhelmingly broad-based and bipartisan efforts. So if this one were to pass, it would be the first of those to have passed that has been highly controversial. Why? Because, in the first place, it borrows and spends another $1.9 trillion when there are still hundreds of billions of dollars of unspent relief money from past COVID-19 relief packages. The new spending authorizes money to go to projects in States and local governments, including many that may not even need it. The fight against the pandemic has, of course, fundamentally changed in the months since this plan was first devised and proposed. It is already outdated. Now, as we are here, into the month of March, the circumstances have changed, yet the plan remains largely the same as it was. So it feels a little bit, to me, like we are fighting the last war using the last war's battle plan, leaving us unprepared for the battle actually in front of us. This is a bill that will worsen our national debt and weaken our economy in the long run without even doing much to help small businesses and American families in the short term. This is not without consequence. In fact, as the book by Drs. Reinhart and Rogoff, published nearly 10 years ago--a book known as ``This Time Is Different''--notes, once we get into this cycle, once we get accustomed to spending this much and acquiring this much of a debt-to-GDP ratio, we find ourselves in dire circumstances--circumstances in which it is even more difficult to raise the same revenue based on the same tax structure or even while tweaking that tax structure, it can be very difficult to pull out of the tailspin that could be produced when we start spending in sums this large and perpetuating a debt-to-GDP ratio that is, frankly, unsustainable. This $1.9 trillion package has very, very little to do with COVID-19. In fact, only 1 percent of the spending in this bill will go toward accelerating vaccine distribution; just 5 percent is focused on public health. Instead, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, three times as much money will go toward partisan priorities that are ``not directly related to the current crisis.'' What are some of the examples of this type of spending? Well, we have $1.5 billion more set aside for Amtrak, which is itself already sitting on $1 billion of unspent bailout money. What this has to do with the virus and why the virus somehow justifies giving them an additional $1.5 billion when they are already sitting on $1 billion of still unspent bailout money is beyond my comprehension. There is $50 million in funding for environmental justice projects, also difficult to connect that up to COVID; $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services; $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities; $86 billion in a pension bailout for private sector workers. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. You get money that goes to projects, as well as a significant amount to State and local governments. We will get back to that in a moment. When there is as much as $63 billion leftover in unspent funds, this money will not necessarily even help schools to reopen. And $350 billion in aid goes to State and local governments, even though total losses to date have mostly been covered by the $360 billion that Congress has already provided in aid for State and local governments over the last year. While there is some disparity among and between the States and how they have responded to the COVID pandemic and how they fared as far as their revenues, State and local revenue has mostly recovered, and while 26 States saw general revenue decline, 21 States actually saw revenue gains. In fact, my home State of Utah, as well as some other States, is running surpluses. Utah's sacrifice and good governance should not go to bail out other profligate States to the tune of $350 billion. I think about hard-working moms and dads in Utah, struggling to make ends meet while paying their Federal and State taxes. They are told over and over and over again that they have to be giving more. They are told that what they have spent and the time they have allotted--weeks or months out of every year just to pay their Federal tax alone--still somehow isn't enough, isn't nearly enough because, in addition to the money that they have worked so hard to earn and give to the Federal Government, there is so much more that has to be spent, like $1.5 billion going to Amtrak, even though it is already sitting on $1 billion of unspent bailout relief. These same moms and dads throughout Utah are not pleased when they are made to understand that, in addition to bailing out Amtrak again when Amtrak is already sitting on this $1 billion in unspent bailout relief money, they are also going to have to bail out other States; they are going to have to bail out State and local governments that haven't been managed well, as Utah's government has. This isn't fair to them. This is a matter of fundamental fairness to them and to countless Americans, not only in Utah but in every State. Some States still have unspent funding that they have gotten from previous COVID relief packages. California alone has $8 billion in unspent funding, and New York has up to $5 billion. In this bill, we are acting like States are facing a fiscal catastrophe that is specifically from COVID when they are not. At the same time, we are acting like the unprecedented magnitude of Federal debt is a nonissue. It is not. We have got this situation exactly backward. Look, any new relief funding just needs to be targeted, and it needs to be temporary, and it needs to be directly tied to COVID relief. This package is, instead, about fulfilling the political wish list of one political party over another and has very little, if anything, to do with the pandemic. It is offensive, and, yes, it is inappropriate for one political party--the political party that clings to the narrowest of margins of a majority in this body--to push its own political wish list onto an opportunity to provide COVID relief for the American people, and it would be equally inappropriate for Republicans to use it as an opportunity to push their own wish list. Look, we haven't seen this before. We haven't seen anything like this before. We didn't, in the past, see any of the previous COVID relief packages pushed through reconciliation. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which was it is wrong. It is not an appropriate use of reconciliation. Another was, it wasn't necessary because we made it bipartisan, not just mildly bipartisan with a few straggler votes here or there but overwhelmingly so. This one is different. I am not opposed to discussing what role government should play in providing actual relief from the pandemic. We can and should have that debate. I welcome it. I would love to have it right now. In fact, that is a question that I think merits its own debate. This bill is not about that, not anything close to that. It is riddled with poor economic reasoning and rank political favoritism. It will only worsen our debt and our economic health in the long run. It doesn't help America's small businesses and families in the short run. It doesn't do anything to materially advance the cause of getting our children back to school at a time when they have suffered so greatly, not only academically but socially and in so many other ways. That is where we ought to be focused. This bill comes nowhere close to addressing that issue, and, instead, it directs itself in other directions that are not only helpful, but in many cases they are the opposite of that. It is sad. It is disappointing. And on that basis, I can't support this bill but would urge my colleagues to figure out ways to make it better. We don't have to do it this way. It doesn't have to be a deeply partisan vote. We can still choose a different path. I, for one, hope we will. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1015 | null | 2,433 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Madam President, the bill before the Senate this week is not really about COVID relief; it is about politics. Before this, COVID relief has not been a terribly partisan issue. In fact, we have passed 5 relief bills, each with at least 90 votes. That means they are overwhelmingly broad-based and bipartisan efforts. So if this one were to pass, it would be the first of those to have passed that has been highly controversial. Why? Because, in the first place, it borrows and spends another $1.9 trillion when there are still hundreds of billions of dollars of unspent relief money from past COVID-19 relief packages. The new spending authorizes money to go to projects in States and local governments, including many that may not even need it. The fight against the pandemic has, of course, fundamentally changed in the months since this plan was first devised and proposed. It is already outdated. Now, as we are here, into the month of March, the circumstances have changed, yet the plan remains largely the same as it was. So it feels a little bit, to me, like we are fighting the last war using the last war's battle plan, leaving us unprepared for the battle actually in front of us. This is a bill that will worsen our national debt and weaken our economy in the long run without even doing much to help small businesses and American families in the short term. This is not without consequence. In fact, as the book by Drs. Reinhart and Rogoff, published nearly 10 years ago--a book known as ``This Time Is Different''--notes, once we get into this cycle, once we get accustomed to spending this much and acquiring this much of a debt-to-GDP ratio, we find ourselves in dire circumstances--circumstances in which it is even more difficult to raise the same revenue based on the same tax structure or even while tweaking that tax structure, it can be very difficult to pull out of the tailspin that could be produced when we start spending in sums this large and perpetuating a debt-to-GDP ratio that is, frankly, unsustainable. This $1.9 trillion package has very, very little to do with COVID-19. In fact, only 1 percent of the spending in this bill will go toward accelerating vaccine distribution; just 5 percent is focused on public health. Instead, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, three times as much money will go toward partisan priorities that are ``not directly related to the current crisis.'' What are some of the examples of this type of spending? Well, we have $1.5 billion more set aside for Amtrak, which is itself already sitting on $1 billion of unspent bailout money. What this has to do with the virus and why the virus somehow justifies giving them an additional $1.5 billion when they are already sitting on $1 billion of still unspent bailout money is beyond my comprehension. There is $50 million in funding for environmental justice projects, also difficult to connect that up to COVID; $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services; $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities; $86 billion in a pension bailout for private sector workers. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. You get money that goes to projects, as well as a significant amount to State and local governments. We will get back to that in a moment. When there is as much as $63 billion leftover in unspent funds, this money will not necessarily even help schools to reopen. And $350 billion in aid goes to State and local governments, even though total losses to date have mostly been covered by the $360 billion that Congress has already provided in aid for State and local governments over the last year. While there is some disparity among and between the States and how they have responded to the COVID pandemic and how they fared as far as their revenues, State and local revenue has mostly recovered, and while 26 States saw general revenue decline, 21 States actually saw revenue gains. In fact, my home State of Utah, as well as some other States, is running surpluses. Utah's sacrifice and good governance should not go to bail out other profligate States to the tune of $350 billion. I think about hard-working moms and dads in Utah, struggling to make ends meet while paying their Federal and State taxes. They are told over and over and over again that they have to be giving more. They are told that what they have spent and the time they have allotted--weeks or months out of every year just to pay their Federal tax alone--still somehow isn't enough, isn't nearly enough because, in addition to the money that they have worked so hard to earn and give to the Federal Government, there is so much more that has to be spent, like $1.5 billion going to Amtrak, even though it is already sitting on $1 billion of unspent bailout relief. These same moms and dads throughout Utah are not pleased when they are made to understand that, in addition to bailing out Amtrak again when Amtrak is already sitting on this $1 billion in unspent bailout relief money, they are also going to have to bail out other States; they are going to have to bail out State and local governments that haven't been managed well, as Utah's government has. This isn't fair to them. This is a matter of fundamental fairness to them and to countless Americans, not only in Utah but in every State. Some States still have unspent funding that they have gotten from previous COVID relief packages. California alone has $8 billion in unspent funding, and New York has up to $5 billion. In this bill, we are acting like States are facing a fiscal catastrophe that is specifically from COVID when they are not. At the same time, we are acting like the unprecedented magnitude of Federal debt is a nonissue. It is not. We have got this situation exactly backward. Look, any new relief funding just needs to be targeted, and it needs to be temporary, and it needs to be directly tied to COVID relief. This package is, instead, about fulfilling the political wish list of one political party over another and has very little, if anything, to do with the pandemic. It is offensive, and, yes, it is inappropriate for one political party--the political party that clings to the narrowest of margins of a majority in this body--to push its own political wish list onto an opportunity to provide COVID relief for the American people, and it would be equally inappropriate for Republicans to use it as an opportunity to push their own wish list. Look, we haven't seen this before. We haven't seen anything like this before. We didn't, in the past, see any of the previous COVID relief packages pushed through reconciliation. There are a number of reasons for that, one of which was it is wrong. It is not an appropriate use of reconciliation. Another was, it wasn't necessary because we made it bipartisan, not just mildly bipartisan with a few straggler votes here or there but overwhelmingly so. This one is different. I am not opposed to discussing what role government should play in providing actual relief from the pandemic. We can and should have that debate. I welcome it. I would love to have it right now. In fact, that is a question that I think merits its own debate. This bill is not about that, not anything close to that. It is riddled with poor economic reasoning and rank political favoritism. It will only worsen our debt and our economic health in the long run. It doesn't help America's small businesses and families in the short run. It doesn't do anything to materially advance the cause of getting our children back to school at a time when they have suffered so greatly, not only academically but socially and in so many other ways. That is where we ought to be focused. This bill comes nowhere close to addressing that issue, and, instead, it directs itself in other directions that are not only helpful, but in many cases they are the opposite of that. It is sad. It is disappointing. And on that basis, I can't support this bill but would urge my colleagues to figure out ways to make it better. We don't have to do it this way. It doesn't have to be a deeply partisan vote. We can still choose a different path. I, for one, hope we will. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1015 | null | 2,434 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, the circumstances that we face today in the Senate are so disturbing. This is really, really unbelievable. I mean, there is so much good news out there on the healthcare front, on the pandemic front, on the economic front. But what we are going to do in this Chamber is absolutely, absolutely appalling. The Members of this Chamber came together five times last year and passed overwhelmingly bipartisan bills to deal with this pandemic, to deal with the economic crisis that came from the lockdown that we experienced--five times, about $4 trillion, completely unprecedented in scope and scale, the nature of it. Never imagined before, but we did it. We did it because we needed to, and we came together. I think it was the biggest of the bills passed--the biggest by far--without a single ``no'' vote in this whole Chamber, completely bipartisan. So President Biden gets elected, gives a great speech, a great inaugural speech, about uniting the country, coming together: We don't have to be divided the way we have been. We can work together and find common ground. So 10 Republican Senators go down to the White House and say: Well, Mr. President, I know you would like to do $1.9 trillion, whatever it is, but we think there is a good case for $600 billion. Now, I don't happen to agree with those 10 Republican Senators, as it happens. I don't think even that is appropriate, but they did. And the reason that is significant is that there were 10 of them, which just so happens to be exactly the minimum number needed of Republican Senators to join with the Democrats to pass anything they want on a bipartisan basis. So there, handed to him on a silver platter, to the President, was the opportunity to do a bipartisan bill to figure out where that common ground was. The Republicans were offering to negotiate from there. This probably could have ended easily at $1 trillion or so after just weeks before passing a $1 trillion bill. The President could have gotten so much of what he wanted, but President Biden didn't want any part of that. You have to ask yourself, why is that when he campaigned as the guy who is going to unify America, and he had every Republican vote he needed sitting in his office, asking him to work this out? He said: No, not interested. Effectively, that is what he said. Well, when you look at the bill, it is clear why President Biden chose this path, because there is no justification for this bill. There is no medical justification. There is no pandemic justification. There is no economic justification. This isn't about coming together and doing something about a crisis; this is about a partisan leftwing wish list. And, of course, Republicans aren't interested in that kind of political gesturing that is going to do economic damage. I am reminded of the words of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said: ``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'' Rahm Emanuel must be very proud of our Democratic colleagues and President Biden because what they have done is they have taken a crisis that is rapidly receding--let's be honest--and they decided this is their chance to make one last mad dash to the door with a staggering amount of money and presumably claim credit for the recovery that is already well underway. The good news is--there is a lot of good news, right? We went through one of the most trying times we have been through in a very long time in this country. This pandemic was devastating. It was deadly, it was scary, and the economic crisis was very, very real. But now we have over 100 million doses of vaccines that have gone into people's arms. You figure that we might very well have 100 million Americans who have had the disease and recovered. We have to have well over half of the American population who has either recovered or been vaccinated and is therefore no longer at risk to this disease--not a significant risk. That is fantastic news. By the way, the vaccine administration is accelerating. Following that, we are unsurprisingly seeing this terrific collapse in the number of new cases. The daily count of new cases of the coronavirus, of COVID-19, peaked at around 250,000 new cases in a single day. We were running at that pace. By the time we got to the inauguration of President Biden, we were down to 185,000, and yesterday was about 60,000. So we are less than a quarter of the number of new cases on a daily basis that we were experiencing at the peak, and it continues to drop. It is going to continue to decline probably very rapidly as we continue to roll out these vaccines. That is terrific. There is a sort of parallel recovery of the economy underway. If you go back to April of 2020, when it was at its worst, the unemployment rate was almost 15 percent, 14.8 percent. That is a terrible, terrible unemployment rate. As of January of this year, just a few months ago, the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent, less than half of where we were. We are not back to the fantastic economy we had a year ago just before this pandemic broke, but we are getting there. Eighteen States across the country have unemployment rates below 5 percent, so we are going to get there. The economy is growing. After a collapse in the second quarter of last year, the third quarter came roaring back, and the fourth quarter grew. The Congressional Budget Office thinks that in this whole calendar year of 2021, our economy will grow almost 5 percent. Most private economists think it will be more than that. There is a lively debate about whether we will even reach 6 or 7 or more percent growth. We were told never again to expect to see 3 percent. But that is how strong this economic recovery is because of the resiliency of the American people, the tremendous ingenuity of the private sector to come up with vaccines that are incredibly effective--several of them--and do it in a record time, I mean a fraction of what was the previous record time. It is amazing. And yes, you know what, we played a role in this too. I think we did. The bipartisan cooperation of Congress to pass one bill after another on a huge scale--like I said, five bills. The biggest was without a single dissenting--actually, I am not sure any of them had a dissenting vote in the Senate. And there was almost a trillion dollars in December, leaving tens of billions of dollars that we approved that haven't even been spent yet. The intended beneficiaries haven't gotten the money yet. It takes a little while to get the money out the door. Given this context, given this history, this is why it is so dispiriting to see our Democratic colleagues insisting on a bill that has almost nothing to do with COVID. That is the truth. It is not about reopening the economy; it is a partisan leftwing spending binge. That is what it is. Let's take a look at some of the individual items. We have these so-called stimulus checks--I never heard anything more inaptly named--$414 billion. The fact is, real, personal income in the countrytoday is higher than it was just before the pandemic. Disposable, real, per capita income rose at its highest rate since 1984. Personal savings rate hit an alltime record high in 2020. Why? Because we more than replaced lost income through all of the bills that we passed. What about that data suggests we need another round of universal payments to people? It is not going to stimulate the economy. Even the last check--60 percent of that money went to savings accounts or paying down debt. According to a Penn Wharton study, about 75 percent of these checks are going to go into savings. Why in the world are we sending so many checks to tens of millions of people who never had any lost income? Under this bill, the Federal Government is going to send out $5,600 to a family of four--$5,600 to a family of four who makes $160,000 a year and never had a dime of income loss, no interruption of income, no loss of income. They are going to get $5,600. By the way, that is on top of the $5,800 they already got last year, with no need, no demonstrated problem here. So $11,400 of money that we don't have, we are going to send to people who never had a dime of lost income. That is a big chunk of this bill. It may not be the worst. It may be that the worst is the $350 billion we are going to send to State and local governments to bail out the mismanaged blue States and cities. The amazing thing is, you can't possibly make the case that they need the bailout. They don't even need it. Why do I say that? Well, if you look in 2020--the books are closed now. We know what we didn't know early in the year of 2020. We are in 2021 now. We know what happened in 2020. What happened was States and municipalities in the aggregate brought in more revenue in 2020 than they did in 2019, which was a record year. So they set an alltime new record for tax revenue collected--alltime new record. And that does not include the $500 billion we sent them anyway. I mean, these States are loaded with cash. I don't know what they are going to do with it There is $60 billion in rainy day funds. We heard: Oh my goodness, these States are going to have to cut essential services. All the teachers are going to be laid off. The firemen and the police officers are all done. How is that when they have taken in more revenue than they ever have before in their history and then we sent them another $500 billion? Now we are going to send them yet another $350 on top of this? How does this make any sense at all? We are going to borrow or print this money so we can send it to a bunch of States, many of which are sitting on so much cash, they are going to probably cut taxes. It is just unbelievable. Then there is the ObamaCare expansion. What does that have to do with COVID? This is just a decade-long goal of our Democratic colleagues to continue the endless expansion of ObamaCare. There is $45 billion in this bill to pay insurance companies more money to cover people who already have health insurance. That is what they are doing. Sixty-three percent of these new subsidies will go to people who already have health insurance through ObamaCare. By the way, it includes huge numbers of people who make over $100,000 a year. Never miss a chance to make more people dependent on government. It has policies, big policies, that will absolutely slow the economic recovery. Let me be clear. This bill will slow down the economic recovery underway. Why do I say that? Well, the bill insists on adding $400 a week on top of whatever States are paying in unemployment benefits. Well, what does that mean? It means that more than half of everyone who is unemployed is going to get paid more not to work than they get paid working. Who could even think this up? We have had unemployment insurance for decades in this country. We have never said: Let's systematically make sure that people can make more money not working than they can make if they go to work. I hear some of my colleagues talk about the dignity of work. I think there is a lot of dignity in work. What is our message to people about the dignity of work when we say: You are worth more to us sitting on the couch than you are at your job. That is what this is. It is a terrible idea. How do you know for sure that nobody on the other side is even pretending that this is really about the economic recovery? Well, you know for sure because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that only a fraction--a small fraction--of this money is even going to be spent this year. How long do we think the pandemic is going to be with us as a pandemic? How long do we think we are going to have these lockdowns? We are going to be out of the woods pretty soon here. As I said, half of all Americans have already been either vaccinated or recovered from this. But the school numbers are a good illustration, the elementary and secondary education. This bill has $128 billion--$128 billion--and $6.5 billion is going to be spent in 2021. The rest gets dribbled out for years and years. How long do they think before schools can reopen? Oh, by the way, this bill doesn't require schools to reopen. You don't even have to reopen. Just throw billions and billions of dollars at schools whether or not they are actually having kids in the school. Some of these provisions are so blatantly unrelated to COVID or the economy that it is really just hard to even read them with a straight face. There is $86 billion to bail out multiemployer pension plans without any reform whatsoever. Look, we all know we have a multiemployer pension problem in this country, and there has been a lot of discussion about what do you do about these grossly underfunded pension plans and how do you fix this. The conversation has always been, what kinds of reforms come with what kind of cash so that these errors of the past are corrected? There are no reforms here. None. Nothing. Just a big pile of cash. It is a clear message that you don't have to fix anything. You don't have to reform the flaws of these programs that got us here. And by the way, it is the same message to the insolvent public pension plans of most of the major cities in many States: Don't worry. Look what Congress will do if the Democrats have their way. They will just send you so much cash, you don't have to worry about the insolvency you are dealing with. What a terrible message. There is $270 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. That is COVID-related. Thank goodness that is there. There is $91 million for ``outreach'' to student loan borrowers. I don't even know what that means. There is $50 million for environmental justice grants. I have no idea what that means. But this one is really rich. There is about $4 billion for ``socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.'' I say ``about $4 billion'' because it says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Here is what the money is for. It is going to pay off 120 percent of the debt of these farmers and ranchers, 120 percent of the borrowings. So what in the world are the requirements to have 120 percent of your debt paid off? Well, you actually have to have debt. OK, so you have to have borrowed money from the USDA farm loan. There are tens of billions of dollars out there. They lend a lot of money. And you have to be a member of one of the following groups: African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islanders, refugees, or immigrants. As long as you are in one of those categories of mostly racial and ethnic groups, then the taxpayers are going to pay off 120 percent. It is not the whole loan but more than the whole loan--120 percent. The thing that is so disturbing about this is that the essential criterion is your skin color. The essential criterion is your race. This is unbelievable to me. By the way, there is no income test and no asset test for the underlying loans. There is no requirement whatsoever that COVID caused any problem--caused any lost income or any other problem. It is not mentioned. So what is the effect of this? This means that, if you have a wealthy Hispanic rancher who has a $1 million loan from the USDA, he is going to get $1.2 million and pay off the loan--200,000 bucks with which to do whatever he likes. Meanwhile, if you are a poor White farmer in rural Pennsylvania and you have a $100,000 loan, you get nothing, exactly nothing. Howis that even remotely fair? I don't even know how that could be constitutional. It is, certainly, not in any way COVID related. There was an amendment in the House that would have limited the payment. It would have allowed the program, which I object to, but it would have allowed this repayment of debt but only for debt incurred during the COVID crisis. The Democrats all voted that down. That failed. This is unbelievable stuff. Even the provisions that purport to be about public health are completely divorced from any reality. As I think I mentioned earlier, we are administering almost 2 million doses of vaccines every day now. That is terrific. It is actually the highest daily rate of doses administered anywhere in the world. The government has already purchased 700 million doses. Now, we have fewer than 350 million Americans, and not all Americans are going to need two doses. You can do the math: We have bought more vaccine doses than we need to administer, and that is fine. Yet how many more do you need to buy when you have already bought more than enough for every single American? That is not all we paid for. Through the previous bills that we passed, we paid for the research and development. We paid for the production. We paid for the transportation. We paid for all of the accompanying supplies, like the syringes, the vials, and the dry ice. We paid for all of that, and we should have. That was the right thing to do. Insurance covers the cost of the administering of the vaccines. Between Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance, it is free. What is left to spend money on? I am all ears, but I haven't heard what we need to spend money on. So what do we have in this bill? We have no justification for it in terms of public health. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of the economy. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of basic fairness. Frankly, it is going to do more harm than good, but you don't have to take my word for it. We could take the word of prominent liberal Democrat economist Larry Summers. He was the Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, and he was the Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. He said about this bill: [M]acroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation. Or consider the words of Steve Rattner, who is a liberal economist. President Obama named him the ``car czar.'' You may recall him administering that program. He said of the American Rescue Plan, which is, apparently, what they call this: The American Rescue Plan is also partly a legislative Trojan horse--an enormous aid package aimed at addressing needs that, in some cases, go well beyond the immediate challenges of COVID. Some of the most expensive provisions are the least well targeted to help the neediest. That is from a liberal Democrat who, I think, supports the bill, but at least he is being honest in his description of it. So my suggestion, my plea, to my Democratic colleagues and to the new President is to listen to some of the things you have said. Try an approach that is actually informed by the facts on the ground--the health facts, the economic facts, the reality. Look at what the science is currently telling us about the course that this virus has been taking. What about actually attempting to bring people together--the path of unity--after we demonstrated five times last year that we can work together and do something on a bipartisan basis? I urge my colleagues: Don't push through this radically partisan bill that will probably, in the end, do more harm than good. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TOOMEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1016 | null | 2,435 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, the circumstances that we face today in the Senate are so disturbing. This is really, really unbelievable. I mean, there is so much good news out there on the healthcare front, on the pandemic front, on the economic front. But what we are going to do in this Chamber is absolutely, absolutely appalling. The Members of this Chamber came together five times last year and passed overwhelmingly bipartisan bills to deal with this pandemic, to deal with the economic crisis that came from the lockdown that we experienced--five times, about $4 trillion, completely unprecedented in scope and scale, the nature of it. Never imagined before, but we did it. We did it because we needed to, and we came together. I think it was the biggest of the bills passed--the biggest by far--without a single ``no'' vote in this whole Chamber, completely bipartisan. So President Biden gets elected, gives a great speech, a great inaugural speech, about uniting the country, coming together: We don't have to be divided the way we have been. We can work together and find common ground. So 10 Republican Senators go down to the White House and say: Well, Mr. President, I know you would like to do $1.9 trillion, whatever it is, but we think there is a good case for $600 billion. Now, I don't happen to agree with those 10 Republican Senators, as it happens. I don't think even that is appropriate, but they did. And the reason that is significant is that there were 10 of them, which just so happens to be exactly the minimum number needed of Republican Senators to join with the Democrats to pass anything they want on a bipartisan basis. So there, handed to him on a silver platter, to the President, was the opportunity to do a bipartisan bill to figure out where that common ground was. The Republicans were offering to negotiate from there. This probably could have ended easily at $1 trillion or so after just weeks before passing a $1 trillion bill. The President could have gotten so much of what he wanted, but President Biden didn't want any part of that. You have to ask yourself, why is that when he campaigned as the guy who is going to unify America, and he had every Republican vote he needed sitting in his office, asking him to work this out? He said: No, not interested. Effectively, that is what he said. Well, when you look at the bill, it is clear why President Biden chose this path, because there is no justification for this bill. There is no medical justification. There is no pandemic justification. There is no economic justification. This isn't about coming together and doing something about a crisis; this is about a partisan leftwing wish list. And, of course, Republicans aren't interested in that kind of political gesturing that is going to do economic damage. I am reminded of the words of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said: ``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'' Rahm Emanuel must be very proud of our Democratic colleagues and President Biden because what they have done is they have taken a crisis that is rapidly receding--let's be honest--and they decided this is their chance to make one last mad dash to the door with a staggering amount of money and presumably claim credit for the recovery that is already well underway. The good news is--there is a lot of good news, right? We went through one of the most trying times we have been through in a very long time in this country. This pandemic was devastating. It was deadly, it was scary, and the economic crisis was very, very real. But now we have over 100 million doses of vaccines that have gone into people's arms. You figure that we might very well have 100 million Americans who have had the disease and recovered. We have to have well over half of the American population who has either recovered or been vaccinated and is therefore no longer at risk to this disease--not a significant risk. That is fantastic news. By the way, the vaccine administration is accelerating. Following that, we are unsurprisingly seeing this terrific collapse in the number of new cases. The daily count of new cases of the coronavirus, of COVID-19, peaked at around 250,000 new cases in a single day. We were running at that pace. By the time we got to the inauguration of President Biden, we were down to 185,000, and yesterday was about 60,000. So we are less than a quarter of the number of new cases on a daily basis that we were experiencing at the peak, and it continues to drop. It is going to continue to decline probably very rapidly as we continue to roll out these vaccines. That is terrific. There is a sort of parallel recovery of the economy underway. If you go back to April of 2020, when it was at its worst, the unemployment rate was almost 15 percent, 14.8 percent. That is a terrible, terrible unemployment rate. As of January of this year, just a few months ago, the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent, less than half of where we were. We are not back to the fantastic economy we had a year ago just before this pandemic broke, but we are getting there. Eighteen States across the country have unemployment rates below 5 percent, so we are going to get there. The economy is growing. After a collapse in the second quarter of last year, the third quarter came roaring back, and the fourth quarter grew. The Congressional Budget Office thinks that in this whole calendar year of 2021, our economy will grow almost 5 percent. Most private economists think it will be more than that. There is a lively debate about whether we will even reach 6 or 7 or more percent growth. We were told never again to expect to see 3 percent. But that is how strong this economic recovery is because of the resiliency of the American people, the tremendous ingenuity of the private sector to come up with vaccines that are incredibly effective--several of them--and do it in a record time, I mean a fraction of what was the previous record time. It is amazing. And yes, you know what, we played a role in this too. I think we did. The bipartisan cooperation of Congress to pass one bill after another on a huge scale--like I said, five bills. The biggest was without a single dissenting--actually, I am not sure any of them had a dissenting vote in the Senate. And there was almost a trillion dollars in December, leaving tens of billions of dollars that we approved that haven't even been spent yet. The intended beneficiaries haven't gotten the money yet. It takes a little while to get the money out the door. Given this context, given this history, this is why it is so dispiriting to see our Democratic colleagues insisting on a bill that has almost nothing to do with COVID. That is the truth. It is not about reopening the economy; it is a partisan leftwing spending binge. That is what it is. Let's take a look at some of the individual items. We have these so-called stimulus checks--I never heard anything more inaptly named--$414 billion. The fact is, real, personal income in the countrytoday is higher than it was just before the pandemic. Disposable, real, per capita income rose at its highest rate since 1984. Personal savings rate hit an alltime record high in 2020. Why? Because we more than replaced lost income through all of the bills that we passed. What about that data suggests we need another round of universal payments to people? It is not going to stimulate the economy. Even the last check--60 percent of that money went to savings accounts or paying down debt. According to a Penn Wharton study, about 75 percent of these checks are going to go into savings. Why in the world are we sending so many checks to tens of millions of people who never had any lost income? Under this bill, the Federal Government is going to send out $5,600 to a family of four--$5,600 to a family of four who makes $160,000 a year and never had a dime of income loss, no interruption of income, no loss of income. They are going to get $5,600. By the way, that is on top of the $5,800 they already got last year, with no need, no demonstrated problem here. So $11,400 of money that we don't have, we are going to send to people who never had a dime of lost income. That is a big chunk of this bill. It may not be the worst. It may be that the worst is the $350 billion we are going to send to State and local governments to bail out the mismanaged blue States and cities. The amazing thing is, you can't possibly make the case that they need the bailout. They don't even need it. Why do I say that? Well, if you look in 2020--the books are closed now. We know what we didn't know early in the year of 2020. We are in 2021 now. We know what happened in 2020. What happened was States and municipalities in the aggregate brought in more revenue in 2020 than they did in 2019, which was a record year. So they set an alltime new record for tax revenue collected--alltime new record. And that does not include the $500 billion we sent them anyway. I mean, these States are loaded with cash. I don't know what they are going to do with it There is $60 billion in rainy day funds. We heard: Oh my goodness, these States are going to have to cut essential services. All the teachers are going to be laid off. The firemen and the police officers are all done. How is that when they have taken in more revenue than they ever have before in their history and then we sent them another $500 billion? Now we are going to send them yet another $350 on top of this? How does this make any sense at all? We are going to borrow or print this money so we can send it to a bunch of States, many of which are sitting on so much cash, they are going to probably cut taxes. It is just unbelievable. Then there is the ObamaCare expansion. What does that have to do with COVID? This is just a decade-long goal of our Democratic colleagues to continue the endless expansion of ObamaCare. There is $45 billion in this bill to pay insurance companies more money to cover people who already have health insurance. That is what they are doing. Sixty-three percent of these new subsidies will go to people who already have health insurance through ObamaCare. By the way, it includes huge numbers of people who make over $100,000 a year. Never miss a chance to make more people dependent on government. It has policies, big policies, that will absolutely slow the economic recovery. Let me be clear. This bill will slow down the economic recovery underway. Why do I say that? Well, the bill insists on adding $400 a week on top of whatever States are paying in unemployment benefits. Well, what does that mean? It means that more than half of everyone who is unemployed is going to get paid more not to work than they get paid working. Who could even think this up? We have had unemployment insurance for decades in this country. We have never said: Let's systematically make sure that people can make more money not working than they can make if they go to work. I hear some of my colleagues talk about the dignity of work. I think there is a lot of dignity in work. What is our message to people about the dignity of work when we say: You are worth more to us sitting on the couch than you are at your job. That is what this is. It is a terrible idea. How do you know for sure that nobody on the other side is even pretending that this is really about the economic recovery? Well, you know for sure because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that only a fraction--a small fraction--of this money is even going to be spent this year. How long do we think the pandemic is going to be with us as a pandemic? How long do we think we are going to have these lockdowns? We are going to be out of the woods pretty soon here. As I said, half of all Americans have already been either vaccinated or recovered from this. But the school numbers are a good illustration, the elementary and secondary education. This bill has $128 billion--$128 billion--and $6.5 billion is going to be spent in 2021. The rest gets dribbled out for years and years. How long do they think before schools can reopen? Oh, by the way, this bill doesn't require schools to reopen. You don't even have to reopen. Just throw billions and billions of dollars at schools whether or not they are actually having kids in the school. Some of these provisions are so blatantly unrelated to COVID or the economy that it is really just hard to even read them with a straight face. There is $86 billion to bail out multiemployer pension plans without any reform whatsoever. Look, we all know we have a multiemployer pension problem in this country, and there has been a lot of discussion about what do you do about these grossly underfunded pension plans and how do you fix this. The conversation has always been, what kinds of reforms come with what kind of cash so that these errors of the past are corrected? There are no reforms here. None. Nothing. Just a big pile of cash. It is a clear message that you don't have to fix anything. You don't have to reform the flaws of these programs that got us here. And by the way, it is the same message to the insolvent public pension plans of most of the major cities in many States: Don't worry. Look what Congress will do if the Democrats have their way. They will just send you so much cash, you don't have to worry about the insolvency you are dealing with. What a terrible message. There is $270 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. That is COVID-related. Thank goodness that is there. There is $91 million for ``outreach'' to student loan borrowers. I don't even know what that means. There is $50 million for environmental justice grants. I have no idea what that means. But this one is really rich. There is about $4 billion for ``socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.'' I say ``about $4 billion'' because it says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Here is what the money is for. It is going to pay off 120 percent of the debt of these farmers and ranchers, 120 percent of the borrowings. So what in the world are the requirements to have 120 percent of your debt paid off? Well, you actually have to have debt. OK, so you have to have borrowed money from the USDA farm loan. There are tens of billions of dollars out there. They lend a lot of money. And you have to be a member of one of the following groups: African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islanders, refugees, or immigrants. As long as you are in one of those categories of mostly racial and ethnic groups, then the taxpayers are going to pay off 120 percent. It is not the whole loan but more than the whole loan--120 percent. The thing that is so disturbing about this is that the essential criterion is your skin color. The essential criterion is your race. This is unbelievable to me. By the way, there is no income test and no asset test for the underlying loans. There is no requirement whatsoever that COVID caused any problem--caused any lost income or any other problem. It is not mentioned. So what is the effect of this? This means that, if you have a wealthy Hispanic rancher who has a $1 million loan from the USDA, he is going to get $1.2 million and pay off the loan--200,000 bucks with which to do whatever he likes. Meanwhile, if you are a poor White farmer in rural Pennsylvania and you have a $100,000 loan, you get nothing, exactly nothing. Howis that even remotely fair? I don't even know how that could be constitutional. It is, certainly, not in any way COVID related. There was an amendment in the House that would have limited the payment. It would have allowed the program, which I object to, but it would have allowed this repayment of debt but only for debt incurred during the COVID crisis. The Democrats all voted that down. That failed. This is unbelievable stuff. Even the provisions that purport to be about public health are completely divorced from any reality. As I think I mentioned earlier, we are administering almost 2 million doses of vaccines every day now. That is terrific. It is actually the highest daily rate of doses administered anywhere in the world. The government has already purchased 700 million doses. Now, we have fewer than 350 million Americans, and not all Americans are going to need two doses. You can do the math: We have bought more vaccine doses than we need to administer, and that is fine. Yet how many more do you need to buy when you have already bought more than enough for every single American? That is not all we paid for. Through the previous bills that we passed, we paid for the research and development. We paid for the production. We paid for the transportation. We paid for all of the accompanying supplies, like the syringes, the vials, and the dry ice. We paid for all of that, and we should have. That was the right thing to do. Insurance covers the cost of the administering of the vaccines. Between Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance, it is free. What is left to spend money on? I am all ears, but I haven't heard what we need to spend money on. So what do we have in this bill? We have no justification for it in terms of public health. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of the economy. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of basic fairness. Frankly, it is going to do more harm than good, but you don't have to take my word for it. We could take the word of prominent liberal Democrat economist Larry Summers. He was the Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, and he was the Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. He said about this bill: [M]acroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation. Or consider the words of Steve Rattner, who is a liberal economist. President Obama named him the ``car czar.'' You may recall him administering that program. He said of the American Rescue Plan, which is, apparently, what they call this: The American Rescue Plan is also partly a legislative Trojan horse--an enormous aid package aimed at addressing needs that, in some cases, go well beyond the immediate challenges of COVID. Some of the most expensive provisions are the least well targeted to help the neediest. That is from a liberal Democrat who, I think, supports the bill, but at least he is being honest in his description of it. So my suggestion, my plea, to my Democratic colleagues and to the new President is to listen to some of the things you have said. Try an approach that is actually informed by the facts on the ground--the health facts, the economic facts, the reality. Look at what the science is currently telling us about the course that this virus has been taking. What about actually attempting to bring people together--the path of unity--after we demonstrated five times last year that we can work together and do something on a bipartisan basis? I urge my colleagues: Don't push through this radically partisan bill that will probably, in the end, do more harm than good. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TOOMEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1016 | null | 2,436 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, the circumstances that we face today in the Senate are so disturbing. This is really, really unbelievable. I mean, there is so much good news out there on the healthcare front, on the pandemic front, on the economic front. But what we are going to do in this Chamber is absolutely, absolutely appalling. The Members of this Chamber came together five times last year and passed overwhelmingly bipartisan bills to deal with this pandemic, to deal with the economic crisis that came from the lockdown that we experienced--five times, about $4 trillion, completely unprecedented in scope and scale, the nature of it. Never imagined before, but we did it. We did it because we needed to, and we came together. I think it was the biggest of the bills passed--the biggest by far--without a single ``no'' vote in this whole Chamber, completely bipartisan. So President Biden gets elected, gives a great speech, a great inaugural speech, about uniting the country, coming together: We don't have to be divided the way we have been. We can work together and find common ground. So 10 Republican Senators go down to the White House and say: Well, Mr. President, I know you would like to do $1.9 trillion, whatever it is, but we think there is a good case for $600 billion. Now, I don't happen to agree with those 10 Republican Senators, as it happens. I don't think even that is appropriate, but they did. And the reason that is significant is that there were 10 of them, which just so happens to be exactly the minimum number needed of Republican Senators to join with the Democrats to pass anything they want on a bipartisan basis. So there, handed to him on a silver platter, to the President, was the opportunity to do a bipartisan bill to figure out where that common ground was. The Republicans were offering to negotiate from there. This probably could have ended easily at $1 trillion or so after just weeks before passing a $1 trillion bill. The President could have gotten so much of what he wanted, but President Biden didn't want any part of that. You have to ask yourself, why is that when he campaigned as the guy who is going to unify America, and he had every Republican vote he needed sitting in his office, asking him to work this out? He said: No, not interested. Effectively, that is what he said. Well, when you look at the bill, it is clear why President Biden chose this path, because there is no justification for this bill. There is no medical justification. There is no pandemic justification. There is no economic justification. This isn't about coming together and doing something about a crisis; this is about a partisan leftwing wish list. And, of course, Republicans aren't interested in that kind of political gesturing that is going to do economic damage. I am reminded of the words of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said: ``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'' Rahm Emanuel must be very proud of our Democratic colleagues and President Biden because what they have done is they have taken a crisis that is rapidly receding--let's be honest--and they decided this is their chance to make one last mad dash to the door with a staggering amount of money and presumably claim credit for the recovery that is already well underway. The good news is--there is a lot of good news, right? We went through one of the most trying times we have been through in a very long time in this country. This pandemic was devastating. It was deadly, it was scary, and the economic crisis was very, very real. But now we have over 100 million doses of vaccines that have gone into people's arms. You figure that we might very well have 100 million Americans who have had the disease and recovered. We have to have well over half of the American population who has either recovered or been vaccinated and is therefore no longer at risk to this disease--not a significant risk. That is fantastic news. By the way, the vaccine administration is accelerating. Following that, we are unsurprisingly seeing this terrific collapse in the number of new cases. The daily count of new cases of the coronavirus, of COVID-19, peaked at around 250,000 new cases in a single day. We were running at that pace. By the time we got to the inauguration of President Biden, we were down to 185,000, and yesterday was about 60,000. So we are less than a quarter of the number of new cases on a daily basis that we were experiencing at the peak, and it continues to drop. It is going to continue to decline probably very rapidly as we continue to roll out these vaccines. That is terrific. There is a sort of parallel recovery of the economy underway. If you go back to April of 2020, when it was at its worst, the unemployment rate was almost 15 percent, 14.8 percent. That is a terrible, terrible unemployment rate. As of January of this year, just a few months ago, the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent, less than half of where we were. We are not back to the fantastic economy we had a year ago just before this pandemic broke, but we are getting there. Eighteen States across the country have unemployment rates below 5 percent, so we are going to get there. The economy is growing. After a collapse in the second quarter of last year, the third quarter came roaring back, and the fourth quarter grew. The Congressional Budget Office thinks that in this whole calendar year of 2021, our economy will grow almost 5 percent. Most private economists think it will be more than that. There is a lively debate about whether we will even reach 6 or 7 or more percent growth. We were told never again to expect to see 3 percent. But that is how strong this economic recovery is because of the resiliency of the American people, the tremendous ingenuity of the private sector to come up with vaccines that are incredibly effective--several of them--and do it in a record time, I mean a fraction of what was the previous record time. It is amazing. And yes, you know what, we played a role in this too. I think we did. The bipartisan cooperation of Congress to pass one bill after another on a huge scale--like I said, five bills. The biggest was without a single dissenting--actually, I am not sure any of them had a dissenting vote in the Senate. And there was almost a trillion dollars in December, leaving tens of billions of dollars that we approved that haven't even been spent yet. The intended beneficiaries haven't gotten the money yet. It takes a little while to get the money out the door. Given this context, given this history, this is why it is so dispiriting to see our Democratic colleagues insisting on a bill that has almost nothing to do with COVID. That is the truth. It is not about reopening the economy; it is a partisan leftwing spending binge. That is what it is. Let's take a look at some of the individual items. We have these so-called stimulus checks--I never heard anything more inaptly named--$414 billion. The fact is, real, personal income in the countrytoday is higher than it was just before the pandemic. Disposable, real, per capita income rose at its highest rate since 1984. Personal savings rate hit an alltime record high in 2020. Why? Because we more than replaced lost income through all of the bills that we passed. What about that data suggests we need another round of universal payments to people? It is not going to stimulate the economy. Even the last check--60 percent of that money went to savings accounts or paying down debt. According to a Penn Wharton study, about 75 percent of these checks are going to go into savings. Why in the world are we sending so many checks to tens of millions of people who never had any lost income? Under this bill, the Federal Government is going to send out $5,600 to a family of four--$5,600 to a family of four who makes $160,000 a year and never had a dime of income loss, no interruption of income, no loss of income. They are going to get $5,600. By the way, that is on top of the $5,800 they already got last year, with no need, no demonstrated problem here. So $11,400 of money that we don't have, we are going to send to people who never had a dime of lost income. That is a big chunk of this bill. It may not be the worst. It may be that the worst is the $350 billion we are going to send to State and local governments to bail out the mismanaged blue States and cities. The amazing thing is, you can't possibly make the case that they need the bailout. They don't even need it. Why do I say that? Well, if you look in 2020--the books are closed now. We know what we didn't know early in the year of 2020. We are in 2021 now. We know what happened in 2020. What happened was States and municipalities in the aggregate brought in more revenue in 2020 than they did in 2019, which was a record year. So they set an alltime new record for tax revenue collected--alltime new record. And that does not include the $500 billion we sent them anyway. I mean, these States are loaded with cash. I don't know what they are going to do with it There is $60 billion in rainy day funds. We heard: Oh my goodness, these States are going to have to cut essential services. All the teachers are going to be laid off. The firemen and the police officers are all done. How is that when they have taken in more revenue than they ever have before in their history and then we sent them another $500 billion? Now we are going to send them yet another $350 on top of this? How does this make any sense at all? We are going to borrow or print this money so we can send it to a bunch of States, many of which are sitting on so much cash, they are going to probably cut taxes. It is just unbelievable. Then there is the ObamaCare expansion. What does that have to do with COVID? This is just a decade-long goal of our Democratic colleagues to continue the endless expansion of ObamaCare. There is $45 billion in this bill to pay insurance companies more money to cover people who already have health insurance. That is what they are doing. Sixty-three percent of these new subsidies will go to people who already have health insurance through ObamaCare. By the way, it includes huge numbers of people who make over $100,000 a year. Never miss a chance to make more people dependent on government. It has policies, big policies, that will absolutely slow the economic recovery. Let me be clear. This bill will slow down the economic recovery underway. Why do I say that? Well, the bill insists on adding $400 a week on top of whatever States are paying in unemployment benefits. Well, what does that mean? It means that more than half of everyone who is unemployed is going to get paid more not to work than they get paid working. Who could even think this up? We have had unemployment insurance for decades in this country. We have never said: Let's systematically make sure that people can make more money not working than they can make if they go to work. I hear some of my colleagues talk about the dignity of work. I think there is a lot of dignity in work. What is our message to people about the dignity of work when we say: You are worth more to us sitting on the couch than you are at your job. That is what this is. It is a terrible idea. How do you know for sure that nobody on the other side is even pretending that this is really about the economic recovery? Well, you know for sure because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that only a fraction--a small fraction--of this money is even going to be spent this year. How long do we think the pandemic is going to be with us as a pandemic? How long do we think we are going to have these lockdowns? We are going to be out of the woods pretty soon here. As I said, half of all Americans have already been either vaccinated or recovered from this. But the school numbers are a good illustration, the elementary and secondary education. This bill has $128 billion--$128 billion--and $6.5 billion is going to be spent in 2021. The rest gets dribbled out for years and years. How long do they think before schools can reopen? Oh, by the way, this bill doesn't require schools to reopen. You don't even have to reopen. Just throw billions and billions of dollars at schools whether or not they are actually having kids in the school. Some of these provisions are so blatantly unrelated to COVID or the economy that it is really just hard to even read them with a straight face. There is $86 billion to bail out multiemployer pension plans without any reform whatsoever. Look, we all know we have a multiemployer pension problem in this country, and there has been a lot of discussion about what do you do about these grossly underfunded pension plans and how do you fix this. The conversation has always been, what kinds of reforms come with what kind of cash so that these errors of the past are corrected? There are no reforms here. None. Nothing. Just a big pile of cash. It is a clear message that you don't have to fix anything. You don't have to reform the flaws of these programs that got us here. And by the way, it is the same message to the insolvent public pension plans of most of the major cities in many States: Don't worry. Look what Congress will do if the Democrats have their way. They will just send you so much cash, you don't have to worry about the insolvency you are dealing with. What a terrible message. There is $270 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. That is COVID-related. Thank goodness that is there. There is $91 million for ``outreach'' to student loan borrowers. I don't even know what that means. There is $50 million for environmental justice grants. I have no idea what that means. But this one is really rich. There is about $4 billion for ``socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.'' I say ``about $4 billion'' because it says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Here is what the money is for. It is going to pay off 120 percent of the debt of these farmers and ranchers, 120 percent of the borrowings. So what in the world are the requirements to have 120 percent of your debt paid off? Well, you actually have to have debt. OK, so you have to have borrowed money from the USDA farm loan. There are tens of billions of dollars out there. They lend a lot of money. And you have to be a member of one of the following groups: African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islanders, refugees, or immigrants. As long as you are in one of those categories of mostly racial and ethnic groups, then the taxpayers are going to pay off 120 percent. It is not the whole loan but more than the whole loan--120 percent. The thing that is so disturbing about this is that the essential criterion is your skin color. The essential criterion is your race. This is unbelievable to me. By the way, there is no income test and no asset test for the underlying loans. There is no requirement whatsoever that COVID caused any problem--caused any lost income or any other problem. It is not mentioned. So what is the effect of this? This means that, if you have a wealthy Hispanic rancher who has a $1 million loan from the USDA, he is going to get $1.2 million and pay off the loan--200,000 bucks with which to do whatever he likes. Meanwhile, if you are a poor White farmer in rural Pennsylvania and you have a $100,000 loan, you get nothing, exactly nothing. Howis that even remotely fair? I don't even know how that could be constitutional. It is, certainly, not in any way COVID related. There was an amendment in the House that would have limited the payment. It would have allowed the program, which I object to, but it would have allowed this repayment of debt but only for debt incurred during the COVID crisis. The Democrats all voted that down. That failed. This is unbelievable stuff. Even the provisions that purport to be about public health are completely divorced from any reality. As I think I mentioned earlier, we are administering almost 2 million doses of vaccines every day now. That is terrific. It is actually the highest daily rate of doses administered anywhere in the world. The government has already purchased 700 million doses. Now, we have fewer than 350 million Americans, and not all Americans are going to need two doses. You can do the math: We have bought more vaccine doses than we need to administer, and that is fine. Yet how many more do you need to buy when you have already bought more than enough for every single American? That is not all we paid for. Through the previous bills that we passed, we paid for the research and development. We paid for the production. We paid for the transportation. We paid for all of the accompanying supplies, like the syringes, the vials, and the dry ice. We paid for all of that, and we should have. That was the right thing to do. Insurance covers the cost of the administering of the vaccines. Between Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance, it is free. What is left to spend money on? I am all ears, but I haven't heard what we need to spend money on. So what do we have in this bill? We have no justification for it in terms of public health. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of the economy. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of basic fairness. Frankly, it is going to do more harm than good, but you don't have to take my word for it. We could take the word of prominent liberal Democrat economist Larry Summers. He was the Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, and he was the Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. He said about this bill: [M]acroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation. Or consider the words of Steve Rattner, who is a liberal economist. President Obama named him the ``car czar.'' You may recall him administering that program. He said of the American Rescue Plan, which is, apparently, what they call this: The American Rescue Plan is also partly a legislative Trojan horse--an enormous aid package aimed at addressing needs that, in some cases, go well beyond the immediate challenges of COVID. Some of the most expensive provisions are the least well targeted to help the neediest. That is from a liberal Democrat who, I think, supports the bill, but at least he is being honest in his description of it. So my suggestion, my plea, to my Democratic colleagues and to the new President is to listen to some of the things you have said. Try an approach that is actually informed by the facts on the ground--the health facts, the economic facts, the reality. Look at what the science is currently telling us about the course that this virus has been taking. What about actually attempting to bring people together--the path of unity--after we demonstrated five times last year that we can work together and do something on a bipartisan basis? I urge my colleagues: Don't push through this radically partisan bill that will probably, in the end, do more harm than good. