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 | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgH1560 | null | 2,600 |
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-629. A letter from the Congressional Assistant II, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's interim final rule -- Loans to Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders of Member Banks [Regulation O; Docket No.: R-1740] (RIN: 7100-AG10) received March 18, 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-630. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's correcting amendment -- Branch Application Procedures (RIN: 3064-AF54) received March 10, 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-631. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Parent Companies of Industrial Banks and Industrial Loan Companies (RIN: 3064- AF31) received March 10, 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-632. A letter from the Attorney, Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Fees for Production of Records; Other Amendments to Procedures for Disclosure of Information Under the Freedom of Information Act [Docket No.: CPSC-2020-0011] received February 25, 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-633. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- State of Michigan Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II Program; Primary Approval [EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0595; FRL 10018-31-OW] (RIN: 2040-ZA35) received February 25, 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-634. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Codifying EPA's Adjudicatory Decision on Florida's Clean Water Act Section 404 Program Request [EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0640; FRL-10018-76-OW] received February 25, 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-635. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey [EPA-R02-OAR-2019- 0720; FRL-10017-00-Region 2] received February 25, 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-636. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units [EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0527; FRL-10018-21- Region 3] received February 25, 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-637. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area [EPA-R03- OAR-2020-0316; FRL-10018-14-Region 3] received February 25, 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-638. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Area [EPA-R03-OAR- 2020-0355; FRL-10016-55-Region 3] received February 25, 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-639. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0194; FRL-10017-11-Region 3] received February 25, 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-640. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA-R03-OAR-2020- 0283; FRL-10016-88-Region 3] received February 25, 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-641. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area [EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0300; FRL-10019- 45-Region 6] received February 25, 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-642. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Second Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair County) Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332; FRL-10017-26-Region 3] received February 25, 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-643. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0288; FRL-10016-56-Region 3] received February 25, 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-644. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Virginia: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference [EPA-R03-UST- 2020-0291; FRL 10018-06-Region 3] received February 25, 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-645. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; GA: Non- Interference Demonstration and Maintenance Plan Revision for the Removal of Transportation Control Measures in the Atlanta Area [EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0661; FRL-10019-92-Region 4] received March 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-646. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Base Year Emission Inventories and Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2015 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2020- 0388; FRL-10020-89-Region 5] received March 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-647. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Plumas County; Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS [EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0534; FRL-10020-36-Region 9] received March 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-648. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's interim final determination -- Determination to Defer Sanctions; Arizona; Pinal County Air Quality Control District [EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0134; FRL-10020-94-Region 9] received March 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-649. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Picarbutrazox; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0653; FRL-10019-99] received March 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-650. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-4.B) [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0138; FRL- 10016-51] (RIN: 2070-AB27) received March 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-651. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [EPA-R06-RCRA- 2018-0506; FRL-10019-76-Region 6] received March 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-652. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Kansas; Removal of Kansas City, Kansas Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirement [EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0711; FRL-10021-10-Region 7] received March 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-653. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Missouri Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement [EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0695; FRL- 10021-11- Region 7] received March 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-654. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and Maintenance Program; Correction [EPA-R10-OAR- 2020-0174; FRL-10020-98-Region 10] received March 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-655. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; Correction [EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0527; FRL- 10020-90-Region 3] received March 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-656. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fluindapyr; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2018-0551; FRL-10019-19] received March 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-657. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0665; FRL-10020-34] received March 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgH1576-2 | null | 2,601 |
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-629. A letter from the Congressional Assistant II, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's interim final rule -- Loans to Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders of Member Banks [Regulation O; Docket No.: R-1740] (RIN: 7100-AG10) received March 18, 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-630. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's correcting amendment -- Branch Application Procedures (RIN: 3064-AF54) received March 10, 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-631. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Parent Companies of Industrial Banks and Industrial Loan Companies (RIN: 3064- AF31) received March 10, 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-632. A letter from the Attorney, Regulatory Affairs, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Fees for Production of Records; Other Amendments to Procedures for Disclosure of Information Under the Freedom of Information Act [Docket No.: CPSC-2020-0011] received February 25, 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-633. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- State of Michigan Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II Program; Primary Approval [EPA-HQ-OW-2020-0595; FRL 10018-31-OW] (RIN: 2040-ZA35) received February 25, 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-634. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Codifying EPA's Adjudicatory Decision on Florida's Clean Water Act Section 404 Program Request [EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0640; FRL-10018-76-OW] received February 25, 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-635. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval of Source-Specific Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey [EPA-R02-OAR-2019- 0720; FRL-10017-00-Region 2] received February 25, 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-636. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units [EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0527; FRL-10018-21- Region 3] received February 25, 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-637. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area [EPA-R03- OAR-2020-0316; FRL-10018-14-Region 3] received February 25, 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-638. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Area [EPA-R03-OAR- 2020-0355; FRL-10016-55-Region 3] received February 25, 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-639. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0194; FRL-10017-11-Region 3] received February 25, 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-640. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA-R03-OAR-2020- 0283; FRL-10016-88-Region 3] received February 25, 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-641. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area [EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0300; FRL-10019- 45-Region 6] received February 25, 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-642. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Second Maintenance Plan for the Altoona (Blair County) Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0332; FRL-10017-26-Region 3] received February 25, 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-643. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard Second Maintenance Plan for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0288; FRL-10016-56-Region 3] received February 25, 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-644. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Virginia: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference [EPA-R03-UST- 2020-0291; FRL 10018-06-Region 3] received February 25, 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-645. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; GA: Non- Interference Demonstration and Maintenance Plan Revision for the Removal of Transportation Control Measures in the Atlanta Area [EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0661; FRL-10019-92-Region 4] received March 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-646. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Base Year Emission Inventories and Emissions Statement Rule Certification for the 2015 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2020- 0388; FRL-10020-89-Region 5] received March 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-647. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; California; Plumas County; Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS [EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0534; FRL-10020-36-Region 9] received March 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-648. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's interim final determination -- Determination to Defer Sanctions; Arizona; Pinal County Air Quality Control District [EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0134; FRL-10020-94-Region 9] received March 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-649. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Picarbutrazox; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0653; FRL-10019-99] received March 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-650. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-4.B) [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0138; FRL- 10016-51] (RIN: 2070-AB27) received March 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-651. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Texas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision [EPA-R06-RCRA- 2018-0506; FRL-10019-76-Region 6] received March 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-652. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Kansas; Removal of Kansas City, Kansas Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel Requirement [EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0711; FRL-10021-10-Region 7] received March 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-653. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Missouri Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement [EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0695; FRL- 10021-11- Region 7] received March 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-654. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and Maintenance Program; Correction [EPA-R10-OAR- 2020-0174; FRL-10020-98-Region 10] received March 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-655. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; Correction [EPA-R03-OAR-2019-0527; FRL- 10020-90-Region 3] received March 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-656. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fluindapyr; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2018-0551; FRL-10019-19] received March 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-657. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0665; FRL-10020-34] received March 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgH1576-2 | null | 2,602 |
formal | multicultural | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Asian-American community is still reeling from the senseless murder of eight people near Atlanta, six of whom were women of Asian descent. It will be some time before we understand what drove the madman who perpetrated this crime, but there is no doubt that abuse, prejudice, and violence against Asian Americans is on the rise, and it is so un-American and so despicable that we all must be speaking out about this. The same day that six Asian women were killed in Georgia, the Stop AAPI Hate organization released a report naming 3,800 incidents of hate against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and that is just in 1 year alone. The fear in the Asian-American community and the threat of violence against its members should be a topic of national conversation. In the last 4 years--you know, we all know there have been forces of racism, dark forces, that have been often seen in America, but the last 4 years, where Donald Trump, at the very minimum, refused to condemn the bigotry in the instances when he should, have allowed them to come far more up to the surface. It is as if the society's superego that keeps these dark forces down has been greatly diminished or even removed. It is up to us, particularly under the new President, who fights bigotry at every step of the way--but it is up to all of us to speak out against it and to act against it. The story of the Asian-American community is quintessentially an American story, and we cannot allow the rising tide of bigotry against them, the intolerance against them, the prejudice against them to go unchecked because in a multicultural society like ours, an attack on any one group is an attack on everyone. I love the Asian-American community. They are such fine, good American people. The story of the Asian-American community is quintessentially an American story. It is a story of coming here, building strong communities, opening local businesses, churches, civic organizations, and slowly but surely gaining the political representation they so deserve. Just yesterday, we confirmed a nominee whose parents emigrated from Taiwan to become the U.S. Trade Representative. That is notable and important progress. But, unfortunately, the past few years have shown us that America has not excised the age-old demon of racism, and to too many it has become acceptable, permissible, or just shrug your shoulders. That cannot be. With respect to the Asian-American community specifically and all communities, we must condemn rhetoric that is racist. In this case, we must condemn any rhetoric that blames the Chinese people for the coronavirus. President Trump did that, despicably, and that notion was too often encouraged by others who repeated his harsh, nasty, and bigoted words. We must stand beside and stand up for our Asian-American brothers and sisters. Americans of every faith, every color, every gender and sexual orientation must band together against these dark forces of hate. As I said, they are always with us, but somehow after the 4 years of the Trump Presidency, they are rising to the surface and seem too acceptable to too many people. Fight them, fight them, fight them we must. As we mourn with the people of Georgia, let us recommit ourselves to that most American of creeds that is right above the mantle where you sit, Mr. President, ``e pluribus unum.'' Out of many, one. America: ``e pluribus unum.'' Out of many, one. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1623-8 | null | 2,603 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Yesterday, Secretary Mayorkas testified the ``border is secure and the border is not open.'' Yet the situation on our southern border has required FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to be called in. So either this is the first time FEMA has been deployed just to admire a situation that is going smoothly or the administration is not being straight with the American people. Here are the facts. Customs and Border Protection recorded more than 100,000 migrant encounters in February--100,000. That was up 28 percent from January. DHS projects the March totals will keep 2021 on pace for the most border encounters in 20 years. Unaccompanied child arrivals have jumped 63 percent, on pace to shatter all-time records. This would be a humanitarian crisis under any circumstances, but it is even worse during a global pandemic. These thousands of unaccompanied kids are being housed in three-high bunk beds in facilities now stuffed at more than triple capacity. During the pandemic that is keeping kids out of schools and small businesses from fully reopening, these failing policies have us crowding these kids together down at the border. And, don't forget, the Biden administration policy directs CBP to release migrants on U.S. soil while they await asylum rulings. That is without--without--a negative COVID test. So good luck to the communities on the border. This isn't just a health and humanitarian crisis, though. It is a security crisis as well. New reporting suggests that multiple people arrested at the border in recent months have been matched to names on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Democrats claim this overall influx is not because of their new administration. Well, that would be news to the migrants themselves. Some of these people have told reporters it was Democrats' rhetoric that led them to come. Some have shown up wearing T-shirts with the Biden campaign's logo on them. Administration officials keep sending mixed messages, repeating phrases from the White House podium like ``now is not the time to come.'' So there will be an appropriate time sometime later for people to enter our country illegally? Speaking of mixed signals, this week, the House is voting on immigration bills. Are they leaping into action to repair the crisis? No, that is not what they have in mind. They are taking up an amnesty plan that would create a special new pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants working in certain industries. So to summarize, the administration can't admit they have caused the crisis. They have yet to address the crisis. And House Democrats are backing policies that would only exacerbate the wrong incentive. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1624-4 | null | 2,604 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on nominations, today, the Senate will vote to confirm another member of President Biden's Cabinet, Xavier Becerra, to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In truth, Attorney General Becerra's nomination should not have taken this long. From the moment the Attorney General Becerra was announced as President Biden's pick for HHS, Senate Republicans have tried to derail his nomination. Their arguments almost verge on the ridiculous. They complain loudly that he had no direct experience as a medical professional, even though Republicans voted in lockstep to install Alex Azar, a pharmaceutical executive, who raised drug prices and tried to undermine our Nation's health law as the previous HHS Secretary. Becerra, by contrast, has decades of standing up for working and middle-class Americans in Congress, fighting to protect and expand Medicare and Medicaid and working to safeguard our healthcare system from attacks by the Trump administration. As the Biden administration works to defeat this pandemic, the President deserves to have his Cabinet confirmed, especially a post as important as HHS Secretary. I look forward to completing his nomination today. A few days after Democrats gained control of the Senate, we had big tasks ahead of us right away. I said that we had three important priorities to do quickly: One, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump; two, big and bold COVID relief; and, three, President Biden's Cabinet. We have already finished the first two priorities, and very soon we are going to finish the third. I want to thank my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues, for working so quickly, so hard, and in such a unified team effort to allow all of this to happen. I am very proud of what we have done in these first few months. Later today, the Senate will take its first vote on the nomination of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh to be our Nation's Labor Secretary. Early next week, after we confirm him, the Senate will have confirmed every available Cabinet Secretary and many more Cabinet-level appointments besides. That is excellent progress, and, again, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle for their votes in supporting these fine nominees. What does it mean? It means the Biden administration will have the personnel in place to implement the American Rescue Plan, finish the fight against COVID-19, and bring our country roaring back. In the meantime, the Senate must continue to work to get the rest of the President's team in place. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1624 | null | 2,605 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on nominations, today, the Senate will vote to confirm another member of President Biden's Cabinet, Xavier Becerra, to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In truth, Attorney General Becerra's nomination should not have taken this long. From the moment the Attorney General Becerra was announced as President Biden's pick for HHS, Senate Republicans have tried to derail his nomination. Their arguments almost verge on the ridiculous. They complain loudly that he had no direct experience as a medical professional, even though Republicans voted in lockstep to install Alex Azar, a pharmaceutical executive, who raised drug prices and tried to undermine our Nation's health law as the previous HHS Secretary. Becerra, by contrast, has decades of standing up for working and middle-class Americans in Congress, fighting to protect and expand Medicare and Medicaid and working to safeguard our healthcare system from attacks by the Trump administration. As the Biden administration works to defeat this pandemic, the President deserves to have his Cabinet confirmed, especially a post as important as HHS Secretary. I look forward to completing his nomination today. A few days after Democrats gained control of the Senate, we had big tasks ahead of us right away. I said that we had three important priorities to do quickly: One, the impeachment trial of Donald Trump; two, big and bold COVID relief; and, three, President Biden's Cabinet. We have already finished the first two priorities, and very soon we are going to finish the third. I want to thank my colleagues, my Democratic colleagues, for working so quickly, so hard, and in such a unified team effort to allow all of this to happen. I am very proud of what we have done in these first few months. Later today, the Senate will take its first vote on the nomination of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh to be our Nation's Labor Secretary. Early next week, after we confirm him, the Senate will have confirmed every available Cabinet Secretary and many more Cabinet-level appointments besides. That is excellent progress, and, again, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle for their votes in supporting these fine nominees. What does it mean? It means the Biden administration will have the personnel in place to implement the American Rescue Plan, finish the fight against COVID-19, and bring our country roaring back. In the meantime, the Senate must continue to work to get the rest of the President's team in place. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1624 | null | 2,606 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Free Speech Mr. President, then, on my last point, I want to bring up another few remarks on the First Amendment, as I have spoken a couple of times before very recently. I have come to the floor over the last few weeks to talk about the First Amendment, one of America's most cherished pillars of freedom. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen a corrosive culture undermining sacred civic freedoms Americans risk taking for granted. Too often we don't think about the freedoms we have because we were born here. We can learn a lot from immigrants that come to this country and appreciate Americans for our freedoms. Whenever I go to these citizenship ceremonies we have for immigrants, I always tell them: I wish you would tell--when you hear some American complaining about what is wrong with America, I hope you know from your experience in other lands that you came here for freedom. Remind us of how lucky we are to have what we were born into. Silencing the free exchange of ideas has infiltrated college campuses and even the American workplace. It has even affected journalism, traditional media, and all across our social media platforms. We all know that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment and, occasionally, we in the United States fall into a discussion about the technical boundaries of the First Amendment when we talk about the meaning and the merits of free speech. Now, the health of our democracy depends on free speech to foster an informed public, something that I think Thomas Jefferson made very clear. If democracy is going to work, it is going to have to work with an educated public. The rigorous exchange of ideas inform debate on issues affecting our lives and enables individuals to challenge power and also to challenge orthodoxy. In theory, the institutions of the ``fourth estate'' should be the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment. I think I said it before, but you can't say it too often--and there is probably a 100 different ways you can say it--but I always like to say that journalists are the police of our constitutional system to make sure that everybody and all follow the rule of law. What they bring to the people of this country about how our government functions makes everything very transparent, and when things are transparent, you have accountability. So as I think about these things, it has been baffling to watch over the lastyear as some editors and executives, even at storied institutions, crumble under pressure to police speech, to conform to orthodoxy, and to stifle the exchange of ideas instead of what they should be doing, promoting the contest of these ideas--in other words, speech, orthodoxy, and exchange of ideas--when they are under attack. It is now old news, but, last summer, a long-time opinion editor of the New York Times was pushed out of his position. For what? For having the audacity to publish an opinion piece written by Senator Tom Cotton. Apparently, a group of readers and employees found Senator Cotton's ideas so upsetting as to warrant the removal of the editor who had the guts to publish them. The paper also issued a several-hundred-word editor's note even expressing regret for publishing the piece in the first place. If those readers and employees at the Times disagreed so strongly, the public could have learned something by publishing a counter-argument instead of reading about their regret. I, myself, have publicly disagreed with Senator Cotton about a policy idea or two, and I make my points here on the Senate floor. I don't ask for Senator Cotton's resignation, like they had to expunge his or give all sorts of excuses why they published that and they shouldn't have published it. Instead, what do we have? We had executives at a paper of record scapegoat a colleague for failing to confirm to some yet unexplained orthodoxy versus a rational decision to engage in public debate on their pages. In January, POLITICO invited a slate of individuals to guest-edit their widely read newsletter, ``Playbook.'' Among those guest editors was Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator. His name alone was enough to spark a backlash among staffers and even outside commentators. To their credit, the editors of POLITICO did not apologize. But according to the Washington Post media writer, some POLITICO employees who privately supported the choice to publish Shapiro were ``afraid'' to speak up on staff calls, fearing backlash among colleagues. Now, that is only two episodes I give you, but these episodes represent a very unhealthy environment where too many think it is prudent to give voice to those with whom they agree or whose views are deemed acceptable. While the editors did the right thing at one outlet, they didn't at the other. Either way, it probably means that they will be more selective about what is acceptable--what is acceptable--in the future as we do the businesses of our newspapers. Now, when you worry about what is acceptable, it certainly doesn't serve those principles that I mentioned earlier that ought to be encouraging dialogue, dispute, learning from each other, and educating each other. Now, these may be fairly obscure controversies I just gave you, but they are indicative of a yet wider problem. Expectations of acceptability and a preference for unchallenged ideas--this all chips away at the most sacred civic freedoms in America. No one learns more by less debate. Neglecting to defend free speech and champion the free exchange of ideas creates a pathway for censorship. Democracy doesn't thrive on censorship. The institutions of the news media ought to defend the fundamental principles behind free speech and free press at the top of their lungs. The First Amendment is the oxygen of their own existence. If they were doing their work, there shouldn't have to be a single Senator here in the U.S. Senate giving speeches about why they don't want more free speech and why they want less free speech. Last fall, the New York Post had a story censored on Twitter a short time before the election. Regardless of what one thinks about the content of that story, the methods of reporting, or even the tone of the writing, the suppression of information like that should alarm both news writers and news consumers. They ought to be more a protector of freedom of speech and freedom of press than a Senator here on the U.S. Senate talking about it. Many outlets went to work fact-checking or reporting on the topic in their own way. That is all well and good. It is their job. But the public conversation about the censorship devolved into a question of whether Twitter had the legal ability to do what it did instead of a discussion of whether it was the right thing to do, because it wasn't right. Even Twitter's CEO sees that now. However, there were no fiery defenses of free speech and free press from the mainstream outlets, and those mainstream outlets ought to be the ones talking more about freedom of speech and freedom of press than having Senators on the floor of the U.S. Senate bring it up and say: Why aren't you doing your job? Why aren't you practicing your profession as it ought to be? Why aren't you being the policemen of the system the way you ought to be? Not even media with caveats were reporting about that Twitter event that I just spoke about. This was a perfect opportunity for journalistic institutions to weigh in, and they should have weighed in. They have a dog in the fight. It should be the bread-and-butter issues for every editorial board across the country--not just the editorial board but the reporters. The lack of this kind of pro-free press and pro-free speech advocacy also contributes to the unhealthy environment that shuns debate and silences dissent. So what will be the consequences of a media environment where conformity and comfort take precedent over the free exchange of ideas? The first and most obvious is a less rigorous and less informed public discourse and the citizens less informed. Opinions and preferences, especially on matters of public interest, are always improved after being challenged. If you disagree with the New York Times' editorial board or a pundit for FOX News, that is fine. It would be better if the public heard all about it. Broader discussions mean broader understanding. Without a broad, vigorous public debate, we lose empathy that results from engaging with somebody else's ideas. In these divisive times in society, empathy is in low supply. The last thing that we lose in a media environment ruled by compliance and conformity is the grand American tradition of dissent. Free speech and free press have centuries-long history in America, from Thomas Paine's pamphlets to the tweets spreading across the land this very minute, the revolutionary contest of ideas might take a different shape but remain critical to our civic culture and the continued growth of our Nation and the strengthening of our democracy. I hope more institutions in the ``fourth estate'' will take an aggressive approach advocating free speech. Now, I wasn't around when Thomas Paine published ``Common Sense,'' but history and my own experience teaches me two important lessons: The free exchange of ideas strengthens representative government and will, then, help preserve our democratic Republic for generations to come. And that is what this generation should be all about, making it better for the next generation, both from the standpoint of the economy but also for an understanding of our democratic institutions. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1638-2 | null | 2,607 |
formal | Bernie Sanders | null | antisemitic | National Security Mr. President, on another subject, I want to discuss the national security threats facing our country. A recent poll showed 45 percent of Americans acknowledge that China is the greatest threat to the United States. A year ago, that percentage was half that number thinking that China was a threat, the greatest threat to the United States. Frankly, this year, no other nation came close to what they think about China being a threat--not Russia, not North Korea, not Iran. These were all far behind. Half of Americans believe China is the world's leading economic power. A record 63 percent say that the economic power of China is a critical threat to the United States. Now, we all know the American people are smart. They are perceiving exactly what is happening with the United States vis-a-vis China or China vis-a-vis the rest of the world. China wants to supplant our country as the greatest nation and the greatest economy in the world, and China will do it if we are blind to that danger. Everywhere I see the threat of China's rise minimized. On Tuesday, I saw a very curious thing in the declassified ``Intelligence Community Assessment of Foreign Threats to the 2020 U.S. Elections.'' The intelligence community determined that China did not engage in pervasive election meddling but noted that was in part because China saw the risk associated with doing so. The intelligence community determined that China would not be excited if President Trump had won the 2020 election because he would ``challenge China's rise.'' The National Intelligence Officer for Cyber Issues, in particular, found that the Government of China wanted former President Trump to be defeated in the general election, preferring ``the election of a more predictable member of the establishment instead.'' And ``China took at least some steps to undermine former President Trump's reelection chances, primarily through social media and official public statements and media.'' Yet some in the news media read this very same report that I read and declared triumphantly and falsely that there was nothing to fear from China in terms of influencing our elections. It is pretty clear why China would not want a President unafraid to assert American national interests. That means demanding reciprocal trade, secure borders, and a defense policy focused on American national interests. We all know that China has been playing us for suckers. China continues to try to expand its influence globally, including in international bodies like the World Bank and the World Health Organization. It doesn't seek to play by the rules but to exploit its influence for its own advantage at the expense of the United States and probably any free country because they don't like democracy. In this same assessment I saw that Iran, another enemy, also wanted to defeat a strong American President and sow division. Many others--Lebanese Hezbollah, the Government of Cuba, and the Maduro Government of Venezuela--they all had the very same idea. They all wanted to defeat President Trump. Only Russia seems to have preferred Trump but just according to that assessment--although I remember reading a year ago during the primaries that Senator Bernie Sanders was also a favorite of Russia. He had to have a defensive briefing, meaning Senator Sanders, because Russia wanted to help his campaign. Also, remember, it was then-Vice President Biden who first announced the naive and disastrous Obama ``reset'' appeasement policy toward Russia. This, coming in the wake of Russia's invasion of our ally, Georgia, arguably gave Putin the idea that he could get away with invading Crimea and Ukraine. Let's also take this moment to recall that when the Obama Justice Department and the FBI saw threats from Russia during the 2016 election, they didn't do what they did for Sanders. They didn't defensively brief Trump and his team. Instead, do you know where they went? They opened Crossfire Hurricane and outrageously used briefings to Trump and his associates as intelligence gathering operations, ultimately wasting years of taxpayer money and time. Abraham Lincoln once said: America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we lose our freedoms it will be because we have destroyed ourselves from within. In fact, the goal of what the KGB calls ``active measures,'' like disinformation since Soviet times, has been to pit Americans against each other to cause us to destroy ourselves. That brings me to another related point. As I see this seat of democracy fortified with walls and barbed wire while the people, the citizens, and the taxpayers are kept out, I can't help but think about where we will go from here. Yet the Democrats can only speak of destroying the filibuster during these difficult times. When I hear talk of destroying the filibuster--the very tools that force bipartisanship and ensure that those representing all Americans are heard and that America act as one being abolished forever--I am worried. If the slimmest of majorities is about to impose its will on the other half of the country from inside an armed bunker, the Russians will have achieved their ultimate goal. We are not our own enemies to be silenced and to be fenced in. We are one Nation, but we must pull together and acknowledge what it means when countries like China and Iran, our enemies and our adversaries, don't want us to put our country's interest first. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1638 | null | 2,608 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination of my friend and former colleague Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Xavier and I served together in the House of Representatives from January 2007 to January 2013. While we sat on different House committees, we were both very involved in one of Congress's most significant achievements during that time--passage of the Affordable Care Act, ACA. The ACA promised to greatly shrink the number of uninsured Americans and rein in health care costs that were increasing rapidly. It also led to false, harsh, partisan accusations by Republicans that the law was going to ration health care and death panels were inevitable. Despite years of sabotage and dozens of attempts to repeal it, the Affordable Care Act has lived up to its promise: more than 20 million Americans gainedhealth insurance thanks to the ACA, and the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion between 2010 and 2017. As a senior member of the Health Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, Xavier Becerra played a significant role to help write and pass the ACA and defended the law from near continuous Republican assault as California's attorney general. Most recently, he has been leading litigation at the Supreme Court to reinstate the ACA after an ideologically-driven district court judge struck down the law in its entirety. These efforts demonstrate the leadership, experience, and health policy expertise Xavier will bring to the Department of Health and Human Services. Despite these bona fides, Republican Senators are actively smearing Xavier's reputation and misrepresenting his qualifications to prevent him from becoming the first Latino to serve as HHS Secretary. First, they claim Xavier isn't qualified because he isn't a doctor. Republicans clearly didn't believe this was a deal breaker when all but one of them voted to confirm Alex Azar--a former executive at Eli Lilly--as Donald Trump's HHS Secretary. I think most Americans would rather have an HHS Secretary like Xavier Becerra, who successfully sued hospitals to lower healthcare costs, than a person in charge of running a pharmaceutical company. Republicans have also claimed that Xavier lacks ``extensive health care experience.'' This is particularly rich coming from the same people who voted to confirm Betsy De-Vos to become Education Secretary. She not only had never worked in a public school, she had never even attended one. These same Republicans voted to confirm Rick Perry to become Energy Secretary, when he didn't even know the Department of Energy was responsible for the Nation's nuclear arsenal. Throughout his 12 terms in the House of Representatives, Xavier Becerra was a leader on health policy issues. He helped write the most sweeping change to our healthcare system in more than a generation, and now, as the California attorney general, he is defending that law in court. He has the experience needed to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Republicans are also attacking Xavier's nomination on the grounds that he is somehow ``extreme'' and ``a radical'' because he supports a woman's right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court first recognized a woman's constitutional right to an abortion in 1973. That is nearly 50 years ago. Supporting this fundamental right is anything but radical, it is a position shared by almost 70 percent of the American people. But that hasn't stopped attacks on a woman's right to seek and have one. What is ``extreme'' and ``radical'' are Republican efforts to undermine this right--if not completely eliminate it. Just last week, the Republican Governor of Arkansas signed a law that bans all abortions unless they are necessary to save the life of the mother. This law is directly contrary to the Supreme Court's command that States cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. It does not even include an exception for pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. The junior senator from Arkansas has called Xavier Becerra ``extreme'' and ``a radical'' for defending a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, while his State wants to force women who have been raped to carry their pregnancies to term. What planet are we living on? On Thursday night, Xavier Becerra will be confirmed to become the next Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. In any normal world, the vote would be bipartisan and it would be overwhelming. I strongly support his nomination and call on my colleagues to do so as well. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HIRONO | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1641-11 | null | 2,609 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Markey, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Warner, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Capito, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Booker, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. King, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Sinema, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mrs. Fischer, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Blackburn) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 123 Whereas National Women's History Month recognizes and spreads awareness of the importance of women in the history of the United States; Whereas, throughout the history of the United States, whether in their homes, in their workplaces, in schools, in the courts, or during wartime, women have fought for themselves, their families, and all people of the United States; Whereas, even from the early days of the history of the United States, Abigail Adams urged her husband to ``Remember the Ladies'' when representatives met for the Continental Congress in 1776; Whereas women were particularly important in the establishment of early charitable, philanthropic, and cultural institutions in the United States; Whereas women led the efforts to secure suffrage and equal opportunities for women, and also served in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, labor movements, civil rights movements, and other causes to create a more fair and just society for all; Whereas suffragists wrote, marched, were arrested, and ultimately succeeded in achieving-- (1) the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides, ``The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.''; and (2) the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), which extended the protection of the right to vote to women of color and language minorities; Whereas women have been and continue to be leaders in the forefront of social change efforts, business, science, government, math, art, literature, music, film, athletics, and other fields; Whereas women now represent approximately half of the workforce of the United States; Whereas women once were routinely barred from attending medical schools in the United States, but now are enrolling in medical schools in the United States at higher numbers than men; Whereas women previously were turned away from law school, but now represent approximately half of law students in the United States; Whereas, since the American Revolution, women have been vital to the mission of the Armed Forces, with more than 200,000 women serving on active duty and 2,000,000 women veterans representing every branch of service; Whereas more than 10,000,000 women own businesses in the United States; Whereas Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman elected to the House of Representatives in 1916 and Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas was the first woman elected to the United States Senate in 1932; Whereas Margaret Chase Smith of Maine was the first woman to serve in both Houses of Congress; Whereas, in 2021, a record total of 144 women are serving in Congress, including 120 women in the House of Representatives and 24 women in the Senate; Whereas President Jimmy Carter recognized March 2 through 8, 1980, as ``National Women's History Week''; Whereas, in 1987, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the first joint resolution to pass Congress designating ``Women's History Month''; Whereas, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan issued a Presidential proclamation proclaiming March 1987 as ``Women's History Month''; Whereas, in 2020, Congress passed the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Act (title I of division T of Public Law 116-260) to establish a national women's history museum on or near the National Mall in Washington, DC; and Whereas, despite the advancements of women in the United States, much remains to be done to ensure that women realize their full potential as equal members of society in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates March 2021 as ``National Women's History Month''; (2) recognizes the celebration of National Women's History Month as a time to reflect on the many notable contributions that women have made to the United States; and (3) urges the people of the United States to observe National Women's History Month with appropriate programs and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1653 | null | 2,610 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Moran, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs: S. Res. 125 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas an estimated 3,081,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women live in the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women helped shape the history of their communities, Tribes, and the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women contribute to their communities, Tribes, and the United States through military service, public service, and work in many industries, including business, education, science, medicine, literature, and fine arts; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have fought to defend and protect the sovereign rights of Native Nations; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have demonstrated resilience and courage in the face of a history of threatened existence, constant removals, and relocations; Whereas more than 6,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women bravely serve as members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas more than 17,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are veterans who have made lasting contributions to the United States military; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women broke down historical gender barriers to enlistment in the military, including-- (1) Inupiat Eskimo sharpshooter Laura Beltz Wright of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II; and (2) Minnie Spotted Wolf of the Blackfeet Tribe, the first Native American woman to enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 1943; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States, including Lori Ann Piestewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe and the first woman in the United States military killed in the Iraq War in 2003; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to the economic development of Native Nations and the United States as a whole, including Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Tribe, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, who-- (1) served as the treasurer of her Tribe; (2) founded the first Tribally owned national bank; and (3) led the fight against Federal mismanagement of funds held in trust for more than 500,000 Native Americans; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women own an estimated 154,900 businesses; Whereas these Native women-owned businesses employ more than 50,000 workers and generate over $10,000,000,000 in revenues as of 2016; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have opened an average of more than 17 new businesses each day since 2007; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made significant contributions to the field of medicine, including Susan La Flesche Picotte of the Omaha Tribe, who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to important scientific advancements, including-- (1) Floy Agnes Lee of Santa Clara Pueblo, who-- (A) worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II; and (B) pioneered research on radiation biology and cancer; (2) Native Hawaiian Isabella Kauakea Yau Yung Aiona Abbott, who-- (A) was the first woman on the biological sciences faculty at Stanford University; and (B) was awarded the highest award in marine botany from the National Academy of Sciences, the Gilbert Morgan Smith medal, in 1997; and (3) Mary Golda Ross of the Cherokee Nation, who-- (A) is considered the first Native American engineer of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration; (B) helped develop spacecrafts for the Gemini and Apollo space programs; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2019 $1 coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have achieved distinctive honors in the art of dance, including Maria Tall Chief of the Osage Nation, who was the first major prima ballerina of the United States and was a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Kennedy Center; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have accomplished notable literary achievements, including Northern Paiute author Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, who wrote and published one of the first Native American autobiographies in United States history in 1883; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have regularly led efforts to protect their traditional ways of life and to revitalize and maintain Native cultures and languages, including-- (1) Tewa linguist and teacher Esther Martinez, who developed a Tewa dictionary and was credited with revitalizing the Tewa language; (2) Native Hawaiian scholar Mary Kawena Pukui, who published more than 50 academic works and was considered the most noted Hawaiian translator of the 20th century; and (3) Ahtna Athabascan Katie John of Mentasta Lake, who was the lead plaintiff in lawsuits that strengthened Native subsistence fishing rights in Alaska and who helped create the alphabet for the Ahtna language; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have excelled in athletic competition and created opportunities for other female athletes within their sport, including Rell Kapoliokaehukai Sunn, who-- (1) ranked as longboard surfing champion of the world; and (2) co-founded the Women's Professional Surfing Association in 1975, the first professional surfing tour for women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have played a vital role in advancing civil rights, protecting human rights, advocating for land rights, and safeguarding the environment, including-- (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich of the Tlingit Nation, who-- (A) helped secure the passage of the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 of the Alaska Territory, the first anti- discrimination law in the United States; and (B) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2020 $1 coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; (2) Zitkala-Sa, a Yankton Dakota writer and advocate, whose work during the early 20th century helped advance the citizenship, voting, and land rights of Native Americans; and (3) Mary Jane Fate of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Rampart, who was the first woman to chair the Alaska Federation of Natives, a founding member of the North American Indian Women's Association, and an advocate for settlement of Indigenous land claims in Alaska; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have succeeded as judges, attorneys, and legal advocates, including Eliza ``Lyda'' Conley, a Wyandot- American lawyer and the first Native woman admitted to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have paved the way for women in the law, including Native Hawaiian Emma Kailikapiolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, who served as the first female judge in Hawaii; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are dedicated public servants, holding important positions in the Federal judicial branch, the Federal executive branch, State governments, and local governments; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have served as remarkable Tribal councilwomen, Tribal court judges, and Tribal leaders, including Wilma Mankiller, who-- (1) was the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; and (2) fought for Tribal self-determination and the improvement of the community infrastructure of her Tribe; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have also led their People through notable acts of public service, including-- (1) Kaahumanu, who was the first Native Hawaiian woman to serve as regent of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (2) Polly Cooper of the Oneida Indian Nation, who-- (A) walked from central New York to Valley Forge as part of a relief mission to provide food for the army led by General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War; and (B) was recognized for her courage and generosity by Martha Washington; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women to address the barriers they face, including access to justice, health care, and opportunities for educational and economic advancement; and Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are the life givers, the culture bearers, and the caretakers of Native peoples who have made precious contributions, enriching the lives of all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women and the contributions they have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the importance of supporting equity, providing safety, and upholding the interests of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1654-2 | null | 2,611 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Moran, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs: S. Res. 125 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas an estimated 3,081,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women live in the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women helped shape the history of their communities, Tribes, and the United States; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women contribute to their communities, Tribes, and the United States through military service, public service, and work in many industries, including business, education, science, medicine, literature, and fine arts; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have fought to defend and protect the sovereign rights of Native Nations; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have demonstrated resilience and courage in the face of a history of threatened existence, constant removals, and relocations; Whereas more than 6,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women bravely serve as members of the United States Armed Forces; Whereas more than 17,000 American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are veterans who have made lasting contributions to the United States military; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women broke down historical gender barriers to enlistment in the military, including-- (1) Inupiat Eskimo sharpshooter Laura Beltz Wright of the Alaska Territorial Guard during World War II; and (2) Minnie Spotted Wolf of the Blackfeet Tribe, the first Native American woman to enlist in the United States Marine Corps in 1943; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States, including Lori Ann Piestewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe and the first woman in the United States military killed in the Iraq War in 2003; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to