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TOOMEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1016 | null | 2,437 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, the circumstances that we face today in the Senate are so disturbing. This is really, really unbelievable. I mean, there is so much good news out there on the healthcare front, on the pandemic front, on the economic front. But what we are going to do in this Chamber is absolutely, absolutely appalling. The Members of this Chamber came together five times last year and passed overwhelmingly bipartisan bills to deal with this pandemic, to deal with the economic crisis that came from the lockdown that we experienced--five times, about $4 trillion, completely unprecedented in scope and scale, the nature of it. Never imagined before, but we did it. We did it because we needed to, and we came together. I think it was the biggest of the bills passed--the biggest by far--without a single ``no'' vote in this whole Chamber, completely bipartisan. So President Biden gets elected, gives a great speech, a great inaugural speech, about uniting the country, coming together: We don't have to be divided the way we have been. We can work together and find common ground. So 10 Republican Senators go down to the White House and say: Well, Mr. President, I know you would like to do $1.9 trillion, whatever it is, but we think there is a good case for $600 billion. Now, I don't happen to agree with those 10 Republican Senators, as it happens. I don't think even that is appropriate, but they did. And the reason that is significant is that there were 10 of them, which just so happens to be exactly the minimum number needed of Republican Senators to join with the Democrats to pass anything they want on a bipartisan basis. So there, handed to him on a silver platter, to the President, was the opportunity to do a bipartisan bill to figure out where that common ground was. The Republicans were offering to negotiate from there. This probably could have ended easily at $1 trillion or so after just weeks before passing a $1 trillion bill. The President could have gotten so much of what he wanted, but President Biden didn't want any part of that. You have to ask yourself, why is that when he campaigned as the guy who is going to unify America, and he had every Republican vote he needed sitting in his office, asking him to work this out? He said: No, not interested. Effectively, that is what he said. Well, when you look at the bill, it is clear why President Biden chose this path, because there is no justification for this bill. There is no medical justification. There is no pandemic justification. There is no economic justification. This isn't about coming together and doing something about a crisis; this is about a partisan leftwing wish list. And, of course, Republicans aren't interested in that kind of political gesturing that is going to do economic damage. I am reminded of the words of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said: ``You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.'' Rahm Emanuel must be very proud of our Democratic colleagues and President Biden because what they have done is they have taken a crisis that is rapidly receding--let's be honest--and they decided this is their chance to make one last mad dash to the door with a staggering amount of money and presumably claim credit for the recovery that is already well underway. The good news is--there is a lot of good news, right? We went through one of the most trying times we have been through in a very long time in this country. This pandemic was devastating. It was deadly, it was scary, and the economic crisis was very, very real. But now we have over 100 million doses of vaccines that have gone into people's arms. You figure that we might very well have 100 million Americans who have had the disease and recovered. We have to have well over half of the American population who has either recovered or been vaccinated and is therefore no longer at risk to this disease--not a significant risk. That is fantastic news. By the way, the vaccine administration is accelerating. Following that, we are unsurprisingly seeing this terrific collapse in the number of new cases. The daily count of new cases of the coronavirus, of COVID-19, peaked at around 250,000 new cases in a single day. We were running at that pace. By the time we got to the inauguration of President Biden, we were down to 185,000, and yesterday was about 60,000. So we are less than a quarter of the number of new cases on a daily basis that we were experiencing at the peak, and it continues to drop. It is going to continue to decline probably very rapidly as we continue to roll out these vaccines. That is terrific. There is a sort of parallel recovery of the economy underway. If you go back to April of 2020, when it was at its worst, the unemployment rate was almost 15 percent, 14.8 percent. That is a terrible, terrible unemployment rate. As of January of this year, just a few months ago, the unemployment rate was 6.3 percent, less than half of where we were. We are not back to the fantastic economy we had a year ago just before this pandemic broke, but we are getting there. Eighteen States across the country have unemployment rates below 5 percent, so we are going to get there. The economy is growing. After a collapse in the second quarter of last year, the third quarter came roaring back, and the fourth quarter grew. The Congressional Budget Office thinks that in this whole calendar year of 2021, our economy will grow almost 5 percent. Most private economists think it will be more than that. There is a lively debate about whether we will even reach 6 or 7 or more percent growth. We were told never again to expect to see 3 percent. But that is how strong this economic recovery is because of the resiliency of the American people, the tremendous ingenuity of the private sector to come up with vaccines that are incredibly effective--several of them--and do it in a record time, I mean a fraction of what was the previous record time. It is amazing. And yes, you know what, we played a role in this too. I think we did. The bipartisan cooperation of Congress to pass one bill after another on a huge scale--like I said, five bills. The biggest was without a single dissenting--actually, I am not sure any of them had a dissenting vote in the Senate. And there was almost a trillion dollars in December, leaving tens of billions of dollars that we approved that haven't even been spent yet. The intended beneficiaries haven't gotten the money yet. It takes a little while to get the money out the door. Given this context, given this history, this is why it is so dispiriting to see our Democratic colleagues insisting on a bill that has almost nothing to do with COVID. That is the truth. It is not about reopening the economy; it is a partisan leftwing spending binge. That is what it is. Let's take a look at some of the individual items. We have these so-called stimulus checks--I never heard anything more inaptly named--$414 billion. The fact is, real, personal income in the countrytoday is higher than it was just before the pandemic. Disposable, real, per capita income rose at its highest rate since 1984. Personal savings rate hit an alltime record high in 2020. Why? Because we more than replaced lost income through all of the bills that we passed. What about that data suggests we need another round of universal payments to people? It is not going to stimulate the economy. Even the last check--60 percent of that money went to savings accounts or paying down debt. According to a Penn Wharton study, about 75 percent of these checks are going to go into savings. Why in the world are we sending so many checks to tens of millions of people who never had any lost income? Under this bill, the Federal Government is going to send out $5,600 to a family of four--$5,600 to a family of four who makes $160,000 a year and never had a dime of income loss, no interruption of income, no loss of income. They are going to get $5,600. By the way, that is on top of the $5,800 they already got last year, with no need, no demonstrated problem here. So $11,400 of money that we don't have, we are going to send to people who never had a dime of lost income. That is a big chunk of this bill. It may not be the worst. It may be that the worst is the $350 billion we are going to send to State and local governments to bail out the mismanaged blue States and cities. The amazing thing is, you can't possibly make the case that they need the bailout. They don't even need it. Why do I say that? Well, if you look in 2020--the books are closed now. We know what we didn't know early in the year of 2020. We are in 2021 now. We know what happened in 2020. What happened was States and municipalities in the aggregate brought in more revenue in 2020 than they did in 2019, which was a record year. So they set an alltime new record for tax revenue collected--alltime new record. And that does not include the $500 billion we sent them anyway. I mean, these States are loaded with cash. I don't know what they are going to do with it There is $60 billion in rainy day funds. We heard: Oh my goodness, these States are going to have to cut essential services. All the teachers are going to be laid off. The firemen and the police officers are all done. How is that when they have taken in more revenue than they ever have before in their history and then we sent them another $500 billion? Now we are going to send them yet another $350 on top of this? How does this make any sense at all? We are going to borrow or print this money so we can send it to a bunch of States, many of which are sitting on so much cash, they are going to probably cut taxes. It is just unbelievable. Then there is the ObamaCare expansion. What does that have to do with COVID? This is just a decade-long goal of our Democratic colleagues to continue the endless expansion of ObamaCare. There is $45 billion in this bill to pay insurance companies more money to cover people who already have health insurance. That is what they are doing. Sixty-three percent of these new subsidies will go to people who already have health insurance through ObamaCare. By the way, it includes huge numbers of people who make over $100,000 a year. Never miss a chance to make more people dependent on government. It has policies, big policies, that will absolutely slow the economic recovery. Let me be clear. This bill will slow down the economic recovery underway. Why do I say that? Well, the bill insists on adding $400 a week on top of whatever States are paying in unemployment benefits. Well, what does that mean? It means that more than half of everyone who is unemployed is going to get paid more not to work than they get paid working. Who could even think this up? We have had unemployment insurance for decades in this country. We have never said: Let's systematically make sure that people can make more money not working than they can make if they go to work. I hear some of my colleagues talk about the dignity of work. I think there is a lot of dignity in work. What is our message to people about the dignity of work when we say: You are worth more to us sitting on the couch than you are at your job. That is what this is. It is a terrible idea. How do you know for sure that nobody on the other side is even pretending that this is really about the economic recovery? Well, you know for sure because the Congressional Budget Office has told us that only a fraction--a small fraction--of this money is even going to be spent this year. How long do we think the pandemic is going to be with us as a pandemic? How long do we think we are going to have these lockdowns? We are going to be out of the woods pretty soon here. As I said, half of all Americans have already been either vaccinated or recovered from this. But the school numbers are a good illustration, the elementary and secondary education. This bill has $128 billion--$128 billion--and $6.5 billion is going to be spent in 2021. The rest gets dribbled out for years and years. How long do they think before schools can reopen? Oh, by the way, this bill doesn't require schools to reopen. You don't even have to reopen. Just throw billions and billions of dollars at schools whether or not they are actually having kids in the school. Some of these provisions are so blatantly unrelated to COVID or the economy that it is really just hard to even read them with a straight face. There is $86 billion to bail out multiemployer pension plans without any reform whatsoever. Look, we all know we have a multiemployer pension problem in this country, and there has been a lot of discussion about what do you do about these grossly underfunded pension plans and how do you fix this. The conversation has always been, what kinds of reforms come with what kind of cash so that these errors of the past are corrected? There are no reforms here. None. Nothing. Just a big pile of cash. It is a clear message that you don't have to fix anything. You don't have to reform the flaws of these programs that got us here. And by the way, it is the same message to the insolvent public pension plans of most of the major cities in many States: Don't worry. Look what Congress will do if the Democrats have their way. They will just send you so much cash, you don't have to worry about the insolvency you are dealing with. What a terrible message. There is $270 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. That is COVID-related. Thank goodness that is there. There is $91 million for ``outreach'' to student loan borrowers. I don't even know what that means. There is $50 million for environmental justice grants. I have no idea what that means. But this one is really rich. There is about $4 billion for ``socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.'' I say ``about $4 billion'' because it says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' Here is what the money is for. It is going to pay off 120 percent of the debt of these farmers and ranchers, 120 percent of the borrowings. So what in the world are the requirements to have 120 percent of your debt paid off? Well, you actually have to have debt. OK, so you have to have borrowed money from the USDA farm loan. There are tens of billions of dollars out there. They lend a lot of money. And you have to be a member of one of the following groups: African American, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific Islanders, refugees, or immigrants. As long as you are in one of those categories of mostly racial and ethnic groups, then the taxpayers are going to pay off 120 percent. It is not the whole loan but more than the whole loan--120 percent. The thing that is so disturbing about this is that the essential criterion is your skin color. The essential criterion is your race. This is unbelievable to me. By the way, there is no income test and no asset test for the underlying loans. There is no requirement whatsoever that COVID caused any problem--caused any lost income or any other problem. It is not mentioned. So what is the effect of this? This means that, if you have a wealthy Hispanic rancher who has a $1 million loan from the USDA, he is going to get $1.2 million and pay off the loan--200,000 bucks with which to do whatever he likes. Meanwhile, if you are a poor White farmer in rural Pennsylvania and you have a $100,000 loan, you get nothing, exactly nothing. Howis that even remotely fair? I don't even know how that could be constitutional. It is, certainly, not in any way COVID related. There was an amendment in the House that would have limited the payment. It would have allowed the program, which I object to, but it would have allowed this repayment of debt but only for debt incurred during the COVID crisis. The Democrats all voted that down. That failed. This is unbelievable stuff. Even the provisions that purport to be about public health are completely divorced from any reality. As I think I mentioned earlier, we are administering almost 2 million doses of vaccines every day now. That is terrific. It is actually the highest daily rate of doses administered anywhere in the world. The government has already purchased 700 million doses. Now, we have fewer than 350 million Americans, and not all Americans are going to need two doses. You can do the math: We have bought more vaccine doses than we need to administer, and that is fine. Yet how many more do you need to buy when you have already bought more than enough for every single American? That is not all we paid for. Through the previous bills that we passed, we paid for the research and development. We paid for the production. We paid for the transportation. We paid for all of the accompanying supplies, like the syringes, the vials, and the dry ice. We paid for all of that, and we should have. That was the right thing to do. Insurance covers the cost of the administering of the vaccines. Between Medicare and Medicaid and private insurance, it is free. What is left to spend money on? I am all ears, but I haven't heard what we need to spend money on. So what do we have in this bill? We have no justification for it in terms of public health. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of the economy. We certainly have no justification for it in terms of basic fairness. Frankly, it is going to do more harm than good, but you don't have to take my word for it. We could take the word of prominent liberal Democrat economist Larry Summers. He was the Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, and he was the Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. He said about this bill: [M]acroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation. Or consider the words of Steve Rattner, who is a liberal economist. President Obama named him the ``car czar.'' You may recall him administering that program. He said of the American Rescue Plan, which is, apparently, what they call this: The American Rescue Plan is also partly a legislative Trojan horse--an enormous aid package aimed at addressing needs that, in some cases, go well beyond the immediate challenges of COVID. Some of the most expensive provisions are the least well targeted to help the neediest. That is from a liberal Democrat who, I think, supports the bill, but at least he is being honest in his description of it. So my suggestion, my plea, to my Democratic colleagues and to the new President is to listen to some of the things you have said. Try an approach that is actually informed by the facts on the ground--the health facts, the economic facts, the reality. Look at what the science is currently telling us about the course that this virus has been taking. What about actually attempting to bring people together--the path of unity--after we demonstrated five times last year that we can work together and do something on a bipartisan basis? I urge my colleagues: Don't push through this radically partisan bill that will probably, in the end, do more harm than good. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TOOMEY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1016 | null | 2,438 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, let me first say that I wish this Chamber were full of our colleagues who had listened to my Republican colleague's description--the Senator from Pennsylvania--of what this bill is and what this bill isn't. It is not a COVID relief bill. Senator Toomey did an excellent job. I am hoping that people are watching it on their TV screens. They really can't be reading the bill yet because it is not constructed. I don't want to repeat all of the excellent points the Senator from Pennsylvania made, but I wanted to come down because I think we have grown immune to these vast amounts of money. I always knew we were going to be in big trouble when we stopped talking about hundreds of billions of dollars and switched to talking about trillions of dollars. When we talk about $1 trillion or $2 trillion, it just doesn't sound like as much as $200 billion or $800 billion, which was in the stimulus package under the Obama administration. The fact of the matter is we have already authorized $4 trillion in COVID relief. That is 18 percent of last year's GDP, and, roughly, $1 trillion is yet to be spent. Some of that isn't even obligated, and we are going to be debating, over the next couple of days, $1.9 trillion. So I just wanted to come down here to the floor and try to illustrate what a massive amount of money $1.9 trillion is. You have to use analogies. Again, the human mind really can't contemplate what ``a trillion'' is. I found this first analogy--my wife talked to me about it--in terms of time. This one is simply talking about, if I would give the Presiding Officer $1 per second, how long would it take me to give her $1 million? You see the chart here. It would take 11.6 days. Again, with $1 per second, how long would it take to give her $1 million? 11.6 days. The next question: How long would it take you to accumulate $1 billion? Again, when you do the math, you find out it would take 31.7 years. That was back when the Chinese had their protests in Tiananmen Square. The next question: What about $1 trillion? This is what becomes mind-boggling. If I gave you $1 every second and I wanted to give you $1 trillion, it would take 31,688 years to give you $1 trillion. That takes us back to beyond the last glaciation period, a period in time when Wisconsin was under a mile-thick glacier. By the way, as a quick aside for my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, since that point in time, about 20,000 years ago, the water level in the San Francisco Bay has increased 390 feet. Now, that is global warming--that is a rise in sea level--but that is what happened through natural causes. That was an aside. How long would it take to accumulate $1.9 trillion? Over 60,000 years. Again, put that in context. The human race began to develop language about 50,000 years ago. So that is the time analogy. Another way of looking at this is through distance and volume. So here is the calculation. I should have brought a $1 bill to just demonstrate its thickness, but the thickness of a $1 bill is 4.3-thousandths-of-an-inch thick. To illustrate how much $1 trillion is, let's start with $1 million. If you stacked a million dollar bills on top of each other, they would stack up to be 358 feet high. You can see the calculation here. That is about a 30- to 35-foot-story building. How big would a stack of a billion dollar bills be? It would be 67.86 miles. Now, there is something called the Karman line. I think I am pronouncing that right. That is the point at which the atmosphere ends and outer space begins. That is 62 miles. So a stack of a billion dollar bills would actually exceed the atmosphere and extend into outer space--62 miles. Then, the next question is: How big would a stack be of a trillion dollar bills? Well, it would be 1,000 times that. So it would be 67,866 miles high. That is an astonishingly large stack of dollar bills that equals $1 trillion. Again, we are not just talking about $1 trillion. We are not talking just about 67,000 miles worth. We are talking about $1.9 trillion, which would stack up to be 135,732 miles high. The distance to the Moon is 238,900 miles. So that stack of $1.9 trillion worth of $1 bills would be more than halfway to the Moon. That is what we are debating spending--a stack of dollar bills that extends more than halfway the distance to the Moon. This is at a point in time when we are about $28 trillion in debt. That single stack would beover 1.9 million miles or, if you were to put it relative to the Moon, there would be eight stacks--seven stacks that go directly to the Moon and one further stack that would be 95 percent of the way there. These are astonishing sums that we are talking about, and the majority party here wants to jam this through using the reconciliation process--no consultation with our side. They want to just blow it through here with 20 hours of debate, a vote-arama, pass $1.9 trillion in spending, and go home, having no consideration whatsoever about the fact that we are mortgaging our children's futures. At some point in time, there will be a day of reckoning--a debt crisis--and it won't be pretty. My suggestion, at least as we consider this, is to actually have a debate. Let's have a discussion. Let's consider the amendments. Let's not do this in 20, 24, 30 hours. Let's take the time to seriously consider what we are doing to our children in contemplating spending a stack of dollar bills over 135 miles high, extending more than halfway to the Moon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. JOHNSON | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1018 | null | 2,439 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is that time of the week that our pages--when we had them--used to always look forward to. It is the time of the week that I come down on the floor and talk about someone in Alaska who is making a huge impact on my State, a lot of times for the country. These two Alaskans I am going to talk about actually have gotten national news for the great work they are doing, somebody we call our Alaskan of the Week. It is usually about a group of individuals, one, two, maybe a group of people who are helping make Alaska what, in my view, is the greatest State in the country--resilient, tough, generous, kind, unique. Like so many States, this pandemic has really hit Alaska hard--tourism for sure. The oil and gas sector last year was really hit hard with low prices. Unfortunately, this year, with the Bidenadministration's attacks on this sector of the United States and Alaska's economy, it is tough; commercial fishing, tough. It has been a tough year economically. But an area of good news during the pandemic, one that I am very proud of for all of my constituents, involves how we in Alaska have responded on the health side. Vaccines, testing, death rates--we have consistently been the top State rated in all of these categories throughout the pandemic, which is kind of amazing given that we are a very, very big State with a very small population. I know that so many Americans watching right now want to get back out, visit Alaska. Our Governor, Mike Dunleavy, recently tweeted: With the best vaccination efforts [in the country] & some of the lowest COVID numbers in the country, Alaska is open for business . . . safe for travelers! So come on, America, get back up to Alaska. Love to have you. So this is all very true. Our vaccination efforts are viewed as the best in the United States of America, and the great lengths that so many in Alaska have gone through to make it so have captured the country's imagination. These efforts just in the last couple of weeks have been featured all across the country--USA TODAY, ``Good Morning America,'' the Washington Post, the New York Times, a great piece by Bloomberg News, and so many others. So big thanks to the press corps, the national press corps, for featuring my State's efforts and importantly the heroic work being done to distribute lifesaving vaccines to a State that is more than 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. Sorry there, Senator Cornyn, Senator Cruz. It is true. Most of the geography of Alaska is dotted with small villages without roads in freezing-cold temperatures. I was in Fairbanks last weekend--just a couple of weeks ago in Fairbanks. It almost hit 40 below. That is cold. All across Alaska, our healthcare workers are jumping on boats, single-prop airplanes, snow machines, and, yes, in a couple of cases, dog sleds to bring the vaccine and hope to their fellow Alaskans. And it shows. As of a few days ago, close to 160,000 Alaskans had received at least their first vaccine dose. That is about 21 percent of our State's population. Now, in Southwest Alaska, what we called the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, or the YK Delta--those are two giant rivers that come together--these efforts have been particularly impressive. That is largely thanks to the amazing people at the YK Health Corporation, or YKHC, which is the YK Delta's Tribal health provider. The whole organization, consisting of just about 90 healthcare professionals, serves around 28,000 people in the YK region, which is about the size of Oregon, so a huge area, not a lot of people. Prior to the vaccine, the YK Delta had been stricken by COVID-19 with one of the highest infection rates in the country, in a very far-flung place in terms of the dispersal of the population. It is the efforts of two women there in the YK Delta, Drs. Ellen Hodges and Elizabeth Bates, who are our Alaskans of the Week, who have been in charge of getting the vaccine to roughly 50 remote villages in Southwestern Alaska. Spread out over a territory, as I said, about the size of Oregon, the village populations in the YK Delta range from about 1,200 people to as small as 10 in terms of population. Let's start with Dr. Hodges. She is the chief of staff at YKHC. She grew up in rural Minnesota. After graduating from the University of Minnesota Medical School, Dr. Hodges came to Anchorage as a resident in 2002, eventually making her way to Bethel, which is the hub village. It is a big community, the biggest in the YK Delta. She absolutely fell in love with the area. She said it has everything--very friendly people, authentic. It is beautiful. Soon enough, her patients turned into her family. Also soon enough, she was--according to Tricia Franklin, Alaska's director of the State Office of Rural Health Division--``the go-to person for how things are working in rural communities'' and how to get things done. She worked in the emergency room tending cuts, bruises, broken bones. She delivered babies. She worked tirelessly to contain a number of tuberculosis outbreaks in the region. And then the virus hit, and as I mentioned, it hit the YK Delta region very hard with some of the highest COVID rates in America. There are reasons for that: the multigenerational housing, very crowded housing in this region; communal lifestyle; and also--here is a big one, and it should be a shock for every American listening--about 50 percent of the households in this region of America lack running water. Let me say that again. Some of the most patriotic communities in the country, as Alaska Natives serve at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the country, live in communities that don't have running water or flushed toilets--American citizens. It is wrong. It is wrong. And we need--we the U.S. Senate, Congress--to continue to work on this issue. How do you wash your hands five times a day, as the CDC wants you to do during the pandemic, when you don't have running water or flushed toilets? We need to keep working on this. It is a disgrace, to be honest. So what happened when COVID hit in this region? Because of a lack of sanitation and many other problems, precious lives were being lost. Elders, who are vital to pass on the traditional wisdom of the Native Alaskan culture and heritage, were being lost. Because of a lack of functioning sanitation, even young people, whom this virus doesn't really impact, were starting to have respiratory illnesses and getting sick, and some were even dying. That is horrible. It was terrifying, particularly for an area that is still dealing with the multigenerational trauma of previous pandemics, particularly the Spanish flu of 1918, which in several Alaskan Native communities wiped out entire communities; 60, 70 percent mortally rates from that flu. So we needed to get to work fast, particularly in this region. Enter another intrepid doctor and our Alaskan of the Week, Dr. Elizabeth Bates. Dr. Bates arrived in Bethel in December of 2018--just a little over 2 years ago--and she found a community that she loved. She had experience working in women's health and infection control and emergency care and disaster relief. She has great experience across the country--really, across the world. As a doctor, she worked with patients during 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and has spent time even in refugee camps in Rwanda. In Bethel, she was in charge of setting up testing centers for the region. Working hand in glove with Dr. Hodges, she started one of the first drive-through and airport testing sites in rural Alaska, much of it outside in the cold weather under tarps. But we all know that testing alone, particularly, as I said, when people are living so closely together and don't live in places where you can wash your hands frequently, wasn't nearly enough. They tried everything--public service announcements, reaching out to villagers, helping them use bleach to sanitize. It was a 24/7 effort, but, as I said, it wasn't enough. The virus was spreading rapidly. They were losing. People were dying. Then on December 18, a few days before winter solstice--the darkest day of the year--hope came to Bethel, AK, because the first vaccines arrived. Thanks to the great work of so many scientists, government workers, private sector workers, Operation Warp Speed, the vaccine arrived on December 18 to the YK Delta. These two intrepid doctors I have been talking about cried. They had seen a lot of death and struggles in the region, and like a Christmas miracle, this vaccine arrived. They hugged each other, and then they got to work. As I said, there are roughly 50 remote villages in the YK Delta spread out over a territory about the size of many States in our country--as a matter of fact, bigger than most States in our country--so they traveled on small planes, trucks, on ice roads, snow machines, dog sleds. Their operation, Project Togo, is named in reference to one of the famous sled dogs that helped carry the diphtheria serum to Nome, which, of course, is the original inspiration for the Iditarod Sled Dog Race. Sometimes it was so cold that they had to keep the syringes filled with COVID serum under their clothes, lest the serum froze. The operation that they initiated and organized has hit every single village,all 50 in the YK Delta, bringing the vaccine to pretty much anyone who wants it. In some villages, they have been able to vaccinate as much as half the population. As a result, the numbers of COVID infections and deaths are plummeting in this region, and hope is spreading. This great team, Drs. Hodges and Bates, as well as all in the community and all working at YKHC, have made a huge difference, and this team has created a special bond that nobody will forget. Dr. Bates, a relative newcomer to Alaska, says that the experience has made her fall in love with the YK Delta region even more. She bought a home. She intends on staying. She describes the beauty of the region, something that she appreciates even more now, as ``Our sky is huge. . . . We have a front-row seat to the entire universe.'' These two doctors also have a front-row seat in providing a front-row seat to hope during this pandemic. So I want to thank both of them again, Dr. Hodges and Dr. Bates, and all those across Alaska who are helping distribute the vaccine. As I mentioned, right now, Alaska is the No. 1 State in the country per capita in terms of vaccine distribution and the No. 1 State per capita in terms of testing and has one of the lowest death rates. This is really amazing, really, when you see how big and widespread and harsh the weather conditions can be in the great State of Alaska. Our fellow Alaskans are tough, resilient, and innovative, and Dr. Hodges and Dr. Bates are a huge and essential part of this effort. That is why I want to congratulate them and thank them again for being our Alaskans of the Week. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1019-2 | null | 2,440 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President. This week, we have an opportunity to finally deliver for millions of retirees and workers and small businesses by saving America's pensions. The multiemployer pension system is on the verge of collapse, threatening the livelihoods of more than a million Americans and thousands of small businesses from New Hampshire to Ohio, across the country. This affects more than 100,000 workers and retirees in my State alone and millions more around the country. These pension plans were in danger before. Now the economic emergency we are in has accelerated the crisis even further. Multiemployer pension plans receive contributions based on the hours worked. As workers have been laid off during the pandemic, their employers no longer contribute to the pension plans, while current retirees continue receiving their earned benefits, making the plan even more likely to fail. And if that happens, it won't just be retirees feeling the pain. Current workers will be stuck paying into pension funds for benefits they will never receive. Small businesses will be left drowning in pension liability they can't afford to pay. Small businesses that have been in the family for generations could face bankruptcy, and workers will lose jobs in businesses which have been forced to close up shop. The effect will ripple across the entire economy at a time when we can least afford it. The Chamber of Commerce has said: The multiemployer pension system is an integral part of [our] economy. It is not only union businesses that participate in these plans that will close their doors. This will devastate small communities across the industrial heartland. Small businesses in these communities are already hurting because of the virus. That is why we have to get this done. After a lifetime of hard work and service to our country, these workers and retirees have already waited far too long for Congress to do the job we should have done. We have been trying to solve this for years. Unions, the Chamber of Commerce, small businesses pretty much agree we need to get this done. The House has done its part. They have passed a solution multiple times. Every time it stopped because of Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Senate. He has deliberately blocked it. We have continued to try. The House does it year after year. People like the Presiding Officer and others have fought for this in the Finance Committee, have fought for this on the Senate floor, and we simply haven't been able to move it. Now that Senator McConnell is out of the way, we can finally keep the promise to these workers and their families. They spent years working on assembly lines, bagging groceries, driving trucks, working to keep our economy going, and money came out of every single one of their paychecks to earn these pensions. People in this town don't always understand the collective bargaining process. People give up dollars at the bargaining table today for the promise of a secure retirement with healthcare and a pension. That is what collective bargaining is. Union workers sit down with each other and their employer, talk about giving up wages. They are willing to give up wages today to have a more secure future. What is more American than that? For years now, they have lived in fear of drastic cuts. One retiree from Michigan told us he would lose two-thirds of his income and that ``at 71 years old, there's no jobs out there that we could get to recover what we'd lose.'' He said: Pass the Butch Lewis Act so . . . we can take this weight off of us, and retire with the dignity that we earned for 30, 40, 50 years of hard working labor. It is always the same story. When Wall Street is in trouble, there is a bailout. When corporations need something, the stock market is in trouble, the Washington elite drop everything to help. But these workers, they are not asking for a bailout; they are not asking for a handout; they are just asking for what they earned. These workers have been in the fight for years. Their activism has gotten us this far. They have traveled all day and all night on buses. They have rallied outside in the bitter cold, in the hot DC summer, all trying to get people in this town to listen. Let's finally deliver for them. Let's give them peace of mind. Let's keep this promise. It comes back to the dignity of work. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security people earned. When work has dignity, we honor their retirement security that they gave up at the bargaining table in collective bargaining. I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers, including these taxpayers that have been paying into their own pension funds for years. I urge my Republican colleagues to think about these retired workers and think about the small business owners. Companies like Smucker's--there is a baker in Navarre, OH. Think of the candy company, Spangler, in Bryan, OH--companies like that. Think about these retired workers. Think about these small business owners and think about the stress they are facing. I have listened to my colleagues' speeches for years, extolling the values of hard work and the virtue of small businesses. This is your chance to live up to your own words, to show Americans if you work hard all your life, your government will, in fact, be there for you. Join us, and let's pass a solution that really indeed does honor the dignity of work. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1019 | null | 2,441 |
formal | handout | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President. This week, we have an opportunity to finally deliver for millions of retirees and workers and small businesses by saving America's pensions. The multiemployer pension system is on the verge of collapse, threatening the livelihoods of more than a million Americans and thousands of small businesses from New Hampshire to Ohio, across the country. This affects more than 100,000 workers and retirees in my State alone and millions more around the country. These pension plans were in danger before. Now the economic emergency we are in has accelerated the crisis even further. Multiemployer pension plans receive contributions based on the hours worked. As workers have been laid off during the pandemic, their employers no longer contribute to the pension plans, while current retirees continue receiving their earned benefits, making the plan even more likely to fail. And if that happens, it won't just be retirees feeling the pain. Current workers will be stuck paying into pension funds for benefits they will never receive. Small businesses will be left drowning in pension liability they can't afford to pay. Small businesses that have been in the family for generations could face bankruptcy, and workers will lose jobs in businesses which have been forced to close up shop. The effect will ripple across the entire economy at a time when we can least afford it. The Chamber of Commerce has said: The multiemployer pension system is an integral part of [our] economy. It is not only union businesses that participate in these plans that will close their doors. This will devastate small communities across the industrial heartland. Small businesses in these communities are already hurting because of the virus. That is why we have to get this done. After a lifetime of hard work and service to our country, these workers and retirees have already waited far too long for Congress to do the job we should have done. We have been trying to solve this for years. Unions, the Chamber of Commerce, small businesses pretty much agree we need to get this done. The House has done its part. They have passed a solution multiple times. Every time it stopped because of Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Senate. He has deliberately blocked it. We have continued to try. The House does it year after year. People like the Presiding Officer and others have fought for this in the Finance Committee, have fought for this on the Senate floor, and we simply haven't been able to move it. Now that Senator McConnell is out of the way, we can finally keep the promise to these workers and their families. They spent years working on assembly lines, bagging groceries, driving trucks, working to keep our economy going, and money came out of every single one of their paychecks to earn these pensions. People in this town don't always understand the collective bargaining process. People give up dollars at the bargaining table today for the promise of a secure retirement with healthcare and a pension. That is what collective bargaining is. Union workers sit down with each other and their employer, talk about giving up wages. They are willing to give up wages today to have a more secure future. What is more American than that? For years now, they have lived in fear of drastic cuts. One retiree from Michigan told us he would lose two-thirds of his income and that ``at 71 years old, there's no jobs out there that we could get to recover what we'd lose.'' He said: Pass the Butch Lewis Act so . . . we can take this weight off of us, and retire with the dignity that we earned for 30, 40, 50 years of hard working labor. It is always the same story. When Wall Street is in trouble, there is a bailout. When corporations need something, the stock market is in trouble, the Washington elite drop everything to help. But these workers, they are not asking for a bailout; they are not asking for a handout; they are just asking for what they earned. These workers have been in the fight for years. Their activism has gotten us this far. They have traveled all day and all night on buses. They have rallied outside in the bitter cold, in the hot DC summer, all trying to get people in this town to listen. Let's finally deliver for them. Let's give them peace of mind. Let's keep this promise. It comes back to the dignity of work. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security people earned. When work has dignity, we honor their retirement security that they gave up at the bargaining table in collective bargaining. I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers, including these taxpayers that have been paying into their own pension funds for years. I urge my Republican colleagues to think about these retired workers and think about the small business owners. Companies like Smucker's--there is a baker in Navarre, OH. Think of the candy company, Spangler, in Bryan, OH--companies like that. Think about these retired workers. Think about these small business owners and think about the stress they are facing. I have listened to my colleagues' speeches for years, extolling the values of hard work and the virtue of small businesses. This is your chance to live up to your own words, to show Americans if you work hard all your life, your government will, in fact, be there for you. Join us, and let's pass a solution that really indeed does honor the dignity of work. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1019 | null | 2,442 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President. This week, we have an opportunity to finally deliver for millions of retirees and workers and small businesses by saving America's pensions. The multiemployer pension system is on the verge of collapse, threatening the livelihoods of more than a million Americans and thousands of small businesses from New Hampshire to Ohio, across the country. This affects more than 100,000 workers and retirees in my State alone and millions more around the country. These pension plans were in danger before. Now the economic emergency we are in has accelerated the crisis even further. Multiemployer pension plans receive contributions based on the hours worked. As workers have been laid off during the pandemic, their employers no longer contribute to the pension plans, while current retirees continue receiving their earned benefits, making the plan even more likely to fail. And if that happens, it won't just be retirees feeling the pain. Current workers will be stuck paying into pension funds for benefits they will never receive. Small businesses will be left drowning in pension liability they can't afford to pay. Small businesses that have been in the family for generations could face bankruptcy, and workers will lose jobs in businesses which have been forced to close up shop. The effect will ripple across the entire economy at a time when we can least afford it. The Chamber of Commerce has said: The multiemployer pension system is an integral part of [our] economy. It is not only union businesses that participate in these plans that will close their doors. This will devastate small communities across the industrial heartland. Small businesses in these communities are already hurting because of the virus. That is why we have to get this done. After a lifetime of hard work and service to our country, these workers and retirees have already waited far too long for Congress to do the job we should have done. We have been trying to solve this for years. Unions, the Chamber of Commerce, small businesses pretty much agree we need to get this done. The House has done its part. They have passed a solution multiple times. Every time it stopped because of Mitch McConnell and the U.S. Senate. He has deliberately blocked it. We have continued to try. The House does it year after year. People like the Presiding Officer and others have fought for this in the Finance Committee, have fought for this on the Senate floor, and we simply haven't been able to move it. Now that Senator McConnell is out of the way, we can finally keep the promise to these workers and their families. They spent years working on assembly lines, bagging groceries, driving trucks, working to keep our economy going, and money came out of every single one of their paychecks to earn these pensions. People in this town don't always understand the collective bargaining process. People give up dollars at the bargaining table today for the promise of a secure retirement with healthcare and a pension. That is what collective bargaining is. Union workers sit down with each other and their employer, talk about giving up wages. They are willing to give up wages today to have a more secure future. What is more American than that? For years now, they have lived in fear of drastic cuts. One retiree from Michigan told us he would lose two-thirds of his income and that ``at 71 years old, there's no jobs out there that we could get to recover what we'd lose.'' He said: Pass the Butch Lewis Act so . . . we can take this weight off of us, and retire with the dignity that we earned for 30, 40, 50 years of hard working labor. It is always the same story. When Wall Street is in trouble, there is a bailout. When corporations need something, the stock market is in trouble, the Washington elite drop everything to help. But these workers, they are not asking for a bailout; they are not asking for a handout; they are just asking for what they earned. These workers have been in the fight for years. Their activism has gotten us this far. They have traveled all day and all night on buses. They have rallied outside in the bitter cold, in the hot DC summer, all trying to get people in this town to listen. Let's finally deliver for them. Let's give them peace of mind. Let's keep this promise. It comes back to the dignity of work. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security people earned. When work has dignity, we honor their retirement security that they gave up at the bargaining table in collective bargaining. I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers, including these taxpayers that have been paying into their own pension funds for years. I urge my Republican colleagues to think about these retired workers and think about the small business owners. Companies like Smucker's--there is a baker in Navarre, OH. Think of the candy company, Spangler, in Bryan, OH--companies like that. Think about these retired workers. Think about these small business owners and think about the stress they are facing. I have listened to my colleagues' speeches for years, extolling the values of hard work and the virtue of small businesses. This is your chance to live up to your own words, to show Americans if you work hard all your life, your government will, in fact, be there for you. Join us, and let's pass a solution that really indeed does honor the dignity of work. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS1019 | null | 2,443 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I begin this morning with a very exciting announcement about critical leadership roles in the Senate Chamber. Three outstanding individuals are set to resume new responsibilities. LTG Karen Gibson will serve as the next Senate Sergeant at Arms, while Kelly Fado will serve as Deputy Sergeant at Arms, and Jennifer Hemingway will serve as Chief of Staff. The Senate Sergeant at Arms was established 223 years ago as an outgrowth of the Office of the Senate Doorkeeper, back when one of the biggest problems was making sure the Senate had a quorum. Today, the Sergeant at Arms is the Senate's chief administrative officer and chief law enforcement officer, so very important at this time. These offices have the enormous responsibility of keeping the trains running on time, while at the same time keeping everyone in the Capitol safe. As we have seen in recent weeks, the security component of the role is immensely important. LTG Karen Gibson is the perfect person for this job, the job of Sergeant at Arms. She has spent 33 years in Active Duty in the military, much of it in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as a senior intelligence officer, where she supported U.S. national security objectives in Iraq, Afghanistan, East Africa, Korea, the Pacific, and across the Middle East. She is ready to hit the ground running because since January 6, she has been part of a weekslong review to identify actions that can be taken immediately--immediately--to improve the security of the Capitol and its Members. She is 100 percent committed to ensuring a safe and secure working environment for Senators, visitors, Capitol employees, Senate staff, press, and paying particular attention to staffers of color. Lieutenant General Gibson has a big job ahead of her, but I have every confidence she will perform her duties at the same exemplary standard she set over the course of her heralded three-decade military career. Kelly Fado and Jennifer Hemingway, meanwhile, are two of the most recognizable faces in the Capitol, Jennifer having recently filled in as the Acting Sergeant at Arms. Kelly has been partof my team for many years, on the Rules Committee and in my leadership office. She has helped plan, coordinate, safeguard, and execute multiple Presidential inaugurations--and what a great job she has done in every one of them--and Capitol-wide ceremonies in general. She has been an indispensable resource to me and to my entire staff. I am very glad that Kelly is taking on this challenge. One other note that I am very proud of--I think we all as Senators can be proud of--this will be the first time in the Senate's history that the Sergeant at Arms' leadership will be comprised entirely of women. I cannot think of a team better prepared than LTG Karen Gibson, Kelly Fado, and Jennifer Hemingway. To all three of them: Congratulations on your new roles, and thank you for your many years of service to the Senate and to our country. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-03-pt1-PgS999-7 | null | 2,444 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to take up the American Rescue Plan today, I want to remind everyone why we are here. This country is in the midst of a once-in-a-century crisis--not once in a decade, not once in every 50 years--once in a century. It is a crisis that is still very much with us, and it is deadly--deadly--serious. It has claimed more than 515,000 precious lives across every part of the Nation. For the better part of the calendar year, businesses have had to close their doors and entire industries teetered on the brink of collapse. The economy has lost 10 million jobs since this time last year. Millions of Americans are thousands of dollars behind on the rent andon the utilities. Folks are facing eviction. American families have had their water shut off, their heat shut off in the depth of winter, and the power cut during their kids' first days of virtual kindergarten. Even as the vaccine is quickly making its way into Americans' arms now that President Biden has taken the helm, tens of thousands of Americans continue to get sick every week, and we are racing against the clock to defeat the pandemic and to save American lives. Now, Congress has come together on several occasions to pass emergency relief in this time of extraordinary crisis. In each case, we saw our economy recover, briefly, before worrying trends took hold again, showing the depth of the economic crisis. It is not going to be quick and easy to get out of. After the CARES bill passed, our economy stabilized before dipping deeply again in the summer. After we passed another emergency bill in December, the January numbers looked positive before once again slipping in recent weeks. Trusted economists--Treasury Secretary Yellen and Federal Chair Powell, both cautious, careful people--are telling us, plain as day, that the economy is not yet ready to stand on its own; that our recovery is deeply uncertain; that the risk of doing little is far greater than doing too much. We have also arrived at this moment, about to take up the American Rescue Plan, because we remember what happened the last time our country faced a significant economic downturn. Congress was too limited and constrained in its response to the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, and, as a result, the country suffered a long, slow, painful recovery--a lost decade for many American families, creating anger, pessimism, a sourness in the land that discombobulated our politics. We are not going to make those same mistakes again. We are not going to condemn millions of working Americans to another lost decade of tepid recovery. We are not going to abdicate our responsibility to help the American people just because we have started to see the first hint that things aren't as bad as during the very worst days of the pandemic. Our mission--our mission--is to crush the virus now, get our country back to normal, lay the foundation for our economy to come roaring back--roaring back. That is what the American Rescue Plan is designed to do, and the entire country has gotten behind it. Hundreds of the Nation's top business leaders support the plan. More than 400 mayors and local leaders from both parties--Democrat and Republican--support the plan. The American people support the plan, including a clear majority of Democrats, Independents, Republicans. It seems the only group that opposes the bill are Republicans here in Washington, and it is confounding. When Donald Trump was President, they were willing to vote for a total of over $3 trillion in aid. Now that President Biden is President and the economy is in the same pickle, generally speaking, they don't want to vote for a nickel. I wonder why. I wonder why. And I have to say, a few of my Republican colleagues are going to some pretty ridiculous lengths to showcase their opposition to a bill The Economist has called ``one of the most popular bills in decades,'' a bill supported by a majority--a majority--of Republican voters, not Republican Senators, but voters. Yesterday, the Republican Senator from Wisconsin--the same Senator who last summer proudly declared he would oppose even a dime more in COVID relief, the same Senator who spent a Senate hearing on Capitol security reading conspiracy theories into the Record and saying that January 6 wasn't an armed insurrection--decided to make himself the face of the Republican opposition to the bill by vowing to force the reading of the Senate amendment to the American Rescue Plan, in full, before we can proceed with the bill. We all know this will merely delay the inevitable. It will accomplish little more than a few sore throats for the Senate clerks who work very hard, day in and day out, to help the Senate function. And I want to thank our clerks profoundly for the work they do every day, including the arduous task ahead of them. Still, we are delighted that the Senator from Wisconsin wants to give the American people another opportunity to hear what is in the American Rescue Plan. We Democrats want America to hear what is in the plan. And if the Senator from Wisconsin wants the clerks to read it, let everybody listen because it has overwhelming support. We want them to hear about the direct checks they will get, as promised, to help them keep up with the cost of groceries, medicine, and the rent; about funding to expand testing and support the vaccine; about the resources for schools to reopen quickly and as safely as possible; about the money to keep firefighters, teachers, busdrivers, and first responders on the job; about the dollars to provide rental assistance to keep Americans in their homes; about the help for the hardest hit small businesses to hang on until brighter days return. Oh, yes, when the clerks read, the American people will get another chance to hear about the tax breaks for low-income workers and assistance for American families struggling with childcare--two measures that help make the American Rescue Plan one of the single largest anti-poverty bills in recent history. And then, once the American people have heard all over again about the provisions that make this bill so popular, about the support that is going to lift the country out of the crisis, provide millions of vaccines in people's arms, and set it on a path to strong recovery, the Senate is going to move forward with the bill. No matter how long it takes, the Senate is going to stay in session to finish the bill this week. The American people deserve nothing less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1037-8 | null | 2,445 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on a completely different matter, yesterday, our Democratic colleagues had planned to begin ramming through their partisan spending spree, but it seems they have had some difficulty getting to the starting line. After all, Senate Democrats, including committee chairs, are essentially being jammed with text from over in the House. Their own Members have barely been able to read this thing, let alone shape it. So let's think back to where we were 1 year ago. Eleven-and-a-half monthsago, the Senate was also discussing a major spending package. In fact, it was the same size as what is being proposed right now--about $2 trillion--an appropriate pricetag back at the start of the crisis, but that is where the similarity actually ends. Last March, the Senate was working overtime, in a bipartisan fashion, to craft good policy from the bottom up. I assembled bipartisan task forces. We had Republicans and Democrats and staff working around the clock to build the policies that would save our health system and our economy. The CARES Act sustained us for almost a year of shutdowns. It funded the healthcare fight, saved small businesses, and funded Operation Warp Speed, which helped pave the way for these pioneering vaccines and preordered hundreds of millions of doses for Americans. The law sent so much relief to households that, even as the GDP declined, personal incomes and savings actually went up. Even liberal economists say President Biden has inherited an economy that was already primed for a swift recovery. It was the largest American rescue package ever. Yet it passed the Senate without one single dissenting vote because it was built the right way. That was last March. So what about today? Instead of heading into a dark tunnel, we are accelerating out of it: incredible vaccines, a rebounding economy. That is what the Biden administration inherited thanks to what we did last year. Yet Washington Democrats are trying to exploit the last chapters of this crisis to pass what President Biden's Chief of Staff calls ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation,'' and they have told Republicans: Take it or leave it. No openness to meaningful bipartisan input. Ten Republican Senators approached President Biden and proposed cooperation on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. They were refused. All that interested the Democrats was a partisan hodgepodge of, largely, non-COVID-related items. Last year, the Democratic leader said: Sitting in your own office, writing a bill, and then demanding the other side support it is not anyone's idea of bipartisanship. As recently as last November, he said: We need a true bipartisan bill--not ``this is our bill, take it or leave it.'' Another time, our friend from New York told everyone to ``go look up in the dictionary what `bipartisanship' is. It's both parties working together, not your party doing a bill and then saying it's bipartisan.'' In less than 4 months, we have had two completely different versions of the Democratic leader. The two of them could have a fascinating debate with each other. But look, the real tragedy here is not Senate process; it is how ill-suited this bill is to what Americans need right now. There are no policies to get schools reopened right away and no smart solutions to directly spur rehiring. Less than 1 percent of the money goes to the vaccines that will end this nightmare--only 9 percent to the entire healthcare fight altogether. I guess it has become a rite of passage for a new Democratic President to begin with a poorly targeted spending spree that doesn't give Americans what they need. We already laid the foundation for a roaring comeback. The Biden administration inherited a tide that was already turning, but they have chosen to ignore the approach that got us this far | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1038-3 | null | 2,446 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, some of our Republican colleagues say that America doesn't need President Biden's COVID rescue plan because ``the pandemic is nearly over.'' Funny. I have never heard them say we shouldn't spend money to help tornado victims in their States after the tornadoes were gone. Let me say it clearly. We are not out of the woods yet. I wish we were. There are 510,000 Americans--maybe more now--who have died. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population. We have 20 percent of the COVID infections and deaths. Why? Because of poor leadership during the first year of this pandemic. We had a President then, who is now gone, who would announce it was a hoax, and it was going to disappear by Easter, downplaying the seriousness of the situation with his fanciful flights about certain chemicals that were going to save us or whether or not we should all be gargling Lysol every morning. It made no sense, and the American people came out of that experience confused and infected, with deaths in their families. That was the reality of the first year of the pandemic. There was also another reality, which the Republican leader just alluded to in that, 12 months ago, we passed something called the CARES Act. It was historic--the largest Federal expenditure in the history of the United States of America. Who designed that bill? Well, it was Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, whom I didn't know well but who, apparently, had some skill as a negotiator because he managed to not only speak for President Trump but to negotiate a bipartisan package in March of last year, called the CARES Act, for $2 trillion. It came to the floor of the Senate, with a vote of 96 to nothing. Every Democrat voted for the COVID rescue plan of the Trump administration a year ago--every Democrat. The second major bill occurred in December, that of $900 billion, designed to help us through the first 3 months of this year--again, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin at the table on behalf of President Trump, negotiating with Democrats and Republicans. It came to the floor of the Senate, and, this time, there were 92 votes in favor of it, including every Democrat, and 6 Republicans voted no. So, you see, when it came to COVID rescue plans under the Trump administration, the Republicans were happy to ask us to join them, and we did. Oh, some people said we were giving them a political advantage here or there or the other place, but those arguments didn't prevail on the Democratic side. The Nation came first. The pandemic came first. Unemployed people and businesses that were struggling came first, and we voted that way. Then came a new President: Joe Biden, elected November 3, despite the denial of some. It was a reality. He took this pandemic and faced it squarely--no excuses about hoaxes or ``it is going to go away'' or ``I have got a favorite chemical that will save everybody's life.'' He faced it squarely. He accepted the responsibility, as President of the United States, to tell the American people the truth. The first thing he told them was that we cannot, we should not, stop in our efforts to end this pandemic and put America back on its feet. So he made a proposal, a proposal with at least $160 billion in it, for buying vaccines, administering those vaccines, and distributing them across the United States. I would think that everybody would agree with that as a starting point. It wasn't the end point. As for the cash payment promised by the Trump administration and agreed to by most Democrats, he wanted to keep his word on that--$1,400 more for families all across America. He talked about State and local aid. I can tell you that this is more than a theoretical exercise in my State of Illinois. We need help. The expenses of COVID-19 and the lost revenue by our shrunken economy have taken their toll in my State and in the cities across the State. I just got off a Zoom call with a dozen small towns in Illinois. They are all down from my neck of the woods. They are great folks, doing their best, struggling under COVID-19. They asked me: Are you going to send us any help? I said: President Biden has made his American rescue proposal. If we can pass it, help is on the way. Assistance won't just go to Springfield, our State capital, or to Chicago, which does need help, but to cities across our State and across our Nation. That is included in this bill too. Help for our schools is included in this bill too. The list goes on, and it is an important list because it really highlights the priorities of recovery in the United States. President Biden and all of us heard the news a day or two ago when the Governors of Texas and Mississippi, in full-throated denial of the reality of this pandemic, basically took off all the limitations on businesses and on individuals. No more mask requirements. Let's open up everything all the way. The President was right. That was not a smart choice. It was not a wise choice. We are up against it, and we have to remain united in our effort to defeat this coronavirus. So this week, in a day or two, President Biden's American Rescue Plan will come to the floor. Will we have another bipartisan rollcall, 96 to nothing, 92 to 6? I am afraid not. As of this moment, and I hope it changes, no single Republican Senator has expressed an interest in voting for this bill. Not one. I hope it changes, and it could. Some Senators at the last minute, I think, will realize this is the right way to go. Meanwhile, the Republican leader comes to the floor every day and mocks this plan--a Democratic wish list, a liberal wish list, Nancy Pelosi's wish list. This is the American people's wish list. Eighty percent of the American people support what President Biden is trying to do, and the leading economists have told us we have to do this. If we don't inject money into this economy to restore its energy and future, we will pay for it not just for months to come but far beyond. It is a situation that every parent knows, when they go to the doctor, to the pediatrician, with their little boy or little girl with an earache, and he says: I am going to give you some antibiotics. Now, this is a 5-day prescription. This little boy is going to start feeling better on the second day, and by the third day, he is going to be playing as usual. You are going to think, well, he doesn't need the rest of these antibiotics. Don't make that decision. Keep giving him the full dose of medicine to get well completely, or he may lapse back into it again and get sick all over again. So you stick with it even when your little boy is running rings around you or the little girl is getting ready to get on her tricycle, because that is what the doctor said, and that was the right thing to do. That is the same thing with this. If we accept the Republican argument that this pandemic is really over; if we accept the argument of the Governor of Texas--that was yesterday; we don't have to worry about it tomorrow; if we take that approach, we could have a disastrous result. We could be back in trouble again in just a few weeks. I hope we don't. I hope we come together in the Senate, preferably on a bipartisan basis, and help the President get us through this pandemic. This is our chance. We have no greater responsibility than to put an end to this pandemic, put the economy on its feet, get the kids back in school, and let grandparents visit those grandkids again. That is part of getting America back where it needs to be. We need bipartisan support. As Democrats, we provided that support to a Republican President. Now that we have a Democratic President, will our Republican Senators do the same? I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1039-3 | null | 2,447 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, some of our Republican colleagues say that America doesn't need President Biden's COVID rescue plan because ``the pandemic is nearly over.'' Funny. I have never heard them say we shouldn't spend money to help tornado victims in their States after the tornadoes were gone. Let me say it clearly. We are not out of the woods yet. I wish we were. There are 510,000 Americans--maybe more now--who have died. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population. We have 20 percent of the COVID infections and deaths. Why? Because of poor leadership during the first year of this pandemic. We had a President then, who is now gone, who would announce it was a hoax, and it was going to disappear by Easter, downplaying the seriousness of the situation with his fanciful flights about certain chemicals that were going to save us or whether or not we should all be gargling Lysol every morning. It made no sense, and the American people came out of that experience confused and infected, with deaths in their families. That was the reality of the first year of the pandemic. There was also another reality, which the Republican leader just alluded to in that, 12 months ago, we passed something called the CARES Act. It was historic--the largest Federal expenditure in the history of the United States of America. Who designed that bill? Well, it was Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, whom I didn't know well but who, apparently, had some skill as a negotiator because he managed to not only speak for President Trump but to negotiate a bipartisan package in March of last year, called the CARES Act, for $2 trillion. It came to the floor of the Senate, with a vote of 96 to nothing. Every Democrat voted for the COVID rescue plan of the Trump administration a year ago--every Democrat. The second major bill occurred in December, that of $900 billion, designed to help us through the first 3 months of this year--again, with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin at the table on behalf of President Trump, negotiating with Democrats and Republicans. It came to the floor of the Senate, and, this time, there were 92 votes in favor of it, including every Democrat, and 6 Republicans voted no. So, you see, when it came to COVID rescue plans under the Trump administration, the Republicans were happy to ask us to join them, and we did. Oh, some people said we were giving them a political advantage here or there or the other place, but those arguments didn't prevail on the Democratic side. The Nation came first. The pandemic came first. Unemployed people and businesses that were struggling came first, and we voted that way. Then came a new President: Joe Biden, elected November 3, despite the denial of some. It was a reality. He took this pandemic and faced it squarely--no excuses about hoaxes or ``it is going to go away'' or ``I have got a favorite chemical that will save everybody's life.'' He faced it squarely. He accepted the responsibility, as President of the United States, to tell the American people the truth. The first thing he told them was that we cannot, we should not, stop in our efforts to end this pandemic and put America back on its feet. So he made a proposal, a proposal with at least $160 billion in it, for buying vaccines, administering those vaccines, and distributing them across the United States. I would think that everybody would agree with that as a starting point. It wasn't the end point. As for the cash payment promised by the Trump administration and agreed to by most Democrats, he wanted to keep his word on that--$1,400 more for families all across America. He talked about State and local aid. I can tell you that this is more than a theoretical exercise in my State of Illinois. We need help. The expenses of COVID-19 and the lost revenue by our shrunken economy have taken their toll in my State and in the cities across the State. I just got off a Zoom call with a dozen small towns in Illinois. They are all down from my neck of the woods. They are great folks, doing their best, struggling under COVID-19. They asked me: Are you going to send us any help? I said: President Biden has made his American rescue proposal. If we can pass it, help is on the way. Assistance won't just go to Springfield, our State capital, or to Chicago, which does need help, but to cities across our State and across our Nation. That is included in this bill too. Help for our schools is included in this bill too. The list goes on, and it is an important list because it really highlights the priorities of recovery in the United States. President Biden and all of us heard the news a day or two ago when the Governors of Texas and Mississippi, in full-throated denial of the reality of this pandemic, basically took off all the limitations on businesses and on individuals. No more mask requirements. Let's open up everything all the way. The President was right. That was not a smart choice. It was not a wise choice. We are up against it, and we have to remain united in our effort to defeat this coronavirus. So this week, in a day or two, President Biden's American Rescue Plan will come to the floor. Will we have another bipartisan rollcall, 96 to nothing, 92 to 6? I am afraid not. As of this moment, and I hope it changes, no single Republican Senator has expressed an interest in voting for this bill. Not one. I hope it changes, and it could. Some Senators at the last minute, I think, will realize this is the right way to go. Meanwhile, the Republican leader comes to the floor every day and mocks this plan--a Democratic wish list, a liberal wish list, Nancy Pelosi's wish list. This is the American people's wish list. Eighty percent of the American people support what President Biden is trying to do, and the leading economists have told us we have to do this. If we don't inject money into this economy to restore its energy and future, we will pay for it not just for months to come but far beyond. It is a situation that every parent knows, when they go to the doctor, to the pediatrician, with their little boy or little girl with an earache, and he says: I am going to give you some antibiotics. Now, this is a 5-day prescription. This little boy is going to start feeling better on the second day, and by the third day, he is going to be playing as usual. You are going to think, well, he doesn't need the rest of these antibiotics. Don't make that decision. Keep giving him the full dose of medicine to get well completely, or he may lapse back into it again and get sick all over again. So you stick with it even when your little boy is running rings around you or the little girl is getting ready to get on her tricycle, because that is what the doctor said, and that was the right thing to do. That is the same thing with this. If we accept the Republican argument that this pandemic is really over; if we accept the argument of the Governor of Texas--that was yesterday; we don't have to worry about it tomorrow; if we take that approach, we could have a disastrous result. We could be back in trouble again in just a few weeks. I hope we don't. I hope we come together in the Senate, preferably on a bipartisan basis, and help the President get us through this pandemic. This is our chance. We have no greater responsibility than to put an end to this pandemic, put the economy on its feet, get the kids back in school, and let grandparents visit those grandkids again. That is part of getting America back where it needs to be. We need bipartisan support. As Democrats, we provided that support to a Republican President. Now that we have a Democratic President, will our Republican Senators do the same? I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1039-3 | null | 2,448 |