the economic development of Native Nations and the United States as a whole, including Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet Tribe, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, who-- (1) served as the treasurer of her Tribe; (2) founded the first Tribally owned national bank; and (3) led the fight against Federal mismanagement of funds held in trust for more than 500,000 Native Americans; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women own an estimated 154,900 businesses; Whereas these Native women-owned businesses employ more than 50,000 workers and generate over $10,000,000,000 in revenues as of 2016; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have opened an average of more than 17 new businesses each day since 2007; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have made significant contributions to the field of medicine, including Susan La Flesche Picotte of the Omaha Tribe, who is widely acknowledged as the first Native American to earn a medical degree; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have contributed to important scientific advancements, including-- (1) Floy Agnes Lee of Santa Clara Pueblo, who-- (A) worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II; and (B) pioneered research on radiation biology and cancer; (2) Native Hawaiian Isabella Kauakea Yau Yung Aiona Abbott, who-- (A) was the first woman on the biological sciences faculty at Stanford University; and (B) was awarded the highest award in marine botany from the National Academy of Sciences, the Gilbert Morgan Smith medal, in 1997; and (3) Mary Golda Ross of the Cherokee Nation, who-- (A) is considered the first Native American engineer of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration; (B) helped develop spacecrafts for the Gemini and Apollo space programs; and (C) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2019 $1 coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have achieved distinctive honors in the art of dance, including Maria Tall Chief of the Osage Nation, who was the first major prima ballerina of the United States and was a recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Kennedy Center; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have accomplished notable literary achievements, including Northern Paiute author Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins, who wrote and published one of the first Native American autobiographies in United States history in 1883; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have regularly led efforts to protect their traditional ways of life and to revitalize and maintain Native cultures and languages, including-- (1) Tewa linguist and teacher Esther Martinez, who developed a Tewa dictionary and was credited with revitalizing the Tewa language; (2) Native Hawaiian scholar Mary Kawena Pukui, who published more than 50 academic works and was considered the most noted Hawaiian translator of the 20th century; and (3) Ahtna Athabascan Katie John of Mentasta Lake, who was the lead plaintiff in lawsuits that strengthened Native subsistence fishing rights in Alaska and who helped create the alphabet for the Ahtna language; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have excelled in athletic competition and created opportunities for other female athletes within their sport, including Rell Kapoliokaehukai Sunn, who-- (1) ranked as longboard surfing champion of the world; and (2) co-founded the Women's Professional Surfing Association in 1975, the first professional surfing tour for women; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have played a vital role in advancing civil rights, protecting human rights, advocating for land rights, and safeguarding the environment, including-- (1) Elizabeth Wanamaker Peratrovich of the Tlingit Nation, who-- (A) helped secure the passage of the Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945 of the Alaska Territory, the first anti- discrimination law in the United States; and (B) was recognized by the Federal Government on the 2020 $1 coin honoring Native Americans and their contributions; (2) Zitkala-Sa, a Yankton Dakota writer and advocate, whose work during the early 20th century helped advance the citizenship, voting, and land rights of Native Americans; and (3) Mary Jane Fate of the Koyukon Athabascan village of Rampart, who was the first woman to chair the Alaska Federation of Natives, a founding member of the North American Indian Women's Association, and an advocate for settlement of Indigenous land claims in Alaska; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have succeeded as judges, attorneys, and legal advocates, including Eliza ``Lyda'' Conley, a Wyandot- American lawyer and the first Native woman admitted to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1909; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have paved the way for women in the law, including Native Hawaiian Emma Kailikapiolono Metcalf Beckley Nakuina, who served as the first female judge in Hawaii; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are dedicated public servants, holding important positions in the Federal judicial branch, the Federal executive branch, State governments, and local governments; Whereas American Indian and Alaska Native women have served as remarkable Tribal councilwomen, Tribal court judges, and Tribal leaders, including Wilma Mankiller, who-- (1) was the first woman elected to serve as Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation; and (2) fought for Tribal self-determination and the improvement of the community infrastructure of her Tribe; Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women have also led their People through notable acts of public service, including-- (1) Kaahumanu, who was the first Native Hawaiian woman to serve as regent of the Kingdom of Hawaii; and (2) Polly Cooper of the Oneida Indian Nation, who-- (A) walked from central New York to Valley Forge as part of a relief mission to provide food for the army led by General George Washington during the American Revolutionary War; and (B) was recognized for her courage and generosity by Martha Washington; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women to address the barriers they face, including access to justice, health care, and opportunities for educational and economic advancement; and Whereas American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women are the life givers, the culture bearers, and the caretakers of Native peoples who have made precious contributions, enriching the lives of all people of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women and the contributions they have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the importance of supporting equity, providing safety, and upholding the interests of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1654-2 | null | 2,612 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Wicker) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 124 Whereas the Romani people trace their ancestry to the Indian subcontinent; Whereas Roma have been a part of European immigration to the United States since the colonial period and particularly following the abolition of the enslavement of Roma in the historic Romanian principalities; Whereas Roma live across the world and throughout the United States; Whereas the Romani people have made distinct and important contributions in many fields, including agriculture, art, crafts, literature, medicine, military service, music, sports, and science; Whereas, on April 8, 1971, the First World Romani Congress met in London, bringing Roma together from across Europe and the United States with the goal of promoting transnational cooperation among Roma in combating social marginalization and building a positive future for Roma everywhere; Whereas April 8 is therefore celebrated globally as International Roma Day; Whereas Roma were victims of genocide carried out by Nazi Germany and its Axis partners, and an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Romani people were killed by Nazis and their allies across Europe during World War II; Whereas, on the night of August 2-3, 1944, the so-called ``Gypsy Family Camp'' where Romani people were interned at Auschwitz-Birkenau was liquidated, and in a single night, between 4,200 and 4,300 Romani men, women, and children were killed in gas chambers; Whereas many countries are taking positive steps to remember and teach about the genocide of Roma by Nazi Germany and its Axis partners; and Whereas the United States Congress held its first hearing to examine the situation of Roma in 1994: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) remembers the genocide of Roma by Nazi Germany and its Axis partners and commemorates the destruction of the ``Gypsy Family Camp'' where Romani people were interned at Auschwitz; (2) commends the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for its role in promoting remembrance of the Holocaust and educating about the genocide of Roma; (3) supports International Roma Day as an opportunity to honor the culture, history, and heritage of the Romani people in the United States as part of the larger Romani global diaspora; and (4) welcomes the Department of State's participation in ceremonies and events celebrating International Roma Day and similar engagement by the United States Government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1654 | null | 2,613 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess--or pick your word--a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what is currently happening on our southern border. Hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Health and Human Services to deal with it--witness the two new centers opened up in Midland, TX, in West Texas, and a new one at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas that will house approximately 300,000 young men. At one point, there were more than 4,200 children in custody, nearly 3,000 of them held beyond the 72-hour time limit set by the Flores Settlement. For comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at any given time during the peak in 2019, so 2,600 now to 4,200. In many cases, these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents but in the care of human smugglers--coyotes, as they are called. Parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the United States. In some cases, along that long, treacherous journey, whether it is from Central America or from Mexico or anywhere else--because these children are not just limited to Mexico and Central America--these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. Sadly, we know that, too often, children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the United States. There is a lot of work that has to be done from the moment the Border Patrol first encounters these children until they are transferred into the custody of Health and Human Services, but the Border Patrol lacks the physical space or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic. On Monday, I spoke with the Border Patrol sector chiefs and the Office of Field Operations Directors from across Texas. We talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions. As Border Patrol officers encounter, transport, and care for these children, they are often invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. This is not an accident. This is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have: flood the zone, preoccupy the Border Patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited, either by more human smugglers or by drug smugglers. We all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and the like come across our southern border. Ninety-two percent, according to the DEA, of all the heroin in the United States comes from Mexico. So these smugglers and their really criminal organizations that ply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the Border Patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, weapons, and money across. One of the Border Patrol chiefs told me that Customs and Border Protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it is being strained, which is impacting national security. For example, last Friday when I was in Carrizo Springs and in Laredo with my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat representing a border district in Texas along the Rio Grande, the sector chief told us that, just so far this year, migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the Del Rio Sector. Now, I think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon; these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. If you want to come from Mexico, for example, it will cost you a few thousand bucks. If you want to come from Central America, you pay a little bit more of a premium. If you want to come from Europe or a Middle East country, it will cost you even more. But it is only a matter of money because that is the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about. But then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the United States for national security purposes--54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and I am sure the other Border Patrol sectors have similar stories. What is more, since October, the Border Patrol has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. In order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes, like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. Of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. Many more--we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border. While Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossingour border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the Border Patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances. We have experienced migration surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis and then again in 2019. We know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children. We know that spring and summer are often the busiest time periods. In other words, what we are seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in the coming weeks and months. We also know that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the United States. Congressman Cuellar and I, when we were in Carrizo Springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and asked how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. They said, well, they saw it on TV or heard from family members here in the United States or saw it on social media that now is the time to come, with a new administration that is not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border. But these organizations do pay attention, and unfortunately the actions of the Biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but they also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory. The President campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. After all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the United States even with the flimsiest asylum claims and stay for years until they are resolved and don't even really have to show up for their court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration courts, what do we expect to happen? What the Border Patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. The push factors we are familiar with. Who wouldn't want to come to the United States for a better life? Who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in Central America? We all understand that. But the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the United States through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the United States without any negative consequences. I believe we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. We need to find a way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present their claims to an immigration judge. But, as you can imagine, only about 10 to 12 percent of the asylum claims are actually granted, and if your only concern is making it into the United States, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. But then again, those who don't, the immigration judge, when their appointed court date comes, issues a default order of deportation. So if you had a valid asylum claim that would have been granted by a judge, you have lost that by virtue of your nonappearance at your hearing. Well, Secretary Mayorkas said we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in almost 20 years, and I can't say that I am surprised. There is simply no way to rewind time and prevent this crisis from happening, but it is absolutely urgent first that the administration acknowledge it and then work with Congress to address it. I would encourage the President to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. The experts I listen to when I travel to the border are Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation. Those are the three Federal Government Agencies that deal with this crisis. I would be glad to welcome him to my State and introduce him to the dedicated men and women along the border who provide valuable services but who simply are overwhelmed and undersourced. The communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leaders, but they also feel like they have been abandoned by the Federal Government. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted when you see a flood of humanity come through their borders, and they try their best, through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy and sympathy for the plight of these migrants, to help them any way they can. But they, too, are overwhelmed. They are doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the Federal Government that is, indeed, responsible for our border. Law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations--I have a long list of folks that I would be happy to share with the administration if they would be willing to listen. Indeed, one of the most significant things I think that President Biden could do, like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in Texas, the 120-year weather event--he was good enough to come to our State and talk to the first responders. I think he would benefit greatly if he made another trip on Air Force One down to the border so he could do what I have had the opportunity to do, and that is to talk to the experts and the people on the ground who understand this crisis and who have some, I think, very constructive ideas about how to deal with it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1657-3 | null | 2,614 |
formal | criminal alien | null | anti-Latino | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess--or pick your word--a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what is currently happening on our southern border. Hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Health and Human Services to deal with it--witness the two new centers opened up in Midland, TX, in West Texas, and a new one at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas that will house approximately 300,000 young men. At one point, there were more than 4,200 children in custody, nearly 3,000 of them held beyond the 72-hour time limit set by the Flores Settlement. For comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at any given time during the peak in 2019, so 2,600 now to 4,200. In many cases, these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents but in the care of human smugglers--coyotes, as they are called. Parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the United States. In some cases, along that long, treacherous journey, whether it is from Central America or from Mexico or anywhere else--because these children are not just limited to Mexico and Central America--these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. Sadly, we know that, too often, children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the United States. There is a lot of work that has to be done from the moment the Border Patrol first encounters these children until they are transferred into the custody of Health and Human Services, but the Border Patrol lacks the physical space or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic. On Monday, I spoke with the Border Patrol sector chiefs and the Office of Field Operations Directors from across Texas. We talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions. As Border Patrol officers encounter, transport, and care for these children, they are often invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. This is not an accident. This is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have: flood the zone, preoccupy the Border Patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited, either by more human smugglers or by drug smugglers. We all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and the like come across our southern border. Ninety-two percent, according to the DEA, of all the heroin in the United States comes from Mexico. So these smugglers and their really criminal organizations that ply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the Border Patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, weapons, and money across. One of the Border Patrol chiefs told me that Customs and Border Protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it is being strained, which is impacting national security. For example, last Friday when I was in Carrizo Springs and in Laredo with my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat representing a border district in Texas along the Rio Grande, the sector chief told us that, just so far this year, migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the Del Rio Sector. Now, I think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon; these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. If you want to come from Mexico, for example, it will cost you a few thousand bucks. If you want to come from Central America, you pay a little bit more of a premium. If you want to come from Europe or a Middle East country, it will cost you even more. But it is only a matter of money because that is the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about. But then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the United States for national security purposes--54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and I am sure the other Border Patrol sectors have similar stories. What is more, since October, the Border Patrol has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. In order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes, like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. Of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. Many more--we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border. While Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossingour border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the Border Patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances. We have experienced migration surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis and then again in 2019. We know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children. We know that spring and summer are often the busiest time periods. In other words, what we are seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in the coming weeks and months. We also know that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the United States. Congressman Cuellar and I, when we were in Carrizo Springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and asked how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. They said, well, they saw it on TV or heard from family members here in the United States or saw it on social media that now is the time to come, with a new administration that is not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border. But these organizations do pay attention, and unfortunately the actions of the Biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but they also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory. The President campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. After all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the United States even with the flimsiest asylum claims and stay for years until they are resolved and don't even really have to show up for their court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration courts, what do we expect to happen? What the Border Patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. The push factors we are familiar with. Who wouldn't want to come to the United States for a better life? Who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in Central America? We all understand that. But the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the United States through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the United States without any negative consequences. I believe we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. We need to find a way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present their claims to an immigration judge. But, as you can imagine, only about 10 to 12 percent of the asylum claims are actually granted, and if your only concern is making it into the United States, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. But then again, those who don't, the immigration judge, when their appointed court date comes, issues a default order of deportation. So if you had a valid asylum claim that would have been granted by a judge, you have lost that by virtue of your nonappearance at your hearing. Well, Secretary Mayorkas said we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in almost 20 years, and I can't say that I am surprised. There is simply no way to rewind time and prevent this crisis from happening, but it is absolutely urgent first that the administration acknowledge it and then work with Congress to address it. I would encourage the President to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. The experts I listen to when I travel to the border are Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation. Those are the three Federal Government Agencies that deal with this crisis. I would be glad to welcome him to my State and introduce him to the dedicated men and women along the border who provide valuable services but who simply are overwhelmed and undersourced. The communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leaders, but they also feel like they have been abandoned by the Federal Government. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted when you see a flood of humanity come through their borders, and they try their best, through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy and sympathy for the plight of these migrants, to help them any way they can. But they, too, are overwhelmed. They are doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the Federal Government that is, indeed, responsible for our border. Law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations--I have a long list of folks that I would be happy to share with the administration if they would be willing to listen. Indeed, one of the most significant things I think that President Biden could do, like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in Texas, the 120-year weather event--he was good enough to come to our State and talk to the first responders. I think he would benefit greatly if he made another trip on Air Force One down to the border so he could do what I have had the opportunity to do, and that is to talk to the experts and the people on the ground who understand this crisis and who have some, I think, very constructive ideas about how to deal with it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1657-3 | null | 2,615 |
formal | criminal aliens | null | anti-Latino | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess--or pick your word--a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what is currently happening on our southern border. Hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Health and Human Services to deal with it--witness the two new centers opened up in Midland, TX, in West Texas, and a new one at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas that will house approximately 300,000 young men. At one point, there were more than 4,200 children in custody, nearly 3,000 of them held beyond the 72-hour time limit set by the Flores Settlement. For comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at any given time during the peak in 2019, so 2,600 now to 4,200. In many cases, these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents but in the care of human smugglers--coyotes, as they are called. Parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the United States. In some cases, along that long, treacherous journey, whether it is from Central America or from Mexico or anywhere else--because these children are not just limited to Mexico and Central America--these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. Sadly, we know that, too often, children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the United States. There is a lot of work that has to be done from the moment the Border Patrol first encounters these children until they are transferred into the custody of Health and Human Services, but the Border Patrol lacks the physical space or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic. On Monday, I spoke with the Border Patrol sector chiefs and the Office of Field Operations Directors from across Texas. We talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions. As Border Patrol officers encounter, transport, and care for these children, they are often invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. This is not an accident. This is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have: flood the zone, preoccupy the Border Patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited, either by more human smugglers or by drug smugglers. We all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and the like come across our southern border. Ninety-two percent, according to the DEA, of all the heroin in the United States comes from Mexico. So these smugglers and their really criminal organizations that ply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the Border Patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, weapons, and money across. One of the Border Patrol chiefs told me that Customs and Border Protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it is being strained, which is impacting national security. For example, last Friday when I was in Carrizo Springs and in Laredo with my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat representing a border district in Texas along the Rio Grande, the sector chief told us that, just so far this year, migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the Del Rio Sector. Now, I think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon; these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. If you want to come from Mexico, for example, it will cost you a few thousand bucks. If you want to come from Central America, you pay a little bit more of a premium. If you want to come from Europe or a Middle East country, it will cost you even more. But it is only a matter of money because that is the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about. But then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the United States for national security purposes--54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and I am sure the other Border Patrol sectors have similar stories. What is more, since October, the Border Patrol has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. In order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes, like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. Of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. Many more--we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border. While Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossingour border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the Border Patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances. We have experienced migration surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis and then again in 2019. We know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children. We know that spring and summer are often the busiest time periods. In other words, what we are seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in the coming weeks and months. We also know that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the United States. Congressman Cuellar and I, when we were in Carrizo Springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and asked how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. They said, well, they saw it on TV or heard from family members here in the United States or saw it on social media that now is the time to come, with a new administration that is not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border. But these organizations do pay attention, and unfortunately the actions of the Biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but they also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory. The President campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. After all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the United States even with the flimsiest asylum claims and stay for years until they are resolved and don't even really have to show up for their court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration courts, what do we expect to happen? What the Border Patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. The push factors we are familiar with. Who wouldn't want to come to the United States for a better life? Who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in Central America? We all understand that. But the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the United States through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the United States without any negative consequences. I believe we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. We need to find a way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present their claims to an immigration judge. But, as you can imagine, only about 10 to 12 percent of the asylum claims are actually granted, and if your only concern is making it into the United States, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. But then again, those who don't, the immigration judge, when their appointed court date comes, issues a default order of deportation. So if you had a valid asylum claim that would have been granted by a judge, you have lost that by virtue of your nonappearance at your hearing. Well, Secretary Mayorkas said we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in almost 20 years, and I can't say that I am surprised. There is simply no way to rewind time and prevent this crisis from happening, but it is absolutely urgent first that the administration acknowledge it and then work with Congress to address it. I would encourage the President to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. The experts I listen to when I travel to the border are Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation. Those are the three Federal Government Agencies that deal with this crisis. I would be glad to welcome him to my State and introduce him to the dedicated men and women along the border who provide valuable services but who simply are overwhelmed and undersourced. The communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leaders, but they also feel like they have been abandoned by the Federal Government. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted when you see a flood of humanity come through their borders, and they try their best, through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy and sympathy for the plight of these migrants, to help them any way they can. But they, too, are overwhelmed. They are doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the Federal Government that is, indeed, responsible for our border. Law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations--I have a long list of folks that I would be happy to share with the administration if they would be willing to listen. Indeed, one of the most significant things I think that President Biden could do, like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in Texas, the 120-year weather event--he was good enough to come to our State and talk to the first responders. I think he would benefit greatly if he made another trip on Air Force One down to the border so he could do what I have had the opportunity to do, and that is to talk to the experts and the people on the ground who understand this crisis and who have some, I think, very constructive ideas about how to deal with it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1657-3 | null | 2,616 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, whether the administration wants to call it a challenge or a mess--or pick your word--a calculated word choice does not change the magnitude of what is currently happening on our southern border. Hundreds of unaccompanied children are being detained on a daily basis, completely overwhelming the capacity of the Border Patrol and Health and Human Services to deal with it--witness the two new centers opened up in Midland, TX, in West Texas, and a new one at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas that will house approximately 300,000 young men. At one point, there were more than 4,200 children in custody, nearly 3,000 of them held beyond the 72-hour time limit set by the Flores Settlement. For comparison, there were about 2,600 children in custody at any given time during the peak in 2019, so 2,600 now to 4,200. In many cases, these children don't make the dangerous journey north with their parents but in the care of human smugglers--coyotes, as they are called. Parents pay these smugglers thousands of dollars to bring their children to the United States. In some cases, along that long, treacherous journey, whether it is from Central America or from Mexico or anywhere else--because these children are not just limited to Mexico and Central America--these children are kidnapped by the smugglers on their way to the border because they know having a child in their custody will give them preferential treatment and allow them to stay in the country. Sadly, we know that, too often, children are mistreated, abused, or even sexually assaulted on the way to the United States. There is a lot of work that has to be done from the moment the Border Patrol first encounters these children until they are transferred into the custody of Health and Human Services, but the Border Patrol lacks the physical space or the personnel or the resources to provide this number of children with the care and support they need and also to carry out their duties, especially during a deadly pandemic. On Monday, I spoke with the Border Patrol sector chiefs and the Office of Field Operations Directors from across Texas. We talked about the surge in unaccompanied children and the cascading consequences this crisis has had on our other border missions. As Border Patrol officers encounter, transport, and care for these children, they are often invariably diverted from their job securing the border, and so security gaps are left along the rest of the border. This is not an accident. This is really part of the strategy that the human smugglers and drug smugglers have: flood the zone, preoccupy the Border Patrol taking care of children, leaving gaps that can then be exploited, either by more human smugglers or by drug smugglers. We all know that large amounts of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and the like come across our southern border. Ninety-two percent, according to the DEA, of all the heroin in the United States comes from Mexico. So these smugglers and their really criminal organizations that ply in different commodities and different things, they flood the system to distract the Border Patrol and then exploit the vulnerabilities to bring people, drugs, weapons, and money across. One of the Border Patrol chiefs told me that Customs and Border Protection needs to be able to identify and classify the migrants they meet, and it is being strained, which is impacting national security. For example, last Friday when I was in Carrizo Springs and in Laredo with my friend Henry Cuellar, a