formal | take back | null | white supremacist | Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk a few minutes about the good people of China, about Confucius Institutes, and the Chinese Communist Party. I meant what I said when I referred to ``the good people of China.'' You visited China, Mr. President. The people of China are wonderful people. They are engaging. They are smart. They have a great sense of humor. They have built an extraordinary economy. I wish I could say the same about their authoritarian government, but I can't. The Communist Party of China is trying to not only swallow China, it is trying to swallow the world. We helped the Communist Party of China be admitted into the World Trade Organization. We were told that if we did, they would embrace free enterprise. We were told that the Communist Party of China would be a valuable participant in a stable world order. None of that has come to be the case. We know what the Communist Party of China has done to Hong Kong. We know what the Communist Party of China has done to the Uighurs. We know what the Communist Party of China has done to the wonderful, wonderful people of Tibet. But I did want to make that distinction between the authoritarian government of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people. The Communist Party of China, being as aggressive as it is, has for a number of years reached out to our colleges and universities to establish what the Communist Party of China calls ``Confucius Institutes.'' And this was the pitch made by the government of China to our universities: ``We will give you bucket loads of money if you''--our American universities--``will allow us to establish Confucius Institutes where we can explain our culture to the young people of America, where we can have a free exchange of ideas, and where we can help young Americans learn the Chinese language if they would like.'' That sounds great. You know, I will take a dozen of those. But the Communist Party of China being the Communist Party of China, that is not how our Confucius Institutes have worked out. These institutes, run by the authoritarian Government of China, will not allow the free exchange of ideas. They will not allow anyone to talk about the Uighurs or the people of Tibet or Hong Kong or what happened at Tiananmen Square. They basically--``they'' meaning the Communist Party of China--have used these Confucius Institutes as propaganda arms of their government. Many of our universities have done the right thing. They have said: No, we stand for the free exchange of ideas, and if you are going to come on our campus and tell our people that there are things they can't talk about, then, respectfully, you need--you, the Confucius Institutes--to leave our campus. But some of the universities haven't done the right thing. I am not suggesting that--I am not cynical enough to suggest that it is all about the money, but you can't ignore the fact that I think the Communist Party of China has given our universities, through the years--don't hold me to this figure exactly--but about $150 million to set up these Confucius Institutes. Universities, you know, they build that money into their budget, so they are reluctant to see the Confucius Institutes leave--not all of our universities but some of them. I recognize the economic reality. I have a bill that would say to--we wouldn't get rid of Confucius Institutes. It will just tell our universities: You have to properly manage them. You can't allow the Confucius Institutes to stay on your campus if the Confucius Institutes will not allow for the free exchange of ideas. If kids--I shouldn't call them kids. If young people in our universities want to talk about Tibet, they get to talk about Tibet. And the bill would say that the universities have to take back control of these Confucius Institutes from the Communist Party of China; otherwise, they are not going to be eligible for Federal funds. My bill, once again, doesn't kick anybody off campus. It just says you have to--you, the Communist Party of China, have to do what you originally told us you were going to do. My bill has--our bill, because the Senate passed it twice. Twice this bill has passed the U.S. Senate, the last time with bipartisan support. We put the bill on the NDAA, and, Mr. President, you know how conference committees work with the NDAA. Sometimes it is a ferret fire drill, and there is a lot of confusion, and somehow the Confucius Institute bill got watered down to do nothing in the conference negotiations on the NDAA. I am not criticizing anybody, but it happened. So I am going to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass the Confucius Institute Act for a third time, and I hope, in our new Congress, we can keep teeth in it in working with our colleagues, not only in the Senate but in the House. Toward that end, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 590, introduced earlier today. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KENNEDY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1042 | null | 2,449 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, as we near the 1-year anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic ripping our country, there is no question that Michiganders and people all across our country are still hurting. While we are making important progress in the fight to combat this virus, this public health and economic crisis continues to take a significant toll on families, workers who are out of a job, educators, students, small businesses, hospitals, and communities all across our country. We passed targeted, temporary relief in December, but we knew at that time that that was not going to be enough. We need more robust, meaningful relief. We must act quickly to meet the urgency of this moment by swiftly passing the American Rescue Plan. This is about relief for Michiganders and Americans who are reeling and are trying to make ends meet, funding to help schools safely reopen, sources to speed up vaccine distribution, and support for small businesses fighting to stay afloat. I continue to hear from Michiganders from all across the State who are struggling to put food on the table, pay their rent, and keep the lights on. These folks are not asking for a handout; they simply want a lifeline to get to the other side of the pandemic. When we passed $600 relief checks in December, I pledged that we must do more and that we could do that by providing people with an additional $1,400 to fulfill the promise of $2,000 in relief funds. With the American Rescue Plan, the majority of Michiganders and Americans who received these relief checks in December are going to be eligible once again. This bill would mean a family of four could receive an additional $5,600. That support is vital to make sure that people don't fall into poverty as a result of this pandemic and that they can get back up on their feet as quickly as possible. We know that millions of workers across our country, including workers in Michigan, are on the verge of seeing unemployment benefits expire on March 14. We cannot abandon folks who are out of work through no fault of their own because of COVID-19. They have seen this pandemic disrupt their jobs and their incomes. The need for unemployment assistance is widespread, and it is necessary in Michigan. For example, there were over 840,000 active claims for Michiganders for unemployment assistance in Michigan just in February. That is up from 529,000 in January. And these claims for assistance come from every single county all across our State. We need to act now so these individuals remain eligible for unemployment benefits, including if they were self-employed workers, like small business owners, freelance workers, independent contractors, or gig workers. We must ensure families receiving unemployment have enough assistance to get by, which is why I support an additional $400 in weekly benefits. We also need to provide certainty that this assistance will continue to be there for them in the months ahead, not just for the next few days. The American relief plan will do just that by bolstering our State unemployment programs with additional Federal support through August 29. To help families get back to work, we all know that we must also safely reopen our schools. Many parents and educators are struggling to assist children through lessons while juggling other work and caregiving demands during the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan reflects a point of consensus that we want our students to return to in-person learning as quickly and as safely as possible. And the more resources that we can provide, the better. In response to the negative impact that COVID-19 has had on education, a stronger and urgent investment in our schools is absolutely critical for achieving safe operations and recovering from gaps in learning. That is why the American Rescue Plan is absolutely essential This legislation will provide $170 billion in emergency funding to our schools and to our students, with $130 billion for K-12. The funding will help schools take steps based on science and recommended by the CDC to ensure that students and educators can safely return to the classroom. This includes repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes, implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing personal protective equipment, and hiring support staff to care for students' health and their well-being. Every family and community has been facing a very unique set of challenges, and we need to provide robust funding so schools and parents have what they need to keep children connected with learning opportunities that are both safe and effective. And while these are important steps, we also know that if we are going to come back stronger from this pandemic, we also need to support the very backbone of our economy, which is our small businesses. While we have passed several rounds of relief for small businesses, too many of our hard-hit small businesses are still reeling--from restaurants to boutiques, to family-owned and minority-owned businesses. The American Rescue Plan has significant small business relief, including $25 billion in grants for restaurants and bars that have lost revenue because of the pandemic; $15 billion for economic injury disaster loan advance grants; $7 million in funding for Paycheck Protection Program loans and expanded eligibility for nonprofits. Additionally, this package reauthorizes and provides $10 billion in Federal funding--including $1.5 billion specifically for minority-owned small businesses--to the State Small Business Credit Initiative. I was proud to help establish this program in 2010 while serving in the House of Representatives. This program is a proven success. In Michigan, it has helped small businesses create or retain over 12,000 jobs, and it strengthens State programs that support financing of small businesses, allowing them to both grow and to create more jobs. I am pleased to again champion this program, and with additional investment, it will again provide crucial support to small businesses in Michigan and all across our country. And, finally, to completely get this pandemic under control, we must ramp up the distribution of vaccines. That is one of my top priorities as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Thanks to the extraordinary work of our scientists, our researchers, and our vaccine makers, especially those in my home State of Michigan, we now have three safe and effective vaccines. But I know that many people have been frustrated and darn right angered by the difficulties they have had in trying to secure vaccines for their loved ones or for themselves. I am encouraged that President Biden and his administration have been working tirelessly to expand vaccine production and speed up vaccine distribution. But to get those additional vaccines into people's arms, it will take additional resources. Through my work on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I have been leading the charge to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has the essential staff, supplies, transportation, and other resources necessary to ensure that every vaccine dose is actually reaching an arm in this country. I have spoken with President Biden both in the Oval Office and at the Pfizer vaccine facility in Portage, MI, about the critical need to expedite the deployment of vaccines and to do everything--do everything in our power to ensure vaccines are free and widely available in every community as quickly and as efficiently as possible. The American relief plan includes $50 billion to help FEMA support a national vaccine program to efficiently administer vaccines, including underserved communities. It also provides frontline medical professionals the personal protective equipment, testing supplies, and workforce needed to slow and to eliminate the spread of COVID-19. All of these resources are mission critical as FEMA plays a leading role in assisting the Federal Government's response to COVID-19 by coordinating medical supply acquisition and distribution and assisting State and local governments with funds for response activities, such as vaccine distribution and overtime pay for public health officials. As we consider the American Rescue Plan, there are signs of hope, particularly with ramped-up vaccine production. We are beginning to emerge from a very dark winter, but our work is not done. We cannot be complacent. We cannot let up. This virus does not take a day off, and neither can we. We must pass the American Rescue Plan. This package is not only what the American people need, but it is what they want. There is widespread support across the country for this package--from mayors to Governors, to economists across the political spectrum, and the majority of the American people. We must deliver comprehensive and urgently needed relief so we can do just that by passing the American Rescue Plan. This package will not mark the end of our efforts to crush this virus, but it will provide a massive shot in the arm to help families, to safely open up our schools, and to accelerate the development of more vaccines. So, with that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to proceed and final passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1044 | null | 2,450 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, as we near the 1-year anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic ripping our country, there is no question that Michiganders and people all across our country are still hurting. While we are making important progress in the fight to combat this virus, this public health and economic crisis continues to take a significant toll on families, workers who are out of a job, educators, students, small businesses, hospitals, and communities all across our country. We passed targeted, temporary relief in December, but we knew at that time that that was not going to be enough. We need more robust, meaningful relief. We must act quickly to meet the urgency of this moment by swiftly passing the American Rescue Plan. This is about relief for Michiganders and Americans who are reeling and are trying to make ends meet, funding to help schools safely reopen, sources to speed up vaccine distribution, and support for small businesses fighting to stay afloat. I continue to hear from Michiganders from all across the State who are struggling to put food on the table, pay their rent, and keep the lights on. These folks are not asking for a handout; they simply want a lifeline to get to the other side of the pandemic. When we passed $600 relief checks in December, I pledged that we must do more and that we could do that by providing people with an additional $1,400 to fulfill the promise of $2,000 in relief funds. With the American Rescue Plan, the majority of Michiganders and Americans who received these relief checks in December are going to be eligible once again. This bill would mean a family of four could receive an additional $5,600. That support is vital to make sure that people don't fall into poverty as a result of this pandemic and that they can get back up on their feet as quickly as possible. We know that millions of workers across our country, including workers in Michigan, are on the verge of seeing unemployment benefits expire on March 14. We cannot abandon folks who are out of work through no fault of their own because of COVID-19. They have seen this pandemic disrupt their jobs and their incomes. The need for unemployment assistance is widespread, and it is necessary in Michigan. For example, there were over 840,000 active claims for Michiganders for unemployment assistance in Michigan just in February. That is up from 529,000 in January. And these claims for assistance come from every single county all across our State. We need to act now so these individuals remain eligible for unemployment benefits, including if they were self-employed workers, like small business owners, freelance workers, independent contractors, or gig workers. We must ensure families receiving unemployment have enough assistance to get by, which is why I support an additional $400 in weekly benefits. We also need to provide certainty that this assistance will continue to be there for them in the months ahead, not just for the next few days. The American relief plan will do just that by bolstering our State unemployment programs with additional Federal support through August 29. To help families get back to work, we all know that we must also safely reopen our schools. Many parents and educators are struggling to assist children through lessons while juggling other work and caregiving demands during the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan reflects a point of consensus that we want our students to return to in-person learning as quickly and as safely as possible. And the more resources that we can provide, the better. In response to the negative impact that COVID-19 has had on education, a stronger and urgent investment in our schools is absolutely critical for achieving safe operations and recovering from gaps in learning. That is why the American Rescue Plan is absolutely essential This legislation will provide $170 billion in emergency funding to our schools and to our students, with $130 billion for K-12. The funding will help schools take steps based on science and recommended by the CDC to ensure that students and educators can safely return to the classroom. This includes repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes, implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing personal protective equipment, and hiring support staff to care for students' health and their well-being. Every family and community has been facing a very unique set of challenges, and we need to provide robust funding so schools and parents have what they need to keep children connected with learning opportunities that are both safe and effective. And while these are important steps, we also know that if we are going to come back stronger from this pandemic, we also need to support the very backbone of our economy, which is our small businesses. While we have passed several rounds of relief for small businesses, too many of our hard-hit small businesses are still reeling--from restaurants to boutiques, to family-owned and minority-owned businesses. The American Rescue Plan has significant small business relief, including $25 billion in grants for restaurants and bars that have lost revenue because of the pandemic; $15 billion for economic injury disaster loan advance grants; $7 million in funding for Paycheck Protection Program loans and expanded eligibility for nonprofits. Additionally, this package reauthorizes and provides $10 billion in Federal funding--including $1.5 billion specifically for minority-owned small businesses--to the State Small Business Credit Initiative. I was proud to help establish this program in 2010 while serving in the House of Representatives. This program is a proven success. In Michigan, it has helped small businesses create or retain over 12,000 jobs, and it strengthens State programs that support financing of small businesses, allowing them to both grow and to create more jobs. I am pleased to again champion this program, and with additional investment, it will again provide crucial support to small businesses in Michigan and all across our country. And, finally, to completely get this pandemic under control, we must ramp up the distribution of vaccines. That is one of my top priorities as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Thanks to the extraordinary work of our scientists, our researchers, and our vaccine makers, especially those in my home State of Michigan, we now have three safe and effective vaccines. But I know that many people have been frustrated and darn right angered by the difficulties they have had in trying to secure vaccines for their loved ones or for themselves. I am encouraged that President Biden and his administration have been working tirelessly to expand vaccine production and speed up vaccine distribution. But to get those additional vaccines into people's arms, it will take additional resources. Through my work on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I have been leading the charge to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has the essential staff, supplies, transportation, and other resources necessary to ensure that every vaccine dose is actually reaching an arm in this country. I have spoken with President Biden both in the Oval Office and at the Pfizer vaccine facility in Portage, MI, about the critical need to expedite the deployment of vaccines and to do everything--do everything in our power to ensure vaccines are free and widely available in every community as quickly and as efficiently as possible. The American relief plan includes $50 billion to help FEMA support a national vaccine program to efficiently administer vaccines, including underserved communities. It also provides frontline medical professionals the personal protective equipment, testing supplies, and workforce needed to slow and to eliminate the spread of COVID-19. All of these resources are mission critical as FEMA plays a leading role in assisting the Federal Government's response to COVID-19 by coordinating medical supply acquisition and distribution and assisting State and local governments with funds for response activities, such as vaccine distribution and overtime pay for public health officials. As we consider the American Rescue Plan, there are signs of hope, particularly with ramped-up vaccine production. We are beginning to emerge from a very dark winter, but our work is not done. We cannot be complacent. We cannot let up. This virus does not take a day off, and neither can we. We must pass the American Rescue Plan. This package is not only what the American people need, but it is what they want. There is widespread support across the country for this package--from mayors to Governors, to economists across the political spectrum, and the majority of the American people. We must deliver comprehensive and urgently needed relief so we can do just that by passing the American Rescue Plan. This package will not mark the end of our efforts to crush this virus, but it will provide a massive shot in the arm to help families, to safely open up our schools, and to accelerate the development of more vaccines. So, with that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to proceed and final passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1044 | null | 2,451 |
formal | handout | null | racist | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, as we near the 1-year anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic ripping our country, there is no question that Michiganders and people all across our country are still hurting. While we are making important progress in the fight to combat this virus, this public health and economic crisis continues to take a significant toll on families, workers who are out of a job, educators, students, small businesses, hospitals, and communities all across our country. We passed targeted, temporary relief in December, but we knew at that time that that was not going to be enough. We need more robust, meaningful relief. We must act quickly to meet the urgency of this moment by swiftly passing the American Rescue Plan. This is about relief for Michiganders and Americans who are reeling and are trying to make ends meet, funding to help schools safely reopen, sources to speed up vaccine distribution, and support for small businesses fighting to stay afloat. I continue to hear from Michiganders from all across the State who are struggling to put food on the table, pay their rent, and keep the lights on. These folks are not asking for a handout; they simply want a lifeline to get to the other side of the pandemic. When we passed $600 relief checks in December, I pledged that we must do more and that we could do that by providing people with an additional $1,400 to fulfill the promise of $2,000 in relief funds. With the American Rescue Plan, the majority of Michiganders and Americans who received these relief checks in December are going to be eligible once again. This bill would mean a family of four could receive an additional $5,600. That support is vital to make sure that people don't fall into poverty as a result of this pandemic and that they can get back up on their feet as quickly as possible. We know that millions of workers across our country, including workers in Michigan, are on the verge of seeing unemployment benefits expire on March 14. We cannot abandon folks who are out of work through no fault of their own because of COVID-19. They have seen this pandemic disrupt their jobs and their incomes. The need for unemployment assistance is widespread, and it is necessary in Michigan. For example, there were over 840,000 active claims for Michiganders for unemployment assistance in Michigan just in February. That is up from 529,000 in January. And these claims for assistance come from every single county all across our State. We need to act now so these individuals remain eligible for unemployment benefits, including if they were self-employed workers, like small business owners, freelance workers, independent contractors, or gig workers. We must ensure families receiving unemployment have enough assistance to get by, which is why I support an additional $400 in weekly benefits. We also need to provide certainty that this assistance will continue to be there for them in the months ahead, not just for the next few days. The American relief plan will do just that by bolstering our State unemployment programs with additional Federal support through August 29. To help families get back to work, we all know that we must also safely reopen our schools. Many parents and educators are struggling to assist children through lessons while juggling other work and caregiving demands during the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan reflects a point of consensus that we want our students to return to in-person learning as quickly and as safely as possible. And the more resources that we can provide, the better. In response to the negative impact that COVID-19 has had on education, a stronger and urgent investment in our schools is absolutely critical for achieving safe operations and recovering from gaps in learning. That is why the American Rescue Plan is absolutely essential This legislation will provide $170 billion in emergency funding to our schools and to our students, with $130 billion for K-12. The funding will help schools take steps based on science and recommended by the CDC to ensure that students and educators can safely return to the classroom. This includes repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes, implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing personal protective equipment, and hiring support staff to care for students' health and their well-being. Every family and community has been facing a very unique set of challenges, and we need to provide robust funding so schools and parents have what they need to keep children connected with learning opportunities that are both safe and effective. And while these are important steps, we also know that if we are going to come back stronger from this pandemic, we also need to support the very backbone of our economy, which is our small businesses. While we have passed several rounds of relief for small businesses, too many of our hard-hit small businesses are still reeling--from restaurants to boutiques, to family-owned and minority-owned businesses. The American Rescue Plan has significant small business relief, including $25 billion in grants for restaurants and bars that have lost revenue because of the pandemic; $15 billion for economic injury disaster loan advance grants; $7 million in funding for Paycheck Protection Program loans and expanded eligibility for nonprofits. Additionally, this package reauthorizes and provides $10 billion in Federal funding--including $1.5 billion specifically for minority-owned small businesses--to the State Small Business Credit Initiative. I was proud to help establish this program in 2010 while serving in the House of Representatives. This program is a proven success. In Michigan, it has helped small businesses create or retain over 12,000 jobs, and it strengthens State programs that support financing of small businesses, allowing them to both grow and to create more jobs. I am pleased to again champion this program, and with additional investment, it will again provide crucial support to small businesses in Michigan and all across our country. And, finally, to completely get this pandemic under control, we must ramp up the distribution of vaccines. That is one of my top priorities as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Thanks to the extraordinary work of our scientists, our researchers, and our vaccine makers, especially those in my home State of Michigan, we now have three safe and effective vaccines. But I know that many people have been frustrated and darn right angered by the difficulties they have had in trying to secure vaccines for their loved ones or for themselves. I am encouraged that President Biden and his administration have been working tirelessly to expand vaccine production and speed up vaccine distribution. But to get those additional vaccines into people's arms, it will take additional resources. Through my work on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I have been leading the charge to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has the essential staff, supplies, transportation, and other resources necessary to ensure that every vaccine dose is actually reaching an arm in this country. I have spoken with President Biden both in the Oval Office and at the Pfizer vaccine facility in Portage, MI, about the critical need to expedite the deployment of vaccines and to do everything--do everything in our power to ensure vaccines are free and widely available in every community as quickly and as efficiently as possible. The American relief plan includes $50 billion to help FEMA support a national vaccine program to efficiently administer vaccines, including underserved communities. It also provides frontline medical professionals the personal protective equipment, testing supplies, and workforce needed to slow and to eliminate the spread of COVID-19. All of these resources are mission critical as FEMA plays a leading role in assisting the Federal Government's response to COVID-19 by coordinating medical supply acquisition and distribution and assisting State and local governments with funds for response activities, such as vaccine distribution and overtime pay for public health officials. As we consider the American Rescue Plan, there are signs of hope, particularly with ramped-up vaccine production. We are beginning to emerge from a very dark winter, but our work is not done. We cannot be complacent. We cannot let up. This virus does not take a day off, and neither can we. We must pass the American Rescue Plan. This package is not only what the American people need, but it is what they want. There is widespread support across the country for this package--from mayors to Governors, to economists across the political spectrum, and the majority of the American people. We must deliver comprehensive and urgently needed relief so we can do just that by passing the American Rescue Plan. This package will not mark the end of our efforts to crush this virus, but it will provide a massive shot in the arm to help families, to safely open up our schools, and to accelerate the development of more vaccines. So, with that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to proceed and final passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1044 | null | 2,452 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, as we near the 1-year anniversary of the coronavirus pandemic ripping our country, there is no question that Michiganders and people all across our country are still hurting. While we are making important progress in the fight to combat this virus, this public health and economic crisis continues to take a significant toll on families, workers who are out of a job, educators, students, small businesses, hospitals, and communities all across our country. We passed targeted, temporary relief in December, but we knew at that time that that was not going to be enough. We need more robust, meaningful relief. We must act quickly to meet the urgency of this moment by swiftly passing the American Rescue Plan. This is about relief for Michiganders and Americans who are reeling and are trying to make ends meet, funding to help schools safely reopen, sources to speed up vaccine distribution, and support for small businesses fighting to stay afloat. I continue to hear from Michiganders from all across the State who are struggling to put food on the table, pay their rent, and keep the lights on. These folks are not asking for a handout; they simply want a lifeline to get to the other side of the pandemic. When we passed $600 relief checks in December, I pledged that we must do more and that we could do that by providing people with an additional $1,400 to fulfill the promise of $2,000 in relief funds. With the American Rescue Plan, the majority of Michiganders and Americans who received these relief checks in December are going to be eligible once again. This bill would mean a family of four could receive an additional $5,600. That support is vital to make sure that people don't fall into poverty as a result of this pandemic and that they can get back up on their feet as quickly as possible. We know that millions of workers across our country, including workers in Michigan, are on the verge of seeing unemployment benefits expire on March 14. We cannot abandon folks who are out of work through no fault of their own because of COVID-19. They have seen this pandemic disrupt their jobs and their incomes. The need for unemployment assistance is widespread, and it is necessary in Michigan. For example, there were over 840,000 active claims for Michiganders for unemployment assistance in Michigan just in February. That is up from 529,000 in January. And these claims for assistance come from every single county all across our State. We need to act now so these individuals remain eligible for unemployment benefits, including if they were self-employed workers, like small business owners, freelance workers, independent contractors, or gig workers. We must ensure families receiving unemployment have enough assistance to get by, which is why I support an additional $400 in weekly benefits. We also need to provide certainty that this assistance will continue to be there for them in the months ahead, not just for the next few days. The American relief plan will do just that by bolstering our State unemployment programs with additional Federal support through August 29. To help families get back to work, we all know that we must also safely reopen our schools. Many parents and educators are struggling to assist children through lessons while juggling other work and caregiving demands during the pandemic. The American Rescue Plan reflects a point of consensus that we want our students to return to in-person learning as quickly and as safely as possible. And the more resources that we can provide, the better. In response to the negative impact that COVID-19 has had on education, a stronger and urgent investment in our schools is absolutely critical for achieving safe operations and recovering from gaps in learning. That is why the American Rescue Plan is absolutely essential This legislation will provide $170 billion in emergency funding to our schools and to our students, with $130 billion for K-12. The funding will help schools take steps based on science and recommended by the CDC to ensure that students and educators can safely return to the classroom. This includes repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes, implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing personal protective equipment, and hiring support staff to care for students' health and their well-being. Every family and community has been facing a very unique set of challenges, and we need to provide robust funding so schools and parents have what they need to keep children connected with learning opportunities that are both safe and effective. And while these are important steps, we also know that if we are going to come back stronger from this pandemic, we also need to support the very backbone of our economy, which is our small businesses. While we have passed several rounds of relief for small businesses, too many of our hard-hit small businesses are still reeling--from restaurants to boutiques, to family-owned and minority-owned businesses. The American Rescue Plan has significant small business relief, including $25 billion in grants for restaurants and bars that have lost revenue because of the pandemic; $15 billion for economic injury disaster loan advance grants; $7 million in funding for Paycheck Protection Program loans and expanded eligibility for nonprofits. Additionally, this package reauthorizes and provides $10 billion in Federal funding--including $1.5 billion specifically for minority-owned small businesses--to the State Small Business Credit Initiative. I was proud to help establish this program in 2010 while serving in the House of Representatives. This program is a proven success. In Michigan, it has helped small businesses create or retain over 12,000 jobs, and it strengthens State programs that support financing of small businesses, allowing them to both grow and to create more jobs. I am pleased to again champion this program, and with additional investment, it will again provide crucial support to small businesses in Michigan and all across our country. And, finally, to completely get this pandemic under control, we must ramp up the distribution of vaccines. That is one of my top priorities as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Thanks to the extraordinary work of our scientists, our researchers, and our vaccine makers, especially those in my home State of Michigan, we now have three safe and effective vaccines. But I know that many people have been frustrated and darn right angered by the difficulties they have had in trying to secure vaccines for their loved ones or for themselves. I am encouraged that President Biden and his administration have been working tirelessly to expand vaccine production and speed up vaccine distribution. But to get those additional vaccines into people's arms, it will take additional resources. Through my work on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, I have been leading the charge to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has the essential staff, supplies, transportation, and other resources necessary to ensure that every vaccine dose is actually reaching an arm in this country. I have spoken with President Biden both in the Oval Office and at the Pfizer vaccine facility in Portage, MI, about the critical need to expedite the deployment of vaccines and to do everything--do everything in our power to ensure vaccines are free and widely available in every community as quickly and as efficiently as possible. The American relief plan includes $50 billion to help FEMA support a national vaccine program to efficiently administer vaccines, including underserved communities. It also provides frontline medical professionals the personal protective equipment, testing supplies, and workforce needed to slow and to eliminate the spread of COVID-19. All of these resources are mission critical as FEMA plays a leading role in assisting the Federal Government's response to COVID-19 by coordinating medical supply acquisition and distribution and assisting State and local governments with funds for response activities, such as vaccine distribution and overtime pay for public health officials. As we consider the American Rescue Plan, there are signs of hope, particularly with ramped-up vaccine production. We are beginning to emerge from a very dark winter, but our work is not done. We cannot be complacent. We cannot let up. This virus does not take a day off, and neither can we. We must pass the American Rescue Plan. This package is not only what the American people need, but it is what they want. There is widespread support across the country for this package--from mayors to Governors, to economists across the political spectrum, and the majority of the American people. We must deliver comprehensive and urgently needed relief so we can do just that by passing the American Rescue Plan. This package will not mark the end of our efforts to crush this virus, but it will provide a massive shot in the arm to help families, to safely open up our schools, and to accelerate the development of more vaccines. So, with that, I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to proceed and final passage. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1044 | null | 2,453 |
formal | Bernie Sanders | null | antisemitic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years. I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth. This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation. I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time. I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African-American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country. I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids. So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage. Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour. And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed. Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country. So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people. That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us. One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving. Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage. Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well. So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success. But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 forlunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal. Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country. And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get. We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look. And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior. I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers. And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants. And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works. Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment. In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that? So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment. At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer. I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips. In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all. Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly--perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera. In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe. So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers. I will be back later for more on this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 2,454 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years. I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth. This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation. I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time. I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African-American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country. I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids. So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage. Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour. And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed. Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country. So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people. That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us. One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving. Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage. Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well. So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success. But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 forlunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal. Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country. And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get. We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look. And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior. I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers. And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants. And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works. Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment. In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that? So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment. At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer. I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips. In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all. Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly--perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera. In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe. So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers. I will be back later for more on this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 2,455 |
formal | food stamps | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years. I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth. This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation. I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time. I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African-American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country. I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids. So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage. Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour. And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed. Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country. So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people. That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us. One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving. Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage. Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well. So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success. But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 forlunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal. Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country. And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get. We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look. And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior. I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers. And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants. And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works. Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment. In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that? So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment. At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer. I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips. In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all. Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly--perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera. In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe. So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers. I will be back later for more on this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 2,456 |
formal | food stamp | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years. I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth. This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation. I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time. I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African-American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country. I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids. So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage. Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour. And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed. Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country. So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people. That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us. One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving. Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage. Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well. So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success. But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 forlunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal. Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country. And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get. We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look. And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior. I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers. And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants. And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works. Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment. In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that? So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment. At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer. I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips. In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all. Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly--perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera. In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe. So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers. I will be back later for more on this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 2,457 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years. I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth. This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation. I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time. I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African-American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country. I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids. So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage. Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour. And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed. Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country. So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people. That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us. One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving. Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage. Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well. So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success. But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 forlunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal. Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country. And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get. We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look. And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior. I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers. And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants. And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works. Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment. In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that? So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment. At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer. I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips. In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all. Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly--perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera. In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe. So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers. I will be back later for more on this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 2,458 |