Democrat representing a border district in Texas along the Rio Grande, the sector chief told us that, just so far this year, migrants from 54 different countries were detained coming across the border in the Del Rio Sector. Now, I think that sort of gives you a better idea that this is not just a localized phenomenon; these are criminal networks with really connections all around the world. If you want to come from Mexico, for example, it will cost you a few thousand bucks. If you want to come from Central America, you pay a little bit more of a premium. If you want to come from Europe or a Middle East country, it will cost you even more. But it is only a matter of money because that is the only thing that these smugglers and these criminal organizations care about. But then people from 54 different countries, some of which are countries of special interest to the United States for national security purposes--54 countries represented just so far this year in one sector, and I am sure the other Border Patrol sectors have similar stories. What is more, since October, the Border Patrol has encountered more than 4,000 criminal aliens, nearly double the amount from the previous fiscal year in less than half the time. In order to qualify as a criminal alien, you have committed significant crimes, like assault, battery, domestic violence, sexual offenses, even manslaughter and homicide. Of course, these are just the ones we know about and who were actually detained. Many more--we don't know how many more, but many more get through unobstructed across the border. While Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the sheer number of people crossingour border, including the alarming number of children sent by themselves, the Border Patrol isn't able to properly surveil or apprehend potentially dangerous individuals and substances. We have experienced migration surges in the past, most recently in 2014 when President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis and then again in 2019. We know how dangerous the journey to our border is for migrants, especially children. We know that spring and summer are often the busiest time periods. In other words, what we are seeing now is just a foreshadowing of what we expect to see in the coming weeks and months. We also know that these criminal organizations pay attention to what our leaders are saying here in the United States. Congressman Cuellar and I, when we were in Carrizo Springs, were able to talk to a number of young men, teenagers, and asked how they heard about the border and their ability to get across. They said, well, they saw it on TV or heard from family members here in the United States or saw it on social media that now is the time to come, with a new administration that is not committed to border security, and so this was the time to make their run across the border. But these organizations do pay attention, and unfortunately the actions of the Biden administration not only contributed to another surge this year, but they also made likely that it would be bigger than any other in recent memory. The President campaigned on policies that would lead to this very outcome. After all, when you send a message that migrants can come to the United States even with the flimsiest asylum claims and stay for years until they are resolved and don't even really have to show up for their court hearing because of the backlog of 1.2 million cases in our immigration courts, what do we expect to happen? What the Border Patrol tells me is that this is a combination of push factors and pull factors. The push factors we are familiar with. Who wouldn't want to come to the United States for a better life? Who wouldn't want to avoid the violence and crime associated with some of the gang activity in Central America? We all understand that. But the pull factors are the sense that you can actually successfully get into the United States through illegal means or by making a false asylum claim and then overloading the system and basically navigate your way into the United States without any negative consequences. I believe we need to set up a system that honors and respects all legitimate asylum claims, but this isn't it. We need to find a way to move the children and other people claiming asylum to the head of the line so they can present their claims to an immigration judge. But, as you can imagine, only about 10 to 12 percent of the asylum claims are actually granted, and if your only concern is making it into the United States, maybe you don't want to go in front of an immigration judge. But then again, those who don't, the immigration judge, when their appointed court date comes, issues a default order of deportation. So if you had a valid asylum claim that would have been granted by a judge, you have lost that by virtue of your nonappearance at your hearing. Well, Secretary Mayorkas said we are on track to see the highest number of border crossings in almost 20 years, and I can't say that I am surprised. There is simply no way to rewind time and prevent this crisis from happening, but it is absolutely urgent first that the administration acknowledge it and then work with Congress to address it. I would encourage the President to follow his own advice, which is to listen to the experts. The experts I listen to when I travel to the border are Border Patrol, Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Relocation. Those are the three Federal Government Agencies that deal with this crisis. I would be glad to welcome him to my State and introduce him to the dedicated men and women along the border who provide valuable services but who simply are overwhelmed and undersourced. The communities in which they live along the border are beautiful, vibrant communities with outstanding local leaders, but they also feel like they have been abandoned by the Federal Government. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted when you see a flood of humanity come through their borders, and they try their best, through nongovernmental organizations or just out of simple human mercy and sympathy for the plight of these migrants, to help them any way they can. But they, too, are overwhelmed. They are doing everything they can to manage the crisis, which they had no hand in creating, and they should not be expected to manage it without help from the Federal Government that is, indeed, responsible for our border. Law enforcement, mayors, county judges, nongovernmental organizations--I have a long list of folks that I would be happy to share with the administration if they would be willing to listen. Indeed, one of the most significant things I think that President Biden could do, like he did after the polar vortex, the big freeze we had in Texas, the 120-year weather event--he was good enough to come to our State and talk to the first responders. I think he would benefit greatly if he made another trip on Air Force One down to the border so he could do what I have had the opportunity to do, and that is to talk to the experts and the people on the ground who understand this crisis and who have some, I think, very constructive ideas about how to deal with it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-18-pt1-PgS1657-3 | null | 2,617 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | ______ HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN of massachusetts in the house of representatives Friday, March 19, 2021 Mr. McGovern. Madam Speaker, last month marked the tenth anniversary of peaceful protests that spurred great hope for change in Bahrain, only to have those hopes dashed. On February 14, 2011, thousands of Bahrainis took to the streets in peaceful protests throughout the country to call for democratization and social and economic reform. Bahraini security forces attacked the peaceful protesters, first with pepper spray and flash-bangs, then with rubber bullets and finally with shotguns. The protesters remained peaceful, and in the days that followed, the protests grew. The Pearl Roundabout in the capital city, Manama, became the hub with hundreds camping there and sharing food. Then came ``Bahrain Bloody Thursday.'' At about 4:00 a.m. on February 17, 2011, while protesters including women and children were sleeping, security forces stormed the area with tear gas. They threw stun grenades and fired shot guns at the terrified people. Bahraini and international media were attacked. Paramedics and ambulance drivers who responded were also reportedly attacked and told not to help injured protesters. Four protesters were killed and as many as 300 were injured. Hundreds were detained, including medical personnel, and the police pursued others to nearby villages to arrest them as well. Following ``Bahrain Bloody Thursday,'' Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times, ``When a king opens fire on his people, he no longer deserves to be ruler.'' As leaders from around the world condemned the violence, it seemed at first that the door to reform had been opened. The King's acceptance of the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry kept hope alive for quite some time. But ten years later little has changed for the Bahraini people. I welcomed the release of Nabeel Rajab in June 2020, who spent nearly eight of the past nine years imprisoned for peaceful protest and criticizing government policies. But many prisoners of conscience remain behind bars, and it is well past time to release everyone else imprisoned for exercising their fundamental rights. These include human rights defenders Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, Ahmed Humaidan, and Naji Fateel, and Sheikh Ali Salman. Brave human rights and opposition leaders continue to call for the release of prisoners, accountability for grave human rights violations, and political reform. Madam Speaker, the people of Bahrain have been waiting ten long years for a sign that the arc of justice is bending toward them. I am tremendously heartened by statements made by Biden Administration officials confirming that the U.S. commitment to human rights will be reflected in our foreign policy. We cannot serve as a beacon of hope while turning a blind eye to human rights violations. What should that mean when it comes to Bahrain? Here are some ideas. The U.S. should pause arms sales to Bahrain. The Department of Defense should develop a contingency plan for relocating the U.S. 5th Fleet out of Bahrain. The Administration should make full use of Global Magnitsky authorities to sanction Bahraini officials who are known to have committed terrible human rights abuses and have suffered no consequences for their actions. Accountability must return to the bilateral agenda. The State Department should work for the release of all prisoners of conscience. And the State Department should put reforms back on the bilateral agenda. What reforms are we talking about? To start with, the Bahraini government should: end the prohibition on political societies, decriminalize all speech, allow national and international press to operate without state intervention, stop rendering its citizens stateless, strip the National Security Agency of its power to arrest, bring its anti-terrorism legislation into line with international human rights standards, integrate its security forces, and end discrimination against the majority Shi'a population everywhere it exists. Taking these steps would not transform Bahrain into a democracy. But they would go some way toward improving the country's domestic human rights situation. I look forward to working with the Biden Administration on these and other ideas to make sure that U.S. policy toward Bahrain truly protects the human rights of the Bahraini people--and therefore truly contributes to America's security. | 2020-01-06 | None | House | CREC-2021-03-19-pt1-PgE279-2 | null | 2,618 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 134) condemning the military coup that took place on February 1, 2021, in Burma and the Burmese military detention of civilian leaders, calling for the release of all those detained and for those elected to serve in Parliament to resume their duties, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-03-19-pt1-PgH1601-2 | null | 2,619 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on Thursday, the Biden administration officials had their first person-to-person meeting with representatives from the People's Republic of China. By diplomatic standards, the opening public exchange was tense. The belligerent grandstanding by PRC diplomats was, unfortunately, no surprise. It is what we have come to expect. As China's military and economic might have grown, Beijing has found that the bullying tactics that people call their ``wolf warrior'' diplomatic strategy have often worked out for them. So I was glad the U.S. team used the opportunity to cut through the CCP's spin and tell some plain truths about China's regional bullying and disrespect for the rule of law, whether in Hong Kong or Tibet. I am also glad the administration has sent U.S. personnel to join other diplomats in Beijing to protest the secret trial of Canadian citizen Michael Kovrig. But like I said last week, calling out China rhetorically is just the first step. An effective U.S. strategy will require more than just tough talk and symbolism. The PRC poses all matter of threats to the United States and to the free world. They want to control crucial sea lanes in the South China Sea. They want to expand their capabilities to menace other countries' forces, including ours, with increasingly accurate long-range weapons. They want to rewrite the rules of the international system to suit their interests instead of ours and our friends. These are hard and real challenges. Facing them down will require strength and resolve from the United States and from our partners. So like I said last week, if the administration is serious about staying tough on China and strengthening our hand, they will have support among Senate Republicans. But any such serious strategy will need to start with maintaining and building up the backbone of our hard power--the competitive edge of the U.S. military. To defend America, defend America's interests, and deter adversaries, we need to sustain our military edge. And to sustain our edge, we need to modernize our forces and maintain our capability to project power. Defense spending is the single most important policy lever available to us in our competition with China. The President's budget submission will tell Beijing a lot about whether the Biden administration intends to back up tough talk with actual strength. Finally, whatever Congress may do to step up our game on China, it will be essential that it be bipartisan. The legislative components of national security should not swing wildly every time the gavels change hands. It is a perfect demonstration of why scrapping the 60-vote threshold for legislation would be catastrophic. For important bills to have a stable and lasting impact, they need broad bipartisan buy-in. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1661-6 | null | 2,620 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, next, another aspect of why this is a good day. Tonight, the Senate will confirm Mayor Marty Walsh of Boston to serve as Secretary of Labor. The son of Irish immigrants, Mayor Walsh followed his father's footsteps in construction and joined the Laborers' Union Local 223 at age 21, eventually serving as its president before being elected mayor of Boston. During his testimony here in the Senate, Mayor Walsh said it was by joining a union that his parents were able to climb up into the middle class and give their son a shot at a better life. We have something in common. My grandfather came to the United States and became very involved with the labor movement. One day when he was 14, it was raining. He was looking for shelter. It was pouring. He had almost nowhere to live. He walked into the labor temple, where he heard Eugene V. Debs and Will and Ariel Durant give the annual address at that temple established by the A.F. of L. to teach the immigrants about the union movement. So we have that in common. Our grandfathers are immigrants--one from Ireland, one from Eastern Europe, but both joined the labor movement, and it helped their family move up. The Department of Labor is in desperate need of a leader with Mayor Walsh's perspective. For the past 4 years under President Trump and Secretary Scalia, unfortunately, sadly, the Labor Department has too often sided with corporate America, not the working people of America, which it was formed to help. Once the Senate confirms Mayor Walsh, American workers will finally have one of their own leading the Department of Labor, someone from working America who will fight for working America. I am proud to say that once Mayor Walsh is confirmed tonight, the Senate will have confirmed all 15 of President Biden's Cabinet Secretaries. Under extraordinary circumstances, unusual responsibilities, a later than usual runoff election, an evenly divided Chamber, an insurrection, an impeachment trial, and the passage of historic Federal relief, the Senate has still stayed on track and confirmed President Biden's Cabinet faster than both of the last two administrations. Let me say that again. With everything else going on, the Senate has confirmed President Biden's Cabinet faster than during both of the prior two administrations, one a Democrat and one a Republican. Every single member of President Biden's Cabinet has received a bipartisan vote in favor of confirmation. I anticipate that the vote in favor of Mayor Walsh will stay true to form, completing an unblemished record of bipartisan confirmations to the Cabinet. It is a tribute to President Biden and his team that they have chosen such a fine Cabinet and a tribute to the Senators here that we have moved in such a quick fashion despite so many other responsibilities being placed on our shoulders in these early days of this Congress. Few Cabinets in history have begun their tenures with such daunting tasks: a once-in-a-century pandemic, an economy in the doldrums, global challenges like climate change and democratic decline. Thankfully, this Senate has made sure President Biden's Cabinet is in place and on the job as quickly as possible. We will continue the personnel business this week by installing the Deputy Director at OMB, the Surgeon General, the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Deputy Secretaries at Energy and Treasury. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1663 | null | 2,621 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, on March 18, I voted against the confirmation of Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mr. Becerra has no substantive experience in public health policy, and he has proven himself to be an extremist on the few occasions he has engaged on health care issues. In October 2017, he told FOX News, ``I've been a supporter of Medicare for All for the 24 years that I was in Congress.'' As attorney general of California, he filed over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, including leading a group of attorneys general in opposing Texas's legal challenge to Obamacare in Texas v. Azar. He also won lawsuits to reclassify gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft as employers. In response, California's Prop 22 was drafted, with a description saying it ``changes employment classification rules for app-based transportation and delivery workers.'' Becerra's office, which has authority to summarize ballot measures, seemingly tried to sabotage Prop 22 by changing its summary to say it ``exempts app-based transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits to certain drivers and delivery workers.'' Californians passed Prop 22 anyway, with over 58 percent support. Mr. Becerra's history suggests he will use this Cabinet post for political activism, not for advancing our Nation's public health. For that reason, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1670-2 | null | 2,622 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, on March 18, I voted against the confirmation of Xavier Becerra to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mr. Becerra has no substantive experience in public health policy, and he has proven himself to be an extremist on the few occasions he has engaged on health care issues. In October 2017, he told FOX News, ``I've been a supporter of Medicare for All for the 24 years that I was in Congress.'' As attorney general of California, he filed over 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration, including leading a group of attorneys general in opposing Texas's legal challenge to Obamacare in Texas v. Azar. He also won lawsuits to reclassify gig economy companies like Uber and Lyft as employers. In response, California's Prop 22 was drafted, with a description saying it ``changes employment classification rules for app-based transportation and delivery workers.'' Becerra's office, which has authority to summarize ballot measures, seemingly tried to sabotage Prop 22 by changing its summary to say it ``exempts app-based transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits to certain drivers and delivery workers.'' Californians passed Prop 22 anyway, with over 58 percent support. Mr. Becerra's history suggests he will use this Cabinet post for political activism, not for advancing our Nation's public health. For that reason, I opposed his confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1670-2 | null | 2,623 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, it is an honor to recognize the lifetime of service and historic contributions of Navajo Nation Supreme Court Justice Lorene B. Ferguson, who died on March 1, 2021, with her daughters at her bedside, from complications of COVID-19. Justice Ferguson was the first woman justice on the Navajo Nation Supreme Court. In 2001, she was nominated to serve as Associate Justice by President Kelsey Begaye and was confirmed by the Navajo Nation Council. She served as an Associate Justice on the Navajo Nation Supreme Court until 2007, including as Acting Chief Justice from 2004 to 2005. Prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Ferguson served as a Navajo circuit judge in the Kayenta District Court and as a Navajo Tribal Court judge in the Shiprock, To'hajiilee, Ramah, and Alamo Courts. She also served for 8 years as a staff attorney at the Navajo Nation Department of Justice, where she drafted the first Navajo Election Code and Navajo scholarship policy for the Department of Education. Justice Ferguson was born in the Sawmill, Ni'ii Ji'ih, Chapter of the Navajo Nation in the Fort Defiance Agency in Arizona. She graduated from Fort Lewis College in 1965. She worked in community development, welfare rights, and Native American education as a Head Start teacher and Indian education training technician. She began her legal career after graduating from the University of New Mexico School of Law in 1983. Justice Ferguson served as a mentor and role model for numerous Navajo attorneys and law clerks. She was a strong advocate for education and Tribal traditional law. She served as a judicial education faculty member for the National Judicial College at the University of Nevada in Reno and was the first Tribal judge to serve as a judge in residence at the University of Tulsa School of Law. She frequently spoke at law schools around the country to educate students and faculty on the importance of Tribal law. Justice Ferguson was also a loving wife, mother, grandmother, and matriarch for her family. My thoughts are with all of her loved ones and all those who were touched by her life during this time of loss. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HEINRICH | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1670-3 | null | 2,624 |
formal | personal responsibility | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Kentucky is home to many talented artists. They capture our heritage with color, movement, and language. Their creativity offers inspiration and makes us proud to call the Bluegrass home. Today, I would like to recognize my friend Cornelia Dozier Cooper, one of these gifted Kentuckians, who continues to awe our Commonwealth with her vision, generosity, and leadership. Cornelia was recently recognized by her hometown with a Distinguished Community Service Award. It is a privilege to join her many fans in sharing my hearty congratulations. Cornelia moved to Pulaski County in Southeastern Kentucky six decades ago. Instantly, in her words, she ``fell in love.'' The breathtaking landscapes fill her imagination and fuel her art. Cornelia skillfully captures the region's beauty and the distinct character of its people in her watercolor. She brings joy and appreciation to all those who have viewed her work. I am proud to count myself among them. In 2019, Cornelia received the Milner Award, our Commonwealth's highest artistic honor, in tribute to her mastery of the brush and her devotion to her craft. Kentucky's traditions are reflected in Cornelia's artwork as well as in her philanthropy and service. She has helped found and continues to support numerous local organizations to foster artistic expression. After receiving a donation of books from the Carnegie Library, Cornelia knocked on doors around Somerset to gather support for the area's first library. Her own endowment provides grants to aspiring performers and artists in the Lake Cumberland area. As an enthusiastic mentor and a compassionate friend, Cornelia has singlehandedly led a new generation of budding artists to find their own inspiration in the hills of Southeastern Kentucky. Even beyond the brush, Cornelia has brought beauty to her community. In Somerset's Fountain Square--which hosts a statue of Cornelia's brother-in-law, Kentucky Senator John Sherman Cooper--she has taken personal responsibility for planting flowers and leading renovations. She is driven to make the square a source of collective pride. Cornelia's influence on the local creative community is difficult to overstate, and it will continue for years to come. My friend continues to create well into her nineties. She has lifted this entire community with grace and art. It is a privilege to once again thank Cornelia for sharing her talents across Kentucky. She has earned this award and our sincere praise. I encourage all my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Cornelia Cooper on a lifetime of distinction and success. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1670 | null | 2,625 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Tester, Mrs. Capito, and Ms. Baldwin): S. 883. A bill to modify the Federal TRIO programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1673 | null | 2,626 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak this evening. I just returned from the southern border and want to give a brief report and talk about some potential ways forward to deal with what is happening on the Mexican border. I went with Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas and also with the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, my colleague from Michigan, and also with my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from Connecticut, who are the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. We had a bipartisan group and those of us who were involved on the authorizing side and on the appropriations side. You probably heard that the situation is bad, and it is. There is a record number of unaccompanied children coming to our border today, being let in, and ending up in Border Patrol detention facilities. Just yesterday, CBP reported that there were more than 15,500 unaccompanied kids in Federal custody. That is a record. But it is not just children. More than 100,000 migrants were apprehended in February alone. This is a 15-year record, representing a 28-percent increase just since January. All the numbers from March look even higher. We won't know the final numbers for another couple of weeks, but the point is, it is getting worse, not better. These numbers, by the way, are worse than the previous two surges at our southern border--both the 2014 surge, we all remember, during the Obama administration and the 2019 surge during the Trump administration. And, by the way, we have yet toreach the predicted peak because that normally would happen in April and May. In fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was with us on this trip, said that he believes this will be the worst year in 20 years for unlawful entry into the United States. However, the numbers only tell part of the story. This is also a humanitarian crisis. Migrants often face violence, sickness, and tough terrain on their dangerous journey north--predominantly, those from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Many are abused by the smugglers who charge them large amounts of money and bring them. Unfortunately, this is a crisis that could have been avoided. On day one, the Biden administration issued five Executive orders to overturn Trump policies and since has taken more than a half dozen additional actions to dismantle policies from the previous administration. These included a 100-day pause on all deportations; no longer using the COVID-19 healthcare emergency under title 42 of the United States Code to turn away unaccompanied children and some families; suspending the construction of the border fence and technologies, such as sensors and scanners used by the Trump administration to help our overworked Border Patrol agents secure key stretches of our southern border; and abandoning the migrant protection protocols, also known as ``Remain in Mexico,'' which required some asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico rather than in the United States while their claim for asylum is being processed; and, of course, proposing an amnesty bill on day one. The administration has every right to do that, but it creates a disincentive to push back on new migrants coming in who are trying to get into the United States before that amnesty might become law. It certainly does unless you also make it clear that you don't qualify for amnesty unless you are already here. And I think that is an important message that I hope will be part of any future discussions about any kind of an amnesty bill so it doesn't encourage more people to come. The Biden administration took these and other actions that incentivize people to head north but then said: Please don't come yet. We are not ready for you. It was no surprise that didn't work. An unprecedented number of children and families came to take advantage of the new policies. As I heard on the southern border over the last few days, actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the new administration were clear. These abrupt moves to dismantle the immigration policies that were working to provide a disincentive for unlawful migrations hit the green light to a lot of people seeking a better life, but it also gave the smugglers and the human trafficking groups in the Northern Triangle and in Mexico the ability to convince more families and more children to take the dangerous trip north. It gave them a narrative, and, of course, they used it to their full advantage. That has overwhelmed Border Patrol and our immigration system, in general, unequipped to handle the surge. I heard directly from Border Patrol agents about how the current surge of unaccompanied kids is draining resources and endangering not just those vulnerable kids but the security of our own border It was stunning to see people who unlawfully crossed the border during a ride-along patrol I joined on Thursday night. People just kept coming. The Border Patrol told me they are seeing an increase of about 150 to 200 percent of illegal entries in the El Paso sector, with many illegal crossers escaping into the United States because they have not apprehended them. Just as concerning, they told me unaccompanied children and families are being used by the smugglers as a distraction so the smugglers can more easily move dangerous and illicit substances across the border into our communities. While the Border Patrol is busy processing the kids and the families, which takes a while, the smugglers move. In fact, Customs and Border Protection has reported an increase of 360 percent in seizures of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is 50 times deadlier than heroin. There is no question that more of this is now coming across the border. It is already resulting in a surge of overdose deaths, by the way, over the past year during the COVID-19 pandemic. In my home State of Ohio and around the country, it looks like, sadly, we are in for a record year of overdose and overdose deaths, primarily from fentanyl and fentanyl being mixed with other drugs. Fentanyl used to come from China directly, mostly through our mail system. Now, increasingly, it is coming from Mexico, since we passed legislation here to stop it coming through our mail system. Down at the border, I also had the opportunity to visit with the facilities where they are currently holding unaccompanied kids. These children are being kept in tightly packed facilities, supervised by overworked Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, who should be out in the field. Due to a lack of space for children in the Department of Health and Human Services facilities, Border Patrol is having to detain unaccompanied kids for an average of about 137 hours, nearly double the 72-hour limit required by law. I am concerned about the well-being of these kids, as we all are, because when the system gets overwhelmed, people, and especially the kids, suffer. And the processing system right now is overwhelmed; it is overcrowded; it is irresponsible. It is a situation you would never want your own children to be in. Not only are these children crammed into the facilities that are, by their own rules and regulations, overcrowded, there is no testing for COVID-19 in these facilities. Current policy is going to result in tens of thousands more children being released into our communities, waiting for their immigration court cases. During previous surges at the border that overwhelmed our immigration system, HHS stopped doing background checks on sponsors for unaccompanied kids, and many fell into the custody of abusive human traffickers. In 2014, for example, HHS placed Guatemalan children with criminals who put the children into forced labor on an egg farm in my home State of Ohio, where they were forced to live and work in squalid conditions. It is an issue I have worked a long time on. Between 2015 and to 2020, as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led three bipartisan reports and hearings across two administrations that found repeated failures by the Federal Government to ensure the well-being of these vulnerable children once they were handed off to sponsors, as well as the fundamental refusal by HHS to accept that they were responsible for the welfare of these kids they placed with adults who are not their legal parent or guardian. Obviously, we are going to see a lot more pressure to get these kids out to as many sponsors as quickly as possible, and, again, I believe we are going to have some of these problems. Last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Responsibility for Unaccompanied Minors Act that will direct the Federal Government to meet the stringent requirements necessary to ensure children are not abused or exploited by their sponsors; that they show up for their asylum hearings to determine their eligibility to stay in the United States. These are necessary steps to address the current crisis at our border and safeguard these children. By the way, on the debate as to whether to call the chaos at the border a crisis or not, when I was on the border talking to Border Patrol agents, one of them told me, although he believes it is a crisis, that he is fine not calling it a crisis now because he knows it is going to get much worse, and he wants to have something to call it then. He wants to see, like all Americans, concrete actions and a change of course at the border, much more than having a debate about words. By the way, we should all sympathize with those migrants who want a better life for their families. I sympathize with them. I am sure we all do. There are millions of people around the world who want to come to our country. We have a legal immigration system that accepts a million people ayear. In addition to that, we accept refugees and those who apply for asylum. At the end of the day, those individuals coming to our southern border right now are making a rational choice to come to the border based on policy decisions by the Biden administration. What we need is a legal, orderly, and proper system to be sure the people follow the rules. The bottom line is, what I saw at the border is unsustainable, and, unfortunately, it is going to get worse. We are working against the clock to try to find a way forward. When the Biden administration changed the rules and dismantled the existing provisions that were keeping people from coming across the border, they could have put their own policies in place to try to deal with what everybody predicted was a surge that was coming. They didn't. More to the point, even if they weren't going to put their own policies in place, they should surely have waited until they had the facilities ready to handle the surge. They didn't. That is why you see this terrible overcrowding at Border Patrol detention facilities, holding these kids much longer than they should, and why you see HHS not having the beds prepared that they should have. By the way, some have said the Trump administration dismantled the asylum system. Well, because of the rules they had in place, there were very few people coming to apply for asylum. The facility I saw, which was a modern facility built just last year with $48 million of our taxpayer money, was built to try to deal with the next surge. Unfortunately, it is not big enough, and, again, it is overcrowded, so you have kids sleeping on the floor on thin foam mattresses with only a space blanket. None of them have been checked for COVID. They are living not 6 feet apart, as we are required to do here with social distancing, but inches apart and together. It is one thing to say we are going to change all these policies. It is another thing to say we are not going to put anything in its place or because that is OK--we are OK to have a surge come--at least to be prepared for that surge, and that is not what is happening. I believe there is a path forward for the Biden administration and the Congress to address this crisis in the short term; then work on medium- and long-term solutions to lower the risk of future surges. Here is what I would propose. First and foremost, the Biden administration should recommit to enforcing our immigration laws by providing overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and our Immigration and Customs the help they need to be able to ensure they can get what they need to be able to enforce the law. That means better pay for our Border Patrol. It also means better overtime provisions. We have legislation to do that. It also means ensuring that they have the tools they need to be able to protect the country. That means not stopping construction of the fence, which, by the way, is almost done. In the El Paso sector, I think there is 150 miles of fence totally--in total, 124 miles is already done. The parts that are not done, unfortunately, are some of the gates, so you have gaps. Border Patrol are very frustrated by this because they literally have to have people at the gaps because they can't monitor them as they can with the fence because with the fence, it takes people a while to get over the fence. With monitoring devices, which are, to me, more important even than the fence itself, they are able to do their jobs. They are also being told they can't continue the technology, so although there is 124 miles of fencing, there is much less technology than that. Yet they have been stopped from doing that as well. Let's give them what they need to be able to do their jobs. They are in an impossible situation. I am not talking about a new fence or a new wall, but at least for the part that has already been appropriated by Congress, let's complete it. Let's not leave these gaps. I literally saw the supplies they have. Construction material is on the ground, and the Border Patrol agents told me--these are