formal | working class | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, later today or tomorrow, as part of the American Rescue Plan, which we will be discussing in the next few days, which I happen to believe is the most significant piece of legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in decades in terms of addressing the crises facing working families--as part of that piece of legislation, I will be offering an amendment to raise the Federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour, which I believe is a starvation wage, to $15 an hour over a 5-year period--5 years. I think there has been some miscommunication around here, and there are people who are saying it is going from 7.25 to 15 bucks an hour in 1 year. Not true. It goes from 7.25 to 9.50, to 11, to 12.50, to 14, to 15 dollars an hour. So anyone who says we are raising the minimum wage in 1 year, in the midst of a pandemic, to $15 an hour is simply not telling the truth. This amendment is similar to a bill which I have brought forth, the Raise the Wage Act, which I am proud to say has been cosponsored by some 38 Members of the Senate, and this is also similar to legislation which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. And I thank them, and I thank my friends in the Progressive Caucus in the House for doing a great job in pushing this legislation. I should also add, for my Senate colleagues, that this legislation raising the minimum wage is supported by some 300 national organizations, including the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO and virtually every major union in this country. This is something that unions like the SEIU, one of the largest unions in this country, have been fighting for, for a very long time. I should also add here that while raising the minimum wage is going to impact every low-wage worker in this country--because African-American and Latino workers often are earning poverty wages--it significantly impacts the lives of the minority communities as well. That is why, among so many other organizations supporting this amendment, it is supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; it is supported by the National Organization for Women because, again, when we talk about low-wage workers, we are talking about the minority community, we are talking about women; and that is why it is supported by groups like Unidos, the American Association of University Women, Indivisible, Justice for Migrant Women, the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center. So, once again, this is legislation that will increase wages for 30 million American workers. And if you ask me what the great economic crisis in our country is today, it is not just high unemployment; it is not just income and wealth inequality; it is that half of our people today, and before the pandemic, were living paycheck to paycheck. Their wages were so low that if they had a problem with their car or their kid got sick, suddenly they were in financial crisis And in the richest country in the history of the world, half of our people should not be facing economic desperation when their car breaks down. The reason for that is, significantly, that many millions of workers are earning starvation wages--and I underline that, starvation wages--in this country. I would love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on seven and a quarter an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour. You can't. And I have been all over this country, and I have talked to workers who are making 10, 11 bucks an hour, with tears streaming down their cheeks, telling me what it is like to work for starvation wages and try to raise your kids. So the time is long overdue. The last time this Congress passed an increase in the minimum wage was in the year 2007--2007. It is time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to raise the minimum wage to a living wage of 15 bucks an hour. Now, later on today or this evening, as part of my support for this enormously important piece of legislation--and, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will be speaking more about why we need to raise the minimum wage, but I want to focus on one part of the minimum wage bill that I have been hearing a little bit about in the last couple of days from some of my colleagues, and that is the provision to raise the tipped wage. Now, the tipped wage, so everybody understands it, is the Federal minimum wage that applies to waiters and waitresses, barbers, hair stylists, parking attendants, and others. Fellow Americans, do you know what that Federal minimum wage today is for that person who waits on your table at a restaurant? It is $2.12 an hour. Yeah, you heard me correctly: $2.12 an hour. And the proposal, as part of the minimum wage bill, the amendment that I will be offering, is that tipped minimum wage would go up from $2.12 an hour to $14.95 over a 7-year period, longer than the overall national minimum wage would go up. And this is something that clearly is desperately needed. Now, I know that, here in Washington, anytime we bring forth serious and important legislation for working people, the Big Money interests get to work, and all of their lobbyists, who make their six figures or seven figures a year, they get to work on Congress and tell you why you can't do anything to protect the most vulnerable and hard-hit people in this country. So the National Restaurant Association, they are a very powerful lobbying organization. I guess they have been enormously successful because we have not raised the Federal minimum wage since 2007. So the powerful lobbying organizations are going around, and they are telling Members of the House and the Senate that raising the tipped wage is opposed by restaurant workers and it would be harmful to the interest of waiters and waitresses and other people. That is not true. That is what lobbyists say, representing Big Money interests. That is what they are paid to say, but that is not what workers who wait on tables are telling us. One Fair Wage, a grassroots organization representing service employees--waiters, waitresses, and others--has just delivered to the White House a petition with 140,000 signatures on it from service workers who are demanding that they receive the same minimum wage as every other worker in this country. And polling among service employees and nonservice employees also supports the reality that Americans want our waiters and our waitresses and other service employees to get a fair and equal minimum wage, similar to what other low-wage workers are receiving. Now, I have heard from some who tell me that people who are waiting on tables--and, by the way, I was one of the worst waiters in the history of the country, but I was a waiter a long time ago. I know a little bit about it. I am hearing from some that waiters and waitresses, they are doing really well, making a whole lot of money, and they don't need an increase in the minimum wage. Let's be clear. When you talk about the restaurant and the hotel industry, you are talking about mass discrepancies in the kind of incomes that people receive. I will not deny it for a second. My daughter worked in a fancy restaurant. She did quite well. So if you are working in a hotel in a fancy restaurant where you have a menu that is quite expensive--you have got a $100 meal and your 20 percent is 20 bucks, you are waiting on three or four tables--you are doing OK. I don't deny that for a second, and I wish those waiters and waitresses who work so hard continued success. But let us be clear. Not everybody works in a fancy restaurant or a big hotel which has a high-priced menu. You have got a whole lot of people working in diners, working in working-class restaurants where the menu is not that fancy, and maybe it is $10 forlunch or $8 for lunch. Twenty percent of that is $1.60, on an $8 meal. Let us be very clear that, when we talk about waiters and waitresses, some 70 percent of tipped workers in this country are women, who suffer from three times the poverty rate of the rest of the U.S. workforce. In other words, women who are waitressing have a three times higher poverty rate than the rest of the U.S. workforce. Their tips are not keeping up with their needs. These women waitresses use food stamps at double the rate of other workers in this country. And, importantly, and increasingly so--amazingly, during this pandemic--waitresses suffer from the highest rates of sexual harassment of workers in any industry because they are forced to tolerate inappropriate customer behavior to feed their families through the tips that they get. We are hearing stories where people in a restaurant, guys in a restaurant say: Well, take your mask off. You want a tip; let me see how you look. And, clearly, this is unacceptable behavior. I also want to point out that the idea of moving tip wages to the same level over a period--in this case, 7 years--moving it to the same level as the overall minimum wage is not a radical idea. It ain't a Bernie Sanders idea. It already exists. I don't know if people know this. It already exists in seven States. So in seven States, right now, people who work in the service industry--waiters, waitresses, and others--are getting the same minimum wage as all the workers in those States. And those States are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Montana, Alaska, and Minnesota. Seven States already pay their service industry workers the same wages as they pay other minimum-wage workers. And I should point out that all of these States experienced a growth in the number of small businesses and restaurants after they abolished the tip minimum wage. So they abolished the tip minimum wage; it did not drive restaurants out of business. In fact, in those States where the tip minimum wage equaled the general minimum wage, we saw a growth in the number of restaurants. And, furthermore, to respond to another piece of misinformation, waiters and waitresses in these States received more in tips, not less. So the mythology that is going around here is that if we raise the minimum wage for waiters and waitresses, when somebody walks into a restaurant, they are going to be thinking, ``Oh, my goodness, this person is making 10, 12 bucks an hour; I am going to leave less of a tip,'' ain't the way the world works. Let me also say a word about how the pandemic, which has impacted workers in every sector--but how it has impacted tip workers. In many States where the tip minimum wage still exists, tip workers--and this is rather unbelievable--tip workers did not even qualify for unemployment. So we are talking now, in this bill, of substantially increasing unemployment--a $400 supplement--and we are talking about extending it to late August. But tip workers, whose minimum wage is so low, do not even qualify for unemployment. In an industry where more than 6 million workers have lost their jobs--and, obviously, we all know the restaurant and hotel industry have been terribly hard-hit by the pandemic--more than 60 percent of subminimum wage earners could not get unemployment benefits because the State and Federal Government denied them benefits for not making enough earned income. You all got that? So we are talking about the need--and I certainly agree with that--to expand and extend unemployment benefits, but you have a whole lot of workers who are earning starvation wages who are not going to be eligible for unemployment. At the same time, as restaurants reopen, the CDC has declared restaurants as the most dangerous place to work. We all know that. It is obvious. You are coming face-to-face with your customers. And now servers, in the midst of that, are responsible--you are a waiter, you are a waitress, and you are now responsible--for telling somebody who walks into your restaurant that they must socially distance themselves or wear a mask. It is not necessarily a comfortable position for a worker dealing with a hostile customer. I would also add, as all of us are increasingly aware of sexual harassment in general in this country, that the restaurant industry has some of the highest rates of sexual harassment. In a workplace where 70 percent of the workers are women and where they rely on their customers to determine their wages because of tips, women are often expected to withstand sexual harassment in order to get those tips. In States where the subminimum wage has been eliminated, sexual harassment has been cut substantially because women no longer have to take that. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. If you ask me again what the major economic crisis facing this country is, we know unemployment is sky-high, we know income inequality is unacceptable, and so many other factors are out there about the economy, but at the top of my list is the fact that tens of millions of workers in the richest country on Earth are barely making it. They are having a hard time feeding their kids. They are having a hard time paying their rent. Many of them get inadequate or no health insurance at all. Now, year after year, the American people--I think, correctly--perceive that this Congress bows to the wishes of the rich and the powerful, gives tax breaks to people who don't need it. We deregulate companies that should be regulated, et cetera, et cetera. In this moment of economic and health crisis, now is the time for us to stand with working families, and the most important thing that we can do is to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. This is what Joe Biden believes. This is what the Democratic platform stands for, and this is what at least 38 cosponsors of the Raise the Wage Act also believe. So here we are at a pivotal moment. The working class is being decimated. People are struggling to feed their kids. We have to raise wages in this country, and we have to raise the wages of tip workers. I will be back later for more on this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1046 | null | 2,459 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to be relatively brief here. I understand the bill is being printed now, and we will have a vote here fairly shortly. I just want to set the stage for my view--my point of view. I think I speak for most people in our conference on what we are trying to do here. Up until now, we have been able, as a body, to work together on COVID relief. And the question is, Why can't we do it again? I think I know the answer, but I want to remind people what we have done in a bipartisan fashion. On March 5, 2020, when we had President Trump, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, we approved $8 billion, 96 to 1, and we were just beginning to understand the virus; March 18, a few weeks later, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March 25, $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0. So from March 5 to March 25, we passed three bills, well over $2 trillion, 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. So I would argue to the American people that it is not like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party can't work together when it comes to COVID relief. But now that the Democrats have the House, the Senate, and the White House, there seems to be no desire to go down that road, and I will talk about that in a minute. April 21, 2020, we did $355 billion more. That was by voice vote. Spending $355 by voice vote is pretty astonishing; $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0 is pretty astonishing. September 30, 2020, 84 to 10. December 21, just a few months ago, we spent another trillion, 92 to 6. Why do I bring this up? I bring it up to show there is plenty of bipartisanship around COVID relief, and that bipartisanship has stopped. President Biden made a big deal about wanting to bring the country together and find common ground. In the one area that we actually had common ground, we have abandoned common ground to deal with a $1.9 trillion package just months after we authorized $1.04 trillion. Here is the problem I think Republicans have. Of the $1.9 trillion being proposed now, about 90 percent of it has very little to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list. The reason I know it is a liberal wish list is that Senator Schumer said 15 times yesterday--about 15 times--that it wasn't a liberal wish list. If Senator Schumer is saying it is not a liberal wish list, it is a liberal wish list. I will be able to prove that in more detail. That is the history of bipartisanship. That bipartisanship has been destroyed. We had 10 Republicans, I think, go to the White House to offer around $700 billion that would extend checks, that would do vaccines, would do a lot of things that we think we need to still do, but that went nowhere. Another point for the American people: We are going to a partisan approach to COVID for the first time. I went over the amount of money we have appropriated to the COVID problems the country has experienced, and here is what I want you to understand. We are going to spend $1.9 trillion in a partisan fashion. I think a lot of it is very much unrelated to COVID simply because they have the power to do it. They now have the power of the Federal Government, complete power--control of the Senate, control of the House, control of the White House. They have abandoned bipartisanship. We had the Presidency and the Senate; they had the House. We were able to work together. Now they have it all. They are running us over, literally, legislatively here. I think we have made reasonable offers. Nobody is willing to compromise. They see this as a moment to do a lot of things they have been wanting to do for years that have nothing to do with COVID. Another problem they have, in my view, is you are appropriating $1.9 trillion, most of it not related to COVID, and we haven't spent the money we have allocated in the past. So administrative actions--there is still $200 billion that we haven't spent. Legislative actions, $3.1 trillion we have spent. We have appropriated $4.1 trillion. There is still $1 trillion that hasn't been spent yet. The Federal Reserve actions allowed $5.9 trillion to be allocated to help businesses that were failing. They spent $2.8 trillion. The vaccine is getting out by the day. We are hopeful that we can change the course of the virus, get people back to work. In this bill, they do a lot of things unrelated to COVID because they can. Why are we opposed to this? Because it is a lot of money that is being spent on things unrelated to COVID. We haven't spent the money we appropriated in past efforts yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion more. I think it is very unfortunate, and I hope the American people understand that this is spending money for the sake of spending money, not to combat COVID. Let me give you some examples of what is in this bill. The minimum wage dropped out. Now is the worst possible time, I think, to go to $15-an-hour minimum wage. Just think about your own communities. How many restaurants and hotels have had to reduce or close down because of COVID restrictions? We are finally beginning to come out of it a bit. To add a $15-an-hour mandate, doubling the minimum wage, would be increasing the cost of doing business after the government at the State and local levels shut the businesses down.So the business has been reduced in terms of revenue because of COVID restrictions, and now the Federal Government is going to mandate a doubling of the minimum wage that the business has to absorb and pass on to consumers. That is out. We can raise the minimum wage in a responsible fashion once we get COVID under control. There was $100 million for a Silicon Valley underground rail project that didn't pass the smell test. The only reason that is out is we made a big deal about it. But they saw the COVID package as a chance to put $100 million into a Silicon Valley underground rail project, which shows you their mindset toward this bill. This bill is not about fighting COVID. It is about a chance, in a partisan fashion, to do things they couldn't do otherwise. There was $1.5 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund regarding the Seaway International Bridge in New York. The Silicon Valley underground rail project may make sense. Senator Schumer's bridge project may make sense. We are going to do an infrastructure bill. It seems to me that we would take these infrastructure projects and put them in an infrastructure bill and try to have a COVID bill related to fighting COVID. But, clearly, they are taking an opportunity, my friends on the other side, of loading this bill up with a liberal wish list--parochial interests--because they can. I hope the American people will understand what is going on and bring back a balance of power in Washington in 2022 because if you let them have it all, this is a sign of things to come. But we will talk about that later. There is $20 million in the bill for the preservation and maintenance of Native American languages. That might be something that makes sense, but we are dealing with a COVID package. There is $20 million for the preservation of maintenance of Native American languages and $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am an appropriator. This isn't an appropriations bill. It is not a COVID bill. In the committees I am on, we actually vet this stuff to see if it makes sense to put it in the normal appropriations cycle. They take a COVID problem--and it is a real problem still to this day--and they load it up with things unrelated to COVID because they can. We can't stop them now. Maybe one day we can stop them and go back to the old way of doing business where we sit down and work together as Democrats and Republicans to spend over $4 trillion to combat COVID. My hope is that we will have some balance in the future that we don't have today. So $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities--what has that got to do with COVID? There are people really suffering out there. And $135 million for the Endowment for the Arts and $135 million for the Endowment for Humanities, that is still a lot of money where I come from There is $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. I am sure there are needs out there for museums and library sciences, but it should go through the appropriations process where we will have a chance to make a case for it or against it rather than it being crammed into a bill that is being printed while I speak. We are talking about a $1.9 trillion COVID package with 90 percent unrelated to COVID being printed while I speak. Now, if that is good government, count me out. Funding for Planned Parenthood. What has that got to do with COVID? PPP loans for labor unions. Paid leave for Federal employees. An $86 billion bailout for union pensions. Maybe that is something we want to look at, but in a COVID bill? This is why people are so turned off to Washington because we take a crisis, a problem facing your family and your community, and they turn it into a spendfest, a liberal wish list, indeed, come true. A new taxpayer-funded executive branch employee emergency leave program. Money for schools. We haven't spent the money we have allocated for schools yet. We are trying to open schools. The money that has been allocated for schools is still--most of it--a lot of it has been unspent. In this bill, we have $68 billion for K-12. The money should be given to people opening schools, and only $5 billion of that will be spent this year. Most of the money for K-12 assistance is in 2022 and the years that follow. That is not an emergency COVID package. That is just putting money into the education system in a fashion they like and we don't have any input over. It really has nothing to do with fighting the COVID crisis and getting our schools reopened. Of the $129 billion for K-12 in this package, $6.4 billion is to be distributed this year. The $68 billion was in the last round and only $5 billion this year, so most of the money for schools is spent in the out years. Again, that is just an opportunity to be taken by them. Of the $129 billion, $122 billion for K-12 schools will not be spent until years 2022 through 2028. God, I hope we don't have to deal with COVID in 2028. We have approved six COVID bills. We have spent over $4 trillion--appropriated over $4 trillion. A trillion is yet unspent, and we are doing $1.9 trillion where 90 percent of it has nothing to do with COVID. Why are we doing this? Because they can. They have abandoned the bipartisan model that worked. They have chosen a partisan model. No matter what they tell you, my friends on the other side, this is a liberal wish list. This is very much seizing the moment, taking a crisis, a problem in America, and using it to advance causes completely unrelated to COVID, spending money that hasn't been vetted, spending money that has nothing to do with COVID because they can. The only thing I can tell you about spending money--count me in for helping people get back on their feet. I have always been for a direct payment. Count me out for a $1.9 trillion spendfest unrelated to COVID in a partisan fashion. This is everything President Biden said he wouldn't do. The inaugural speech rings hollow when it comes to this provision, the $1.9 trillion COVID package. Everything President Biden said he wanted to do for the country, he abandoned. It is not like there are plenty of Republicans that would sit down and work with our Democratic friends to do another round of COVID relief, but it has to be related to COVID, and we want to spend the money we have appropriated in the past first. Maybe that is an odd concept in Washington, but I will make a bet that most Americans find it odd that we would appropriate money for a problem when we haven't spent the money we had already appropriated in the past. We can get that out the door to see what needs to be done in the future. I think most Americans believe now is not the time to load a bill up with a bunch of stuff unrelated to COVID because we need every dollar to hit the mark. But we will have a chance to talk about that in the coming months, and there will be another election coming before you know it. The only thing I can leave with the American people here is that they have it all in terms of power. This is what they have chosen to do. They have chosen a partisan path, rejecting the bipartisan path. They have chosen to put most of the money in the bill for things unrelated to COVID simply because they can. The last election was about what would happen to our country if Democrats got in charge of everything. Many of us on our side said it would be one of the most liberal agendas in the history of American politics and would come forth pretty quickly. I had no idea it would come forth this quickly. I had no idea they would abandon a bipartisan approach to COVID because it seems to be the one area that we have had success regarding working together. During the campaign, I said that there would be two areas I thought we could do bipartisan legislation: One was COVID; the other was infrastructure. Boy, was I wrong about COVID. I am hoping that the American people pay some attention to this debate. We are going to have some really good amendments on our side that talk about how we would spend the money differently and why we would choose not to spend some money on this bill because it simply has nothing to do with COVID. The American people have suffered during the COVID pandemic, but there are better days ahead. I want us to doas much as we can for vaccinations and helping people get back into school. I am willing to help people who are struggling out there, but you shouldn't be giving a $1,400 check to people who make $200,000 as a couple. They changed that. They have taken the Silicon Valley railway out. They have also taken the bridge out because they had to, not because they wanted to. We are going to have a lot of amendments to show what we would do with your money versus what they would do with your money. We are going to have a lot of amendments that would show what we would do with COVID and how to fight COVID versus what they would do with COVID. That is what democracy is all about--working together when you can and showing differences when you must. There are going to be a lot of differences in this debate, and I think this will not be the last time you hear about this bill. I think this bill is going to resonate for months and years to come in all of the wrong ways. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRAHAM | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1049 | null | 2,460 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try to be relatively brief here. I understand the bill is being printed now, and we will have a vote here fairly shortly. I just want to set the stage for my view--my point of view. I think I speak for most people in our conference on what we are trying to do here. Up until now, we have been able, as a body, to work together on COVID relief. And the question is, Why can't we do it again? I think I know the answer, but I want to remind people what we have done in a bipartisan fashion. On March 5, 2020, when we had President Trump, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, we approved $8 billion, 96 to 1, and we were just beginning to understand the virus; March 18, a few weeks later, $355 billion, 90 to 8; March 25, $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0. So from March 5 to March 25, we passed three bills, well over $2 trillion, 96 to 1, 90 to 8, and 96 to 0. So I would argue to the American people that it is not like the Republican Party and the Democratic Party can't work together when it comes to COVID relief. But now that the Democrats have the House, the Senate, and the White House, there seems to be no desire to go down that road, and I will talk about that in a minute. April 21, 2020, we did $355 billion more. That was by voice vote. Spending $355 by voice vote is pretty astonishing; $1.9 trillion, 96 to 0 is pretty astonishing. September 30, 2020, 84 to 10. December 21, just a few months ago, we spent another trillion, 92 to 6. Why do I bring this up? I bring it up to show there is plenty of bipartisanship around COVID relief, and that bipartisanship has stopped. President Biden made a big deal about wanting to bring the country together and find common ground. In the one area that we actually had common ground, we have abandoned common ground to deal with a $1.9 trillion package just months after we authorized $1.04 trillion. Here is the problem I think Republicans have. Of the $1.9 trillion being proposed now, about 90 percent of it has very little to do with COVID. It is a liberal wish list. The reason I know it is a liberal wish list is that Senator Schumer said 15 times yesterday--about 15 times--that it wasn't a liberal wish list. If Senator Schumer is saying it is not a liberal wish list, it is a liberal wish list. I will be able to prove that in more detail. That is the history of bipartisanship. That bipartisanship has been destroyed. We had 10 Republicans, I think, go to the White House to offer around $700 billion that would extend checks, that would do vaccines, would do a lot of things that we think we need to still do, but that went nowhere. Another point for the American people: We are going to a partisan approach to COVID for the first time. I went over the amount of money we have appropriated to the COVID problems the country has experienced, and here is what I want you to understand. We are going to spend $1.9 trillion in a partisan fashion. I think a lot of it is very much unrelated to COVID simply because they have the power to do it. They now have the power of the Federal Government, complete power--control of the Senate, control of the House, control of the White House. They have abandoned bipartisanship. We had the Presidency and the Senate; they had the House. We were able to work together. Now they have it all. They are running us over, literally, legislatively here. I think we have made reasonable offers. Nobody is willing to compromise. They see this as a moment to do a lot of things they have been wanting to do for years that have nothing to do with COVID. Another problem they have, in my view, is you are appropriating $1.9 trillion, most of it not related to COVID, and we haven't spent the money we have allocated in the past. So administrative actions--there is still $200 billion that we haven't spent. Legislative actions, $3.1 trillion we have spent. We have appropriated $4.1 trillion. There is still $1 trillion that hasn't been spent yet. The Federal Reserve actions allowed $5.9 trillion to be allocated to help businesses that were failing. They spent $2.8 trillion. The vaccine is getting out by the day. We are hopeful that we can change the course of the virus, get people back to work. In this bill, they do a lot of things unrelated to COVID because they can. Why are we opposed to this? Because it is a lot of money that is being spent on things unrelated to COVID. We haven't spent the money we appropriated in past efforts yet, but we are going to spend $1.9 trillion more. I think it is very unfortunate, and I hope the American people understand that this is spending money for the sake of spending money, not to combat COVID. Let me give you some examples of what is in this bill. The minimum wage dropped out. Now is the worst possible time, I think, to go to $15-an-hour minimum wage. Just think about your own communities. How many restaurants and hotels have had to reduce or close down because of COVID restrictions? We are finally beginning to come out of it a bit. To add a $15-an-hour mandate, doubling the minimum wage, would be increasing the cost of doing business after the government at the State and local levels shut the businesses down.So the business has been reduced in terms of revenue because of COVID restrictions, and now the Federal Government is going to mandate a doubling of the minimum wage that the business has to absorb and pass on to consumers. That is out. We can raise the minimum wage in a responsible fashion once we get COVID under control. There was $100 million for a Silicon Valley underground rail project that didn't pass the smell test. The only reason that is out is we made a big deal about it. But they saw the COVID package as a chance to put $100 million into a Silicon Valley underground rail project, which shows you their mindset toward this bill. This bill is not about fighting COVID. It is about a chance, in a partisan fashion, to do things they couldn't do otherwise. There was $1.5 million from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund regarding the Seaway International Bridge in New York. The Silicon Valley underground rail project may make sense. Senator Schumer's bridge project may make sense. We are going to do an infrastructure bill. It seems to me that we would take these infrastructure projects and put them in an infrastructure bill and try to have a COVID bill related to fighting COVID. But, clearly, they are taking an opportunity, my friends on the other side, of loading this bill up with a liberal wish list--parochial interests--because they can. I hope the American people will understand what is going on and bring back a balance of power in Washington in 2022 because if you let them have it all, this is a sign of things to come. But we will talk about that later. There is $20 million in the bill for the preservation and maintenance of Native American languages. That might be something that makes sense, but we are dealing with a COVID package. There is $20 million for the preservation of maintenance of Native American languages and $135 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. I am an appropriator. This isn't an appropriations bill. It is not a COVID bill. In the committees I am on, we actually vet this stuff to see if it makes sense to put it in the normal appropriations cycle. They take a COVID problem--and it is a real problem still to this day--and they load it up with things unrelated to COVID because they can. We can't stop them now. Maybe one day we can stop them and go back to the old way of doing business where we sit down and work together as Democrats and Republicans to spend over $4 trillion to combat COVID. My hope is that we will have some balance in the future that we don't have today. So $135 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities--what has that got to do with COVID? There are people really suffering out there. And $135 million for the Endowment for the Arts and $135 million for the Endowment for Humanities, that is still a lot of money where I come from There is $200 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences. I am sure there are needs out there for museums and library sciences, but it should go through the appropriations process where we will have a chance to make a case for it or against it rather than it being crammed into a bill that is being printed while I speak. We are talking about a $1.9 trillion COVID package with 90 percent unrelated to COVID being printed while I speak. Now, if that is good government, count me out. Funding for Planned Parenthood. What has that got to do with COVID? PPP loans for labor unions. Paid leave for Federal employees. An $86 billion bailout for union pensions. Maybe that is something we want to look at, but in a COVID bill? This is why people are so turned off to Washington because we take a crisis, a problem facing your family and your community, and they turn it into a spendfest, a liberal wish list, indeed, come true. A new taxpayer-funded executive branch employee emergency leave program. Money for schools. We haven't spent the money we have allocated for schools yet. We are trying to open schools. The money that has been allocated for schools is still--most of it--a lot of it has been unspent. In this bill, we have $68 billion for K-12. The money should be given to people opening schools, and only $5 billion of that will be spent this year. Most of the money for K-12 assistance is in 2022 and the years that follow. That is not an emergency COVID package. That is just putting money into the education system in a fashion they like and we don't have any input over. It really has nothing to do with fighting the COVID crisis and getting our schools reopened. Of the $129 billion for K-12 in this package, $6.4 billion is to be distributed this year. The $68 billion was in the last round and only $5 billion this year, so most of the money for schools is spent in the out years. Again, that is just an opportunity to be taken by them. Of the $129 billion, $122 billion for K-12 schools will not be spent until years 2022 through 2028. God, I hope we don't have to deal with COVID in 2028. We have approved six COVID bills. We have spent over $4 trillion--appropriated over $4 trillion. A trillion is yet unspent, and we are doing $1.9 trillion where 90 percent of it has nothing to do with COVID. Why are we doing this? Because they can. They have abandoned the bipartisan model that worked. They have chosen a partisan model. No matter what they tell you, my friends on the other side, this is a liberal wish list. This is very much seizing the moment, taking a crisis, a problem in America, and using it to advance causes completely unrelated to COVID, spending money that hasn't been vetted, spending money that has nothing to do with COVID because they can. The only thing I can tell you about spending money--count me in for helping people get back on their feet. I have always been for a direct payment. Count me out for a $1.9 trillion spendfest unrelated to COVID in a partisan fashion. This is everything President Biden said he wouldn't do. The inaugural speech rings hollow when it comes to this provision, the $1.9 trillion COVID package. Everything President Biden said he wanted to do for the country, he abandoned. It is not like there are plenty of Republicans that would sit down and work with our Democratic friends to do another round of COVID relief, but it has to be related to COVID, and we want to spend the money we have appropriated in the past first. Maybe that is an odd concept in Washington, but I will make a bet that most Americans find it odd that we would appropriate money for a problem when we haven't spent the money we had already appropriated in the past. We can get that out the door to see what needs to be done in the future. I think most Americans believe now is not the time to load a bill up with a bunch of stuff unrelated to COVID because we need every dollar to hit the mark. But we will have a chance to talk about that in the coming months, and there will be another election coming before you know it. The only thing I can leave with the American people here is that they have it all in terms of power. This is what they have chosen to do. They have chosen a partisan path, rejecting the bipartisan path. They have chosen to put most of the money in the bill for things unrelated to COVID simply because they can. The last election was about what would happen to our country if Democrats got in charge of everything. Many of us on our side said it would be one of the most liberal agendas in the history of American politics and would come forth pretty quickly. I had no idea it would come forth this quickly. I had no idea they would abandon a bipartisan approach to COVID because it seems to be the one area that we have had success regarding working together. During the campaign, I said that there would be two areas I thought we could do bipartisan legislation: One was COVID; the other was infrastructure. Boy, was I wrong about COVID. I am hoping that the American people pay some attention to this debate. We are going to have some really good amendments on our side that talk about how we would spend the money differently and why we would choose not to spend some money on this bill because it simply has nothing to do with COVID. The American people have suffered during the COVID pandemic, but there are better days ahead. I want us to doas much as we can for vaccinations and helping people get back into school. I am willing to help people who are struggling out there, but you shouldn't be giving a $1,400 check to people who make $200,000 as a couple. They changed that. They have taken the Silicon Valley railway out. They have also taken the bridge out because they had to, not because they wanted to. We are going to have a lot of amendments to show what we would do with your money versus what they would do with your money. We are going to have a lot of amendments that would show what we would do with COVID and how to fight COVID versus what they would do with COVID. That is what democracy is all about--working together when you can and showing differences when you must. There are going to be a lot of differences in this debate, and I think this will not be the last time you hear about this bill. I think this bill is going to resonate for months and years to come in all of the wrong ways. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRAHAM | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1049 | null | 2,461 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a moment, I will move to proceed to the Senate's substitute amendment to the American Rescue Plan. This legislation will keep America's families, businesses, and workers afloat and hasten the day when our country can return to normal and our economy can come roaring back. The United States is facing a once-in-a-century crisis that has sapped millions of jobs from our economy, left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet, and stolen more than half a million American lives. The time is now to move forward with big, bold, strong relief for the American people; to send checks as promised to American workers and families; to help reopen schools as quickly and safely as possible; to help the hardest hit small businesses hang on; to help families stay in their homes, care for their children, and put food on the table; to keep firefighters, teachers, and busdrivers on the job; and to crush the virus with testing and vaccines once and for all. We are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. We are not going to be timid in the face of a great challenge. We are not going to delay when urgent action is called for. We are not going to quit before the race is won. We are going to sprint through the finish line. It is time to move forward with this legislation, which will be one of the largest single anti-poverty bills in recent history. It is time to lift this country out of crisis and set it on a path to a strong and swift recovery. It is time to tell the American people that help is on the way. Motion to Proceed | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1051 | null | 2,462 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-582. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/ Infectious Waste Incinerator Units'' (FRL No. 10019-25-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-583. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey'' (FRL No. 10017-00-Region 2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-584. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units'' (FRL No. 10018-21-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-585. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/ Infectious Waste Incinerator Units'' (FRL No. 10019-25-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-586. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Second Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area'' (FRL No. 10018-14-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-587. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion for the Charleston, West Virginia Area Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties'' (FRL No. 10017-11-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-588. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative Declarations Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines'' (FRL No. 10016-88-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-589. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area'' (FRL No. 10019-45-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-590. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair County) Area'' (FRL No. 10017-26- Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-591. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Area'' (FRL No. 10016-56- Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-592. A communication from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2020 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Privacy Management Report; to the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Appropriations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-593. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-594. A communication from the Executive Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), transmitting, pursuant to law, nine (9) reports relative to vacancies in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-595. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021- 0021--2021-0039); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-596. A communication from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``CARES Act Programs; Equitable Services to Students and Teachers in Non- Public Schools'' (RIN1810-AB59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-597. A communication from the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3553-EM in the District of Columbia having exceeded the $5,000,000 limit for a single emergency declaration; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-598. A communication from the Yeoman Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, Mississippi'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2020-0713)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-599. A communication from the Yeoman Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Power Plant Demolition; Grand River, Grand Haven, Michigan'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021- 0035)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-600. A communication from the Yeoman Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Middle River, Near Discovery Bay, California'' ((RIN1625-AA09) (Docket No. USCG- 2020-0137)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-601. A communication from the Chairman of the Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties-2021 Adjustment'' (Docket No. EP 716 (Sub-No. 6)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-602. A communication from the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Expansion of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary'' (RIN0648- BA21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1118-2 | null | 2,463 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-582. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/ Infectious Waste Incinerator Units'' (FRL No. 10019-25-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-583. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey'' (FRL No. 10017-00-Region 2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-584. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incinerator Units'' (FRL No. 10018-21-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-585. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Control of Emissions From Existing Hospital/ Infectious Waste Incinerator Units'' (FRL No. 10019-25-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-586. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Second Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area'' (FRL No. 10018-14-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-587. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion for the Charleston, West Virginia Area Comprising Kanawha and Putnam Counties'' (FRL No. 10017-11-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-588. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Negative Declarations Certification for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Including the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines'' (FRL No. 10016-88-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-589. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area'' (FRL No. 10019-45-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-590. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair County) Area'' (FRL No. 10017-26- Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-591. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Area'' (FRL No. 10016-56- Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-592. A communication from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2020 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Privacy Management Report; to the Committees on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Appropriations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-593. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-594. A communication from the Executive Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), transmitting, pursuant to law, nine (9) reports relative to vacancies in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-595. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021- 0021--2021-0039); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-596. A communication from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``CARES Act Programs; Equitable Services to Students and Teachers in Non- Public Schools'' (RIN1810-AB59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-597. A communication from the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3553-EM in the District of Columbia having exceeded the $5,000,000 limit for a single emergency declaration; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-598. A communication from the Yeoman Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, Mississippi'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2020-0713)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-599. A communication from the Yeoman Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Power Plant Demolition; Grand River, Grand Haven, Michigan'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021- 0035)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-600. A communication from the Yeoman Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Middle River, Near Discovery Bay, California'' ((RIN1625-AA09) (Docket No. USCG- 2020-0137)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-601. A communication from the Chairman of the Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties-2021 Adjustment'' (Docket No. EP 716 (Sub-No. 6)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-602. A communication from the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Expansion of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary'' (RIN0648- BA21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 25, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1118-2 | null | 2,464 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | ______SENATE RESOLUTION 95--RECOGNIZING THE DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT OF COVID- 19 ON WOMEN AND GIRLS GLOBALLY Mr. BOOKER (for himself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 95 Whereas the COVID-19 crisis exacerbates existing vulnerabilities for women and girls and has an outsized effect on health, safety, and livelihoods for marginalized communities; Whereas it is estimated that the disruption of sexual and reproductive health care services and supply chains caused by the COVID-19 crisis caused an estimated 49,000,000 women to stop using contraceptives during just the first 6 months of the crisis, likely resulting in approximately 7,000,000 unintended pregnancies, 1,700,000 major obstetric complications, 28,000 maternal deaths, 168,000 newborn deaths, and 3,300,000 unsafe abortions; Whereas lockdowns, quarantines, and other movement restrictions related to COVID-19 have disrupted access to legal and social services, as well as access to counseling, safe shelters, and medical treatment, exacerbating vulnerabilities for women and girls; Whereas gender-based violence, such as domestic violence, child marriage, and female genital mutilation, has increased, and is expected to continue to increase, as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, including-- (1) an estimated 31,000,000 more gender-based violence cases during the first 6 months of shutdowns; (2) an additional 13,000,000 child marriages by 2030; and (3) an increase of approximately 2,000,000 cases of female genital mutilation between 2020 and 2030; Whereas women play significant roles in the health care workforce, comprising 70 percent of health care workers globally, yet often are not prioritized for the receipt of personal protective equipment, disproportionately exposing them to contracting COVID-19; Whereas women and girls perform 3 times the amount of unpaid care work in homes and in their communities as men, a burden that has increased during the COVID-19 crisis as women and girls are disproportionately responsible for caring for sick and elderly family and community members and children who are out of school, limiting the ability of women and girls to perform income-generating work, pursue education or skills building, or avoid exposure to COVID-19; Whereas, globally, women living in poverty will endure specific economic effects as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, largely due to the overrepresentation of those women in the informal economy, the increase in their unpaid care burdens, and the particular hardships facing female entrepreneurs, such as-- (1) loss of jobs or pressure to turn to exploitative work, as women workers dominate in industries most affected by layoffs caused by the COVID-19 crisis, including hospitality, childcare, and tourism, and comprise 92 percent of individuals in the informal sector, which lacks social and legal protections in most countries; (2) loss of business, as market closures, disruptions in global trading, and the collapse of supply chains have disproportionate effects on female-led businesses and female farmers, and enduring gaps in financial inclusion will have significant ramifications as women entrepreneurs continue to be considered high risk for bank services, formal loans, and credit; (3) financial insecurity, as women have much lower, if any, pensions, retirement savings, or other assets to mitigate shocks as compared to men; and (4) loss of necessary income that female-headed households depend on, such as remittances, which the World Bank expects will decrease by nearly 20 percent in 2020; Whereas the COVID-19 crisis will uniquely affect women in agriculture, who provide more than 43 percent of the agricultural labor around the world and more than 60 percent of such labor in Africa yet whose ability to harvest, sell, and buy food and other products necessary for their food security and nutrition will worsen due to travel restrictions related to the crisis, ongoing discrimination in access to agricultural inputs and markets, and wage gaps and disproportionate unpaid care burdens for female farmers; Whereas food insecurity will have unique effects on the nutrition and health of women and girls, who already comprise 60 percent of individuals experiencing hunger in the world, often rely on getting at least 1 nutritious meal each day from feeding programs at schools that may be shut down due to the COVID-19 crisis, and face shortages in nutritious food and nutrients given social norms that dictate that women and girls eat last and least when food is scarce; Whereas girls, particularly adolescent girls, will be especially affected by the closures of schools resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, and it is estimated that, as of March 2020, nearly 743,000,000 girls, not including the approximately 132,000,000 girls who were already out of school before the onset of the crisis, are out of school due to such closures, and an additional 11,000,000 girls may leave school by the end of the COVID-19 crisis, with evidence suggesting that many will not return to school; Whereas closures of schools due to the COVID-19 crisis will decrease the ability of girls to access education and skills building, increase the exposure of girls to gender-based violence, such as child marriage, exacerbate the vulnerability of girls to early pregnancy and childbirth- related complications, and impede access of girls to information about the prevention of COVID-19, protection services, and pathways to report abuse; Whereas the COVID-19 crisis will place particular burdens on women and girls in humanitarian emergencies given challenges including overcrowded conditions, restrictions on travel and movement, already strained health, hygiene, and sanitation infrastructure, food shortages and malnutrition, already heightened exposure to gender-based violence, systematic and targeted attacks on health infrastructure and aid workers by parties to conflicts, politicization of aid and service delivery, and restricted humanitarian access, all of which exacerbates the spread and effect of infectious diseases; Whereas the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the Department of State have expressed concern about an increase in human trafficking and smuggling as traffickers take advantage of increased vulnerabilities and chaos during the COVID-19 crisis; Whereas the diversion of resources and services away from existing primary health care needs to address the COVID-19 crisis and contain the spread of COVID-19 will have particular effects on women and girls, including disruptions in the provision of life-saving health services unrelated to COVID-19, such as maternal health care and sexual and reproductive health services, and the loss of critical services and support to respond to gender-based violence; Whereas the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan coordinated by the United Nations is only 17 percent funded, leaving significant gaps in the response to immediate health and non-health needs of women and girls and other vulnerable populations, and ongoing humanitarian response plans, identified as a top priority by the United Nations given that people targeted in those plans will be the most affected by the direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 crisis, remain only 17.3 percent funded; Whereas estimates show that, globally, women are included in only 24 percent of national response plans for the COVID- 19 crisis, and women and girls have been largely excluded from leadership and decision making related to responses to the crisis, resulting in response measures that may not fully account for how COVID-19 affects women and girls; Whereas studies show that structural gender inequities, including low social status and unequal access to education, and lack of autonomous decision-making power negatively affects the ability of women to access vaccines for themselves and their children; and Whereas humanitarian exemptions to sanctions and counterterrorism measures are vital for ensuring states and principled humanitarian actors are able to reach vulnerable women and girls with efficient, needs-based assistance, including COVID-19 response activities consistent with obligations under international humanitarian law, regardless of the location of those women and girls: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) reaffirms the critical importance of gender balance and inclusivity in bodies responsible for coordination and decision making related to the COVID-19 crisis, including in structures and task forces of the United States Government charged with developing policies and responses to the crisis; (2) promotes integrating a gender lens throughout the response to the COVID-19 crisis by analyzing and tracking the effect of and response to the crisis on gender, including gathering evidence from data that is disaggregated by gender, age, and other specific variables; (3) supports measures to ensure that life-saving health services including sexual and reproductive health and gender- based violence prevention and response are well resourced and supported, including within the COVID-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan coordinated by the United Nations, and that funding earmarked for those services is not reduced, canceled, or diverted to other COVID-19 response activities; (4) supports measures to ensure the continuation of adequate food and nutrition security for women and girls around the world affected by COVID-19, including women smallholder farmers and other women working in agriculture, in light of the unique challenges described in the preamble of this resolution; (5) reinforces the need to ensure that short-term relief programming and longer-term economic strategies address the specific effects of COVID-19 on women globally, especially lower income, migrant, displaced, and other marginalized women; (6) commends the executive branch for-- (A) rescinding the global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City Policy, which has been shown to lead to poorer health outcomes for women; (B) resuming support for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA); and (C) clearly stating the executive branch's policy of supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights around the world; (7) urges the executive branch to uphold the rights of crisis-affected and forcibly displaced populations, including women and girls, further affected by COVID-19, by promoting compliance with international humanitarian and human rights legal obligations and engaging parties to conflicts to ensure unhindered access to health care, medical supplies, and other vital aid and protection; (8) supports robust funding contributions by the United States for the international response to the COVID-19 crisis in addition to further funding for ongoing humanitarian appeals in support of vulnerable women and girls affected by COVID-19 and underlying emergencies; (9) commits to continuously assess and eliminate any impediment to the delivery of and access to humanitarian assistance; (10) urges the executive branch-- (A) to reaffirm United States leadership on gender-based violence in foreign assistance, including by championing and providing comprehensive mental and physical health care services for survivors; and (B) to reestablish leadership and global standing on this critical issue; and (11) urges the executive branch to address barriers to equitable COVID-19 treatment and vaccine access for women, girls, and marginalized communities as part of a holistic response to the global COVID-19 pandemic. | 2020-01-06 | None | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1122 | null | 2,465 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | ``WOMEN OF THE AVIATION WORKFORCE WEEK'' Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mr. Moran) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 96 Whereas the first week of March is internationally known as ``Women of Aviation Worldwide Week''; Whereas Women of Aviation Worldwide Week was created by the Institute for Women Of Aviation Worldwide; Whereas the aviation industry is anticipating a significant shortage of skilled professionals in the coming years; Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor projected that, in the next 10 years, the overall employment of airline and commercial pilots is expected to grow more than 6 percent in the United States; Whereas less than 2 percent of the aircraft maintenance technicians in the world and less than 10 percent of all working aeronautical engineers are women; Whereas the Federal Aviation Administration reports that less than 8 percent of pilots and only 26 percent of air traffic controllers in the United States are women; Whereas women make up only 24 percent of the employees in the aerospace industry; Whereas aviation is a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (commonly known as ``STEM'') focused career path; Whereas the future of an abundant aviation workforce depends on a robust and diverse pool of candidates; and Whereas women such as Amelia Earhart, Cicely Williams, Nicole Malachowski, Bessie Coleman, and Jeannie Leavitt have inspired, and will continue to inspire, young women to pursue careers in aviation: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates March 8 through March 14, 2021, as ``Women of the Aviation Workforce Week''; (2) celebrates the aviation workforce of the United States; (3) encourages educational and training institutions to recruit women to join the aviation workforce; (4) encourages employers in the aviation industry to hire a diverse workforce, including women, veterans, and other underrepresented individuals; and (5) commits to-- (A) raising awareness about the gender gap in the air and space industry; and (B) taking legislative actions to address the gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (commonly known as ``STEM'') fields. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1123 | null | 2,466 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 910. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 1001 (relating to food supply chain and agriculture pandemic response), strike subsection (b) and insert the following: (b) Use of Funds.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use the amounts made available pursuant to subsection (a)-- (1) to purchase food and agricultural commodities; (2) to purchase and distribute agricultural commodities (including fresh produce, dairy, seafood, eggs, and meat) to individuals in need, including through delivery to nonprofit organizations and through restaurants and other food related entities, as determined by the Secretary, that may receive, store, process, and distribute food items; (3) to make payments to producers of advanced biofuel, biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, conventional biofuel, or renewable fuel (as those terms are defined in section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(o)(1))) produced in the United States for unexpected market losses as a result of COVID-19; (4) to make grants and loans for small or midsized food processors or distributors, seafood processing facilities and processing vessels, farmers markets, producers, or other organizations to respond to COVID-19, including for measures to protect workers against COVID-19; and (5) to make loans and grants and provide other assistance to maintain and improve food and agricultural supply chain resiliency. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1194-12 | null | 2,467 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 913. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 578, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 579, line 15, and insert the following: ``(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A) after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph shall be allocated by the Secretary as an additional amount to each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia in an amount which bears the same proportion to such remainder as the population of the State or District of Columbia (as determined based on the most recent data available from the Bureau of the Census) bears to the total population of all 50 States and the District of Columbia (as so determined). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1195-3 | null | 2,468 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 919. Ms. ERNST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 9013, insert the following: (c) Prohibiting the Payment of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation to Millionaires.-- (1) In general.--Section 2104(b) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(5) Prohibition on compensation to millionaires.-- ``(A) In general.--Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation shall not be payable to any individual whose adjusted gross income is equal to or greater than $1,000,000. ``(B) Compliance.--Any application for regular compensation shall include a form or procedure for an individual applicant to certify that such individual is not prohibited from receiving Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation pursuant to subparagraph (A). ``(C) Audits.--The certifications required by subparagraph (B) shall be auditable by the Department of Labor.''. (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by paragraph (1) may be construed to apply to regular compensation or extended compensation (as such terms are defined by section 205 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act (26 U.S.C. 3304 note)) to which an individual may be otherwise entitled. (3) Effective date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to weeks of unemployment beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1195-9 | null | 2,469 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | SA 911. Mr. MARSHALL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 5001, add the following: (e) Eligibility for Certain Farmers and Ranchers.--Section 7(a)(36)(V)(i)(I) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(V)(i)(I)), as amended by the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (title III of division N of Public Law 116-260), is amended by inserting ``, is a partnership, is a single member limited liability company,'' after ``independent contractor,''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1195 | null | 2,470 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 922. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 2302, between paragraphs (1) and (2), insert the following: ``(2) to educate and inform elected officials in order to prevent the spread of misinformation regarding the reliability of vaccine licensure under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) or authorization under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3);''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1196-3 | null | 2,471 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 924. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 2301, add at the end the following: ``(d) Expertise Requirement.--Any amount awarded to a State, local, Tribal, or territorial public health department pursuant to subsection (b)(2) shall be conditioned on such public health department agreeing to make such award funds available-- ``(1) only to entities with which the public health department has an established relationship, and based on demonstrated expertise of such entities in vaccine distribution and administration; and ``(2) with special consideration given to such entities serving medically underserved areas.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1197 | null | 2,472 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 989. Mr. BRAUN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Strike section 2101(b) and insert the following: (b) Allocation of Amounts.--Amounts appropriated under subsection (a) shall be allocated as follows: (1) Not less than $75,000,000 shall be for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, of which $5,000,000 shall be for Susan Harwood training grants, $5,000,000 shall be for a voluntary protection program under subsection (c), and not less than $5,000,000 shall be for enforcement activities relating to COVID-19 at high risk workplaces including healthcare, meat and poultry processing facilities, agricultural workplaces and correctional facilities. (2) $12,500,000 shall be for the Office of Inspector General. (c) Voluntary Protection Program.-- (1) Cooperative agreements.--By not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall establish a program of entering into cooperative agreements with employers to encourage the establishment of comprehensive safety and health management systems that include-- (A) requirements for systematic assessment of hazards; (B) comprehensive hazard prevention, mitigation, and control programs; (C) active and meaningful management and employee participation in the voluntary program described in paragraph (2); and (D) employee safety and health training. (2) Voluntary protection program.-- (A) In general.--By not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall establish and carry out a voluntary protection program (consistent with paragraph (1)) to encourage excellence and recognize the achievement of excellence in both the technical and managerial protection of employees from occupational hazards. (B) Program requirements.--The voluntary protection program shall include the following: (i) Application.--Employers who volunteer under the program shall be required to submit an application to the Secretary of Labor demonstrating that the worksite with respect to which the application is made meets such requirements as the Secretary of Labor may require for participation in the program. (ii) Onsite evaluations.--There shall be onsite evaluations by representatives of the Secretary of Labor to ensure a high level of protection of employees. The onsite visits shall not result in enforcement of citations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). (iii) Information.--Employers who are approved by the Secretary of Labor for participation in the program shall assure the Secretary of Labor that information about the safety and health program shall be made readily available to the Secretary of Labor to share with employees. (iv) Reevaluations.--Periodic reevaluations by the Secretary of Labor of the employers shall be required for continued participation in the program. (C) Monitoring.--To ensure proper controls and measurement of program performance for the voluntary protection program under this subsection, the Secretary of Labor shall direct the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health to take the following actions: (i) Develop a documentation policy regarding information on follow-up actions taken by the regional offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in response to fatalities and serious injuries at worksites participating in the voluntary protection program. (ii) Establish internal controls that ensure consistent compliance by the regional offices of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with the voluntary protection program policies of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for conducting onsite reviews and monitoring injury and illness rates, to ensure that only qualified worksites participate in the program. (iii) Establish a system for monitoring the performance of the voluntary protection program by developing specific performance goals and measures for the program. (D) Exemptions.--A site with respect to which a voluntary protection program has been approved shall, during participation in the program, be exempt from inspections or investigations and certain paperwork requirements to be determined by the Secretary of Labor, except that this paragraph shall not apply to inspections or investigations arising from employee complaints, fatalities, catastrophes, or significant toxic releases. (E) No payments required.--The Secretary of Labor shall not require any form of payment for an employer to qualify or participate in the voluntary protection program. (3) Transition.--The Secretary of Labor shall take such steps as may be necessary for the orderly transition from the cooperative agreements and voluntary protection programs carried out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as of the day before the date of enactment of this Act, to the cooperative agreements and voluntary protection program authorized under this subsection. In making such transition, the Secretary shall ensure that-- (A) the voluntary protection program under this subsection is based upon and consistent with the voluntary protection programs carried out on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; and (B) each employer that, as of the day before the date of enactment of this Act, had an active cooperative agreement under the voluntary protection programs carried out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and was in good standing with respect to the duties and responsibilities under such agreement, shall have the option to continue participating in the voluntary protection program authorized under this subsection. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-04-pt1-PgS1214 | null | 2,473 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, a year ago this week, Congress began work on what would become the CARES Act, the opening salvo in a yearlong battle against what, at the time, was a strange and new disease. I don't think anyone could have anticipated that a year hence we would have lost more than 10 million jobs and over half a million citizens. Even as the vaccine makes its way across the country, and hope shimmers on the horizon, millions of Americansare still struggling with basic necessities. Folks are thousands of dollars behind on the rent and utilities. Their heat, water and power are getting shut off. More than a million Americans on unemployment insurance report that their kids aren't getting enough to eat. Sometimes the macrostatistics get in the way because the top end is doing very well, the top 10 percent or 25 percent, but so many other people are struggling. And if you just look at a big number, you say: Oh, everything is getting a little better. It is not for the lower half of America. It is not. I read about one of my constituents recently, Allilsa Fernandez, from Queens, who had a job as a home healthcare aide lined up at the start of the pandemic but couldn't take it because of her family's preexisting medical conditions. Her mother was in the hospital with COVID. Her income went from $3,400 a month to just $1,000. It was a huge, huge loss-- She said. I have medications, my electric bill, the phone bill, and [the] other costs. Every day you . . . have to make . . . decisions: Am I going to eat? In America, that should not be the case. It shouldn't be at any time but particularly when an evil disease has robbed our hard-working people of their income, their livelihood. ``Am I going to eat?'' And we are supposed to sit here and do nothing? We are supposed to say to Ms. Fernandez, and so many like her, we are not giving you the help you need? Ms. Fernandez hasn't been able to pay the rent since April of last year, over $16,000 worth. And this bill will help people like her, but it will also prevent people from getting into Ms. Fernandez's place: people who work for State and local governments who might be laid off, people who work for small businesses who might be laid off. It is the job of this government, during this evil pandemic, to assist American families, businesses, and workers like Ms. Fernandez until this pandemic is over. It is also our job to prevent others from falling into the same awful situation that Ms. Fernandez finds herself. It is our job to hasten the day when Americans can go back to work, our country can go back to normal, our economy can come roaring back. We can reduce that awfully high actual 10 percent unemployment. That is what the American Rescue Plan will do. It will send direct checks to American workers and families struggling with the cost of groceries, medicine, and the rent. The vast majority of Americans will get the full $1,400 we have asked for. It will help reopen schools as quickly and safely as possible. It will help the hardest hit small businesses hang on. It will keep firefighters and teachers and busdrivers and sanitation workers on the job. It will help American families stay in their homes, care for their children, put food on the table, and it will give our country the resources, the vaccination and testing, that it needs to crush the virus once and for all. All told, the American Rescue Plan will be one of the largest anti-poverty bills in recent history, cutting child poverty just about in half. The entire country has gotten behind the bill: business leaders, mayors, Governors, from big cities, small towns, Red States, Blue States, Democrat, Republican. The clear majority of the American people--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--all support the American Rescue Plan. It seems the only group in America who doesn't support the American Rescue Plan are Washington Republicans. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say $1.9 trillion is too expensive. Well, my Republican colleagues didn't think it was too expensive when they gave nearly the same amount in tax breaks to corporations and the ultrarich in a healthy economy, not one that is struggling. My colleagues claim this bill isn't related to COVID. What hogwash. It is a strange thing to say because most of the measures in the bill are exactly the same ideas Republicans supported a year ago in the CARES Act, which passed without a single dissenting Republican vote. Direct checks, in the CARES Act; enhanced unemployment insurance, in the CARES Act; assistance for State and local governments, in the CARES Act; funding for testing and the vaccine, in the CARES Act; aid to schools and small businesses, in the CARES Act. All of them were in the CARES Act, which every Republican voted for, and now they are saying the American Rescue Plan, which has the basic, same structure, is not related to COVID. When we passed the CARES Act, we all thought that maybe COVID would be gone by the summer. It isn't. We need to keep at it in the same way. Every single Republican who voted for the CARES Act and those ideas a year ago, when a Republican was in the White House and Republicans controlled the Senate, is now saying no, it seems. But now that a Democrat is in the White House, now that Democrats control the Senate, those same ideas, which they supported when Trump was President and McConnell was majority leader, are a liberal wish list--same ideas. Who the heck are they kidding? They have no good answer. But let's face it, we need to get this done. It would be so much better if we could in a bipartisan way, but we need to get it done. We are not going to make the same mistake we made after the last economic downturn when Congress did too little to help the Nation rebound, locking us into a long, slow, painful recovery, where it was years before employment was back to where it was before that crisis. We are not, we are not going to be timid in the face of big challenges. We are not, we are not going to delay when urgent action is called for. The Senate will move forward today with the American Rescue Plan. There will be a lengthy amendment process, as the rules of the Senate require. The Senate is going to take a lot of votes, but we are going to power through and finish this bill however long it takes. The American people are counting on us, and our Nation depends on it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1217-8 | null | 2,474 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today or tonight or tomorrow, Democrats say they will break the bipartisan streak that has defined the pandemic response up until now. They are dead set on ramming through an ideological spending spree packed with non-COVID-related policies. This is just what a leading House Democrat admitted they would do back at the start of the crisis: Exploit the pandemic as ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' To give them credit, they never hid the ball. That is how you get a 628-page bill that costs nearly $2 trillion, but only 9 percent addresses the fight against the virus itself and only 1 percent--1 percent--for the lifesaving vaccines that are ending this nightmare as we speak. That is how you craft a bill that does nothing to immediately get kids back to classrooms. In fact, that spends only 5 percent of the K-12 school money this fiscal year. This isn't a pandemic rescue package; it is a parade of leftwing pet projects they are ramming through during a pandemic. There is a costly ObamaCare bailout that will disproportionately benefit wealthier people; payments to farmers and ranchers based solely on the demographics of the recipient without any regard to actual need; and a massive cash bailout for mismanaged State and local governments, multiple times the size of COVID needs. Instead of pushing back on the anti-science bullying from Big Labor that is locking kids out of the classrooms, they buy into it. They want to create generous new benefits for parents who are dealingwith school closures but only if they are Federal employees. To all the parents without government jobs, no such luck. There are provisions to let abortion providers raid the small business rescue funds that were meant for Main Street businesses. They want to pay people a bonus not to go back to work when we are trying to rebuild our economy. There is an effort to create a brandnew, sprawling cash welfare program--not the one-time checks but constant payments--that ignores the pro-work lessons of bipartisan welfare reform and which the White House has already stated they want to make permanent. The unrelated liberal policies are simply endless. It is like they have forgotten we have a pandemic to fight. Larry Summers, a top economist in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, says this plan piles way more debt on our kids and grandkids than we need to spend right now. That is Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Secretary Treasury. Jason Furman, who chaired President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said the State and local bailouts are ``overkill.'' These are liberal economists, Madam President. By one analysis, the Democrats' extra cash bonuses for laid-off workers who stay home will result in almost 60 percent of workers earning more money staying home than they would earn from returning to work--more money by staying home than they would earn from returning to work. What a great idea. This isn't State unemployment insurance; it is borrowing from our kids and grandkids to pay yet an additional cash bonus for not working. This would extend deep into 2021, when we anticipate serious job growth. Just this morning, we had a jobs report that shattered expectations, nearly doubling the job growth experts had expected to see. This is what the Washington Post says about this mess. This is the Washington Post about this mess that is before us: For policy experts and even members of Biden's own party, the improving picture is raising questions about whether the stimulus bill is mismatched to the needs of the current moment. That is from the Washington Post editorial. It is mismatched all right because it was never designed to meet Americans' needs. The goal was to ``restructure things to fit'' their ``vision.'' That is why there was no bipartisan process after a year of completely bipartisan COVID bills that we worked on together. That is why the Senate Republicans who went to the White House to propose working together were told: No thanks; take it or leave it. This is such a poorly targeted rush job that Democrats can't even settle on one set of political spin. The White House Chief of Staff is going around town admitting that they have written ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' That is the White House Chief of Staff. Meanwhile, here in the Senate, Democrats are still pretending this is some down-the-middle proposal and lecturing us for not supporting it. They can't even get their stories straight. The administration campaigned on ushering in a new day of unity and bipartisanship, but in 2020, under Republican leadership, the Senate negotiated five rescue bills totaling $4 trillion, and none of them got fewer than 90 votes. That is how this Senate was run last year in a time of divided government, and now, in this supposed new era of healing leadership, we are about to watch one party ram through a partisan package on the thinnest margins. Go figure. Republicans have many ideas to improve the bill, many ideas, and we are about to vote on all kinds of amendments in the hopes that some of these ideas make it into the final product. We are going to try to improve the bill. The millions who elected 50 Republican Senators will have their voices heard loud and clear. Our country is already set for a roaring recovery. We are already on track to bounce back from this crisis. That is not because of this bill; it is because of our work last year. This is a trend this new Democratic government inherited. We are going to come roaring back and mostly not because of this bill--in fact, in some ways, in spite of this bill. It will be because of the bipartisan foundation we laid last year and the strength and resilience of our people. Democrats inherited a tide that was already turning. We could have worked together to do something smart to finish this fight as fast as possible. Democrats decided to do something else. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1218-2 | null | 2,475 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today or tonight or tomorrow, Democrats say they will break the bipartisan streak that has defined the pandemic response up until now. They are dead set on ramming through an ideological spending spree packed with non-COVID-related policies. This is just what a leading House Democrat admitted they would do back at the start of the crisis: Exploit the pandemic as ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' To give them credit, they never hid the ball. That is how you get a 628-page bill that costs nearly $2 trillion, but only 9 percent addresses the fight against the virus itself and only 1 percent--1 percent--for the lifesaving vaccines that are ending this nightmare as we speak. That is how you craft a bill that does nothing to immediately get kids back to classrooms. In fact, that spends only 5 percent of the K-12 school money this fiscal year. This isn't a pandemic rescue package; it is a parade of leftwing pet projects they are ramming through during a pandemic. There is a costly ObamaCare bailout that will disproportionately benefit wealthier people; payments to farmers and ranchers based solely on the demographics of the recipient without any regard to actual need; and a massive cash bailout for mismanaged State and local governments, multiple times the size of COVID needs. Instead of pushing back on the anti-science bullying from Big Labor that is locking kids out of the classrooms, they buy into it. They want to create generous new benefits for parents who are dealingwith school closures but only if they are Federal employees. To all the parents without government jobs, no such luck. There are provisions to let abortion providers raid the small business rescue funds that were meant for Main Street businesses. They want to pay people a bonus not to go back to work when we are trying to rebuild our economy. There is an effort to create a brandnew, sprawling cash welfare program--not the one-time checks but constant payments--that ignores the pro-work lessons of bipartisan welfare reform and which the White House has already stated they want to make permanent. The unrelated liberal policies are simply endless. It is like they have forgotten we have a pandemic to fight. Larry Summers, a top economist in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, says this plan piles way more debt on our kids and grandkids than we need to spend right now. That is Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Secretary Treasury. Jason Furman, who chaired President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said the State and local bailouts are ``overkill.'' These are liberal economists, Madam President. By one analysis, the Democrats' extra cash bonuses for laid-off workers who stay home will result in almost 60 percent of workers earning more money staying home than they would earn from returning to work--more money by staying home than they would earn from returning to work. What a great idea. This isn't State unemployment insurance; it is borrowing from our kids and grandkids to pay yet an additional cash bonus for not working. This would extend deep into 2021, when we anticipate serious job growth. Just this morning, we had a jobs report that shattered expectations, nearly doubling the job growth experts had expected to see. This is what the Washington Post says about this mess. This is the Washington Post about this mess that is before us: For policy experts and even members of Biden's own party, the improving picture is raising questions about whether the stimulus bill is mismatched to the needs of the current moment. That is from the Washington Post editorial. It is mismatched all right because it was never designed to meet Americans' needs. The goal was to ``restructure things to fit'' their ``vision.'' That is why there was no bipartisan process after a year of completely bipartisan COVID bills that we worked on together. That is why the Senate Republicans who went to the White House to propose working together were told: No thanks; take it or leave it. This is such a poorly targeted rush job that Democrats can't even settle on one set of political spin. The White House Chief of Staff is going around town admitting that they have written ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' That is the White House Chief of Staff. Meanwhile, here in the Senate, Democrats are still pretending this is some down-the-middle proposal and lecturing us for not supporting it. They can't even get their stories straight. The administration campaigned on ushering in a new day of unity and bipartisanship, but in 2020, under Republican leadership, the Senate negotiated five rescue bills totaling $4 trillion, and none of them got fewer than 90 votes. That is how this Senate was run last year in a time of divided government, and now, in this supposed new era of healing leadership, we are about to watch one party ram through a partisan package on the thinnest margins. Go figure. Republicans have many ideas to improve the bill, many ideas, and we are about to vote on all kinds of amendments in the hopes that some of these ideas make it into the final product. We are going to try to improve the bill. The millions who elected 50 Republican Senators will have their voices heard loud and clear. Our country is already set for a roaring recovery. We are already on track to bounce back from this crisis. That is not because of this bill; it is because of our work last year. This is a trend this new Democratic government inherited. We are going to come roaring back and mostly not because of this bill--in fact, in some ways, in spite of this bill. It will be because of the bipartisan foundation we laid last year and the strength and resilience of our people. Democrats inherited a tide that was already turning. We could have worked together to do something smart to finish this fight as fast as possible. Democrats decided to do something else. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1218-2 | null | 2,476 |
formal | welfare reform | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today or tonight or tomorrow, Democrats say they will break the bipartisan streak that has defined the pandemic response up until now. They are dead set on ramming through an ideological spending spree packed with non-COVID-related policies. This is just what a leading House Democrat admitted they would do back at the start of the crisis: Exploit the pandemic as ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' To give them credit, they never hid the ball. That is how you get a 628-page bill that costs nearly $2 trillion, but only 9 percent addresses the fight against the virus itself and only 1 percent--1 percent--for the lifesaving vaccines that are ending this nightmare as we speak. That is how you craft a bill that does nothing to immediately get kids back to classrooms. In fact, that spends only 5 percent of the K-12 school money this fiscal year. This isn't a pandemic rescue package; it is a parade of leftwing pet projects they are ramming through during a pandemic. There is a costly ObamaCare bailout that will disproportionately benefit wealthier people; payments to farmers and ranchers based solely on the demographics of the recipient without any regard to actual need; and a massive cash bailout for mismanaged State and local governments, multiple times the size of COVID needs. Instead of pushing back on the anti-science bullying from Big Labor that is locking kids out of the classrooms, they buy into it. They want to create generous new benefits for parents who are dealingwith school closures but only if they are Federal employees. To all the parents without government jobs, no such luck. There are provisions to let abortion providers raid the small business rescue funds that were meant for Main Street businesses. They want to pay people a bonus not to go back to work when we are trying to rebuild our economy. There is an effort to create a brandnew, sprawling cash welfare program--not the one-time checks but constant payments--that ignores the pro-work lessons of bipartisan welfare reform and which the White House has already stated they want to make permanent. The unrelated liberal policies are simply endless. It is like they have forgotten we have a pandemic to fight. Larry Summers, a top economist in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, says this plan piles way more debt on our kids and grandkids than we need to spend right now. That is Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Secretary Treasury. Jason Furman, who chaired President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said the State and local bailouts are ``overkill.'' These are liberal economists, Madam President. By one analysis, the Democrats' extra cash bonuses for laid-off workers who stay home will result in almost 60 percent of workers earning more money staying home than they would earn from returning to work--more money by staying home than they would earn from returning to work. What a great idea. This isn't State unemployment insurance; it is borrowing from our kids and grandkids to pay yet an additional cash bonus for not working. This would extend deep into 2021, when we anticipate serious job growth. Just this morning, we had a jobs report that shattered expectations, nearly doubling the job growth experts had expected to see. This is what the Washington Post says about this mess. This is the Washington Post about this mess that is before us: For policy experts and even members of Biden's own party, the improving picture is raising questions about whether the stimulus bill is mismatched to the needs of the current moment. That is from the Washington Post editorial. It is mismatched all right because it was never designed to meet Americans' needs. The goal was to ``restructure things to fit'' their ``vision.'' That is why there was no bipartisan process after a year of completely bipartisan COVID bills that we worked on together. That is why the Senate Republicans who went to the White House to propose working together were told: No thanks; take it or leave it. This is such a poorly targeted rush job that Democrats can't even settle on one set of political spin. The White House Chief of Staff is going around town admitting that they have written ``the most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.'' That is the White House Chief of Staff. Meanwhile, here in the Senate, Democrats are still pretending this is some down-the-middle proposal and lecturing us for not supporting it. They can't even get their stories straight. The administration campaigned on ushering in a new day of unity and bipartisanship, but in 2020, under Republican leadership, the Senate negotiated five rescue bills totaling $4 trillion, and none of them got fewer than 90 votes. That is how this Senate was run last year in a time of divided government, and now, in this supposed new era of healing leadership, we are about to watch one party ram through a partisan package on the thinnest margins. Go figure. Republicans have many ideas to improve the bill, many ideas, and we are about to vote on all kinds of amendments in the hopes that some of these ideas make it into the final product. We are going to try to improve the bill. The millions who elected 50 Republican Senators will have their voices heard loud and clear. Our country is already set for a roaring recovery. We are already on track to bounce back from this crisis. That is not because of this bill; it is because of our work last year. This is a trend this new Democratic government inherited. We are going to come roaring back and mostly not because of this bill--in fact, in some ways, in spite of this bill. It will be because of the bipartisan foundation we laid last year and the strength and resilience of our people. Democrats inherited a tide that was already turning. We could have worked together to do something smart to finish this fight as fast as possible. Democrats decided to do something else. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1218-2 | null | 2,477 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this month we are celebrating Women's History Month, which is a time for us to look back on history and recognize all of the barriers women have overcome, honor women's rights champions, and strategize on the work we still have ahead of us. Our country has made great strides and progress in recent decades. We cannot let previous generations' hard work and sacrifices go to waste. Dating back to the 1800s, women's history of philanthropists, suffragists, and activists in my home State of Maryland is rich. Margaret Briggs Gregory Hawkins, born in 1887, was instrumental in the long-haul efforts of women earning the right to vote. Her dedicated efforts for women's rights and civil rights were evident at the local level in my hometown of Baltimore. Through her membership in women's grassroots organizations, such as the Druid Hill Branch of the YWCA, Civilian Defense Mobilization, and the Progressive Women's Suffrage Club, she focused on cultivating meaningful relationships, leadership skills, and advancing civil rights and voting rights for women of color. We commemorate Margaret this Women's History Month as she is inducted into the 2021 Maryland Women's Hall of Fame. Women's History Month is a time for us to remember the fearless women who shaped history as we know it. In 2020, we lost Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Affectionately known as the ``notorious RBG,'' Justice Ginsburg paved the way for millions of women in her relentless fight for justice and equality. She was a warrior in guaranteeing women had a sound voice in the arena. Justice Ginsburg challenged us to ``think about how you would like the world to be for your daughters and granddaughters.'' While 2020 was tumultuous, it also brought anniversaries that are worth noting. In August, we celebrated the milestone of the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage. The right to vote is a central to the heart of our democracy. I cannot think of a better way to ring in this milestone than by electing our first female Vice President, Vice President Kamala Harris. It was a privilege and a joy to serve with my friend Kamala in the Senate. She has been pivotal in women's history. Aside from her groundbreaking role as our first female Vice President, she is the first woman, first South Asian American, and first African American to serve as attorny general in California's history. When looking back on her achievements, she often quotes her mother, who would tell her, ``Kamala, you may be the first to do many things, but make sure you are not the last.'' I could not agree more. While Vice President Harris made history and shattered the glass ceiling with her election victory this past November, there is still work we must do. The first step in leveling the playing field between men and women, today and for future generations, is to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA. Justice Ginsburg once said that if she could choose an amendment to add to the Constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment. That is because she would like her granddaughters,when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion--that women and men are persons of equal stature--as a basic principle of our society. To this day, the Constitution of the United States, our Nation's key document and supreme law, does not consider men and women of equal stature. For example, the Constitution does not protect equal pay under the law. Women, especially women of color, are earning significantly less than their male counterparts for the same work. Women make up a majority of the population, yet are underrepresented in our government institutions and the business world. The ERA has reached the necessary 38-State ratification threshold for this landmark legislation to be added to the Constitution of the United States. The ERA would solidify and protect the rights of women where our legislation currently falls short. The ERA would raise the standard of scrutiny with which the courts analyze cases of discrimination on the basis of sex and send the vital message that women and men are citizens of equal stature in the United States. I have introduced bipartisan legislation in the Senate, S.J. Res. 1, with the senior Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, that would remove the existing deadline and allow us to bring this meaningful legislation to the finish line once and for all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1272 | null | 2,478 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I recognize Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, a dedicated public servant who is celebrating 25 years on the Federal bench on March 11. Born and raised in Montana, Judge Thomas's skill as a decisionmaker was evident from the start. Even as a high school debater, he earned the respect of competing schools with the combination of his success at meets and affable spirit. Both his tenacity and good nature would be enduring legacies. Judge Thomas went on to attend Montana State University and obtain his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law. He was twice appointed to the Board of Regents of Higher Education as a student member. After graduating, Judge Thomas entered private practice. A quick learner with a deft ability to understand even the most complex cases, he became a senior partner. During his tenure in private practice, Judge Thomas specialized in commercial litigation, along with bankruptcy, government, and media law. He further applied his expertise as the standing bankruptcytrustee for all bankruptcy cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana's Billings Division. Judge Thomas also helped shape future lawyers by serving at Rocky Mountain College for over a decade as an adjunct instructor in law. On July 19, 1995, recognizing Judge Thomas's outstanding record, President Bill Clinton nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Thomas in January 1996, and he served as a judge for nearly two decades, before becoming chief judge on December 1, 2014. Throughout his impressive career, Judge Thomas has earned the confidence of his colleagues and the American people. He is a respected leader who is trusted for his sound judgment and integrity, as well as beloved for his warm personality and wit. These qualities landed Judge Thomas on President Barack Obama's short list of candidates to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. Thanks to his extraordinary commitment public service, his intelligence and legal acumen, and his commitment to justice, Judge Thomas is a credit to our Nation's judiciary. His fairness on the bench, along with his tireless work ethic and compassion, sets a model for all of us. I applaud his many accomplishments and hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas on attaining 25 years on the Federal bench. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1273-2 | null | 2,479 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 1022. Mr. SULLIVAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 578, strike line 22 and all that follows through page 579, line 15, and insert the following: ``(iii) an amount equal to the remainder of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A) after the application of clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph shall be allocated by the Secretary as an additional amount to each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia in an amount which bears the same proportion to such remainder as the relative loss in tax revenue of the State or District of Columbia during the 12-month period ending on February 28, 2021 (as determined by the Secretary based on the most recent available data from the Department of the Treasury) bears to the sum of the relative losses in tax revenue for all 50 States and the District of Columbia during such period (as so determined). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1294-3 | null | 2,480 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 1149. Mr. TOOMEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 34, strike line 16, and all that follow through page 43, line 9, and insert the following: (e) Uses of Funds.--A local educational agency that receives funds under this section-- (1) shall reserve not less than 20 percent of such funds to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence- based interventions, such as summer learning, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs, and ensure that such interventions respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi)of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care; (2) shall reserve such funds as needed to make Education Recovery Grants under subsection (g); and (3) shall use the remaining funds for any of the following: (A) Any activity authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (B) Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (C) Any activity authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. (D) Any activity authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. (E) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (F) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (G) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (H) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (I) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (J) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the IDEA and ensuring other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (K) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (L) Providing mental health services and supports. (M) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (N) Addressing learning loss among students, including low- income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by-- (i) administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students' academic progress and assist educators in meeting students' academic needs, including through differentiating instruction; (ii) implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students; (iii) providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment; and (iv) tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (O) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (P) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (Q) Developing strategies and implementing public health protocols including, to the greatest extent practicable, policies in line with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the reopening and operation of school facilities to effectively maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and other staff. (R) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency. (f) State Funding.--With funds not otherwise allocated under subsection (d), a State-- (1) shall reserve not less than 5 percent of the total amount of grant funds awarded to the State under this section to carry out, directly or through grants or contracts, activities to address learning loss by supporting the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs, and ensure that such interventions respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, including by providing additional support to local educational agencies to fully address such impacts; (2) shall reserve not less than 1 percent of the total amount of grant funds awarded to the State under this section to carry out, directly or through grants or contracts, the implementation of evidence-based comprehensive afterschool programs, and ensure such programs respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student populations described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care; (3) shall reserve 2.5 percent of the total amount of grant funds awarded to the State under this section to carry out, directly or through grants or contracts, the purchase of educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agencies in the State that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment; and (4) may reserve not more than one-half of 1 percent of the total amount of grant funds awarded to the State under this section for administrative costs and the remainder for emergency needs as determined by the State educational agency to address issues responding to coronavirus, which may be addressed through the use of grants or contracts. (g) Education Recovery Grants.-- (1) In general.--A local educational agency that receives funds under this section and serves an elementary school or secondary school identified and designated under paragraph (2) shall deposit into Education Savings Accounts the Education Recovery Grants to eligible claimants, by not later than June 30, 2021, from funds available under this section in the amount described in paragraph (3). (2) Identification and designation.--Not later than 2 months after the date of enactment of this title, and every 2 months thereafter, a local educational agency that receives funds under this section shall identify and designate for school improvement any elementary school or secondary school served by the agency, that failed, during the preceding 2- month period, to make available in-person instruction for at a minimum 15 days each of such 2 months for all students who wish to attend. (3) Education recovery grant amount.--The amount described in this paragraph is the product of $2,500, multiplied by the number of qualifying children of the eligible claimant for the 2021 taxable year. (4) Eligible claimant.--In this subsection, the term ``eligible claimant'' means a parent or guardian of a qualifying child who agrees to use the funds deposited in their qualifying child's Education Savings Account for the following qualifying expenses to educate the qualifying child: (A) Tuition and fees in connection with enrollment or attendance at an elementary or secondary school. (B) Tuition for tutoring or educational classes outside of the home (but only if the tutor or instructor is not related to the student). (C) Curriculum or instructional materials. (D) Educational services or therapies for students with disabilities. (E) Any other related educational expenses approved by the local educational agency. (5) Special rule.--Only one Education Recovery Grant shall be made on behalf of each qualifying child, regardless of the number of parents or legal guardians of such child. (6) Qualifying child.--In this subsection, the term ``qualifying child'' means an individual aged 5 through 17 who attends a school identified and designated under paragraph (2). (7) Administration.--A local educational agency that receives funds under this section and serves an elementary school or secondary school identified and designated under paragraph (2) shall-- (A) provide parents and guardians of qualifying children with a written explanation of the allowable uses of Education Recovery Grants; and (B) require that eligible claimants maintain a record of how Education Recovery Grant funds were spent. (8) Prohibition of control over nonpublic education providers.-- (A) In general.--Education Recovery Grants shall not be considered assistance to the school or other educational provider that enrolls or provides educational services to the qualifying child or the eligible claimant. (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow, encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of any private, religious, or home education provider, whether or not a home education provider is treated as a private school or home school under State law. (C) Prohibition on religious discrimination.--No State or local educational agency shall in any way exclude, discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage any education provider with respect to programs or services under this section based in whole or in part on the provider's religious education character or affiliation, including religiously or mission-based policies or practices. (h) Reallocation.--A State shall return to the Secretary any funds received under this section that the State does not award within 1 year of receiving such funds and the Secretary shall reallocate such funds to the remaining States in accordance with subsection (c). (i) ESEA Terms.--In this section: (1) ESEA terms.--The terms ``child'', ``children with disabilities'', ``distance education'', ``elementary school'', ``English learner'', ``evidence-based'', ``extended learning time'', ``secondary school'', ``local educational agency'', ``parent'', ``school leader'', ``Secretary'', ``State'', ``state educational agency'', and ``technology'' have the meanings given those terms in section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801). (2) Full-service community school.--The term ``full-service community school'' has the meaning given that term in section 4622(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7272(2)). (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1323-4 | null | 2,481 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 1223. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 7402, strike subsections (c) and (d) and insert the following: (c) Emergency Connectivity Fund.-- (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the ``Emergency Connectivity Fund''. (2) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Emergency Connectivity Fund for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated-- (A) $7,171,000,000, to remain available until July 31, 2021, after which any amounts remaining in the Emergency Connectivity Fund shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, for-- (i) the provision of support under the covered regulations; and (ii) the Commission to adopt, and the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer, the covered regulations; and (B) $1,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2030, for the Inspector General of the Commission to conduct oversight of support provided under the covered regulations. (3) Limitation.--Not more than 2 percent of the amount made available under paragraph (2)(A) may be used for the purposes described in clause (ii) of such paragraph. (4) Relationship to universal service contributions.-- Support provided under the covered regulations shall be provided from amounts made available from the Emergency Connectivity Fund and not from contributions under section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)). (d) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Advanced telecommunications and information services.-- The term ``advanced telecommunications and information services'' means advanced telecommunications and information services, as such term is used in section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)). (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal Communications Commission. (3) Connected device.--The term ``connected device'' means a laptop computer, tablet computer, or similar end-user device that is capable of connecting to advanced telecommunications and information services. (4) Covered regulations.--The term ``covered regulations'' means the regulations promulgated under subsection (a). (5) COVID-19 emergency period.--The term ``COVID-19 emergency period'' means a period that-- (A) begins on the date of a determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) that a public health emergency exists as a result of COVID-19; and (B) ends on the June 30 that first occurs after the date that is 1 year after the date on which such determination (including any renewal thereof) terminates. (6) Eligible equipment.--The term ``eligible equipment'' means the following: (A) Wi-Fi hotspots. (B) Modems. (C) Routers. (D) Devices that combine a modem and router. (E) Connected devices. (7) Eligible school or library.--The term ``eligible school or library'' means an elementary school, secondary school, or library (including a Tribal elementary school, Tribal secondary school, or Tribal library) eligible for support under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) that did not receive funds under the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136) (or an amendment made by that Act) or the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) (or an amendment made by that Act). (8) Emergency connectivity fund.--The term ``Emergency Connectivity Fund'' means the fund established under subsection (c)(1). (9) Library.--The term ``library'' includes a library consortium. (10) Wi-fi.--The term ``Wi-Fi'' means a wireless networking protocol based on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standard 802.11 (or any successor standard). (11) Wi-fi hotspot.--The term ``Wi-Fi hotspot'' means a device that is capable of-- (A) receiving advanced telecommunications and information services; and (B) sharing such services with a connected device through the use of Wi-Fi. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1344-4 | null | 2,482 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 1223. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 7402, strike subsections (c) and (d) and insert the following: (c) Emergency Connectivity Fund.-- (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of the United States a fund to be known as the ``Emergency Connectivity Fund''. (2) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Emergency Connectivity Fund for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated-- (A) $7,171,000,000, to remain available until July 31, 2021, after which any amounts remaining in the Emergency Connectivity Fund shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury, for-- (i) the provision of support under the covered regulations; and (ii) the Commission to adopt, and the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company to administer, the covered regulations; and (B) $1,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2030, for the Inspector General of the Commission to conduct oversight of support provided under the covered regulations. (3) Limitation.--Not more than 2 percent of the amount made available under paragraph (2)(A) may be used for the purposes described in clause (ii) of such paragraph. (4) Relationship to universal service contributions.-- Support provided under the covered regulations shall be provided from amounts made available from the Emergency Connectivity Fund and not from contributions under section 254(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(d)). (d) Definitions.--In this section: (1) Advanced telecommunications and information services.-- The term ``advanced telecommunications and information services'' means advanced telecommunications and information services, as such term is used in section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)). (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal Communications Commission. (3) Connected device.--The term ``connected device'' means a laptop computer, tablet computer, or similar end-user device that is capable of connecting to advanced telecommunications and information services. (4) Covered regulations.--The term ``covered regulations'' means the regulations promulgated under subsection (a). (5) COVID-19 emergency period.--The term ``COVID-19 emergency period'' means a period that-- (A) begins on the date of a determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) that a public health emergency exists as a result of COVID-19; and (B) ends on the June 30 that first occurs after the date that is 1 year after the date on which such determination (including any renewal thereof) terminates. (6) Eligible equipment.--The term ``eligible equipment'' means the following: (A) Wi-Fi hotspots. (B) Modems. (C) Routers. (D) Devices that combine a modem and router. (E) Connected devices. (7) Eligible school or library.--The term ``eligible school or library'' means an elementary school, secondary school, or library (including a Tribal elementary school, Tribal secondary school, or Tribal library) eligible for support under paragraphs (1)(B) and (2) of section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) that did not receive funds under the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136) (or an amendment made by that Act) or the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) (or an amendment made by that Act). (8) Emergency connectivity fund.--The term ``Emergency Connectivity Fund'' means the fund established under subsection (c)(1). (9) Library.--The term ``library'' includes a library consortium. (10) Wi-fi.--The term ``Wi-Fi'' means a wireless networking protocol based on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers standard 802.11 (or any successor standard). (11) Wi-fi hotspot.--The term ``Wi-Fi hotspot'' means a device that is capable of-- (A) receiving advanced telecommunications and information services; and (B) sharing such services with a connected device through the use of Wi-Fi. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1344-4 | null | 2,483 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 1232. Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Toomey) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 172, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 180, line 13, and insert the following: (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise made available, there are appropriated for fiscal year 2021, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $30,286,355,534, to remain available until September 30, 2024, that shall-- (A) be for grants to eligible recipients under sections 5307, 5309, 5310, and 5311 of title 49, United States Code, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus; and (B) not be subject to any prior restriction on the total amount of funds available for implementation or execution of programs authorized under sections 5307, 5310, or 5311 of such title. (2) Availability of funds for operating expenses.-- (A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) or (b) of section 5307 and section 5310(b)(2)(A) of title 49, United States Code, funds provided under this section, other than subsection (b)(4), shall be available for the operating expenses of transit agencies to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus public health emergency, including, beginning on January 20, 2020-- (i) reimbursement for payroll of public transportation (including payroll and expenses of private providers of public transportation); (ii) operating costs to maintain service due to lost revenue due as a result of the coronavirus public health emergency, including the purchase of personal protective equipment; and (iii) paying the administrative leave of operations or contractor personnel due to reductions in service. (B) Use of funds.--Funds described in subparagraph (A) shall be-- (i) available for immediate obligation, notwithstanding the requirement for such expenses to be included in a transportation improvement program, long-range transportation plan, statewide transportation plan, or statewide transportation improvement program under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, United States Code; (ii) directed to payroll and operations of public transportation (including payroll and expenses of private providers of public transportation), unless the recipient certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration that the recipient has not furloughed any employees; (iii) used to provide a Federal share of the costs for any grant made under this section of 100 percent. (b) Allocation of Funds.-- (1) Urbanized area formula grants.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), $26,086,580,227 shall be for grants to recipients and subrecipients under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be administered as if such funds were provided under section 5307 of such title. (B) Allocation.--Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) shall be apportioned to urbanized areas based on data contained in the National Transit Database such that-- (i) each urbanized area shall receive an apportionment of an amount that, when combined with amounts that were otherwise made available to such urbanized area for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, is equal to 132 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs; and (ii) for funds remaining after the apportionment described in clause (i), such funds shall be apportioned such that-- (I) each urbanized area that did not receive an apportionment under clause (i) shall receive an apportionment equal to 25 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs; and (II) each urbanized area under clause (i), when the amounts that were otherwise made available, prior to clause (i) to that urbanized area for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus are equal to or greater than 130 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs but do not exceed 132 percent of such costs, such urbanized area shall receive an apportionment equal to 10 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs, in addition to amounts apportioned to the urbanized area under clause (i). (2) Formula grants for the enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), $50,000,000 shall be for grants to recipients or subrecipients eligible under section 5310 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be apportioned in accordance with such section. (B) Allocation ratio.--Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) shall be allocated in the same ratio as funds were provided under section 5310 of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal year 2020. (3) Formula grants for rural areas.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), $317,214,013 shall be for grants to recipients or subrecipients eligible under section 5311 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be administered as if the funds were provided under section 5311 of such title, and shall be apportioned in accordance with such section, except as described in paragraph (B). (B) Allocation ratio.--Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) to States, as defined in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code, shall be allocated to such States based on data contained in the National Transit Database, such that-- (i) any State that received an amount for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus that is equal to or greater than 150 percent of the combined 2018 rural operating costs of the recipients and subrecipients in such State shall receive an amount equal to 5 percent of such State's 2018 rural operating costs; (ii) any State that does not receive an allocation under clause (i) that received an amount for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus that is equal to or greater than 140 percent of the combined 2018 rural operating costs of the recipients and subrecipients in that State shall receive an amount equal to 10 percent of such State's 2018 rural operating costs; and (iii) any State that does not receive an allocation under clauses (i) or (ii) shall receive an amount equal to 20 percent of such State's 2018 rural operating costs. (4) Capital investments.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a)-- (i) $1,250,000,000 shall be for grants administered under subsections (d) and (e) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code; and (ii) $250,000,000 shall be for grants administered under subsection (h) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code. (B) Funding distribution.-- (i) In general.--Of the amounts made available in subparagraph (A)(i), $1,250,000,000 shall be provided to each recipient for all projects with existing full funding grant agreements that received allocations for fiscal year 2019 or 2020, except that recipients with projects open for revenue service are not eligible to receive a grant under this subparagraph. Funds shall be provided proportionally based on the non-capital investment grant share of the amount allocated. (ii) Eligible recipients.--For amounts made available in subparagraph (A)(ii), eligible recipients shall be any recipient of an allocation under subsection (h) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, or an applicant in the project development phase described in paragraph (2) of such subsection. (iii) Amount.--Amounts distributed under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be provided notwithstanding the limitation of any calculation of the maximum amount of Federal financial assistance for the project under subsection (k)(2)(C)(ii) or (h)(7) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1345-6 | null | 2,484 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 1232. Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Toomey) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 172, strike line 1 and all that follows through page 180, line 13, and insert the following: (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise made available, there are appropriated for fiscal year 2021, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $30,286,355,534, to remain available until September 30, 2024, that shall-- (A) be for grants to eligible recipients under sections 5307, 5309, 5310, and 5311 of title 49, United States Code, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus; and (B) not be subject to any prior restriction on the total amount of funds available for implementation or execution of programs authorized under sections 5307, 5310, or 5311 of such title. (2) Availability of funds for operating expenses.-- (A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) or (b) of section 5307 and section 5310(b)(2)(A) of title 49, United States Code, funds provided under this section, other than subsection (b)(4), shall be available for the operating expenses of transit agencies to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus public health emergency, including, beginning on January 20, 2020-- (i) reimbursement for payroll of public transportation (including payroll and expenses of private providers of public transportation); (ii) operating costs to maintain service due to lost revenue due as a result of the coronavirus public health emergency, including the purchase of personal protective equipment; and (iii) paying the administrative leave of operations or contractor personnel due to reductions in service. (B) Use of funds.--Funds described in subparagraph (A) shall be-- (i) available for immediate obligation, notwithstanding the requirement for such expenses to be included in a transportation improvement program, long-range transportation plan, statewide transportation plan, or statewide transportation improvement program under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 49, United States Code; (ii) directed to payroll and operations of public transportation (including payroll and expenses of private providers of public transportation), unless the recipient certifies to the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration that the recipient has not furloughed any employees; (iii) used to provide a Federal share of the costs for any grant made under this section of 100 percent. (b) Allocation of Funds.-- (1) Urbanized area formula grants.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), $26,086,580,227 shall be for grants to recipients and subrecipients under section 5307 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be administered as if such funds were provided under section 5307 of such title. (B) Allocation.--Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) shall be apportioned to urbanized areas based on data contained in the National Transit Database such that-- (i) each urbanized area shall receive an apportionment of an amount that, when combined with amounts that were otherwise made available to such urbanized area for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, is equal to 132 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs; and (ii) for funds remaining after the apportionment described in clause (i), such funds shall be apportioned such that-- (I) each urbanized area that did not receive an apportionment under clause (i) shall receive an apportionment equal to 25 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs; and (II) each urbanized area under clause (i), when the amounts that were otherwise made available, prior to clause (i) to that urbanized area for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus are equal to or greater than 130 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs but do not exceed 132 percent of such costs, such urbanized area shall receive an apportionment equal to 10 percent of the urbanized area's 2018 operating costs, in addition to amounts apportioned to the urbanized area under clause (i). (2) Formula grants for the enhanced mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), $50,000,000 shall be for grants to recipients or subrecipients eligible under section 5310 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be apportioned in accordance with such section. (B) Allocation ratio.--Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) shall be allocated in the same ratio as funds were provided under section 5310 of title 49, United States Code, for fiscal year 2020. (3) Formula grants for rural areas.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a), $317,214,013 shall be for grants to recipients or subrecipients eligible under section 5311 of title 49, United States Code, and shall be administered as if the funds were provided under section 5311 of such title, and shall be apportioned in accordance with such section, except as described in paragraph (B). (B) Allocation ratio.--Amounts made available under subparagraph (A) to States, as defined in section 5302 of title 49, United States Code, shall be allocated to such States based on data contained in the National Transit Database, such that-- (i) any State that received an amount for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus that is equal to or greater than 150 percent of the combined 2018 rural operating costs of the recipients and subrecipients in such State shall receive an amount equal to 5 percent of such State's 2018 rural operating costs; (ii) any State that does not receive an allocation under clause (i) that received an amount for similar activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus that is equal to or greater than 140 percent of the combined 2018 rural operating costs of the recipients and subrecipients in that State shall receive an amount equal to 10 percent of such State's 2018 rural operating costs; and (iii) any State that does not receive an allocation under clauses (i) or (ii) shall receive an amount equal to 20 percent of such State's 2018 rural operating costs. (4) Capital investments.-- (A) In general.--Of the amounts made available under subsection (a)-- (i) $1,250,000,000 shall be for grants administered under subsections (d) and (e) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code; and (ii) $250,000,000 shall be for grants administered under subsection (h) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code. (B) Funding distribution.-- (i) In general.--Of the amounts made available in subparagraph (A)(i), $1,250,000,000 shall be provided to each recipient for all projects with existing full funding grant agreements that received allocations for fiscal year 2019 or 2020, except that recipients with projects open for revenue service are not eligible to receive a grant under this subparagraph. Funds shall be provided proportionally based on the non-capital investment grant share of the amount allocated. (ii) Eligible recipients.--For amounts made available in subparagraph (A)(ii), eligible recipients shall be any recipient of an allocation under subsection (h) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, or an applicant in the project development phase described in paragraph (2) of such subsection. (iii) Amount.--Amounts distributed under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be provided notwithstanding the limitation of any calculation of the maximum amount of Federal financial assistance for the project under subsection (k)(2)(C)(ii) or (h)(7) of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1345-6 | null | 2,485 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 1316. Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Marshall) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 1001, add the following: (e) Implementation of COVID-19 Relief to Agricultural Producers.-- (1) Funding.--Out of the amounts made available under subsection (a), the Secretary of Agriculture shall use $52,500,000 for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency associated with carrying out this subsection. (2) Use of funds.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use the amounts made available by paragraph (1) for the following purposes: (A) Implementation of final rules.--Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall-- (i) carry out all final rules published in the Federal Register as of January 20, 2021, to provide assistance to agricultural producers impacted by the effects of COVID-19; and (ii) disburse to agricultural producers all payments required under those final rules. (B) Payments for producers of certain crops and cattle.-- (i) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make-- (I) the supplemental payments to producers of price trigger crops as required under the first proviso of section 751 of division N of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260); (II) the supplemental payments to producers of flat-rate crops as required under the second proviso of that section; and (III) the payments to producers of cattle as required under the seventh and eighth provisos of that section. (ii) Applications.--In providing supplemental payments described in subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (i) to producers of price trigger crops and flat-rate crops, respectively, the Secretary of Agriculture shall not require a producer to submit an application for such a supplemental payment. (C) Expedited provision of other payments.--In providing any payments or assistance not described in subparagraph (A) or (B) to agricultural producers impacted by the effects of COVID-19, the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide the payments or assistance as soon as practicable. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1367-2 | null | 2,486 |
formal | public school | null | racist | SA 1334. Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 2001, strike subsection (d) and insert the following: (d) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.-- (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each State shall reserve not less than 87.5 percent of the grant funds awarded to the State under this section to allocate such funds as subgrants to local educational agencies (including charter schools that are local educational agencies) in the State in proportion to the amount of funds such local educational agencies and charter schools that are local educational agencies received under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the most recent fiscal year. (2) In-person learning.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of a local educational agency that does not offer an option for in-person instruction to the students served by the local educational agency, that local educational agency shall be eligible to receive an amount that is equal to 75 percent of the amount that the local educational agency would otherwise have been eligible to receive under paragraph (1). (3) Availability of funds.--Each State shall make allocations under paragraph (1) to local educational agencies in an expedited and timely manner and, to the extent practicable, not later than 60 days after the receipt of such funds. (4) Tuition assistance for students with disabilities.-- (A) In general.--The State shall distribute remaining funds reserved under this subsection to one or more State-approved scholarship-granting organizations for the purpose of providing tuition assistance for children with disabilities in the State to attend non-public schools that provide an in- person instruction option. (B) Definitions.--In this paragraph, the term-- (i) ``remaining funds reserved under this subsection'' means the amounts made available under this subsection that a State does not award as subgrant funds due to a local educational agency that is eligible for a decreased subgrant amount under paragraph (3); and (ii) ``children with disabilities'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1369-3 | null | 2,487 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | SA 1334. Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 2001, strike subsection (d) and insert the following: (d) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.-- (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each State shall reserve not less than 87.5 percent of the grant funds awarded to the State under this section to allocate such funds as subgrants to local educational agencies (including charter schools that are local educational agencies) in the State in proportion to the amount of funds such local educational agencies and charter schools that are local educational agencies received under part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in the most recent fiscal year. (2) In-person learning.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of a local educational agency that does not offer an option for in-person instruction to the students served by the local educational agency, that local educational agency shall be eligible to receive an amount that is equal to 75 percent of the amount that the local educational agency would otherwise have been eligible to receive under paragraph (1). (3) Availability of funds.--Each State shall make allocations under paragraph (1) to local educational agencies in an expedited and timely manner and, to the extent practicable, not later than 60 days after the receipt of such funds. (4) Tuition assistance for students with disabilities.-- (A) In general.--The State shall distribute remaining funds reserved under this subsection to one or more State-approved scholarship-granting organizations for the purpose of providing tuition assistance for children with disabilities in the State to attend non-public schools that provide an in- person instruction option. (B) Definitions.--In this paragraph, the term-- (i) ``remaining funds reserved under this subsection'' means the amounts made available under this subsection that a State does not award as subgrant funds due to a local educational agency that is eligible for a decreased subgrant amount under paragraph (3); and (ii) ``children with disabilities'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1369-3 | null | 2,488 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 1364. Mr. ROMNEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 575, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 587, line 12, and insert the following: ``SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOVERY FUND. ``(a) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated-- ``(1) $219,800,000,000, to remain available until through December 31, 2024, for making payments under this section to States, territories, and Tribal governments to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19); and ``(2) $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the costs of the Secretary for administration of the funds established under this title. ``(b) Authority to Make Payments.-- ``(1) Payments to territories.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve $4,500,000,000 of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1) to make payments to the territories. ``(B) Allocation.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be allocated by the Secretary equally among each territory; and ``(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be allocated by the Secretary as an additional amount to each territory in an amount which bears the same proportion to \1/2\ of the total amount reserved under subparagraph (A) as the relative population of the territory bears to the total population of all such territories. ``(C) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay each territory the total of the amounts allocated for the territory under subparagraph (B). ``(2) Payments to tribal governments.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve $20,000,000,000 of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1) to make payments to Tribal governments. ``(B) Allocation.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) $1,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the Secretary equally among each Tribal government; and ``(ii) $19,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the Secretary among each Tribal government in an amount determined by the Secretary. ``(C) Payment.-- The Secretary shall pay each Tribal government the total of the amounts allocated for the Tribal government under subparagraph (B). ``(3) Payments to each of the 50 states and the district of columbia.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve $195,300,000,000 of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1) to make payments to each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. ``(B) Allocations.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall allocate to each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, upon application to the Secretary, an amount that shall not exceed the sum of-- ``(i) the total amount of necessary expenditures incurred by the State or District of Columbia between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, for necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (as such term was defined by the Secretary for purposes of applying section 601(d)(1) on or before the date of enactment of this section); ``(ii) the amount (if any) by which-- ``(I) the total amount of tax revenue collected by the State or District of Columbia in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2019 (as published by the Bureau of the Census in the Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue); exceeds ``(II) the total amount of such revenue collected by the State or District of Columbia in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2020 (as so published); and ``(iii) the amount (if any) by which-- ``(I) the total amount expended by the State or District of Columbia for medical assistance furnished under the State Medicaid plan under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2020 (reduced by the total amount of any Federal payments received or scheduled to be received by the State or the District of Columbia with respect to such expenditures that are attributable to the increase to the Federal medical assistance percentage for the State or the District of Columbia under section 6008 of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127)); exceeds ``(II) the total amount expended by the State or District of Columbia for medical assistance furnished under such plan or waiver in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2019. ``(C) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia the amount allocated for the State and District of Columbia under subparagraph (B). ``(4) Population data.--For purposes of determining allocations for a territory under this section, the population of the territory shall be determined based on the most recent data available from the Bureau of the Census. ``(5) Timing.--To the extent practicable, with respect to each State, territory, and Tribal government allocated a payment under this subsection, the Secretary shall make the payment required for the State, territory, or Tribal government (as applicable) not later than 60 days after the date on which the certification required under subsection (d) is provided to the Secretary. ``(6) Pro rata adjustment authority.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amounts otherwise determined for allocation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to ensure that all available funds are distributed to territories, Tribal governments, and States in accordance with the requirements specified in each paragraph (as applicable) and the certification requirement specified in subsection (d). ``(B) Unallocated amounts.--Any amounts from the amount reserved under paragraph (3)(A) that are not allocated by the Treasury under paragraph (3)(B) shall be returned to the general fund of the Treasury. ``(c) Requirements.-- ``(1) Use of funds.--Subject to paragraph (2), and except as provided under paragraph (3), a State, territory, or Tribal government shall only use the funds provided under a payment made under this section, or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4), to-- ``(A) respond to or mitigate the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or its negative economic impacts; ``(B) cover costs incurred as a result of such emergency; or ``(C) replace revenue that was lost, delayed, or decreased (as published by the Bureau of the Census in the Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue) as a result of such emergency. ``(2) Further restriction on use of funds.-- ``(A) In general.--A State or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase. ``(B) Pension funds.--No state or territory may use funds made available under this section for deposit into any pension fund. ``(3) Transfer authority.--A State, territory, or Tribal government receiving a payment from funds made available under this section may transfer funds to a private nonprofit organization (as that term is defined in paragraph (17) of section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(17)), a public benefit corporation involved in the transportation of passengers or cargo, or a special- purpose unit of State or local government. ``(d) Certifications and Reports.-- ``(1) In general.--In order for a State or territory to receive a payment under this section, or a transfer of funds under section 603(c)(4), the State or territory shall provide the Secretary with a certification, signed by an authorized officer of such State or territory, that such State or territory requires the payment or transfer to carry out the activities specified in subsection (c) of this section and will use any payment under this section, or transfer of funds under section 603(c)(4), in compliance with subsection (c) of this section ``(2) Reporting.--Any State, territory, or Tribal government receiving a payment under this section shall provide to the Secretary periodic reports providing a detailed accounting of-- ``(A) the uses of funds by such State, territory, or Tribal government, including, in the case of a State or a territory, all modifications to the State's or territory's tax revenue sources during the covered period; and ``(B) such other information as the Secretary may require for the administration of this section. ``(e) Recoupment.--Any State, territory, or Tribal government that has failed to comply with subsection (c) shall be required to repay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount of funds used in violation of such subsection, provided that, in the case of a violation of subsection (c)(2)(A), the amount the State or territory shall be required to repay shall be lesser of-- ``(1) the amount of the applicable reduction to net tax revenue attributable to such violation; and ``(2) the amount of funds received by such State or territory pursuant to a payment made under this section or a transfer made under section 603(c)(4). ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall have the authority to issue such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this section. ``(g) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Covered period.--The term `covered period' means, with respect to a State, territory, or Tribal government, the period that-- ``(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and ``(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year of such State, territory, or Tribal government in which all funds received by the State, territory, or Tribal government from a payment made under this section or a transfer made under section 603(c)(4) have been expended or returned to, or recovered by, the Secretary. ``(2) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury. ``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. ``(4) Territory.--The term `territory' means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. ``(5) Tribal government.--The term `Tribal Government' means the recognized governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, community, component band, or component reservation, individually identified (including parenthetically) in the list published most recently as of the date of enactment of this Act pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1385-2 | null | 2,489 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 1364. Mr. ROMNEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 575, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 587, line 12, and insert the following: ``SEC. 602. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOVERY FUND. ``(a) Appropriation.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated-- ``(1) $219,800,000,000, to remain available until through December 31, 2024, for making payments under this section to States, territories, and Tribal governments to mitigate the fiscal effects stemming from the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19); and ``(2) $50,000,000, to remain available until expended, for the costs of the Secretary for administration of the funds established under this title. ``(b) Authority to Make Payments.-- ``(1) Payments to territories.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve $4,500,000,000 of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1) to make payments to the territories. ``(B) Allocation.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be allocated by the Secretary equally among each territory; and ``(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be allocated by the Secretary as an additional amount to each territory in an amount which bears the same proportion to \1/2\ of the total amount reserved under subparagraph (A) as the relative population of the territory bears to the total population of all such territories. ``(C) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay each territory the total of the amounts allocated for the territory under subparagraph (B). ``(2) Payments to tribal governments.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve $20,000,000,000 of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1) to make payments to Tribal governments. ``(B) Allocation.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) $1,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the Secretary equally among each Tribal government; and ``(ii) $19,000,000,000 shall be allocated by the Secretary among each Tribal government in an amount determined by the Secretary. ``(C) Payment.-- The Secretary shall pay each Tribal government the total of the amounts allocated for the Tribal government under subparagraph (B). ``(3) Payments to each of the 50 states and the district of columbia.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall reserve $195,300,000,000 of the amount appropriated under subsection (a)(1) to make payments to each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. ``(B) Allocations.--Of the amount reserved under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall allocate to each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, upon application to the Secretary, an amount that shall not exceed the sum of-- ``(i) the total amount of necessary expenditures incurred by the State or District of Columbia between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, for necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (as such term was defined by the Secretary for purposes of applying section 601(d)(1) on or before the date of enactment of this section); ``(ii) the amount (if any) by which-- ``(I) the total amount of tax revenue collected by the State or District of Columbia in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2019 (as published by the Bureau of the Census in the Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue); exceeds ``(II) the total amount of such revenue collected by the State or District of Columbia in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2020 (as so published); and ``(iii) the amount (if any) by which-- ``(I) the total amount expended by the State or District of Columbia for medical assistance furnished under the State Medicaid plan under title XIX (or a waiver of such plan) in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2020 (reduced by the total amount of any Federal payments received or scheduled to be received by the State or the District of Columbia with respect to such expenditures that are attributable to the increase to the Federal medical assistance percentage for the State or the District of Columbia under section 6008 of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127)); exceeds ``(II) the total amount expended by the State or District of Columbia for medical assistance furnished under such plan or waiver in the second, third, and fourth calendar quarters of 2019. ``(C) Payment.--The Secretary shall pay each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia the amount allocated for the State and District of Columbia under subparagraph (B). ``(4) Population data.--For purposes of determining allocations for a territory under this section, the population of the territory shall be determined based on the most recent data available from the Bureau of the Census. ``(5) Timing.--To the extent practicable, with respect to each State, territory, and Tribal government allocated a payment under this subsection, the Secretary shall make the payment required for the State, territory, or Tribal government (as applicable) not later than 60 days after the date on which the certification required under subsection (d) is provided to the Secretary. ``(6) Pro rata adjustment authority.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the amounts otherwise determined for allocation and payment under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) may be adjusted by the Secretary on a pro rata basis to the extent necessary to ensure that all available funds are distributed to territories, Tribal governments, and States in accordance with the requirements specified in each paragraph (as applicable) and the certification requirement specified in subsection (d). ``(B) Unallocated amounts.--Any amounts from the amount reserved under paragraph (3)(A) that are not allocated by the Treasury under paragraph (3)(B) shall be returned to the general fund of the Treasury. ``(c) Requirements.-- ``(1) Use of funds.--Subject to paragraph (2), and except as provided under paragraph (3), a State, territory, or Tribal government shall only use the funds provided under a payment made under this section, or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4), to-- ``(A) respond to or mitigate the public health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or its negative economic impacts; ``(B) cover costs incurred as a result of such emergency; or ``(C) replace revenue that was lost, delayed, or decreased (as published by the Bureau of the Census in the Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue) as a result of such emergency. ``(2) Further restriction on use of funds.-- ``(A) In general.--A State or territory shall not use the funds provided under this section or transferred pursuant to section 603(c)(4) to either directly or indirectly offset a reduction in the net tax revenue of such State or territory resulting from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation during the covered period that reduces any tax (by providing for a reduction in a rate, a rebate, a deduction, a credit, or otherwise) or delays the imposition of any tax or tax increase. ``(B) Pension funds.--No state or territory may use funds made available under this section for deposit into any pension fund. ``(3) Transfer authority.--A State, territory, or Tribal government receiving a payment from funds made available under this section may transfer funds to a private nonprofit organization (as that term is defined in paragraph (17) of section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(17)), a public benefit corporation involved in the transportation of passengers or cargo, or a special- purpose unit of State or local government. ``(d) Certifications and Reports.-- ``(1) In general.--In order for a State or territory to receive a payment under this section, or a transfer of funds under section 603(c)(4), the State or territory shall provide the Secretary with a certification, signed by an authorized officer of such State or territory, that such State or territory requires the payment or transfer to carry out the activities specified in subsection (c) of this section and will use any payment under this section, or transfer of funds under section 603(c)(4), in compliance with subsection (c) of this section ``(2) Reporting.--Any State, territory, or Tribal government receiving a payment under this section shall provide to the Secretary periodic reports providing a detailed accounting of-- ``(A) the uses of funds by such State, territory, or Tribal government, including, in the case of a State or a territory, all modifications to the State's or territory's tax revenue sources during the covered period; and ``(B) such other information as the Secretary may require for the administration of this section. ``(e) Recoupment.--Any State, territory, or Tribal government that has failed to comply with subsection (c) shall be required to repay to the Secretary an amount equal to the amount of funds used in violation of such subsection, provided that, in the case of a violation of subsection (c)(2)(A), the amount the State or territory shall be required to repay shall be lesser of-- ``(1) the amount of the applicable reduction to net tax revenue attributable to such violation; and ``(2) the amount of funds received by such State or territory pursuant to a payment made under this section or a transfer made under section 603(c)(4). ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall have the authority to issue such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this section. ``(g) Definitions.--In this section: ``(1) Covered period.--The term `covered period' means, with respect to a State, territory, or Tribal government, the period that-- ``(A) begins on March 3, 2021; and ``(B) ends on the last day of the fiscal year of such State, territory, or Tribal government in which all funds received by the State, territory, or Tribal government from a payment made under this section or a transfer made under section 603(c)(4) have been expended or returned to, or recovered by, the Secretary. ``(2) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury. ``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. ``(4) Territory.--The term `territory' means the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. ``(5) Tribal government.--The term `Tribal Government' means the recognized governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, community, component band, or component reservation, individually identified (including parenthetically) in the list published most recently as of the date of enactment of this Act pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1385-2 | null | 2,490 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 1393. Mr. HAGERTY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 891 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Carper, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Sanders) to the bill H.R. 1319, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 585, strike line 17 and all that follows through page 586, line 4, and insert the following: ``(e) Inspector General Oversight; Recoupment.-- ``(1) Oversight authority.--The Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury shall conduct monitoring and oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and use of funds made available under this section. ``(2) Recoupment.--If the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury determines that a State, Tribal government, or unit of local government has failed to comply with subsection (c), the amount equal to the amount of funds used in violation of such subsection shall be booked as a debt of such entity owed to the Federal Government. Amounts recovered under this subsection shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. ``(3) Funding.--The Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury may use funds appropriated under section 601(f) to carry out this subsection. ``(4) Authority of inspector general.--Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish the authority of any Inspector General, including such authority as provided in the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-05-pt1-PgS1400-3 | null | 2,491 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS FOR THE 117th CONGRESS House of Representatives, Committee on Ethics, March 5, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Madam Speaker: Pursuant to clause 2 of Rule XI, I submit to the House the Rules of the Committee on Ethics for the 117th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, Theodore E. Deutch, Chairman. (Adopted February 25, 2021) Foreword The Committee on Ethics is unique in the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing committee of the House of Representatives the membership of which is divided evenly by party. These rules are intended to provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the Committee's activities and to help ensure that the Committee serves well the people of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives. Part I--General Committee Rules Rule 1. General Provisions (a) So far as applicable, these rules and the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be the rules of the Committee and any subcommittee. The Committee adopts these rules under the authority of clause 2(a)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress. (b) The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended, or repealed by a vote of a majority of the Committee. (c) When the interests of justice so require, the Committee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt any special procedures, not inconsistent with these rules, deemed necessary to resolve a particular matter before it. Copies of such special procedures shall be furnished to all parties in the matter. (d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member shall have access to such information that they request as necessary to conduct Committee business. Rule 2. Definitions (a) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Ethics. (b) ``Complaint'' means a written allegation of improper conduct against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives filed with the Committee with the intent to initiate an inquiry. (c) ``Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives. (d) ``Investigate,'' ``Investigating,'' and/or ``Investigation'' mean review of the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives that is conducted or authorized by the Committee, an investigative subcommittee, or the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. (e) ``Board'' means the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics. (f) ``Referral'' means a report sent to the Committee from the Board pursuant to House Rules and all applicable House Resolutions regarding the conduct of a House Member, officer, or employee, including any accompanying findings or other supporting documentation. (g) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee designated pursuant to Rule 19(a) to conduct an inquiry to determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be issued. (h) ``Statement of Alleged Violation'' means a formal charging document filed by an investigative subcommittee with the Committee containing specific allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities. (i) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee designated pursuant to Rule 23(a) that holds an adjudicatory hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing evidence. (j) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to the House of Representatives. (k) ``Respondent'' means a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives who is the subject of an investigation. (l) ``Office of Advice and Education'' refers to the Office established by section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The Office handles inquiries; prepares written opinions in response to specific requests; develops general guidance; and organizes seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives. (m) ``Member'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate to, or the Resident Commissioner to, the U.S. House of Representatives. Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers (a) The Office of Advice and Education shall handle inquiries; prepare written opinions providing specific advice, including reviews of requests for privately-sponsored travel pursuant to the Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations; develop general guidance; and organize seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives. (b) Any Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives may request a written opinion with respect to the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such Member, officer, or employee. (c) The Office of Advice and Education may provide information and guidance regarding laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees in the performance of their duties or the discharge of their responsibilities. (d) In general, the Committee shall provide a written opinion to an individual only in response to a written request, and the written opinion shall address the conduct only of the inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the inquiring individual is responsible as employing authority. (e) A written request for an opinion shall be addressed to the Chair of the Committee and shall include a complete and accurate statement of the relevant facts. A request shall be signed by the requester or the requester's authorized representative or employing authority. A representative shall disclose to the Committee the identity of the principal on whose behalf advice is being sought. (f) Requests for privately-sponsored travel shall be treated like any other request for a written opinion for purposes of paragraphs (g) through (l). (1) The Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations shall govern the request submission and Committee approval process for privately-sponsored travel consistent with House Rules. (2) A request for privately-sponsored travel of a Member, officer, or employee shall include a completed and signed Traveler Form that attaches the Private Sponsor Certification Form and includes all information required by the Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations. A private sponsor offering officially-connected travel to a Member, officer, or employee must complete and sign a Private Sponsor Certification Form, and provide a copy of that form to the invitee(s). (3) Any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies, or who knowingly and willfully fails to file, any form required by the Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations may be subject to civil penalties and criminal sanctions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. (g) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for the Committee a response to each written request for an opinion from a Member, officer, or employee. Each response shall discuss all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or other standards. (h) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of Advice and Education may seek additional information from the requester. (i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to take action on behalf of the Committee on any proposed written opinion that they determine does not require consideration by the Committee. If the Chair or Ranking Minority Member requests a written opinion, or seeks a waiver, extension, or approval pursuant to Rules 3(m), 4(c), 4(e), or 4(h), the next ranking member of the requester's party is authorized to act in lieu of the requester. (j) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any response thereto. Upon request of any Member, officer, or employee who has submitted a written request for an opinion or submitted a request for privately-sponsored travel, the Committee may release to the requesting individual a copy of their own written request for advice or submitted travel forms, any subsequent written communications between such individual and Committee staff regarding the request, and any Committee advisory opinion or travel letter issued to that individual in response. The Committee shall not release any internal Committee staff work product, communications, or notes in response to such a request, except as authorized by the Committee. (k) The Committee may take no adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed in the opinion. (l) Information provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or employee seeking advice regarding prospective conduct may not be used as the basis for initiating an investigation under clause 3(a)(2) or clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member, officer, or employee acts in good faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee. (m) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House Rule XXV (the House gift rule), or for any other waiver or approval, shall be treated in all respects like any other request for a written opinion. (n) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House Rule XXV (the House gift rule) shall specify the nature of the waiver being sought and the specific circumstances justifying the waiver. (o) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable to travel paid for by a private source shall include with the request evidence that the employing authority is aware of the request. In any other instance where proposed employee conduct may reflect on the performance of official duties, the Committee may require that the requester submit evidence that the employing authority knows of the conduct. Rule 4. Financial Disclosure (a) In matters relating to Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Committee shall coordinate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, to assure that appropriate individuals are notified of their obligation to file reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act and that such individuals are provided in a timely fashion with filing instructions and forms developed by the Committee. (b) The Committee shall coordinate with the Legislative Resource Center to assure that information that the Ethics in Government Act requires to be placed on the public record is made public. (c) Any reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act filed by Members of the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that are forwarded to the Committee by the Clerk shall not be subject to paragraphs (d) through (q) of this Rule. The Office of Congressional Ethics retains jurisdiction over review of the timeliness and completeness of filings by Members of the Board as the Board's supervising ethics office. (d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to grant on behalf of the Committee requests for reasonable extensions of time for the filing of Financial Disclosure Statements. Any such request must be received by the Committee no later than the date on which the Statement in question is due. A request received after such date may be granted by the Committee only in extraordinary circumstances. Such extensions for one individual in a calendar year shall not exceed a total of 90 days per Statement, including any amendment required by the Committee in accordance with clause (m). No extension shall be granted authorizing a nonincumbent candidate to file a statement later than 30 days prior to a primary or general election in which the candidate is participating. (e) An individual who takes legally sufficient action to withdraw as a candidate before the date on which that individual's Financial Disclosure Statement is due under the Ethics in Government Act shall not be required to file a Statement. An individual shall not be excused from filing a Financial Disclosure Statement when withdrawal as a candidate occurs after the date on which such Statement was due. (f) Any individual who files a report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act more than 30 days after the later of-- (1) the date such report is required to be filed, or (2) if a filing extension is granted to such individual, the last day of the filing extension period, is required by such Act to pay a late filing fee of $200. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests that the fee be waived based on extraordinary circumstances. (g) Any late report that is submitted without a required filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not properly filed. (h) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests for waivers of the aggregation and reporting of gifts as provided by section 102(a)(2)(C) of the Ethics in Government Act. If such a request is approved, both the incoming request and the Committee response shall be forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for placement on the public record. (i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve blind trusts as qualifying under section 102(f)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act. The correspondence relating to formal approval of a blind trust, the trust document, the list of assets transferred to the trust, and any other documents required by law to be made public, shall be forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for such purpose. (j) The Committee shall designate staff who shall review reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act and, based upon information contained therein, indicate in a form and manner prescribed by the Committee whether the Statement appears substantially accurate and complete and the filer appears to be in compliance with applicable laws and rules. (k) Each report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act shall be reviewed within 60 days after the date of filing. (l) If the reviewing staff believes that additional information is required because (1) the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act appears not substantially accurate or complete, or (2) the filer may not be in compliance with applicable laws or rules, then the reporting individual shall be notified in writing of the additional information believed to be required, or of the law or rule with which the reporting individual does not appear to be in compliance. Such notice shall also state the time within which a response is to be submitted. Any such notice shall remain confidential. (m) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual who concurs with the Committee's notification that the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act is not complete, or that other action is required, shall submit the necessary information or take appropriate action. Any amendment may be in the form of a revised report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act or an explanatory letter addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (n) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in the same manner as other reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act. The individual designated by the Committee to review the original report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act shall review any amendment thereto. (o) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual who does not agree with the Committee that the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act is deficient or that other action is required, shall be provided an opportunity to respond orally or in writing. If the explanation is accepted, a copy of the response, if written, or a note summarizing an oral response, shall be retained in Committee files with the original report. (p) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act requires clarification or amendment. (q) If the Committee determines, by vote of a majority of its members, that there is reason to believe that an individual has willfully failed to file a report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported, then the Committee shall refer the name of the individual, together with the evidence supporting its finding, to the Attorney General pursuant to section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act. Such referral shall not preclude the Committee from initiating such other action as may be authorized by other provisions of law or the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 5. Meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the second Tuesday of each month, except when the House of Representatives is not meeting on that day. When the Committee Chair determines that there is sufficient reason, meetings may be called on additional days. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held when the Chair determines there is no business to be considered. (b) The Chair shall establish the agenda for meetings of the Committee, and the Ranking Minority Member may place additional items on the agenda. (c) All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittee shall occur in executive session unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, opens the meeting to the public. (d) Any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee, or any sanction hearing held by the Committee, shall be open to the public unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, closes the hearing to the public. (e) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its Chair. (f) Insofar as practicable, notice for any Committee or subcommittee meeting shall be provided at least seven days in advance of the meeting. The Chair of the Committee or subcommittee may waive such time period for good cause. Rule 6. Committee Staff (a) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. (b) Each member of the staff shall be professional and demonstrably qualified for the position for which the individual is hired. (c) The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. (d) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. (e) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept public speaking engagements or write. for publication on any subject that is in any way related to the employment or duties with the Committee of such individual without specific prior approval from the Chair and Ranking Minority Member. (f) All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. Such vote shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of the Committee during each Congress and as necessary during the Congress. (g) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House Administration, the Committee may retain counsel not employed by the House of Representatives whenever the Committee determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, that the retention of outside counsel is necessary and appropriate. (h) If the Committee determines that it is necessary to retain staff members for the purpose of a particular investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be retained only for the duration of that particular investigation or proceeding. (i) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a contract between the Committee and such counsel only by a majority vote of the members of the Committee. (j) In addition to any other staff provided for by law, rule, or other authority, with respect to the Committee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member each may appoint one individual as a shared staff member from the respective personal staff of the Chair or Ranking Minority Member to perform service for the Committee. Such shared staff may assist the Chair or Ranking Minority Member on any subcommittee on which the Chair or Ranking Minority Member serves. Only paragraphs (c) and (e) of this Rule and Rule 7(b) shall apply to shared staff. Rule 7. Confidentiality (a) Before any Member or employee of the Committee, including members of an investigative subcommittee selected under clause 5(a)(4) of Rule X of the House of Representatives and shared staff designated pursuant to Committee Rule 6(j), may have access to information that is confidential under the rules of the Committee, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed in writing: ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.'' Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to the Clerk of the House as part of the records of the House. Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee and appropriate action shall be taken. (b) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, any information, document, or other material that is confidential, derived from executive session, or classified and that is obtained during the course of employment with the Committee. (c) Committee members and staff shall not disclose any evidence or information relating to any investigation or proceeding of the Committee or a subcommittee to any person or organization outside the Committee, unless authorized by the Committee. (d) This rule shall not prohibit the Chair or Ranking Minority Member from disclosing to the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics the existence of a Committee investigation, the name of the Member, officer, or employee of the House who is the subject of that investigation, and a brief statement of the scope of that investigation in a written request for referral pursuant to Rule 17A(k). Such disclosures will only be made subject to written confirmation from the Board that the information provided by the Chair or Ranking Minority Member will be kept confidential by the Board. (e) A Statement of Alleged Violation and any written response thereto shall be made public at the first meeting or hearing on the matter that is open to the public after the respondent has been given full opportunity to respond pursuant to Rule 22. Any other materials in the possession of the Committee regarding such statement may be made public as authorized by the Committee to the extent consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives. If no public hearing is held on the matter, the Statement of Alleged Violation and any written response thereto shall be included in the Committee's final report on the matter to the House of Representatives. (f) Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the Committee, only the Chair or Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, after consultation with each other, may make public statements regarding matters before the Committee or any subcommittee. (g) The Committee may establish procedures necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any testimony or other information received by the Committee or its staff. Rule 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their own initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee, shall have access to evidence and information before a subcommittee with whom they so consult, and shall not thereby be precluded from serving as full, voting members of any adjudicatory subcommittee. Except for the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee pursuant to this paragraph, evidence in the possession of an investigative subcommittee shall not be disclosed to other Committee members except by a vote of the subcommittee. (b) The Committee may establish other noninvestigative and nonadjudicatory subcommittees and may assign to them such functions as it may deem appropriate. The membership of each subcommittee shall provide equal representation for the majority and minority parties. (c) The Chair may refer any bill, resolution, or other matter before the Committee to an appropriate subcommittee for consideration. Any such bill, resolution, or other matter may be discharged from the subcommittee to which it was referred by a majority vote of the Committee. (d) Any member of the Committee may sit with any noninvestigative or nonadjudicatory subcommittee, but only regular members of such subcommittee may vote on any matter before that subcommittee. Rule 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification (a) The quorum for the Committee or an investigative subcommittee to take testimony and to receive evidence shall be two members, unless otherwise authorized by the House of Representatives. (b) The quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee to take testimony, receive evidence, or conduct business shall consist of a majority plus one of the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee. (c) Except as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of this rule, a quorum for the purpose of conducting business consists of a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee. (d) A member of the Committee shall be ineligible to participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in which such Member is a respondent. (e) A member of the Committee may seek disqualification from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives upon the submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. If the Committee approves and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the Chair shall so notify the Speaker and ask the Speaker to designate a Member of the House of Representatives from the same political party as the disqualified member of the Committee to act as a member of the Committee in any Committee proceeding relating to such investigation. Rule 10. Vote Requirements (a) The following actions shall be taken only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate: (1) Issuing a subpoena. (2) Adopting a full Committee motion to create an investigative subcommittee. (3) Adopting or amending of a Statement of Alleged Violation. (4) Finding that a count in a Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. (5) Sending a letter of reproval. (6) Adopting a recommendation to the House of Representatives that a sanction be imposed. (7) Adopting a report relating to the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee. (8) Issuing an advisory opinion of general applicability establishing new policy. (b) Except as stated in clause (a), action may be taken by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by a simple majority, a quorum being present. (c) No motion made to take any of the actions enumerated in clause (a) of this Rule may be entertained by the Chair unless a quorum of the Committee is present when such motion is made. Rule 11. Committee Records (a) All communications and all pleadings pursuant to these rules shall be filed with the Committee at the Committee's office or such other place as designated by the Committee. (b) All records of the Committee which have been delivered to the Archivist of the United States shall be made available to the public in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 12. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings (a) Television or radio coverage of a Committee or subcommittee hearing or meeting shall be without commercial sponsorship. (b) Not more than four television cameras, operating from fixed positions, shall be permitted in a hearing or meeting room. The Committee may allocate the positions of permitted television cameras among the television media in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (c) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving evidence or testimony and any member of the Committee, or the visibility of that witness and that member to each other. (d) Television cameras shall not be placed in positions that unnecessarily obstruct the coverage of the hearing or meeting by the other media. Part II--Investigative Authority Rule 13. House Resolution Whenever the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or investigation, the provisions of the resolution, in conjunction with these Rules, shall govern. To the extent the provisions of the resolution differ from these Rules, the resolution shall control. Rule 14. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy (a) Pursuant to clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee may exercise its investigative authority when: (1) information offered as a complaint, in writing and under oath, by a Member of the House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the Committee; (2) information offered as a complaint, in writing and under oath, by an individual not a Member of the House is transmitted to the Committee, provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that such Member believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee; (3) the Committee, on its own initiative, undertakes an investigation; (4) a Member, officer, or employee is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct or is convicted of a felony in a Federal, State, or local court; (5) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or investigation; or (6) a referral from the Board is transmitted to the Committee. (b) The Committee also has investigatory authority over: (1) certain unauthorized disclosures of intelligence- related information, pursuant to House Rule X, clauses 11(g)(4) and (g)(5); (2) reports received from the Office of the Inspector General pursuant to House Rule II, clause 6(c)(5); (3) determinations regarding appeals from fines imposed by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the use of electronic devices in contravention of applicable House rules or policies, pursuant to House Rule II, clause 3(g); and (4) information received from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Rule 15. Complaints (a) A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be in writing, dated, and properly verified (a document will be considered properly verified where a notary executes it with the language, ``Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on (date) by (the name of the person)'') setting forth in simple, concise, and direct statements-- (1) the name and legal address of the party filing the complaint (hereinafter referred to as the ``complainant''); (2) the name and position or title of the respondent(s); (3) the nature of the alleged violation of the Code of Official Conduct or of other law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of duties or discharge of responsibilities; and (4) the facts alleged to give rise to the violation. The complaint shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions, or conclusory statements. (b) Any documents in the possession of the complainant that relate to the allegations may be submitted with the complaint. (c) Information offered as a complaint by a Member of the House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the Committee. (d) Information offered as a complaint by an individual not a Member of the House may be transmitted to the Committee, provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that such Member believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee. (e) A complaint must be accompanied by a certification, which may be unsworn, that the complainant has provided an exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the respondent(s). (f) The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee determines that it is appropriate for the conduct alleged in the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or regulatory authorities. (g) A complaint may not be amended without leave of the Committee. Otherwise, any new allegations of improper conduct must be submitted in a new complaint that independently meets the procedural requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Committee's Rules. (h) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the complainant, any complaint submitted within the 60 days before a Federal, State, or local election in which the subject of the complaint is a candidate. (i) The Committee shall not consider a complaint, nor shall any investigation be undertaken by the Committee, of any alleged violation which occurred before the third previous Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation which occurred in a more recent Congress. Rule 16. Duties of Committee Chair and Ranking Minority Member (a) Whenever information offered as a complaint is submitted to the Committee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever occurs first, to determine whether the information meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint. (b) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, after the date that the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that information filed meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint, unless the Committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members votes otherwise, to-- (1) recommend to the Committee that it dispose of the complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does not require action by the House, which may include dismissal of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter to the Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom the complaint is made; (2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or (3) request that the Committee extend the applicable 45- calendar day period when they determine more time is necessary in order to make a recommendation under paragraph (1) or (2) of Rule 16(b). (c) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning alleged conduct which is the basis of a complaint or of information offered as a complaint until they have established an investigative subcommittee or the Chair or Ranking Minority Member has placed on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee. (d) If the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee meets the requirements of the Committee rules for what constitutes a complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, and no additional 45-day extension is made, then they shall establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. If at any time during the time period either the Chair or Ranking Minority Member places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. (e) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee does not meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set forth in the Committee rules, they may (1) return the information to the complainant with a statement that it fails to meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set forth in the Committee's rules; or (2) recommend to the Committee that it authorize the establishment of an investigative subcommittee. Rule 17. Processing of Complaints (a) If a complaint is in compliance with House and Committee Rules, a copy of the complaint and the Committee Rules shall be forwarded to the respondent(s) within 5 days with notice that the complaint conforms to the applicable rules. (b) A respondent may, within 30 days of the Committee's notification in clause (a), provide to the Committee any information relevant to a complaint filed with the Committee. The respondent may submit a written statement in response to the complaint. Such a statement shall be signed by the respondent. If the statement is prepared by counsel for the respondent, the respondent shall sign a representation that the respondent has reviewed the response and agrees with the factual assertions contained therein. (c) The Committee staff may request information from a respondent or obtain additional information relevant to the case from other sources prior to the establishment of an investigative subcommittee only when so directed by the Chair and Ranking Minority Member. (d) The respondent(s) shall be notified in writing regarding the Chair and Ranking Minority Member's determination under Rule 16(e) or the Committee's decision either to dismiss the complaint or to create an investigative subcommittee. Rule 17A. Referrals from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (a) The Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the Code of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 1(g) of House Rule X. Receipt of referrals from the Board under this rule does not limit the Committee's discretion to address referrals in any way through the appropriate procedures authorized by Committee Rules. The Committee shall review the report and findings transmitted by the Board without prejudice or presumptions as to the merit of the allegations. (b)(1) Whenever the Committee receives either (A) a referral containing a written report and any findings and supporting documentation from the Board; or (B) a referral from the Board pursuant to a request under Rule 17A(k), the Chair shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days after the date the referral is received, whichever is later, to make public the report and findings of the Board unless the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly decide, or the Committee votes, to withhold such information for not more than one additional 45-day period. (2) At least one calendar day before the Committee makes public any report and findings of the Board, the Chair shall notify in writing the Board and the Member, officer, 23 or employee who is the subject of the referral of the impending public release of these documents. At the same time, the Chair shall transmit a copy of any public statement on the Committee's disposition of the matter and any accompanying Committee report to the individual who is the subject of the referral. (3) All public statements and reports and findings of the Board that are required to be made public under this Rule shall be posted on the Committee's website. (c) If the OCE report and findings are withheld for an additional 45-day period pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), the Chair shall-- (1) make a public statement on the day of such decision or vote that the matter referred from the Board has been extended; and (2) make public the written report and findings pursuant to paragraph (b) upon the termination of such additional period. (d) If the Board transmits a report with a recommendation to dismiss or noting a matter as unresolved due to a tie vote, and the matter is extended for an additional period as provided in paragraph (b), the Committee is not required to make a public statement that the matter has been extended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1). (e) If the Committee votes to dismiss a matter referred from the Board, the Committee is not required to make public the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to paragraph (c) unless the Committee's vote is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Board. A vote by the Committee to dismiss a matter is not considered inconsistent with a report from the Board that the matter is unresolved by the Board due to a tie vote. (f) Except as provided by paragraph (g): (1) If the Committee establishes an investigative subcommittee respecting any matter referred by the Board, then the report and findings of the Board shall not be made public until the conclusion of the investigative subcommittee process. The Committee shall issue a public statement noting the establishment of an investigative subcommittee, which shall include the name of the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject of the inquiry, and shall set forth the alleged violation. (2) If any such investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review within one year after the Board's referral, then the Committee shall make public the report of the Board no later than one year after the referral. If the investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review before the end of the Congress in which the report of the Board is made public, the Committee shall make public any findings of the Board on the last day of that Congress. (g) If the vote of the Committee is a tie or the Committee fails to act by the close of any applicable period(s) under this rule, the report and the findings of the Board shall be made public by the Committee, along with a public statement by the Chair explaining the status of the matter. (h)(1) If the Committee agrees to a request from an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority to defer taking action on a matter referred by the Board under paragraph (b)-- (A) The Committee is not required to make public the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to paragraph (c), except that if the recommendation of the Board is that the matter requires further review, the Committee shall make public the written report of the Board but not the findings; and (B) The Committee shall make a public statement that it is deferring taking action on the matter at the request of such law enforcement or regulatory authority within one day (excluding weekends and public holidays) of the day that the Committee agrees to the request. (2) If the Committee has not acted on the matter within one year of the date the public statement described in paragraph (h)(1)(B) is released, the Committee shall make a public statement that it continues to defer taking action on the matter. The Committee shall make a new statement upon the expiration of each succeeding one-year period during which the Committee has not acted on the matter. (i) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the Board, any referral from the Board within 60 days before a Federal, State, or local election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. (j) The Committee may postpone any reporting requirement under this rule that falls within that 60-day period until after the date of the election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. For purposes of calculating any applicable period under this Rule, any days within the 60-day period before such an election and the date of the election shall not be counted. (k)(1) At any time after the Committee receives written notification from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that the Board is undertaking a review of alleged conduct of any Member, officer, or employee of the House at a time when the Committee is investigating, or has completed an investigation of the same matter, the Committee may so notify the Board in writing and request that the Board cease its review and refer the matter to the Committee for its consideration immediately. The Committee shall also notify the Board in writing if the Committee has not reached a final resolution of the matter or has not referred the matter to the appropriate Federal or State authorities by the end of any applicable time period specified in Rule 17A (including any permissible extension). (2) The Committee may not request a second referral of the matter from the Board if the Committee has notified the Board that it is unable to resolve the matter previously requested pursuant to this section. The Board may subsequently send a referral regarding a matter previously requested and returned by the Committee after the conclusion of the Board's review process. Rule 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry or Investigation (a) Notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the Committee may consider any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of the duties or the discharge of the responsibilities of such individual. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning such an alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee unless and until an investigative subcommittee has been established. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may also jointly take appropriate action consistent with Committee Rules to resolve the matter. (b) If the Committee votes to establish an investigative subcommittee, the Committee shall proceed in accordance with Rule 19. (c) Any written request by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives that the Committee conduct an investigation into such person's own conduct shall be considered in accordance with subsection (a) of this Rule. (d) An investigation shall not be undertaken regarding any alleged violation that occurred before the third previous Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation that occurred in a more recent Congress. (e)(1) An inquiry shall be undertaken by an investigative subcommittee with regard to any felony conviction of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives in a Federal, State, or local court who has been sentenced. Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member have the discretion to gather information pursuant to subsection (a) of this Rule, and the Committee has the discretion to initiate an inquiry upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, at any time prior to conviction or sentencing. (2) Not later than 30 days after a Member of the House is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in any Federal, State, or local court, the Committee shall either initiate an inquiry upon a majority vote of the members of the Committee or submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not initiating an inquiry and describing the actions, if any, that the Committee has taken in response to the allegations. (3) In addition to any other evidence which the Committee or investigative subcommittee may consider, the Committee or investigative subcommittee may take into evidence any information related to the subject of an investigation contained in trial transcripts and all exhibits admitted into evidence at trial. Rule 19. Investigative Subcommittee (a)(1) Upon the establishment of an investigative subcommittee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall designate four members (with equal representation from the majority and minority parties) to serve as an investigative subcommittee to undertake an inquiry. Members of the Committee and Members of the House selected pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of Rule X of the House of Representatives are eligible for appointment to an investigative subcommittee, as determined by the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. At the time of appointment, the Chair shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member of the investigative subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may serve as members of an investigative subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex-officio members. (2) A respondent shall be notified of the membership of the investigative subcommittee and shall have 10 days after such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and must be on the grounds that the subcommittee member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The members of the Committee shall engage in a collegial discussion regarding such objection. The subcommittee member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from participating in the inquiry pursuant to Rule 9(e). (b) In an inquiry undertaken by an investigative subcommittee-- (1) All proceedings, including the taking of testimony, shall be conducted in executive session and all evidence or testimony produced pursuant to subpoena or otherwise shall be deemed to have been taken or produced in executive session. (2) The investigative subcommittee, through any of its members or the staff, shall ask the respondent(s) and all witnesses whether they intend to be represented by counsel. If so, the respondent or witnesses or their legal representatives shall provide written designation of counsel. A respondent or witness who is represented by counsel shall not be questioned in the absence of counsel unless an explicit waiver is obtained. (3) The subcommittee shall provide the respondent(s) an opportunity to present, orally or in writing, a statement, which must be under oath or affirmation, regarding the allegations and any other relevant questions arising out of the inquiry. (4) The staff may interview witnesses, examine documents and other evidence, and request that submitted statements be under oath or affirmation and that documents be certified as to their authenticity and accuracy. (5) The subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other items as it deems necessary to the conduct of the inquiry. Unless the Committee otherwise provides, the subpoena power shall rest in the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee and a subpoena shall be issued upon the request of the investigative subcommittee. (6) Required testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chair or any individual designated by the Chair to administer oaths. (c) During the inquiry, the procedure respecting the admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows: (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of Representatives. (2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member at any investigative subcommittee proceeding shall rule upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness, witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal any rulings to the members present at that proceeding. A majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on such appeal shall govern the question of admissibility, and no appeal shall lie to the Committee. (3) Whenever a person is determined by a majority vote to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether to refer the matter to the House of Representatives for consideration. (4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee approval, enter into stipulations with a respondent and/or the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute. (d) Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the subcommittee members, and an affirmative vote of a majority of the full Committee, an investigative subcommittee may expand the scope of its inquiry. (e) Upon completion of the inquiry, the staff shall draft for the investigative subcommittee a report that shall contain a comprehensive summary of the information received regarding the alleged violations. (f) Upon completion of the inquiry, an investigative subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives has occurred. If more than one violation is alleged, such Statement shall be divided into separate counts. Each count shall relate to a separate violation, shall contain a plain and concise statement of the alleged facts of such violation, and shall include a reference to the provision of the Code of Official Conduct or law, rule, regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct governing the performance of duties or discharge of responsibilities alleged to have been violated. A copy of such Statement shall be transmitted to the respondent and the respondent's counsel. (g) If the investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall transmit to the Committee a report containing a summary of the information received in the inquiry, its conclusions and reasons therefore, and any appropriate recommendation. (h) An investigative subcommittee may transmit a single report regarding multiple respondents, but shall adopt a separate Statement of Alleged Violation for each respondent where applicable. Rule 20. Amendments to Statements of Alleged Violation (a) An investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, amend its Statement of Alleged Violation any time before the Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to the Committee; and (b) If an investigative subcommittee amends its Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall be notified in writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that notification to file an answer to the amended Statement of Alleged Violation. Rule 21. Committee Reporting Requirements (a) Whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation and transmits a report to that effect to the Committee, the Committee may by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the House of Representatives; (b) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation but recommends that no further action be taken, it shall transmit a report to the Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation; and (c) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent admits to the violations set forth in such Statement, the respondent waives the right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the respondent's waiver is approved by the Committee-- (1) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal to the Committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report; (2) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of receipt of that draft; (3) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant to subparagraph (2), and the Committee shall make the report, together with the respondent's views, available to the public before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and (4) the Committee shall by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members issue a report and transmit such report to the House of Representatives, together with the respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to subparagraph (2) and any additional views respondent may submit for attachment to the final report; and (d) Members of the Committee shall have not less than 72 hours to review any report transmitted to the Committee by an investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a sanction hearing and the Committee vote on whether to adopt the report. Rule 22. Respondent's Answer (a)(1) Within 30 days from the date of transmittal of a Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall file with the investigative subcommittee an answer, in writing and under oath, signed by respondent and respondent's counsel. Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed shall be considered by the Committee as a denial of each count. (2) The answer shall contain an admission to or denial of each count set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation and may include negative, affirmative, or alternative defenses and any supporting evidence or other relevant information. (b) The respondent may file a Motion for a Bill of Particulars within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of Alleged Violation. If a Motion for a Bill of Particulars is filed, the respondent shall not be required to file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has replied to such motion. (c)(1) The respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of Alleged Violation or, if a Motion for a Bill of Particulars has been filed, within 10 days of the date of the subcommittee's reply to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars. If a Motion to Dismiss is filed, the respondent shall not be required to file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss, unless the respondent previously filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, in which case the respondent shall not be required to file an answer until 10 days after the subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss. The investigative subcommittee shall rule upon any motion to dismiss filed during the period between the establishment of the subcommittee and the subcommittee's transmittal of a report or Statement of Alleged Violation to the Committee or to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member at the conclusion of an inquiry, and no appeal of the subcommittee's ruling shall lie to the Committee. (2) A Motion to Dismiss may be made on the grounds that the Statement of Alleged Violation fails to state facts that constitute a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or other applicable law, rule, regulation, or standard of conduct, or on the grounds that the Committee lacks jurisdiction to consider the allegations contained in the Statement. (d) Any motion filed with the subcommittee pursuant to this rule shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (e)(1) The Chair of the investigative subcommittee, for good cause shown, may permit the respondent to file an answer or motion after the day prescribed above. (2) If the ability of the respondent to present an adequate defense is not adversely affected and special circumstances so require, the Chair of the investigative subcommittee may direct the respondent to file an answer or motion prior to the day prescribed above. (f) If the day on which any answer, motion, reply, or other pleading must be filed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday, such filing shall be made on the first business day thereafter. (g) As soon as practicable after an answer has been filed or the time for such filing has expired, the Statement of Alleged Violation and any answer, motion, reply, or other pleading connected therewith shall be transmitted by the Chair of the investigative subcommittee to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. Rule 23. Adjudicatory Hearings (a) If a Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member pursuant to Rule 22, and no waiver pursuant to Rule 26(b) has occurred, the Chair shall designate the members of the Committee who did not serve on the investigative subcommittee to serve on an adjudicatory subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall be the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the adjudicatory subcommittee unless they served on the investigative subcommittee. The respondent shall be notified of the designation of the adjudicatory subcommittee and shall have 10 days after such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and shall be on the grounds that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The members of the Committee shall engage in a collegial discussion regarding such objection. The member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from serving on the subcommittee pursuant to Rule 9(e). (b) A majority of the adjudicatory subcommittee membership plus one must be present at all times for the conduct of any business pursuant to this rule. (c) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall hold a hearing to determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence and shall make findings of fact, except where such violations have been admitted by respondent. (d) The subcommittee may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other items as it deems necessary. A subpoena for documents may specify terms of return other than at a meeting or hearing of the subcommittee. Depositions, interrogatories, and sworn statements taken under any investigative subcommittee direction may be accepted into the hearing record. (e) The procedures set forth in clause 2(g)(1)-(4), (6)-(7) and (k) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to adjudicatory hearings. All such hearings shall be open to the public unless the adjudicatory subcommittee, pursuant to such clause, determines that the hearings or any part thereof should be closed. (f)(1) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall, in writing, notify the respondent that the respondent and respondent's counsel have the right to inspect, review, copy, or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, or other tangible objects that committee counsel intends to use as evidence against the respondent in an adjudicatory hearing. The respondent shall be given access to such evidence, and shall be provided the names of witnesses committee counsel intends to call, and a summary of their expected testimony, no less than 15 calendar days prior to any such hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no evidence may be introduced or witness called in an adjudicatory hearing unless the respondent has been afforded a prior opportunity to review such evidence or has been provided the name of the witness. (2) After a witness has testified on direct examination at an adjudicatory hearing, the Committee, at the request of the respondent, shall make available to the respondent any statement of the witness in the possession of the Committee which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. (3) Any other testimony, statement, or documentary evidence in the possession of the Committee which is material to the respondent's defense shall, upon request, be made available to the respondent. (g) No less than 5 days prior to the hearing, the respondent or counsel shall provide the adjudicatory subcommittee with the names of witnesses expected to be called, summaries of their expected testimony, and copies of any documents or other evidence proposed to be introduced. (h) The respondent or counsel may apply to the subcommittee for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses or the production of evidence. The application shall be granted upon a showing by the respondent that the proposed testimony or evidence is relevant and not otherwise available to respondent. The application may be denied if not made at a reasonable time or if the testimony or evidence would be merely cumulative. (i) No later than two weeks or 5 legislative days after the Chair of the Committee designates members to serve on an adjudicatory subcommittee, whichever is later, the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall establish a schedule and procedure for the hearing and for prehearing matters. The procedures may be changed either by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee or a by a majority vote of the members of the subcommittee. If the Chair makes prehearing rulings upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, the Chair shall make available those rulings to all subcommittee members at the time of the ruling. (j) The procedures regarding the admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows: (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of Representatives. (2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member at an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing shall rule upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness, witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal any ruling to the members present at that proceeding. A majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on such an appeal shall govern the question of admissibility and no appeal shall lie to the Committee. (3) Whenever a witness is deemed by a Chair or other presiding member to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether to refer the matter to the House of Representatives for consideration. (4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute. (k) Unless otherwise provided, the order of an adjudicatory hearing shall be as follows: (1) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee shall open the hearing with equal time and during which time, the Chair shall state the adjudicatory subcommittee's authority to conduct the hearing and the purpose of the hearing. (2) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and the respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving opening statements. (3) Testimony from witnesses and other relevant evidence shall be received in the following order whenever possible: (i) witnesses (deposition transcripts and affidavits obtained during the inquiry may be used in lieu of live witnesses) and other evidence offered by Committee counsel, (ii) witnesses and other evidence offered by the respondent, (iii) rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the Chair. (4) Witnesses at a hearing shall be examined first by counsel calling such witness. The opposing counsel may then cross-examine the witness. Redirect examination and recross examination by counsel may be permitted at the Chair's discretion. Subcommittee members may then question witnesses. Unless otherwise directed by the Chair, questions by Subcommittee members shall be conducted under the five-minute rule. (5) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving closing arguments. Committee counsel may reserve time for rebuttal argument, as permitted by the Chair. (l) A subpoena to a witness to appear at a hearing shall be served sufficiently in advance of that witness' scheduled appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee, to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel. (m) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be furnished a printed or electronic copy of the Committee rules, the relevant provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation. (n) Testimony of all witnesses shall be taken under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chair or Committee member designated by the Chair to administer oaths. (o) At an adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing evidence. However, Committee counsel need not present any evidence regarding any count that is admitted by the respondent or any fact stipulated. Committee counsel or respondent's counsel may move the adjudicatory subcommittee to make a finding that there is no material fact at issue. If the adjudicatory subcommittee finds that there is no material fact at issue, the burden of proof will be deemed satisfied. (p) As soon as practicable after all testimony and evidence have been presented, the subcommittee shall consider each count contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation and shall determine by a majority vote of its members whether each count has been proved. If a majority of the subcommittee does not vote that a count has been proved, a motion to reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted that the count was not proved. A count that is not proved shall be considered as dismissed by the subcommittee. (q) The findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall be reported to the Committee. Rule 24. Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other Recommendations (a) If no count in a Statement of Alleged Violation is proved, the Committee shall prepare a report to the House of Representatives, based upon the report of the adjudicatory subcommittee. (b) If an adjudicatory subcommittee completes an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to Rule 23 and reports that any count of the Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved, a hearing before the Committee shall be held to receive oral and/or written submissions by counsel for the Committee and counsel for the respondent as to the sanction the Committee should recommend to the House of Representatives with respect to such violations. Testimony by witnesses shall not be heard except by written request and vote of a majority of the Committee. (c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House take disciplinary action. If a majority of the Committee does not vote in favor of the recommendation that the House of Representatives take action, a motion to reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted against the recommendation. The Committee may also, by majority vote, adopt a motion to issue a Letter of Reproval or take other appropriate Committee action. (d) If the Committee determines a Letter of Reproval constitutes sufficient action, the Committee shall include any such letter as a part of its report to the House of Representatives. (e) With respect to any proved counts against a Member of the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions: (1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives. (2) Censure. (3) Reprimand. (4) Fine. (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation. (6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate. (f) With respect to any proved counts against an officer or employee of the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions: (1) Dismissal from employment. (2) Reprimand. (3) Fine. (4) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate. (g) With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee is appropriate for the most serious violations. A recommendation of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it is likely that the violation was committed to secure a personal financial benefit; and a recommendation of a denial or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity of a Member is appropriate when the violation bears upon the exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or immunity. This clause sets forth general guidelines and does not limit the authority of the Committee to recommend other sanctions. (h) The Committee report shall contain an appropriate statement of the evidence supporting the Committee's findings and a statement of the Committee's reasons for the recommended sanction. Rule 25. Disclosure of Exculpatory Information to Respondent If the Committee, or any investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee at any time receives any exculpatory information respecting a Complaint or Statement of Alleged Violation concerning a respondent, it shall make such information known and available to the respondent as soon as practicable, but in no event later than the transmittal of evidence supporting a proposed Statement of Alleged Violation pursuant to Rule 26(c). If an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall identify any exculpatory information in its possession at the conclusion of its inquiry and shall include such information, if any, in the subcommittee's final report to the Committee regarding its inquiry. For purposes of this rule, exculpatory evidence shall be any evidence or information that is substantially favorable to the respondent with respect to the allegations or charges before an investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee. Rule 26. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses (a) A respondent shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel, to be provided at the respondent's own expense. (b) A respondent may seek to waive any procedural rights or steps in the disciplinary process. A request for waiver must be in writing, signed by the respondent, and must detail what procedural steps the respondent seeks to waive. Any such request shall be subject to the acceptance of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. (c) Not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote by an investigative subcommittee on a Statement of Alleged Violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation it intends to adopt together with all evidence it intends to use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt, including documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the count to which such evidence relates. (d) Neither the respondent nor respondent's counsel shall, directly or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof during the period of time set forth in paragraph (c) except for the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsels for the respondent and the subcommittee are present. (e) If, at any time after the issuance of a Statement of Alleged Violation, the Committee or any subcommittee thereof determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a respondent under paragraph (c) to prove the charges contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation (or any amendment thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available to the respondent, and it may be used in any further proceeding under the Committee's rules. (f) Evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (c) or (e) shall be made available to the respondent and respondent's counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document, information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that paragraph shall be made public until-- (1) such time as a Statement of Alleged Violation is made public by the Committee if the respondent has waived the adjudicatory hearing; or (2) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing; but the failure of respondent and respondent's counsel to so agree in writing, and therefore not receive the evidence, shall not preclude the issuance of a Statement of Alleged Violation at the end of the period referenced to in (c). (g) If the Committee issues a report with respect to a claim referred to the Committee by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights pursuant to Section 416(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the Committee shall ensure that the report does not directly disclose the identity or position of the individual who filed the claim. (h) A respondent shall receive written notice whenever-- (1) the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that information the Committee has received constitutes a complaint; (2) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an investigative subcommittee; (3) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; (4) the Committee votes to expand the scope of the inquiry of an investigative subcommittee; and (5) the Committee or an investigative subcommittee determines to take into evidence the trial transcript or exhibits admitted into evidence at a criminal trial pursuant to Rule 18(e)(3). (i) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation and a respondent enters into an agreement with that subcommittee to settle an investigation, in whole or in part, on which the Statement is based, that agreement, unless the respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed by the respondent and the respondent's counsel, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, and outside counsel, if any. (j) Statements or information derived solely from a respondent or respondent's counsel during any settlement discussions between the Committee or a subcommittee thereof and the respondent shall not be included in any report of the subcommittee or the Committee or otherwise publicly disclosed without the consent of the respondent. (k) Whenever a motion to establish an investigative subcommittee does not prevail, the Committee shall promptly send a letter to the respondent(s) informing the respondent(s) of such vote. (l) Witnesses shall be afforded a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee, to prepare for an appearance before an investigative subcommittee or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain counsel. (m) Prior to their testimony, witnesses shall be furnished a printed or electronic copy of the Committee's Rules and the provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses. (n) Witnesses may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. The Chair may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional responsibility on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee may cite the offender to the House of Representatives for contempt. (o) Each witness subpoenaed to provide testimony or other evidence shall be provided the same per diem rate as established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on House Administration for Members, officers, and employees of the House, and, as the Chair considers appropriate, actual expenses of travel to or from the place of examination. No compensation shall be authorized for attorney's fees or for a witness' lost earnings. Such per diem may not be paid if a witness had been summoned at the place of examination. (p) With the approval of the Committee, a witness, upon request, may be provided with a transcript of the witness' own deposition or other testimony taken in executive session, or, with the approval of the Chair and Ranking Minority Member, may be permitted to examine such transcript in the office of the Committee. Any such request shall be in writing and shall include a statement that the witness, and counsel, agree to maintain the confidentiality of all executive session proceedings covered by such transcript. Rule 27. Frivolous Filings If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, the Committee may take such action as it, by an affirmative vote of a majority deems appropriate in the circumstances. Rule 28. Referrals to Federal or State Authorities Referrals made under clause 3(a)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives may be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-08-pt1-PgH1108 | null | 2,492 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS FOR THE 117th CONGRESS House of Representatives, Committee on Ethics, March 5, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Madam Speaker: Pursuant to clause 2 of Rule XI, I submit to the House the Rules of the Committee on Ethics for the 117th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, Theodore E. Deutch, Chairman. (Adopted February 25, 2021) Foreword The Committee on Ethics is unique in the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing committee of the House of Representatives the membership of which is divided evenly by party. These rules are intended to provide a fair procedural framework for the conduct of the Committee's activities and to help ensure that the Committee serves well the people of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Members, officers, and employees of the House of Representatives. Part I--General Committee Rules Rule 1. General Provisions (a) So far as applicable, these rules and the Rules of the House of Representatives shall be the rules of the Committee and any subcommittee. The Committee adopts these rules under the authority of clause 2(a)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 117th Congress. (b) The rules of the Committee may be modified, amended, or repealed by a vote of a majority of the Committee. (c) When the interests of justice so require, the Committee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt any special procedures, not inconsistent with these rules, deemed necessary to resolve a particular matter before it. Copies of such special procedures shall be furnished to all parties in the matter. (d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member shall have access to such information that they request as necessary to conduct Committee business. Rule 2. Definitions (a) ``Committee'' means the Committee on Ethics. (b) ``Complaint'' means a written allegation of improper conduct against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives filed with the Committee with the intent to initiate an inquiry. (c) ``Inquiry'' means an investigation by an investigative subcommittee into allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives. (d) ``Investigate,'' ``Investigating,'' and/or ``Investigation'' mean review of the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives that is conducted or authorized by the Committee, an investigative subcommittee, or the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. (e) ``Board'' means the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics. (f) ``Referral'' means a report sent to the Committee from the Board pursuant to House Rules and all applicable House Resolutions regarding the conduct of a House Member, officer, or employee, including any accompanying findings or other supporting documentation. (g) ``Investigative Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee designated pursuant to Rule 19(a) to conduct an inquiry to determine if a Statement of Alleged Violation should be issued. (h) ``Statement of Alleged Violation'' means a formal charging document filed by an investigative subcommittee with the Committee containing specific allegations against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives of a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities. (i) ``Adjudicatory Subcommittee'' means a subcommittee designated pursuant to Rule 23(a) that holds an adjudicatory hearing and determines whether the counts in a Statement of Alleged Violation are proved by clear and convincing evidence. (j) ``Sanction Hearing'' means a Committee hearing to determine what sanction, if any, to adopt or to recommend to the House of Representatives. (k) ``Respondent'' means a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives who is the subject of an investigation. (l) ``Office of Advice and Education'' refers to the Office established by section 803(i) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. The Office handles inquiries; prepares written opinions in response to specific requests; develops general guidance; and organizes seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives. (m) ``Member'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate to, or the Resident Commissioner to, the U.S. House of Representatives. Rule 3. Advisory Opinions and Waivers (a) The Office of Advice and Education shall handle inquiries; prepare written opinions providing specific advice, including reviews of requests for privately-sponsored travel pursuant to the Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations; develop general guidance; and organize seminars, workshops, and briefings for the benefit of the House of Representatives. (b) Any Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives may request a written opinion with respect to the propriety of any current or proposed conduct of such Member, officer, or employee. (c) The Office of Advice and Education may provide information and guidance regarding laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of conduct applicable to Members, officers, and employees in the performance of their duties or the discharge of their responsibilities. (d) In general, the Committee shall provide a written opinion to an individual only in response to a written request, and the written opinion shall address the conduct only of the inquiring individual, or of persons for whom the inquiring individual is responsible as employing authority. (e) A written request for an opinion shall be addressed to the Chair of the Committee and shall include a complete and accurate statement of the relevant facts. A request shall be signed by the requester or the requester's authorized representative or employing authority. A representative shall disclose to the Committee the identity of the principal on whose behalf advice is being sought. (f) Requests for privately-sponsored travel shall be treated like any other request for a written opinion for purposes of paragraphs (g) through (l). (1) The Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations shall govern the request submission and Committee approval process for privately-sponsored travel consistent with House Rules. (2) A request for privately-sponsored travel of a Member, officer, or employee shall include a completed and signed Traveler Form that attaches the Private Sponsor Certification Form and includes all information required by the Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations. A private sponsor offering officially-connected travel to a Member, officer, or employee must complete and sign a Private Sponsor Certification Form, and provide a copy of that form to the invitee(s). (3) Any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies, or who knowingly and willfully fails to file, any form required by the Committee's Travel Guidelines and Regulations may be subject to civil penalties and criminal sanctions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. (g) The Office of Advice and Education shall prepare for the Committee a response to each written request for an opinion from a Member, officer, or employee. Each response shall discuss all applicable laws, rules, regulations, or other standards. (h) Where a request is unclear or incomplete, the Office of Advice and Education may seek additional information from the requester. (i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to take action on behalf of the Committee on any proposed written opinion that they determine does not require consideration by the Committee. If the Chair or Ranking Minority Member requests a written opinion, or seeks a waiver, extension, or approval pursuant to Rules 3(m), 4(c), 4(e), or 4(h), the next ranking member of the requester's party is authorized to act in lieu of the requester. (j) The Committee shall keep confidential any request for advice from a Member, officer, or employee, as well as any response thereto. Upon request of any Member, officer, or employee who has submitted a written request for an opinion or submitted a request for privately-sponsored travel, the Committee may release to the requesting individual a copy of their own written request for advice or submitted travel forms, any subsequent written communications between such individual and Committee staff regarding the request, and any Committee advisory opinion or travel letter issued to that individual in response. The Committee shall not release any internal Committee staff work product, communications, or notes in response to such a request, except as authorized by the Committee. (k) The Committee may take no adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed in the opinion. (l) Information provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or employee seeking advice regarding prospective conduct may not be used as the basis for initiating an investigation under clause 3(a)(2) or clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member, officer, or employee acts in good faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee. (m) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House Rule XXV (the House gift rule), or for any other waiver or approval, shall be treated in all respects like any other request for a written opinion. (n) A written request for a waiver of clause 5 of House Rule XXV (the House gift rule) shall specify the nature of the waiver being sought and the specific circumstances justifying the waiver. (o) An employee seeking a waiver of time limits applicable to travel paid for by a private source shall include with the request evidence that the employing authority is aware of the request. In any other instance where proposed employee conduct may reflect on the performance of official duties, the Committee may require that the requester submit evidence that the employing authority knows of the conduct. Rule 4. Financial Disclosure (a) In matters relating to Title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, the Committee shall coordinate with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Legislative Resource Center, to assure that appropriate individuals are notified of their obligation to file reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act and that such individuals are provided in a timely fashion with filing instructions and forms developed by the Committee. (b) The Committee shall coordinate with the Legislative Resource Center to assure that information that the Ethics in Government Act requires to be placed on the public record is made public. (c) Any reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act filed by Members of the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that are forwarded to the Committee by the Clerk shall not be subject to paragraphs (d) through (q) of this Rule. The Office of Congressional Ethics retains jurisdiction over review of the timeliness and completeness of filings by Members of the Board as the Board's supervising ethics office. (d) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to grant on behalf of the Committee requests for reasonable extensions of time for the filing of Financial Disclosure Statements. Any such request must be received by the Committee no later than the date on which the Statement in question is due. A request received after such date may be granted by the Committee only in extraordinary circumstances. Such extensions for one individual in a calendar year shall not exceed a total of 90 days per Statement, including any amendment required by the Committee in accordance with clause (m). No extension shall be granted authorizing a nonincumbent candidate to file a statement later than 30 days prior to a primary or general election in which the candidate is participating. (e) An individual who takes legally sufficient action to withdraw as a candidate before the date on which that individual's Financial Disclosure Statement is due under the Ethics in Government Act shall not be required to file a Statement. An individual shall not be excused from filing a Financial Disclosure Statement when withdrawal as a candidate occurs after the date on which such Statement was due. (f) Any individual who files a report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act more than 30 days after the later of-- (1) the date such report is required to be filed, or (2) if a filing extension is granted to such individual, the last day of the filing extension period, is required by such Act to pay a late filing fee of $200. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests that the fee be waived based on extraordinary circumstances. (g) Any late report that is submitted without a required filing fee shall be deemed procedurally deficient and not properly filed. (h) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve requests for waivers of the aggregation and reporting of gifts as provided by section 102(a)(2)(C) of the Ethics in Government Act. If such a request is approved, both the incoming request and the Committee response shall be forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for placement on the public record. (i) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member are authorized to approve blind trusts as qualifying under section 102(f)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act. The correspondence relating to formal approval of a blind trust, the trust document, the list of assets transferred to the trust, and any other documents required by law to be made public, shall be forwarded to the Legislative Resource Center for such purpose. (j) The Committee shall designate staff who shall review reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act and, based upon information contained therein, indicate in a form and manner prescribed by the Committee whether the Statement appears substantially accurate and complete and the filer appears to be in compliance with applicable laws and rules. (k) Each report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act shall be reviewed within 60 days after the date of filing. (l) If the reviewing staff believes that additional information is required because (1) the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act appears not substantially accurate or complete, or (2) the filer may not be in compliance with applicable laws or rules, then the reporting individual shall be notified in writing of the additional information believed to be required, or of the law or rule with which the reporting individual does not appear to be in compliance. Such notice shall also state the time within which a response is to be submitted. Any such notice shall remain confidential. (m) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual who concurs with the Committee's notification that the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act is not complete, or that other action is required, shall submit the necessary information or take appropriate action. Any amendment may be in the form of a revised report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act or an explanatory letter addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (n) Any amendment shall be placed on the public record in the same manner as other reports required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act. The individual designated by the Committee to review the original report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act shall review any amendment thereto. (o) Within the time specified, including any extension granted in accordance with clause (d), a reporting individual who does not agree with the Committee that the report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act is deficient or that other action is required, shall be provided an opportunity to respond orally or in writing. If the explanation is accepted, a copy of the response, if written, or a note summarizing an oral response, shall be retained in Committee files with the original report. (p) The Committee shall be the final arbiter of whether any report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act requires clarification or amendment. (q) If the Committee determines, by vote of a majority of its members, that there is reason to believe that an individual has willfully failed to file a report required to be filed under Title I of the Ethics in Government Act or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported, then the Committee shall refer the name of the individual, together with the evidence supporting its finding, to the Attorney General pursuant to section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act. Such referral shall not preclude the Committee from initiating such other action as may be authorized by other provisions of law or the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 5. Meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the second Tuesday of each month, except when the House of Representatives is not meeting on that day. When the Committee Chair determines that there is sufficient reason, meetings may be called on additional days. A regularly scheduled meeting need not be held when the Chair determines there is no business to be considered. (b) The Chair shall establish the agenda for meetings of the Committee, and the Ranking Minority Member may place additional items on the agenda. (c) All meetings of the Committee or any subcommittee shall occur in executive session unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, opens the meeting to the public. (d) Any hearing held by an adjudicatory subcommittee, or any sanction hearing held by the Committee, shall be open to the public unless the Committee or subcommittee, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, closes the hearing to the public. (e) A subcommittee shall meet at the discretion of its Chair. (f) Insofar as practicable, notice for any Committee or subcommittee meeting shall be provided at least seven days in advance of the meeting. The Chair of the Committee or subcommittee may waive such time period for good cause. Rule 6. Committee Staff (a) The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. (b) Each member of the staff shall be professional and demonstrably qualified for the position for which the individual is hired. (c) The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. (d) No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. (e) No member of the staff or outside counsel may accept public speaking engagements or write. for publication on any subject that is in any way related to the employment or duties with the Committee of such individual without specific prior approval from the Chair and Ranking Minority Member. (f) All staff members shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. Such vote shall occur at the first meeting of the membership of the Committee during each Congress and as necessary during the Congress. (g) Subject to the approval of the Committee on House Administration, the Committee may retain counsel not employed by the House of Representatives whenever the Committee determines, by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, that the retention of outside counsel is necessary and appropriate. (h) If the Committee determines that it is necessary to retain staff members for the purpose of a particular investigation or other proceeding, then such staff shall be retained only for the duration of that particular investigation or proceeding. (i) Outside counsel may be dismissed prior to the end of a contract between the Committee and such counsel only by a majority vote of the members of the Committee. (j) In addition to any other staff provided for by law, rule, or other authority, with respect to the Committee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member each may appoint one individual as a shared staff member from the respective personal staff of the Chair or Ranking Minority Member to perform service for the Committee. Such shared staff may assist the Chair or Ranking Minority Member on any subcommittee on which the Chair or Ranking Minority Member serves. Only paragraphs (c) and (e) of this Rule and Rule 7(b) shall apply to shared staff. Rule 7. Confidentiality (a) Before any Member or employee of the Committee, including members of an investigative subcommittee selected under clause 5(a)(4) of Rule X of the House of Representatives and shared staff designated pursuant to Committee Rule 6(j), may have access to information that is confidential under the rules of the Committee, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed in writing: ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose, to any person or entity outside the Committee on Ethics, any information received in the course of my service with the Committee, except as authorized by the Committee or in accordance with its rules.'' Copies of the executed oath shall be provided to the Clerk of the House as part of the records of the House. Breaches of confidentiality shall be investigated by the Committee and appropriate action shall be taken. (b) No member of the staff or outside counsel may make public, unless approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, any information, document, or other material that is confidential, derived from executive session, or classified and that is obtained during the course of employment with the Committee. (c) Committee members and staff shall not disclose any evidence or information relating to any investigation or proceeding of the Committee or a subcommittee to any person or organization outside the Committee, unless authorized by the Committee. (d) This rule shall not prohibit the Chair or Ranking Minority Member from disclosing to the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics the existence of a Committee investigation, the name of the Member, officer, or employee of the House who is the subject of that investigation, and a brief statement of the scope of that investigation in a written request for referral pursuant to Rule 17A(k). Such disclosures will only be made subject to written confirmation from the Board that the information provided by the Chair or Ranking Minority Member will be kept confidential by the Board. (e) A Statement of Alleged Violation and any written response thereto shall be made public at the first meeting or hearing on the matter that is open to the public after the respondent has been given full opportunity to respond pursuant to Rule 22. Any other materials in the possession of the Committee regarding such statement may be made public as authorized by the Committee to the extent consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives. If no public hearing is held on the matter, the Statement of Alleged Violation and any written response thereto shall be included in the Committee's final report on the matter to the House of Representatives. (f) Unless otherwise determined by a vote of the Committee, only the Chair or Ranking Minority Member of the Committee, after consultation with each other, may make public statements regarding matters before the Committee or any subcommittee. (g) The Committee may establish procedures necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any testimony or other information received by the Committee or its staff. Rule 8. Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may consult with an investigative subcommittee either on their own initiative or on the initiative of the subcommittee, shall have access to evidence and information before a subcommittee with whom they so consult, and shall not thereby be precluded from serving as full, voting members of any adjudicatory subcommittee. Except for the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee pursuant to this paragraph, evidence in the possession of an investigative subcommittee shall not be disclosed to other Committee members except by a vote of the subcommittee. (b) The Committee may establish other noninvestigative and nonadjudicatory subcommittees and may assign to them such functions as it may deem appropriate. The membership of each subcommittee shall provide equal representation for the majority and minority parties. (c) The Chair may refer any bill, resolution, or other matter before the Committee to an appropriate subcommittee for consideration. Any such bill, resolution, or other matter may be discharged from the subcommittee to which it was referred by a majority vote of the Committee. (d) Any member of the Committee may sit with any noninvestigative or nonadjudicatory subcommittee, but only regular members of such subcommittee may vote on any matter before that subcommittee. Rule 9. Quorums and Member Disqualification (a) The quorum for the Committee or an investigative subcommittee to take testimony and to receive evidence shall be two members, unless otherwise authorized by the House of Representatives. (b) The quorum for an adjudicatory subcommittee to take testimony, receive evidence, or conduct business shall consist of a majority plus one of the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee. (c) Except as stated in clauses (a) and (b) of this rule, a quorum for the purpose of conducting business consists of a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee. (d) A member of the Committee shall be ineligible to participate in any Committee or subcommittee proceeding in which such Member is a respondent. (e) A member of the Committee may seek disqualification from participating in any investigation of the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives upon the submission in writing and under oath of an affidavit of disqualification stating that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. If the Committee approves and accepts such affidavit of disqualification, the Chair shall so notify the Speaker and ask the Speaker to designate a Member of the House of Representatives from the same political party as the disqualified member of the Committee to act as a member of the Committee in any Committee proceeding relating to such investigation. Rule 10. Vote Requirements (a) The following actions shall be taken only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate: (1) Issuing a subpoena. (2) Adopting a full Committee motion to create an investigative subcommittee. (3) Adopting or amending of a Statement of Alleged Violation. (4) Finding that a count in a Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. (5) Sending a letter of reproval. (6) Adopting a recommendation to the House of Representatives that a sanction be imposed. (7) Adopting a report relating to the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee. (8) Issuing an advisory opinion of general applicability establishing new policy. (b) Except as stated in clause (a), action may be taken by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by a simple majority, a quorum being present. (c) No motion made to take any of the actions enumerated in clause (a) of this Rule may be entertained by the Chair unless a quorum of the Committee is present when such motion is made. Rule 11. Committee Records (a) All communications and all pleadings pursuant to these rules shall be filed with the Committee at the Committee's office or such other place as designated by the Committee. (b) All records of the Committee which have been delivered to the Archivist of the United States shall be made available to the public in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Rule 12. Broadcasts of Committee and Subcommittee Proceedings (a) Television or radio coverage of a Committee or subcommittee hearing or meeting shall be without commercial sponsorship. (b) Not more than four television cameras, operating from fixed positions, shall be permitted in a hearing or meeting room. The Committee may allocate the positions of permitted television cameras among the television media in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries. (c) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any way the space between any witness giving evidence or testimony and any member of the Committee, or the visibility of that witness and that member to each other. (d) Television cameras shall not be placed in positions that unnecessarily obstruct the coverage of the hearing or meeting by the other media. Part II--Investigative Authority Rule 13. House Resolution Whenever the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or investigation, the provisions of the resolution, in conjunction with these Rules, shall govern. To the extent the provisions of the resolution differ from these Rules, the resolution shall control. Rule 14. Committee Authority to Investigate--General Policy (a) Pursuant to clause 3(b) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee may exercise its investigative authority when: (1) information offered as a complaint, in writing and under oath, by a Member of the House of Representatives is transmitted directly to the Committee; (2) information offered as a complaint, in writing and under oath, by an individual not a Member of the House is transmitted to the Committee, provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that such Member believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee; (3) the Committee, on its own initiative, undertakes an investigation; (4) a Member, officer, or employee is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct or is convicted of a felony in a Federal, State, or local court; (5) the House of Representatives, by resolution, authorizes or directs the Committee to undertake an inquiry or investigation; or (6) a referral from the Board is transmitted to the Committee. (b) The Committee also has investigatory authority over: (1) certain unauthorized disclosures of intelligence- related information, pursuant to House Rule X, clauses 11(g)(4) and (g)(5); (2) reports received from the Office of the Inspector General pursuant to House Rule II, clause 6(c)(5); (3) determinations regarding appeals from fines imposed by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the use of electronic devices in contravention of applicable House rules or policies, pursuant to House Rule II, clause 3(g); and (4) information received from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, pursuant to the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Rule 15. Complaints (a) A complaint submitted to the Committee shall be in writing, dated, and properly verified (a document will be considered properly verified where a notary executes it with the language, ``Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on (date) by (the name of the person)'') setting forth in simple, concise, and direct statements-- (1) the name and legal address of the party filing the complaint (hereinafter referred to as the ``complainant''); (2) the name and position or title of the respondent(s); (3) the nature of the alleged violation of the Code of Official Conduct or of other law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of duties or discharge of responsibilities; and (4) the facts alleged to give rise to the violation. The complaint shall not contain innuendo, speculative assertions, or conclusory statements. (b) Any documents in the possession of the complainant that relate to the allegations may be submitted with the complaint. (c) Information offered as a complaint by a Member of the House of Representatives may be transmitted directly to the Committee. (d) Information offered as a complaint by an individual not a Member of the House may be transmitted to the Committee, provided that a Member of the House certifies in writing that such Member believes the information is submitted in good faith and warrants the review and consideration of the Committee. (e) A complaint must be accompanied by a certification, which may be unsworn, that the complainant has provided an exact copy of the filed complaint and all attachments to the respondent(s). (f) The Committee may defer action on a complaint against a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authorities, or when the Committee determines that it is appropriate for the conduct alleged in the complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or regulatory authorities. (g) A complaint may not be amended without leave of the Committee. Otherwise, any new allegations of improper conduct must be submitted in a new complaint that independently meets the procedural requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives and the Committee's Rules. (h) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the complainant, any complaint submitted within the 60 days before a Federal, State, or local election in which the subject of the complaint is a candidate. (i) The Committee shall not consider a complaint, nor shall any investigation be undertaken by the Committee, of any alleged violation which occurred before the third previous Congress unless the Committee determines that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation which occurred in a more recent Congress. Rule 16. Duties of Committee Chair and Ranking Minority Member (a) Whenever information offered as a complaint is submitted to the Committee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member shall have 14 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever occurs first, to determine whether the information meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint. (b) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint, they shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, after the date that the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that information filed meets the requirements of the Committee's rules for what constitutes a complaint, unless the Committee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members votes otherwise, to-- (1) recommend to the Committee that it dispose of the complaint, or any portion thereof, in any manner that does not require action by the House, which may include dismissal of the complaint or resolution of the complaint by a letter to the Member, officer, or employee of the House against whom the complaint is made; (2) establish an investigative subcommittee; or (3) request that the Committee extend the applicable 45- calendar day period when they determine more time is necessary in order to make a recommendation under paragraph (1) or (2) of Rule 16(b). (c) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning alleged conduct which is the basis of a complaint or of information offered as a complaint until they have established an investigative subcommittee or the Chair or Ranking Minority Member has placed on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee. (d) If the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee meets the requirements of the Committee rules for what constitutes a complaint, and the complaint is not disposed of within 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days, whichever is later, and no additional 45-day extension is made, then they shall establish an investigative subcommittee and forward the complaint, or any portion thereof, to that subcommittee for its consideration. If at any time during the time period either the Chair or Ranking Minority Member places on the agenda the issue of whether to establish an investigative subcommittee, then an investigative subcommittee may be established only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee. (e) Whenever the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly determine that information submitted to the Committee does not meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set forth in the Committee rules, they may (1) return the information to the complainant with a statement that it fails to meet the requirements for what constitutes a complaint set forth in the Committee's rules; or (2) recommend to the Committee that it authorize the establishment of an investigative subcommittee. Rule 17. Processing of Complaints (a) If a complaint is in compliance with House and Committee Rules, a copy of the complaint and the Committee Rules shall be forwarded to the respondent(s) within 5 days with notice that the complaint conforms to the applicable rules. (b) A respondent may, within 30 days of the Committee's notification in clause (a), provide to the Committee any information relevant to a complaint filed with the Committee. The respondent may submit a written statement in response to the complaint. Such a statement shall be signed by the respondent. If the statement is prepared by counsel for the respondent, the respondent shall sign a representation that the respondent has reviewed the response and agrees with the factual assertions contained therein. (c) The Committee staff may request information from a respondent or obtain additional information relevant to the case from other sources prior to the establishment of an investigative subcommittee only when so directed by the Chair and Ranking Minority Member. (d) The respondent(s) shall be notified in writing regarding the Chair and Ranking Minority Member's determination under Rule 16(e) or the Committee's decision either to dismiss the complaint or to create an investigative subcommittee. Rule 17A. Referrals from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (a) The Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over the interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the Code of Official Conduct pursuant to clause 1(g) of House Rule X. Receipt of referrals from the Board under this rule does not limit the Committee's discretion to address referrals in any way through the appropriate procedures authorized by Committee Rules. The Committee shall review the report and findings transmitted by the Board without prejudice or presumptions as to the merit of the allegations. (b)(1) Whenever the Committee receives either (A) a referral containing a written report and any findings and supporting documentation from the Board; or (B) a referral from the Board pursuant to a request under Rule 17A(k), the Chair shall have 45 calendar days or 5 legislative days after the date the referral is received, whichever is later, to make public the report and findings of the Board unless the Chair and Ranking Minority Member jointly decide, or the Committee votes, to withhold such information for not more than one additional 45-day period. (2) At least one calendar day before the Committee makes public any report and findings of the Board, the Chair shall notify in writing the Board and the Member, officer, 23 or employee who is the subject of the referral of the impending public release of these documents. At the same time, the Chair shall transmit a copy of any public statement on the Committee's disposition of the matter and any accompanying Committee report to the individual who is the subject of the referral. (3) All public statements and reports and findings of the Board that are required to be made public under this Rule shall be posted on the Committee's website. (c) If the OCE report and findings are withheld for an additional 45-day period pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), the Chair shall-- (1) make a public statement on the day of such decision or vote that the matter referred from the Board has been extended; and (2) make public the written report and findings pursuant to paragraph (b) upon the termination of such additional period. (d) If the Board transmits a report with a recommendation to dismiss or noting a matter as unresolved due to a tie vote, and the matter is extended for an additional period as provided in paragraph (b), the Committee is not required to make a public statement that the matter has been extended pursuant to paragraph (b)(1). (e) If the Committee votes to dismiss a matter referred from the Board, the Committee is not required to make public the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to paragraph (c) unless the Committee's vote is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Board. A vote by the Committee to dismiss a matter is not considered inconsistent with a report from the Board that the matter is unresolved by the Board due to a tie vote. (f) Except as provided by paragraph (g): (1) If the Committee establishes an investigative subcommittee respecting any matter referred by the Board, then the report and findings of the Board shall not be made public until the conclusion of the investigative subcommittee process. The Committee shall issue a public statement noting the establishment of an investigative subcommittee, which shall include the name of the Member, officer, or employee who is the subject of the inquiry, and shall set forth the alleged violation. (2) If any such investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review within one year after the Board's referral, then the Committee shall make public the report of the Board no later than one year after the referral. If the investigative subcommittee does not conclude its review before the end of the Congress in which the report of the Board is made public, the Committee shall make public any findings of the Board on the last day of that Congress. (g) If the vote of the Committee is a tie or the Committee fails to act by the close of any applicable period(s) under this rule, the report and the findings of the Board shall be made public by the Committee, along with a public statement by the Chair explaining the status of the matter. (h)(1) If the Committee agrees to a request from an appropriate law enforcement or regulatory authority to defer taking action on a matter referred by the Board under paragraph (b)-- (A) The Committee is not required to make public the written report and findings of the Board pursuant to paragraph (c), except that if the recommendation of the Board is that the matter requires further review, the Committee shall make public the written report of the Board but not the findings; and (B) The Committee shall make a public statement that it is deferring taking action on the matter at the request of such law enforcement or regulatory authority within one day (excluding weekends and public holidays) of the day that the Committee agrees to the request. (2) If the Committee has not acted on the matter within one year of the date the public statement described in paragraph (h)(1)(B) is released, the Committee shall make a public statement that it continues to defer taking action on the matter. The Committee shall make a new statement upon the expiration of each succeeding one-year period during which the Committee has not acted on the matter. (i) The Committee shall not accept, and shall return to the Board, any referral from the Board within 60 days before a Federal, State, or local election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. (j) The Committee may postpone any reporting requirement under this rule that falls within that 60-day period until after the date of the election in which the subject of the referral is a candidate. For purposes of calculating any applicable period under this Rule, any days within the 60-day period before such an election and the date of the election shall not be counted. (k)(1) At any time after the Committee receives written notification from the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics that the Board is undertaking a review of alleged conduct of any Member, officer, or employee of the House at a time when the Committee is investigating, or has completed an investigation of the same matter, the Committee may so notify the Board in writing and request that the Board cease its review and refer the matter to the Committee for its consideration immediately. The Committee shall also notify the Board in writing if the Committee has not reached a final resolution of the matter or has not referred the matter to the appropriate Federal or State authorities by the end of any applicable time period specified in Rule 17A (including any permissible extension). (2) The Committee may not request a second referral of the matter from the Board if the Committee has notified the Board that it is unable to resolve the matter previously requested pursuant to this section. The Board may subsequently send a referral regarding a matter previously requested and returned by the Committee after the conclusion of the Board's review process. Rule 18. Committee-Initiated Inquiry or Investigation (a) Notwithstanding the absence of a filed complaint, the Committee may consider any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the performance of the duties or the discharge of the responsibilities of such individual. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may jointly gather additional information concerning such an alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee unless and until an investigative subcommittee has been established. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member may also jointly take appropriate action consistent with Committee Rules to resolve the matter. (b) If the Committee votes to establish an investigative subcommittee, the Committee shall proceed in accordance with Rule 19. (c) Any written request by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives that the Committee conduct an investigation into such person's own conduct shall be considered in accordance with subsection (a) of this Rule. (d) An investigation shall not be undertaken regarding any alleged violation that occurred before the third previous Congress unless a majority of the Committee determines that the alleged violation is directly related to an alleged violation that occurred in a more recent Congress. (e)(1) An inquiry shall be undertaken by an investigative subcommittee with regard to any felony conviction of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives in a Federal, State, or local court who has been sentenced. Notwithstanding this provision, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member have the discretion to gather information pursuant to subsection (a) of this Rule, and the Committee has the discretion to initiate an inquiry upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, at any time prior to conviction or sentencing. (2) Not later than 30 days after a Member of the House is indicted or otherwise formally charged with criminal conduct in any Federal, State, or local court, the Committee shall either initiate an inquiry upon a majority vote of the members of the Committee or submit a report to the House describing its reasons for not initiating an inquiry and describing the actions, if any, that the Committee has taken in response to the allegations. (3) In addition to any other evidence which the Committee or investigative subcommittee may consider, the Committee or investigative subcommittee may take into evidence any information related to the subject of an investigation contained in trial transcripts and all exhibits admitted into evidence at trial. Rule 19. Investigative Subcommittee (a)(1) Upon the establishment of an investigative subcommittee, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall designate four members (with equal representation from the majority and minority parties) to serve as an investigative subcommittee to undertake an inquiry. Members of the Committee and Members of the House selected pursuant to clause 5(a)(4)(A) of Rule X of the House of Representatives are eligible for appointment to an investigative subcommittee, as determined by the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. At the time of appointment, the Chair shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member shall designate one member of the subcommittee to serve as the ranking minority member of the investigative subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee may serve as members of an investigative subcommittee, but may not serve as non-voting, ex-officio members. (2) A respondent shall be notified of the membership of the investigative subcommittee and shall have 10 days after such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and must be on the grounds that the subcommittee member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The members of the Committee shall engage in a collegial discussion regarding such objection. The subcommittee member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from participating in the inquiry pursuant to Rule 9(e). (b) In an inquiry undertaken by an investigative subcommittee-- (1) All proceedings, including the taking of testimony, shall be conducted in executive session and all evidence or testimony produced pursuant to subpoena or otherwise shall be deemed to have been taken or produced in executive session. (2) The investigative subcommittee, through any of its members or the staff, shall ask the respondent(s) and all witnesses whether they intend to be represented by counsel. If so, the respondent or witnesses or their legal representatives shall provide written designation of counsel. A respondent or witness who is represented by counsel shall not be questioned in the absence of counsel unless an explicit waiver is obtained. (3) The subcommittee shall provide the respondent(s) an opportunity to present, orally or in writing, a statement, which must be under oath or affirmation, regarding the allegations and any other relevant questions arising out of the inquiry. (4) The staff may interview witnesses, examine documents and other evidence, and request that submitted statements be under oath or affirmation and that documents be certified as to their authenticity and accuracy. (5) The subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other items as it deems necessary to the conduct of the inquiry. Unless the Committee otherwise provides, the subpoena power shall rest in the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee and a subpoena shall be issued upon the request of the investigative subcommittee. (6) Required testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chair or any individual designated by the Chair to administer oaths. (c) During the inquiry, the procedure respecting the admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows: (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of Representatives. (2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member at any investigative subcommittee proceeding shall rule upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness, witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal any rulings to the members present at that proceeding. A majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on such appeal shall govern the question of admissibility, and no appeal shall lie to the Committee. (3) Whenever a person is determined by a majority vote to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether to refer the matter to the House of Representatives for consideration. (4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee approval, enter into stipulations with a respondent and/or the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute. (d) Upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the subcommittee members, and an affirmative vote of a majority of the full Committee, an investigative subcommittee may expand the scope of its inquiry. (e) Upon completion of the inquiry, the staff shall draft for the investigative subcommittee a report that shall contain a comprehensive summary of the information received regarding the alleged violations. (f) Upon completion of the inquiry, an investigative subcommittee, by a majority vote of its members, may adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation if it determines that there is substantial reason to believe that a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the performance of official duties or the discharge of official responsibilities by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives has occurred. If more than one violation is alleged, such Statement shall be divided into separate counts. Each count shall relate to a separate violation, shall contain a plain and concise statement of the alleged facts of such violation, and shall include a reference to the provision of the Code of Official Conduct or law, rule, regulation, or other applicable standard of conduct governing the performance of duties or discharge of responsibilities alleged to have been violated. A copy of such Statement shall be transmitted to the respondent and the respondent's counsel. (g) If the investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall transmit to the Committee a report containing a summary of the information received in the inquiry, its conclusions and reasons therefore, and any appropriate recommendation. (h) An investigative subcommittee may transmit a single report regarding multiple respondents, but shall adopt a separate Statement of Alleged Violation for each respondent where applicable. Rule 20. Amendments to Statements of Alleged Violation (a) An investigative subcommittee may, upon an affirmative vote of a majority of its members, amend its Statement of Alleged Violation any time before the Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to the Committee; and (b) If an investigative subcommittee amends its Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall be notified in writing and shall have 30 calendar days from the date of that notification to file an answer to the amended Statement of Alleged Violation. Rule 21. Committee Reporting Requirements (a) Whenever an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation and transmits a report to that effect to the Committee, the Committee may by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members transmit such report to the House of Representatives; (b) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation but recommends that no further action be taken, it shall transmit a report to the Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation; and (c) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent admits to the violations set forth in such Statement, the respondent waives the right to an adjudicatory hearing, and the respondent's waiver is approved by the Committee-- (1) the subcommittee shall prepare a report for transmittal to the Committee, a final draft of which shall be provided to the respondent not less than 15 calendar days before the subcommittee votes on whether to adopt the report; (2) the respondent may submit views in writing regarding the final draft to the subcommittee within 7 calendar days of receipt of that draft; (3) the subcommittee shall transmit a report to the Committee regarding the Statement of Alleged Violation together with any views submitted by the respondent pursuant to subparagraph (2), and the Committee shall make the report, together with the respondent's views, available to the public before the commencement of any sanction hearing; and (4) the Committee shall by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members issue a report and transmit such report to the House of Representatives, together with the respondent's views previously submitted pursuant to subparagraph (2) and any additional views respondent may submit for attachment to the final report; and (d) Members of the Committee shall have not less than 72 hours to review any report transmitted to the Committee by an investigative subcommittee before both the commencement of a sanction hearing and the Committee vote on whether to adopt the report. Rule 22. Respondent's Answer (a)(1) Within 30 days from the date of transmittal of a Statement of Alleged Violation, the respondent shall file with the investigative subcommittee an answer, in writing and under oath, signed by respondent and respondent's counsel. Failure to file an answer within the time prescribed shall be considered by the Committee as a denial of each count. (2) The answer shall contain an admission to or denial of each count set forth in the Statement of Alleged Violation and may include negative, affirmative, or alternative defenses and any supporting evidence or other relevant information. (b) The respondent may file a Motion for a Bill of Particulars within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of Alleged Violation. If a Motion for a Bill of Particulars is filed, the respondent shall not be required to file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has replied to such motion. (c)(1) The respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss within 10 days of the date of transmittal of the Statement of Alleged Violation or, if a Motion for a Bill of Particulars has been filed, within 10 days of the date of the subcommittee's reply to the Motion for a Bill of Particulars. If a Motion to Dismiss is filed, the respondent shall not be required to file an answer until 20 days after the subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss, unless the respondent previously filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, in which case the respondent shall not be required to file an answer until 10 days after the subcommittee has replied to the Motion to Dismiss. The investigative subcommittee shall rule upon any motion to dismiss filed during the period between the establishment of the subcommittee and the subcommittee's transmittal of a report or Statement of Alleged Violation to the Committee or to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member at the conclusion of an inquiry, and no appeal of the subcommittee's ruling shall lie to the Committee. (2) A Motion to Dismiss may be made on the grounds that the Statement of Alleged Violation fails to state facts that constitute a violation of the Code of Official Conduct or other applicable law, rule, regulation, or standard of conduct, or on the grounds that the Committee lacks jurisdiction to consider the allegations contained in the Statement. (d) Any motion filed with the subcommittee pursuant to this rule shall be accompanied by a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (e)(1) The Chair of the investigative subcommittee, for good cause shown, may permit the respondent to file an answer or motion after the day prescribed above. (2) If the ability of the respondent to present an adequate defense is not adversely affected and special circumstances so require, the Chair of the investigative subcommittee may direct the respondent to file an answer or motion prior to the day prescribed above. (f) If the day on which any answer, motion, reply, or other pleading must be filed falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday, such filing shall be made on the first business day thereafter. (g) As soon as practicable after an answer has been filed or the time for such filing has expired, the Statement of Alleged Violation and any answer, motion, reply, or other pleading connected therewith shall be transmitted by the Chair of the investigative subcommittee to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. Rule 23. Adjudicatory Hearings (a) If a Statement of Alleged Violation is transmitted to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member pursuant to Rule 22, and no waiver pursuant to Rule 26(b) has occurred, the Chair shall designate the members of the Committee who did not serve on the investigative subcommittee to serve on an adjudicatory subcommittee. The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall be the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the adjudicatory subcommittee unless they served on the investigative subcommittee. The respondent shall be notified of the designation of the adjudicatory subcommittee and shall have 10 days after such notice is transmitted to object to the participation of any subcommittee member. Such objection shall be in writing and shall be on the grounds that the member cannot render an impartial and unbiased decision. The members of the Committee shall engage in a collegial discussion regarding such objection. The member against whom the objection is made shall be the sole judge of any disqualification and may choose to seek disqualification from serving on the subcommittee pursuant to Rule 9(e). (b) A majority of the adjudicatory subcommittee membership plus one must be present at all times for the conduct of any business pursuant to this rule. (c) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall hold a hearing to determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence and shall make findings of fact, except where such violations have been admitted by respondent. (d) The subcommittee may require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, and other items as it deems necessary. A subpoena for documents may specify terms of return other than at a meeting or hearing of the subcommittee. Depositions, interrogatories, and sworn statements taken under any investigative subcommittee direction may be accepted into the hearing record. (e) The procedures set forth in clause 2(g)(1)-(4), (6)-(7) and (k) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives shall apply to adjudicatory hearings. All such hearings shall be open to the public unless the adjudicatory subcommittee, pursuant to such clause, determines that the hearings or any part thereof should be closed. (f)(1) The adjudicatory subcommittee shall, in writing, notify the respondent that the respondent and respondent's counsel have the right to inspect, review, copy, or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, or other tangible objects that committee counsel intends to use as evidence against the respondent in an adjudicatory hearing. The respondent shall be given access to such evidence, and shall be provided the names of witnesses committee counsel intends to call, and a summary of their expected testimony, no less than 15 calendar days prior to any such hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, no evidence may be introduced or witness called in an adjudicatory hearing unless the respondent has been afforded a prior opportunity to review such evidence or has been provided the name of the witness. (2) After a witness has testified on direct examination at an adjudicatory hearing, the Committee, at the request of the respondent, shall make available to the respondent any statement of the witness in the possession of the Committee which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. (3) Any other testimony, statement, or documentary evidence in the possession of the Committee which is material to the respondent's defense shall, upon request, be made available to the respondent. (g) No less than 5 days prior to the hearing, the respondent or counsel shall provide the adjudicatory subcommittee with the names of witnesses expected to be called, summaries of their expected testimony, and copies of any documents or other evidence proposed to be introduced. (h) The respondent or counsel may apply to the subcommittee for the issuance of subpoenas for the appearance of witnesses or the production of evidence. The application shall be granted upon a showing by the respondent that the proposed testimony or evidence is relevant and not otherwise available to respondent. The application may be denied if not made at a reasonable time or if the testimony or evidence would be merely cumulative. (i) No later than two weeks or 5 legislative days after the Chair of the Committee designates members to serve on an adjudicatory subcommittee, whichever is later, the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall establish a schedule and procedure for the hearing and for prehearing matters. The procedures may be changed either by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee or a by a majority vote of the members of the subcommittee. If the Chair makes prehearing rulings upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, the Chair shall make available those rulings to all subcommittee members at the time of the ruling. (j) The procedures regarding the admissibility of evidence and rulings shall be as follows: (1) Any relevant evidence shall be admissible unless the evidence is privileged under the precedents of the House of Representatives. (2) The Chair of the subcommittee or other presiding member at an adjudicatory subcommittee hearing shall rule upon any question of admissibility or relevance of evidence, motion, procedure, or any other matter, and may direct any witness to answer any question under penalty of contempt. A witness, witness counsel, or a member of the subcommittee may appeal any ruling to the members present at that proceeding. A majority vote of the members present at such proceeding on such an appeal shall govern the question of admissibility and no appeal shall lie to the Committee. (3) Whenever a witness is deemed by a Chair or other presiding member to be in contempt of the subcommittee, the matter may be referred to the Committee to determine whether to refer the matter to the House of Representatives for consideration. (4) Committee counsel may, subject to subcommittee approval, enter into stipulations with the respondent and/or the respondent's counsel as to facts that are not in dispute. (k) Unless otherwise provided, the order of an adjudicatory hearing shall be as follows: (1) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee shall open the hearing with equal time and during which time, the Chair shall state the adjudicatory subcommittee's authority to conduct the hearing and the purpose of the hearing. (2) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and the respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving opening statements. (3) Testimony from witnesses and other relevant evidence shall be received in the following order whenever possible: (i) witnesses (deposition transcripts and affidavits obtained during the inquiry may be used in lieu of live witnesses) and other evidence offered by Committee counsel, (ii) witnesses and other evidence offered by the respondent, (iii) rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the Chair. (4) Witnesses at a hearing shall be examined first by counsel calling such witness. The opposing counsel may then cross-examine the witness. Redirect examination and recross examination by counsel may be permitted at the Chair's discretion. Subcommittee members may then question witnesses. Unless otherwise directed by the Chair, questions by Subcommittee members shall be conducted under the five-minute rule. (5) The Chair shall then recognize Committee counsel and respondent's counsel, in turn, for the purpose of giving closing arguments. Committee counsel may reserve time for rebuttal argument, as permitted by the Chair. (l) A subpoena to a witness to appear at a hearing shall be served sufficiently in advance of that witness' scheduled appearance to allow the witness a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Chair of the adjudicatory subcommittee, to prepare for the hearing and to employ counsel. (m) Each witness appearing before the subcommittee shall be furnished a printed or electronic copy of the Committee rules, the relevant provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses, and a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation. (n) Testimony of all witnesses shall be taken under oath or affirmation. The form of the oath or affirmation shall be: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you will give before this subcommittee in the matter now under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help you God)?'' The oath or affirmation shall be administered by the Chair or Committee member designated by the Chair to administer oaths. (o) At an adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests on Committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in the Statement of Alleged Violation by clear and convincing evidence. However, Committee counsel need not present any evidence regarding any count that is admitted by the respondent or any fact stipulated. Committee counsel or respondent's counsel may move the adjudicatory subcommittee to make a finding that there is no material fact at issue. If the adjudicatory subcommittee finds that there is no material fact at issue, the burden of proof will be deemed satisfied. (p) As soon as practicable after all testimony and evidence have been presented, the subcommittee shall consider each count contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation and shall determine by a majority vote of its members whether each count has been proved. If a majority of the subcommittee does not vote that a count has been proved, a motion to reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted that the count was not proved. A count that is not proved shall be considered as dismissed by the subcommittee. (q) The findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee shall be reported to the Committee. Rule 24. Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other Recommendations (a) If no count in a Statement of Alleged Violation is proved, the Committee shall prepare a report to the House of Representatives, based upon the report of the adjudicatory subcommittee. (b) If an adjudicatory subcommittee completes an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to Rule 23 and reports that any count of the Statement of Alleged Violation has been proved, a hearing before the Committee shall be held to receive oral and/or written submissions by counsel for the Committee and counsel for the respondent as to the sanction the Committee should recommend to the House of Representatives with respect to such violations. Testimony by witnesses shall not be heard except by written request and vote of a majority of the Committee. (c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House take disciplinary action. If a majority of the Committee does not vote in favor of the recommendation that the House of Representatives take action, a motion to reconsider that vote may be made only by a member who voted against the recommendation. The Committee may also, by majority vote, adopt a motion to issue a Letter of Reproval or take other appropriate Committee action. (d) If the Committee determines a Letter of Reproval constitutes sufficient action, the Committee shall include any such letter as a part of its report to the House of Representatives. (e) With respect to any proved counts against a Member of the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions: (1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives. (2) Censure. (3) Reprimand. (4) Fine. (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation. (6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate. (f) With respect to any proved counts against an officer or employee of the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions: (1) Dismissal from employment. (2) Reprimand. (3) Fine. (4) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate. (g) With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee is appropriate for the most serious violations. A recommendation of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it is likely that the violation was committed to secure a personal financial benefit; and a recommendation of a denial or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity of a Member is appropriate when the violation bears upon the exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or immunity. This clause sets forth general guidelines and does not limit the authority of the Committee to recommend other sanctions. (h) The Committee report shall contain an appropriate statement of the evidence supporting the Committee's findings and a statement of the Committee's reasons for the recommended sanction. Rule 25. Disclosure of Exculpatory Information to Respondent If the Committee, or any investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee at any time receives any exculpatory information respecting a Complaint or Statement of Alleged Violation concerning a respondent, it shall make such information known and available to the respondent as soon as practicable, but in no event later than the transmittal of evidence supporting a proposed Statement of Alleged Violation pursuant to Rule 26(c). If an investigative subcommittee does not adopt a Statement of Alleged Violation, it shall identify any exculpatory information in its possession at the conclusion of its inquiry and shall include such information, if any, in the subcommittee's final report to the Committee regarding its inquiry. For purposes of this rule, exculpatory evidence shall be any evidence or information that is substantially favorable to the respondent with respect to the allegations or charges before an investigative or adjudicatory subcommittee. Rule 26. Rights of Respondents and Witnesses (a) A respondent shall be informed of the right to be represented by counsel, to be provided at the respondent's own expense. (b) A respondent may seek to waive any procedural rights or steps in the disciplinary process. A request for waiver must be in writing, signed by the respondent, and must detail what procedural steps the respondent seeks to waive. Any such request shall be subject to the acceptance of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. (c) Not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled vote by an investigative subcommittee on a Statement of Alleged Violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the Statement of Alleged Violation it intends to adopt together with all evidence it intends to use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt, including documentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members decides to withhold certain evidence in order to protect a witness, but if such evidence is withheld, the subcommittee shall inform the respondent that evidence is being withheld and of the count to which such evidence relates. (d) Neither the respondent nor respondent's counsel shall, directly or indirectly, contact the subcommittee or any member thereof during the period of time set forth in paragraph (c) except for the sole purpose of settlement discussions where counsels for the respondent and the subcommittee are present. (e) If, at any time after the issuance of a Statement of Alleged Violation, the Committee or any subcommittee thereof determines that it intends to use evidence not provided to a respondent under paragraph (c) to prove the charges contained in the Statement of Alleged Violation (or any amendment thereof), such evidence shall be made immediately available to the respondent, and it may be used in any further proceeding under the Committee's rules. (f) Evidence provided pursuant to paragraph (c) or (e) shall be made available to the respondent and respondent's counsel only after each agrees, in writing, that no document, information, or other materials obtained pursuant to that paragraph shall be made public until-- (1) such time as a Statement of Alleged Violation is made public by the Committee if the respondent has waived the adjudicatory hearing; or (2) the commencement of an adjudicatory hearing if the respondent has not waived an adjudicatory hearing; but the failure of respondent and respondent's counsel to so agree in writing, and therefore not receive the evidence, shall not preclude the issuance of a Statement of Alleged Violation at the end of the period referenced to in (c). (g) If the Committee issues a report with respect to a claim referred to the Committee by the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights pursuant to Section 416(e) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the Committee shall ensure that the report does not directly disclose the identity or position of the individual who filed the claim. (h) A respondent shall receive written notice whenever-- (1) the Chair and Ranking Minority Member determine that information the Committee has received constitutes a complaint; (2) a complaint or allegation is transmitted to an investigative subcommittee; (3) that subcommittee votes to authorize its first subpoena or to take testimony under oath, whichever occurs first; (4) the Committee votes to expand the scope of the inquiry of an investigative subcommittee; and (5) the Committee or an investigative subcommittee determines to take into evidence the trial transcript or exhibits admitted into evidence at a criminal trial pursuant to Rule 18(e)(3). (i) Whenever an investigative subcommittee adopts a Statement of Alleged Violation and a respondent enters into an agreement with that subcommittee to settle an investigation, in whole or in part, on which the Statement is based, that agreement, unless the respondent requests otherwise, shall be in writing and signed by the respondent and the respondent's counsel, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, and outside counsel, if any. (j) Statements or information derived solely from a respondent or respondent's counsel during any settlement discussions between the Committee or a subcommittee thereof and the respondent shall not be included in any report of the subcommittee or the Committee or otherwise publicly disclosed without the consent of the respondent. (k) Whenever a motion to establish an investigative subcommittee does not prevail, the Committee shall promptly send a letter to the respondent(s) informing the respondent(s) of such vote. (l) Witnesses shall be afforded a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Committee or subcommittee, to prepare for an appearance before an investigative subcommittee or for an adjudicatory hearing and to obtain counsel. (m) Prior to their testimony, witnesses shall be furnished a printed or electronic copy of the Committee's Rules and the provisions of the Rules of the House of Representatives applicable to the rights of witnesses. (n) Witnesses may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. The Chair may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional responsibility on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee may cite the offender to the House of Representatives for contempt. (o) Each witness subpoenaed to provide testimony or other evidence shall be provided the same per diem rate as established, authorized, and regulated by the Committee on House Administration for Members, officers, and employees of the House, and, as the Chair considers appropriate, actual expenses of travel to or from the place of examination. No compensation shall be authorized for attorney's fees or for a witness' lost earnings. Such per diem may not be paid if a witness had been summoned at the place of examination. (p) With the approval of the Committee, a witness, upon request, may be provided with a transcript of the witness' own deposition or other testimony taken in executive session, or, with the approval of the Chair and Ranking Minority Member, may be permitted to examine such transcript in the office of the Committee. Any such request shall be in writing and shall include a statement that the witness, and counsel, agree to maintain the confidentiality of all executive session proceedings covered by such transcript. Rule 27. Frivolous Filings If a complaint or information offered as a complaint is deemed frivolous by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Committee, the Committee may take such action as it, by an affirmative vote of a majority deems appropriate in the circumstances. Rule 28. Referrals to Federal or State Authorities Referrals made under clause 3(a)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives may be made by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-08-pt1-PgH1108 | null | 2,493 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | American Rescue Plan Now on the rescue plan, on Saturday, the American people got to see what a responsive and effective government looks like. A month and a half after assuming the majority, Senate Democrats followed through on our promise to deliver a bold COVID relief bill to help crush the virus, lift this country out of the crisis, and set our economy on a path to a strong recovery. Earlier today, the final text of the Senate bill was sent to the House of Representatives. Congress remains on track to deliver the American Rescue Plan to President Biden's desk for his signature before enhanced unemployment benefits expire on March 14. We said we would do it. We are doing it. Once President Biden signs the American Rescue Plan into law, it will immediately become one of the most sweeping Federal recovery efforts in modern history. It will help restore Americans' faith in government at a time when that is sorely needed, and it will deliver more help to more people than almost anything Congress has accomplished in past decades. Already the positive reviews are pouring in. According to several reports, the bill will help millions of Americans save hundreds of dollars in healthcare costs. Thanks to a historic expansion of the child tax credit--up to $3,000 per child under 17 for an overwhelming majority of families--analysts predict the American Rescue Plan will cut child poverty in half. Let me say that again: Analysts predict the American Rescue Plan will cut child poverty in half. This has been a goal of this country for decades, and now we are taking real steps to accomplish it. In fact, the Tax Policy Center predicts the American Rescue Plan will boost the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of Americans by 20 percent, including significant boosts all the way through the middle class Meanwhile, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will receive an income boost of zero--zero percent for the top 1 percent wealthiest Americans. Let me say that again because this shows who we are as a party here in the Senate and who we should be as a nation. Let me say: A 20-percent boost in incomes for Americans who are struggling the most; zero percent for those who are at the top already, who are doing very well. Let's contrast this to the Republican tax bill, which skewed in exactly the opposite direction. If people want to know the difference--the difference in terms of how Democrats feel about whom we should help and how Republicans feel about whom we should help--contrast this bill with the most major accomplishment during the 4 years that Donald Trump was President and it is very apparent. Back in December, Democrats promised that, if we won the majority, we would deliver $2,000 checks to American families. That is exactly what we have done. Promise made; promise kept. We helped pass $600 checks in December and added $1,400 in the bill we just passed. Because Democrats kept that promise, Americans are going to receive the help they need quickly. The checks will stimulate the economy, and they are targeted to those Americans who need it the most. It is a promise kept. The OECD, or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, projected that the American Rescue Plan could as much as double America's economic growth this year. As a result, it also revised upward its projections for the entire world's economic recovery. Once again, the United States is going to lead the way. And so, because of what the Senate did last week, healthcare costs will go down, child poverty will be cut in half, Americans will receive direct financial support, and the economy is set for an enormous boost. It is a great beginning for a new administration and a new Senate. And that is to say nothing of the schools that will receive support to reopen faster and safer, the restaurants and small businesses that will receive a lifeline, the millions of recently unemployed Americans who will continue to receive enhanced benefits until Labor Day, and the millions of workers and retirees who will see their pension plans protected. Of course, one of the most important aspects of all is the support this bill will give to speed vaccinations and expand testing--exactly what we need to defeat the virus. In short, this is one of the very most significant pieces of legislation to pass the Senate in years. It is broader, deeper, and more comprehensive in helping working families and lifting Americans out of poverty than anything--anything--Congress has accomplished in a very long time. So I am extremely proud of the bill we passed this week--exceedingly proud. I am exceedingly proud of everybody in our caucus; our committee chairs, whose leadership allowed us to act swiftly at a moment when Americans needed help fast; and the Members, who pulled together and realized no one is going to get everything he or she wants, but the need to come together and get something done when we had no margin for error was wonderful. I want to thank President Biden for his bold and steady leadership. He was instrumental in putting this bill together and helping to get it over the finish line. And I am exceedingly proud of the staff, who toiled behind the scenes, who worked incredible hours under incredible stress to prepare, perfect, and pass the American Rescue Plan. The staff are the unsung heroes of this bill. So I want to spend just a moment to sing their praises. First of all, to all the members and staff of the Senate committees, thank you. I have submitted all of their names into the Congressional Record to acknowledge their weeks of hard work assembling different portions of the bill, negotiating compromises, writing legislative text, petitioning the Parliamentarian, and managing a colossal amendment process. To all of the floor staff--the doorkeepers, the clerks, the reporters, the cafeteria workers, the custodial staff, the Capitol Police and National Guard--the entire Senate gave you a standing ovation on Saturday, and you deserved every second of it. Thank you, thank you, thank you once again. And, finally, I need to spend some time thanking my own staff. I think they are the best staff anyone could ever have. They are amazing. They are amazing. Every Senator believes they have the best staff on Capitol Hill, I guess, but I am no exception. I couldn't do what I do without them. They are amazing. The chiefs who run the show: Mike Lynch, Martin Brennan, Erin Sager Vaughn. The floor staff: the amazing Gary Myrick, Tricia Engle, the whole floor staff--thank you. And then three names that I have to give a particular shout-out to because you could truly say that without these three we wouldn't have a bill: Gerry Petrella, Meghan Taira, Charlie Ellsworth. My staff--I would like to brag a little about them if I might. My staff boasts some of the most brilliant legislative minds in the country--folks who know the nitty-gritty of every issue in their portfolio, who fashion solutions to the most difficult problems in the country and then turn those solutions into action. And thank you to my executive team, who keeps me somewhat on time and is a tremendous asset to the entire Democratic caucus. Thank you to our phenomenal research team, ready to supply the right fact at the right moment. You ask them: Look this up, find this out. Boom, the answer appears right away. To everyone at the Senate Democratic Media Center, the SDMC, who are clipping and editing videos at 3, 4, 5 in the morning; to our amazing press team, who gets the word out so skillfully; our engagement team, who does fantastic work with the groups affected by the legislation we pass; and our entire State staff--I just visited some of them. I just came back from Buffalo and Syracuse--who make sure that our work in Washington always responds to the needs of New York. I wanted to mention each of these different groups, but in reality they are a team. They pull together, and they are friends as well. They celebrate holidays together, and we share each other's joys and sadnesses in life--a team that works together, helps each other, supports each other, and supports me; a team that gets up every morning with a passion to make the lives of their fellow citizens better. It is impossible, just impossible not to be inspired by them and by that. So I ask unanimous consent to enter the names of my entire staff into the Record because, as I told them on the phone Sunday, even if they do nothing else in life, they have saved by their work many, many lives. They have made the lives of millions--millions--of people considerably better because of their hard work, their dedication, and their faith. So I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of my entire staff | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-09-pt1-PgS1410-2 | null | 2,494 |
formal | working families | null | racist | American Rescue Plan Now on the rescue plan, on Saturday, the American people got to see what a responsive and effective government looks like. A month and a half after assuming the majority, Senate Democrats followed through on our promise to deliver a bold COVID relief bill to help crush the virus, lift this country out of the crisis, and set our economy on a path to a strong recovery. Earlier today, the final text of the Senate bill was sent to the House of Representatives. Congress remains on track to deliver the American Rescue Plan to President Biden's desk for his signature before enhanced unemployment benefits expire on March 14. We said we would do it. We are doing it. Once President Biden signs the American Rescue Plan into law, it will immediately become one of the most sweeping Federal recovery efforts in modern history. It will help restore Americans' faith in government at a time when that is sorely needed, and it will deliver more help to more people than almost anything Congress has accomplished in past decades. Already the positive reviews are pouring in. According to several reports, the bill will help millions of Americans save hundreds of dollars in healthcare costs. Thanks to a historic expansion of the child tax credit--up to $3,000 per child under 17 for an overwhelming majority of families--analysts predict the American Rescue Plan will cut child poverty in half. Let me say that again: Analysts predict the American Rescue Plan will cut child poverty in half. This has been a goal of this country for decades, and now we are taking real steps to accomplish it. In fact, the Tax Policy Center predicts the American Rescue Plan will boost the incomes of the poorest 20 percent of Americans by 20 percent, including significant boosts all the way through the middle class Meanwhile, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will receive an income boost of zero--zero percent for the top 1 percent wealthiest Americans. Let me say that again because this shows who we are as a party here in the Senate and who we should be as a nation. Let me say: A 20-percent boost in incomes for Americans who are struggling the most; zero percent for those who are at the top already, who are doing very well. Let's contrast this to the Republican tax bill, which skewed in exactly the opposite direction. If people want to know the difference--the difference in terms of how Democrats feel about whom we should help and how Republicans feel about whom we should help--contrast this bill with the most major accomplishment during the 4 years that Donald Trump was President and it is very apparent. Back in December, Democrats promised that, if we won the majority, we would deliver $2,000 checks to American families. That is exactly what we have done. Promise made; promise kept. We helped pass $600 checks in December and added $1,400 in the bill we just passed. Because Democrats kept that promise, Americans are going to receive the help they need quickly. The checks will stimulate the economy, and they are targeted to those Americans who need it the most. It is a promise kept. The OECD, or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, projected that the American Rescue Plan could as much as double America's economic growth this year. As a result, it also revised upward its projections for the entire world's economic recovery. Once again, the United States is going to lead the way. And so, because of what the Senate did last week, healthcare costs will go down, child poverty will be cut in half, Americans will receive direct financial support, and the economy is set for an enormous boost. It is a great beginning for a new administration and a new Senate. And that is to say nothing of the schools that will receive support to reopen faster and safer, the restaurants and small businesses that will receive a lifeline, the millions of recently unemployed Americans who will continue to receive enhanced benefits until Labor Day, and the millions of workers and retirees who will see their pension plans protected. Of course, one of the most important aspects of all is the support this bill will give to speed vaccinations and expand testing--exactly what we need to defeat the virus. In short, this is one of the very most significant pieces of legislation to pass the Senate in years. It is broader, deeper, and more comprehensive in helping working families and lifting Americans out of poverty than anything--anything--Congress has accomplished in a very long time. So I am extremely proud of the bill we passed this week--exceedingly proud. I am exceedingly proud of everybody in our caucus; our committee chairs, whose leadership allowed us to act swiftly at a moment when Americans needed help fast; and the Members, who pulled together and realized no one is going to get everything he or she wants, but the need to come together and get something done when we had no margin for error was wonderful. I want to thank President Biden for his bold and steady leadership. He was instrumental in putting this bill together and helping to get it over the finish line. And I am exceedingly proud of the staff, who toiled behind the scenes, who worked incredible hours under incredible stress to prepare, perfect, and pass the American Rescue Plan. The staff are the unsung heroes of this bill. So I want to spend just a moment to sing their praises. First of all, to all the members and staff of the Senate committees, thank you. I have submitted all of their names into the Congressional Record to acknowledge their weeks of hard work assembling different portions of the bill, negotiating compromises, writing legislative text, petitioning the Parliamentarian, and managing a colossal amendment process. To all of the floor staff--the doorkeepers, the clerks, the reporters, the cafeteria workers, the custodial staff, the Capitol Police and National Guard--the entire Senate gave you a standing ovation on Saturday, and you deserved every second of it. Thank you, thank you, thank you once again. And, finally, I need to spend some time thanking my own staff. I think they are the best staff anyone could ever have. They are amazing. They are amazing. Every Senator believes they have the best staff on Capitol Hill, I guess, but I am no exception. I couldn't do what I do without them. They are amazing. The chiefs who run the show: Mike Lynch, Martin Brennan, Erin Sager Vaughn. The floor staff: the amazing Gary Myrick, Tricia Engle, the whole floor staff--thank you. And then three names that I have to give a particular shout-out to because you could truly say that without these three we wouldn't have a bill: Gerry Petrella, Meghan Taira, Charlie Ellsworth. My staff--I would like to brag a little about them if I might. My staff boasts some of the most brilliant legislative minds in the country--folks who know the nitty-gritty of every issue in their portfolio, who fashion solutions to the most difficult problems in the country and then turn those solutions into action. And thank you to my executive team, who keeps me somewhat on time and is a tremendous asset to the entire Democratic caucus. Thank you to our phenomenal research team, ready to supply the right fact at the right moment. You ask them: Look this up, find this out. Boom, the answer appears right away. To everyone at the Senate Democratic Media Center, the SDMC, who are clipping and editing videos at 3, 4, 5 in the morning; to our amazing press team, who gets the word out so skillfully; our engagement team, who does fantastic work with the groups affected by the legislation we pass; and our entire State staff--I just visited some of them. I just came back from Buffalo and Syracuse--who make sure that our work in Washington always responds to the needs of New York. I wanted to mention each of these different groups, but in reality they are a team. They pull together, and they are friends as well. They celebrate holidays together, and we share each other's joys and sadnesses in life--a team that works together, helps each other, supports each other, and supports me; a team that gets up every morning with a passion to make the lives of their fellow citizens better. It is impossible, just impossible not to be inspired by them and by that. So I ask unanimous consent to enter the names of my entire staff into the Record because, as I told them on the phone Sunday, even if they do nothing else in life, they have saved by their work many, many lives. They have made the lives of millions--millions--of people considerably better because of their hard work, their dedication, and their faith. So I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of my entire staff | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-09-pt1-PgS1410-2 | null | 2,495 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Nomination of Merrick Brian Garland Madam President, the last person up is Merrick Garland, nominee for Attorney General. He is, simply put, the right nominee to lead the Justice Department. I believe that is true for three primary reasons: one, his integrity; two, his experience; and three, his humility. Let me begin with integrity. The Attorney General occupies a unique role in the Cabinet. Although serving at the pleasure of the President and responsible for implementing his policy initiatives, the Attorney General is also the Nation's law enforcement officer. The AG oversees a Department that must remain impartial, unbiased, and independent. To balance these two roles requires a nominee who is beyond reproach, who understands the need to separate personal preference from constitutional principles, and who has the courage to stand steadfast in the face of political pressure. Merrick Garland is such a nominee. As a judge of the DC Circuit for more than 20 years, he has been guided by an abiding faith in the rule of law and a firm commitment to make equal justice for all a reality. It is no surprise, then, that more than 60 former Federal judges and more than 150 former Justice Department officials, appointed by Presidents of both parties, have expressed their strong support for Judge Garland's nomination. They know that Judge Garland will carry his integrity and his independence with him in his new role, and the public will soon see the same integrity and independence in the new Department of Justice, a welcome change from the past 4 years. Judge Garland also has the experience needed to lead the Department from the first day on the job. Before he served on the DC Circuit, Judge Garland served with distinction in multiple Justice Department roles--as a special assistant to the Attorney General, assistant U.S. Attorney, a deputy in the Criminal Division, and top adviser to the Deputy Attorney General. We know, of course, it was Judge Merrick Garland who ably and admirably led the investigation and prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombing--the worst domestic terrorism attack, to date, in modern American history--and he will, no doubt, draw upon that experience as the Department brings to justice those who perpetrated the hideous January 6 Capitol insurrection and works to prevent further attacks. But as Judge Garland highlighted at his hearing, his prior tenure at the Department of Justice has also given him insight into what is vital for the Department's success, from the importance of career prosecutors and agents to the breadth of the Department's responsibilities. Finally, Judge Garland has what I believe to be a characteristic that is often overlooked when we evaluate nominees: humility. He is mindful of the Department's history, a founding rooted in protecting the civil rights enshrined in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments--and he is mindful of just how much work remains in the fight for civil rights. He is mindful of the enormous power that prosecutors hold and the need to wield that power responsibly. In fact, he told us as much at the hearing when he quoted Robert Jackson, the Attorney General and later Supreme Court Justice, in saying: The citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches the task with humility. He is mindful of the opportunities that this country has provided him yet remain elusive for far too many. President Biden nominated Judge Garland to serve with a team of senior Justice Department leaders. Today, we had a hearing with Lisa Monaco, who is aspiring to be his Deputy Attorney General; Vanita Gupta, who is aspiring to be his Associate Attorney General; and, later, we will have a hearing with Kristen Clarke, who wishes to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. This is an exceptionally well-qualified team of DOJ veterans eager to serve. When the committee reported Judge Garland's nomination, I am happy to report that four Republicans joined all the Democrats, making it a bipartisan rollcall. I think it is worth quoting again. Here is what Judge Garland said: I come from a family where my grandparents fled anti- Semitism and persecution. The country took us in and protected us. And I feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back. Judge Garland's motivation for serving as the Nation's next Attorney General is powerful, it is honest, and it is humble. I want to close by coming full circle, so to speak. At Judge Garland's hearing, I noted that, if confirmed, he would be standing on the shoulders of predecessors like Robert Kennedy, who called on Congress to enact sweeping civil rights legislation. Well after that hearing, the committee received a letter from over 30 members of the Kennedy family, and they likened what faces Judge Garland to what faced the young Robert Kennedy as he took up his position as Attorney General. They wrote--the Kennedy family--and I quote: We are confronted by the same challenges today, particularly in voting rights, in the actions of some of our police officers, and in great disparities in housing, health, and jobs. Merrick Garland's record shows he is dedicated to the kind of justice that does not simply punish but lifts people up so their best selves can be fulfilled. That is precisely the kind of Attorney General America needs and the kind of Attorney General Merrick Garland will be. I look forward to voting for him, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-09-pt1-PgS1413 | null | 2,496 |
formal | affirmative action | null | racist | Nomination of Merrick Brian Garland Mr. President, on another subject, today the Senate will start consideration of Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. I will be supporting his nomination, but, as I said at Garland's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I have concerns, and I am here now to repeat those concerns so all of my colleagues can hear them. I hope he will take these concerns seriously, and I will work with members of the Judiciary Committee to conduct thorough oversight of the Department of Justice in order to make sure the Department is being run independently and free from political influence. On paper, I don't think anyone would doubt Judge Garland is a good pick to lead the Department of Justice. His credentials are excellent, and he has a distinguished career of public service, including all of those long years he has been on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Of all the possibilities to be President Biden's Attorney General, it is hard to come up with a better pick. The top law enforcement officer of the United States must be committed to enforcing the rule of law, and he made it very clear that that is what he was going to do. As our former colleague John Ashcroft said--and he was Attorney General, you know, early in the George W. Bush administration--the Department of Justice is the only Cabinet Agency whose name is an ideal. It is not the Department of Law Enforcement but the Department of Justice. Justice is equality under the law. There is one law for all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, or political affiliation. It is our founding principle that all people are created equal. My hope is that Judge Garland agrees with that principle, and he does, but he has got to be careful to make sure the Justice Department runs accordingly. That is not how it has always been, however. And I don't want to say that is how it has always been under just Democrat Presidents; it probably has been that way under Republican Presidents too. But I don't think it is how it was run more recently during the Obama years. Here is what I don't want to see Judge Garland do--and all of my colleagues at the time heard this: The Attorney General then, Eric Holder, famously said that he was a ``wingman'' to the President. I don't want an Attorney General who takes tarmac meetings with President Clinton while she is investigating his wife. I don't want consent decrees that federalize law enforcement and cause murder rates to soar. I don't want the Civil Rights Division trying to stop school choice in Louisiana. I don't want a return to catch and release. I don't want Operation Choke Point, where the Department of Justice decides that gun stores don't get access to banking services. I am concerned about the Justice Department's direction before Judge Garland is even confirmed. These are some of the directions. They changed litigation positions on a number of high-profile cases in court, including on immigration, affirmative action, ObamaCare, and other issues. This is what a very famous Solicitor General, Paul Clement, said: ``It has been the long-term position of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of statutes whenever reasonable arguments can be made.'' It appears that our new President and his administration are going to flout that tradition. I just stated how Paul Clement felt about it. I hope that Judge Garland brings that point of view in line and preserves the credibility of the Justice Department. I hope he also preserves his credibility with the Durham investigation. During the Trump administration, I supported the Mueller investigation. I even supported legislation to protect his investigation in 2018 when it looked like President Trump might fire him. That bill got out of the committee that I chaired at that time. In 2019, when Bill Barr was before the Judiciary Committee, he was required to commit to not interfere with the Mueller investigation. And I thought that was appropriate. Now we have another special counsel investigation, this one run by John Durham, a respected career prosecutor who is investigating the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, in which members of the Obama administration spied on and prosecuted members of the Trump campaign. As a Republican who supported Mueller, I think it is obvious that Judge Garland should have made that same commitment at the hearing about Durham that Bill Barr made about Mueller when he was before the same committee for confirmation. Judge Garland was given multiple opportunities to do so during his hearing and had written questions for the record, but every time he declined to do so unequivocally. He has implied that he won't interfere with the Durham investigation, and I take him at his word. But it would have been better if he had been very clear about it before the committee. So, further clarification, it is Judge Garland's credibility that is on the line. If Durham is fired for anything other than cause, we will know why Judge Garland refused to give us a commitment like Barr gave us a commitment when we asked for it. Lastly, I want to make a point about how Judge Garland's nomination went through the Judiciary Committee. Republicans called two witnesses, two of whom supported Judge Garland's confirmation. Republicans also decided not to do the usual holdover of one week of Judge Garland's nomination, allowing him to be reported to the floor a week early. Judge Garland also received bipartisan support in the committee. It happens that none of these courtesies were extended to either of President Trump's nominees to be Attorney General, one of whom was a colleague of ours here in the Senate and one of whom had already held the job before. I say all of this to make a point more to the media than to my colleagues because the media seemingly refuses to cover these points of bipartisanship that we didn't get from the Democrats in the previous administration. After the last 4 years of unprecedented obstruction of nominees, I think Republicans would have been justified to make this confirmation a drawn-out process. But we did not do that. I don't plan on opposing nominees just because of the person who nominated them like many of my colleagues, unfortunately, did in the last 4 years. So even though I still have some concerns, I believe Judge Garland is a goodperson, particularly a good person for this job, to lead the Department of Justice. So I will vote for his confirmation I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-09-pt1-PgS1417 | null | 2,497 |
formal | school choice | null | racist | Nomination of Merrick Brian Garland Mr. President, on another subject, today the Senate will start consideration of Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. I will be supporting his nomination, but, as I said at Garland's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I have concerns, and I am here now to repeat those concerns so all of my colleagues can hear them. I hope he will take these concerns seriously, and I will work with members of the Judiciary Committee to conduct thorough oversight of the Department of Justice in order to make sure the Department is being run independently and free from political influence. On paper, I don't think anyone would doubt Judge Garland is a good pick to lead the Department of Justice. His credentials are excellent, and he has a distinguished career of public service, including all of those long years he has been on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Of all the possibilities to be President Biden's Attorney General, it is hard to come up with a better pick. The top law enforcement officer of the United States must be committed to enforcing the rule of law, and he made it very clear that that is what he was going to do. As our former colleague John Ashcroft said--and he was Attorney General, you know, early in the George W. Bush administration--the Department of Justice is the only Cabinet Agency whose name is an ideal. It is not the Department of Law Enforcement but the Department of Justice. Justice is equality under the law. There is one law for all Americans regardless of race, color, creed, or political affiliation. It is our founding principle that all people are created equal. My hope is that Judge Garland agrees with that principle, and he does, but he has got to be careful to make sure the Justice Department runs accordingly. That is not how it has always been, however. And I don't want to say that is how it has always been under just Democrat Presidents; it probably has been that way under Republican Presidents too. But I don't think it is how it was run more recently during the Obama years. Here is what I don't want to see Judge Garland do--and all of my colleagues at the time heard this: The Attorney General then, Eric Holder, famously said that he was a ``wingman'' to the President. I don't want an Attorney General who takes tarmac meetings with President Clinton while she is investigating his wife. I don't want consent decrees that federalize law enforcement and cause murder rates to soar. I don't want the Civil Rights Division trying to stop school choice in Louisiana. I don't want a return to catch and release. I don't want Operation Choke Point, where the Department of Justice decides that gun stores don't get access to banking services. I am concerned about the Justice Department's direction before Judge Garland is even confirmed. These are some of the directions. They changed litigation positions on a number of high-profile cases in court, including on immigration, affirmative action, ObamaCare, and other issues. This is what a very famous Solicitor General, Paul Clement, said: ``It has been the long-term position of the Justice Department to defend the constitutionality of statutes whenever reasonable arguments can be made.'' It appears that our new President and his administration are going to flout that tradition. I just stated how Paul Clement felt about it. I hope that Judge Garland brings that point of view in line and preserves the credibility of the Justice Department. I hope he also preserves his credibility with the Durham investigation. During the Trump administration, I supported the Mueller investigation. I even supported legislation to protect his investigation in 2018 when it looked like President Trump might fire him. That bill got out of the committee that I chaired at that time. In 2019, when Bill Barr was before the Judiciary Committee, he was required to commit to not interfere with the Mueller investigation. And I thought that was appropriate. Now we have another special counsel investigation, this one run by John Durham, a respected career prosecutor who is investigating the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, in which members of the Obama administration spied on and prosecuted members of the Trump campaign. As a Republican who supported Mueller, I think it is obvious that Judge Garland should have made that same commitment at the hearing about Durham that Bill Barr made about Mueller when he was before the same committee for confirmation. Judge Garland was given multiple opportunities to do so during his hearing and had written questions for the record, but every time he declined to do so unequivocally. He has implied that he won't interfere with the Durham investigation, and I take him at his word. But it would have been better if he had been very clear about it before the committee. So, further clarification, it is Judge Garland's credibility that is on the line. If Durham is fired for anything other than cause, we will know why Judge Garland refused to give us a commitment like Barr gave us a commitment when we asked for it. Lastly, I want to make a point about how Judge Garland's nomination went through the Judiciary Committee. Republicans called two witnesses, two of whom supported Judge Garland's confirmation. Republicans also decided not to do the usual holdover of one week of Judge Garland's nomination, allowing him to be reported to the floor a week early. Judge Garland also received bipartisan support in the committee. It happens that none of these courtesies were extended to either of President Trump's nominees to be Attorney General, one of whom was a colleague of ours here in the Senate and one of whom had already held the job before. I say all of this to make a point more to the media than to my colleagues because the media seemingly refuses to cover these points of bipartisanship that we didn't get from the Democrats in the previous administration. After the last 4 years of unprecedented obstruction of nominees, I think Republicans would have been justified to make this confirmation a drawn-out process. But we did not do that. I don't plan on opposing nominees just because of the person who nominated them like many of my colleagues, unfortunately, did in the last 4 years. So even though I still have some concerns, I believe Judge Garland is a goodperson, particularly a good person for this job, to lead the Department of Justice. So I will vote for his confirmation I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-09-pt1-PgS1417 | null | 2,498 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. President, we started to see headlines bubbling up about the building crisis at the southern border that is threatening to boil over. Americans back home are paying attention. They are watching what is going on and seeing how it is getting worse by the day. The saddest thing is that this was predictable and preventable. Protecting our border and cutting down illegal immigration matters to the people of Alabama and the rest of the country. Alabamians are law-abiding people. We play by the rules, and we expect others to follow them too. When people break the rules, they have to face the consequences, plain and simple. That is how our country should operate, by law and order. Enforcing the laws on our books cannot be an option. Sadly, this type of selected enforcement is exactly what President Biden has done during his short time in office. President Biden has put forward an immigration proposal that would completely upend our existing immigration policy and give out American citizenship like it is candy. But before that, he made sure to lay the groundwork with Executive orders. President Biden quickly reversed many of President Trump's most successful border control policies with the stroke of his pen. And his Secretary of Homeland Security, whose Department oversees immigration policy and border security, has made it clear he is not interested in enforcing existing laws. We have seen the dangerous effects of President Biden's policies already, and it has barely been 2 months. But we have also seen some mixed messaging. The same day President Biden issued an order that said building a border wall is a ``waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security,'' his Department of Homeland Security released official data that tells otherwise. In January 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Protection encountered approximately 78,000 illegal immigrants, a 6-percent increase from December 2020. Within that number, roughly, 64,800 were single adults, a 157-percent increase compared to January of last year. For unaccompanied children, there has been a 91-percent increase in apprehensions compared to last January. The data shows the number of illegal immigrants trying to cross the southern border is going up during a month when, historically, apprehensions are low. In fact, the staggering number of people arrested crossing the border illegally this January is the most any January has seen in more than a decade. In March 2020, President Trump invoked title 42 along the southern border. That means that, in the interest of public health, only essential travelers are permitted to enter the United States. President Biden has maintained title 42 for this purpose, with one exception: Unaccompanied children can still come in. News outlets reported that border officials told President Biden they ``anticipate 117,000 children will arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border without a parent or guardian in 2021.'' Why? Because President Biden has given them a free pass to enter the United States. This number is on pace to exceed the alltime record that was set under the Obama administration by 45 percent. The greater problem here is that the administration doesn't have enough space to put these children. President Biden was recently briefed on a plan to add 20,000 more beds to meet the needs. Yet, yesterday, news reports showed a record number of unaccompanied children--more than 3,200--are in Border Patrol's custody. Almost half of these children have been held beyond the 3-day legal limit. The facilities are overwhelmed and bursting at the seams. Folks in the Southwest are already referring to this increase as the ``Biden effect.'' Now Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas has the gall to blame the current border crisis on the Trump administration. So why, then, does the Secretary think that new records are being set during the typical off months of January and February? I will tell you why. It is a direct result of President Biden ditching border security measures and sending a ``come one, come all'' signal. President Biden decided to message to the world that our border is open. We shouldn't be surprised that people showed up. We all saw this coming, and we warned that reversing President Trump's policies would lead to national security and humanitarian crises. On top of all of this, President Biden's administration is subjecting American citizens to more stringent standards to enter our country than it is with illegal immigrants. On January 26, the CDC began requiring anyone flying to the United States, including American citizens, to provide evidence of a negative COVID test taken within 3 days of their flight. That makes sense. Migrants crossing our border are not subject to the same requirement. I sent a letter to Secretary Mayorkas about this issue, and I have not yet received a response, but media reports out of Texas seem to have already found the answer. As FoxNews.com reported, more than 100 illegal immigrants released by Border Patrol agents in Brownsville, TX, in the last few weeks have tested positive for the coronavirus. So these folks can cross the border illegally and get tested by the city at the bus stop where the agents let them off, but the city has no authority to prevent them from traveling elsewhere even if they test positive for COVID. How does that fit into President Biden's plan to bring our country out of this pandemic? American citizens have to prove they have negative tests to enter the country, but illegal immigrants do not. At a time when the virus is on the retreat, thanks in large part to the vaccine developed by President Trump's Operation Warp Speed, we cannot now afford to allow thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants into the country, especially without screening them for COVID. It is not only a reckless security policy; it is a reckless health policy. We just spent $1.9 trillion because that is supposedly what the country needs to help get us past this pandemic. Yet we are going to let people into the country, unchecked, to potentially spread the virus. President Biden's policies at the border are reckless. The American people can see it for themselves, and the data prove how bad the situation has become in such a quick timeframe. We can and should take positive, proactive, concrete steps to secure our border and strengthen our national security. There are two big items to address right away. No. 1, we should maintain the Migrant Protection Protocols Program. This system was put in place during the Trump administration to process migrant asylum claims at the border without releasing people into the United States. It requires that migrants remain in Mexico pending the completion of their cases. It was successful--hugely successful. The number of apprehensions along the border went down when people realized they couldn't just come walking into the United States. It was exactly the kind of message we want to send: Our borders are not wide open. You must follow the rules. You must get in line. Since taking office, President Biden has dismantled the program and is bringing in nearly 30,000 people who are waiting in Mexico. No. 2, we should continue to build the wall. My constituents expect me to hammer this point home every day. A strong wall will help prevent illegal migrants from crossing over our border between ports of entry to avoid law enforcement. Just recently, there were reports of a car crash in California that left 13 illegal migrants dead who were stuffed and stacked in the back of a truck. Border Patrol officers believe these migrants entered through a ``dilapidated border fence'' in Southern California. Weaknesses in our border allow human trafficking efforts like this to continue. This has to stop. Without needed fixes, President Biden offers false hope, and that is a dangerous signal for desperate people. Today, I am only mentioning two ways to address the border surge. There are plenty more, and I plan to advocate for them in the weeks and months to come because, unlike this President and his administration, I am fighting for the safety and security of the American people. I understand our immigration system is not perfect, and I understand President Biden has a different view on what our immigration system should look like, and he has made no secret about where he stands. But any immigration reform proposed must include policies that strengthen our lawful immigration system and protect our Nation's borders. So far, President Biden's policies do neither. I can respect different visions for the future even though I may strongly disagree with them, but what I and the people of Alabama will not stand for is a refusal to enforce the laws of today. It puts our country at risk and encourages migrants to seek dangerous paths to enter our country instead of the legal paths our laws provide. Allowing illegal immigration to go unchecked fundamentally undermines the rule of law in this country. Without laws and without borders where those laws apply, a sovereign nation ceases to exist. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-09-pt1-PgS1419 | null | 2,499 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.