rank-and-file Border Patrol agents: This is bad for morale. We see this stuff right there. If that could be put up to take the place of the temporary fencing migrants are able to simply push over or walk through, that would make our jobs much easier. No. 2, the asylum system needs to be changed immediately. Now, with a backlog of 1.2 million asylum seekers, they are waiting several years for court hearings to find out if they are qualified. During that time, they are living in the United States and often vanishing into the United States. We know from the data we have--and, by the way, the data is not very good on this--that only about half of them, maybe more or maybe less, are even showing up for their court cases. We know this because, for about 48 percent of those who are seeking asylum, there are now removal orders out for them for not showing up for their hearings. So about half of them have removal orders to be removed from the country because they haven't shown up for their hearings. Remember, this is a 1.2 million-person backlog, so it may be 3, 4, 5, 6 years before they get to their court cases. Is there any wonder some of these people are not showing up? Finally, at the very end of the process, after you go through all the adjudication, guess what the percentage of success would be for someone to achieve an asylum status: only 15 percent--15 percent--have a successful claim. So people are being told to go into the country and await their court cases, and 1.2 million people are doing that. It takes several years for that to happen. At the end of the day, only 15 percent will get asylum. Yet, again, many are not being removed even though there is a removal order out on them because the immigration system is overwhelmed, so they are focusing on those who have a criminal record, which I understand. This means, if you don't have a criminal record and you are in the United States, you know that it is unlikely you will actually be removed even if there is a removal order for you. So one policy change would be to simply resume a practice that was started in the last administration as a pilot and ended in November 2020. It is called the Prompt Asylum Claim Review process. An efficient and timely determination of who is eligible for asylum and who is not would really help. It would enable us to start reducing the number of migrants being held in custody and deter migrants who do not have a valid claim. You might say: Why not start with the 1.2 million backlog? That would be great. We should do that as well. We need more immigration judges. We need more lawyers involved in the process, on both sides, representing those who have the claim and representing the government. That would be good, but in the meantime, these rapid adjudications on the border with due process would have the effect of deterring the next migrant. Think about it. If you are just dealing with the last person on the list, the person who comes in most recently gets more of a deterrent than if you are dealing with the person who came in 4 or 5 years ago because they think: Well, if I get up there and make my claim and come into the United States and go out into one of the communities represented in this body, it will be 4 or 5 years before my court case comes up. Perhaps there will be amnesty during that period or something else or perhaps I will just stay. If you come to the border and you seek amnesty--you seek asylum--your claim will be adjudicated immediately, and you may receive asylum or you may not. Again, 15 percent is the number now. That is the best number we have, and that is from 2019. We don't have the numbers from 2020 yet Most think that is about what it will be. I think this is a good system. I don't know why it was ended in the Trump administration back in November. It shouldn't have been. I hope the new administration will take it up. As part of this, my colleagues from Texas and Arizona, Senator Cornyn and Senator Sinema, have suggested we stand up multiple regional processing centers to rapidly and fairly conduct asylum cases in one location. I support that. I think this idea is consistent with what I am talking about to discourage illegal immigration and to ensure that we have a quick decision with regard to asylum. Have all the Federal Agencies together--Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Justice Department, HHS--everybody together in one place, and quicklymake these decisions so that people aren't held for a long period of time, so they can have the decision made. I think it is worth the funding because it will be expensive. It will be expensive to hire the new immigration judges to have the system set up, but it is well worth it, in my view. Third, to deal with the asylum process, the Biden administration should look at the new Migrant Protection Protocols or ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. ``Remain in Mexico'' allowed us to keep our detention center populations down in the United States and asylum seekers close to the immigration courts while officials sorted out the claims. Getting rid of the policy served only to overcrowd our temporary housing and sent a lot more people into the interior, awaiting a hearing by an immigration judge. There are concerns about ``Remain in Mexico'' in terms of the conditions at some of the camps in Mexico. Although nongovernmental organizations play a substantial role there already, perhaps for those who are still in that process--and there are probably 45,000 people who are still in that process; there were initially maybe less, but, initially, there were about 75,000 people--a lot of people have just gone home because they don't want to remain in Mexico for their asylum claim. They would rather go back to their home in Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador--but for those who are there, perhaps there should be more oversight of those camps and more Federal funding provided through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR, and others to ensure those conditions are better. What the Biden administration is doing now is saying ``We are going to stop the program,'' and they are bringing people over the border. I saw this, the processing center. About 350 or 450 people a day are leaving the ``Remain in Mexico,'' the Migrant Protection Protocols Program, and coming into the United States. Those people are given the ability to come into the interior, so they are coming into communities in the United States. One thing you would hope they would get would be a notice as they go through the processing that says: Here is your court date. You have to show up at this court date. What we have learned in the last several days or what I learned down at the border is that they are not being given those court dates. They are given a piece of paper that has 24 ICE offices in the major metropolitan areas in America, and they are told: We don't know where you are going to end up. We don't know where you are going. You are welcome in the United States, but wherever you are going, please check into the ICE office in your region. My hope is we can at least get a system together where we don't, again, dismantle a program until we have something in its place to ensure people are going to their court dates to be able to have the asylum claims dealt with. On my trip to the border, I asked a reporter to come with me to the border wall because I believe it is important that the public know what is going on. I was surprised to learn that was the first time this reporter or other reporters had been able to kind of see what was going on for quite a while. They haven't been able to come into any of the detention facilities, including the processing center I talked about earlier, where the kids are crammed into--100 kids crammed into 1 room. I think the press should be able to see that because I think that will provide more transparency for all of us. My constituents don't know what is going on at the border, in part because the media haven't had that level of access. I know we have to protect the confidentiality of individual migrants, and I get that. I think that should be done. I think it can be done, but also by letting the media have that access, we would be able to have more transparency about the realities of what is going on along the border. So, fourth, I think the Biden administration should invest in finishing the work on the fence, as I said, but they should also work to enact something that is even more important than a fence, and that is to relieve the magnet. This is going to involve Congress. We did pass an immigration bill in this body with a strong provision called E-Verify several years ago. It basically says that for employers, there will be a sanction if you hire somebody who is not legal. The difference between E-Verify and some of the earlier programs that attempted to do that unsuccessfully is that E-Verify lets us use the new technologies we now have to ensure that fraudulent documents that are often used can be determined to be fraudulent. In other words, you can use technology--facial recognition and so on--to ensure that the employer knows for sure whether the person is legal or not. Again, this requires some Federal funding. Some of that software for small businesses, in particular, may be expensive, but to have an E-Verify Program that says you mandatorily--by the way, it is not mandatory right now either. It doesn't have the technology. It is not mandatory. You have to make it mandatory and say: If you want to hire somebody, you have to run them through the system. Make it as easy as possible to use the technology. In talking to the migrants I met--and my colleagues have spoken to many people who have come to this country, and I am sure they have had the same experience--when I asked them why they are coming here, they all have the same answer, basically, with slight variations, which is, as one guy told me from Guatemala, he can make 10 times as much money here. He cares about his family and their future. The economy is much better here, but that is because he knows he can get a job probably with a document, either a driver's license or a Social Security card that will be fraudulent, but he can buy it for 25 bucks. So we need a system here to stop the magnet. Don't put the Border Patrol and all of those involved--the immigration system is in such an impossible position that we have a wide-open system here where anybody can come and work. Let's do E-Verify. That is more important to me than any other enforcement tool that we have. Federal Reserve economists found that States that mandate the use of E-Verify reduce the number of likely unauthorized immigrants who stay in that State. Of course it does. Sixth--and this is the final one--the Biden administration should work with our Central American partners, including the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to discourage unlawful migration. They can do that by incentivizing migrants to apply for asylum in their countries of origin. Some have said this should be mandatory. To me, that seems to make sense. Maybe there is a reason it shouldn't be mandatory, but it certainly should be encouraged, and these countries should certainly offer this. We should provide more aid to the countries of Central America because there is a push factor. Everything I have talked about so far is the pull factors, bringing them in. But if we do that, that aid ought to be conditioned on them helping us to provide people the ability to seek asylum in their own country. Where they have such a fear of persecution that they can't do it in their own country, they should be able to do it in a third country. There was a program started in the Trump administration that never really got off the ground, and it was called Safe Third Country. The program with Guatemala was starting to work. Honduras and El Salvador had signed up, but it hadn't started to work yet. Mexico didn't provide it. But what it says basically is, if you cross through a third country, you have to seek asylum in that third country. Specifically with Guatemala--as you know, you have to go through Guatemala coming from Honduras or El Salvador or Ecuador or elsewhere. Why not have the asylum claims done there? Again, due process, yes, but don't make people take this long and treacherous journey up to the southern border of the United States. Don't make them go through this process of the detention facilities and so on. Have them seek asylum in their own country or in other countries. That, to me, seems like it makes a lot of sense. The Biden administration suspended the Safe Third Country program on February 6, shortly after the inauguration. One program they would like to restart that I think makes sense is called the Central American Minors Program. They are going to restart that programnow, starting in March. This is a program where, during the Obama administration, if you had a family member, a parent--it had to be a parent or a guardian--in the United States legally, then you could come through this program called CAM, Central American Minors Program. I am glad they have restarted that program. That makes sense. I will tell you, over 5 years, only 3,500 kids were processed in that program. Again, your parent has to be in the United States legally. There are 3,500 kids coming across our border every 9 days right now. So the program is not going to solve all our problems, but it will help, and that is a good idea. We need to take a hard look at all of this, at all of these pull factors we talked about and certainly at the push factors. I will say that the Biden administration has proposed $4 billion to go to these three countries--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. As a Congress, we have appropriated and $3.6 billion has been spent in the last 5 years in these three countries. So we have done almost that much in the last 5 years, and yet, because of the corruption, because of the lack of transparency, because of the lack of rule of law, the money has not been as effectively spent as it should have been. So we have to be sure the money is conditioned upon reforms to actually improve the lives of the individuals in those countries. Despite the corruption, we need to cut through that and say: If you take this money, you have to commit to the reforms. Second, again, it should be contingent upon helping with our asylum system to be sure that we can deal with this surge that we are now facing. If the Biden administration takes these six recommended actions I have laid out today, I believe we would move toward bringing a quicker end to this crisis on the border, and we would be able to secure our southern border with regard to the drugs that are coming over and other contraband and be able to say that we, together, worked on this. I know this is a time where everybody is in their corner, the Republicans and Democrats, and it is impossible, it seems like, to make progress. But I think these are pretty sensible ideas, and the alternative is a bad one: that this is going to get worse. You will have more and more kids in detention centers. You will have more and more families released to communities in the United States where they don't come forward for their hearings. And it is something that discourages people about our immigration system. It just doesn't seem to work. It is certainly not working on the border today. So my hope is that these ideas or others--maybe others in this Chamber have better ideas, but hopefully they can be bipartisan, and we can get some of this stuff done and actually deal with the crisis we all know exists and we have a responsibility to face. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1675-9 | null | 2,627 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak this evening. I just returned from the southern border and want to give a brief report and talk about some potential ways forward to deal with what is happening on the Mexican border. I went with Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas and also with the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, my colleague from Michigan, and also with my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from Connecticut, who are the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. We had a bipartisan group and those of us who were involved on the authorizing side and on the appropriations side. You probably heard that the situation is bad, and it is. There is a record number of unaccompanied children coming to our border today, being let in, and ending up in Border Patrol detention facilities. Just yesterday, CBP reported that there were more than 15,500 unaccompanied kids in Federal custody. That is a record. But it is not just children. More than 100,000 migrants were apprehended in February alone. This is a 15-year record, representing a 28-percent increase just since January. All the numbers from March look even higher. We won't know the final numbers for another couple of weeks, but the point is, it is getting worse, not better. These numbers, by the way, are worse than the previous two surges at our southern border--both the 2014 surge, we all remember, during the Obama administration and the 2019 surge during the Trump administration. And, by the way, we have yet toreach the predicted peak because that normally would happen in April and May. In fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was with us on this trip, said that he believes this will be the worst year in 20 years for unlawful entry into the United States. However, the numbers only tell part of the story. This is also a humanitarian crisis. Migrants often face violence, sickness, and tough terrain on their dangerous journey north--predominantly, those from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Many are abused by the smugglers who charge them large amounts of money and bring them. Unfortunately, this is a crisis that could have been avoided. On day one, the Biden administration issued five Executive orders to overturn Trump policies and since has taken more than a half dozen additional actions to dismantle policies from the previous administration. These included a 100-day pause on all deportations; no longer using the COVID-19 healthcare emergency under title 42 of the United States Code to turn away unaccompanied children and some families; suspending the construction of the border fence and technologies, such as sensors and scanners used by the Trump administration to help our overworked Border Patrol agents secure key stretches of our southern border; and abandoning the migrant protection protocols, also known as ``Remain in Mexico,'' which required some asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico rather than in the United States while their claim for asylum is being processed; and, of course, proposing an amnesty bill on day one. The administration has every right to do that, but it creates a disincentive to push back on new migrants coming in who are trying to get into the United States before that amnesty might become law. It certainly does unless you also make it clear that you don't qualify for amnesty unless you are already here. And I think that is an important message that I hope will be part of any future discussions about any kind of an amnesty bill so it doesn't encourage more people to come. The Biden administration took these and other actions that incentivize people to head north but then said: Please don't come yet. We are not ready for you. It was no surprise that didn't work. An unprecedented number of children and families came to take advantage of the new policies. As I heard on the southern border over the last few days, actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the new administration were clear. These abrupt moves to dismantle the immigration policies that were working to provide a disincentive for unlawful migrations hit the green light to a lot of people seeking a better life, but it also gave the smugglers and the human trafficking groups in the Northern Triangle and in Mexico the ability to convince more families and more children to take the dangerous trip north. It gave them a narrative, and, of course, they used it to their full advantage. That has overwhelmed Border Patrol and our immigration system, in general, unequipped to handle the surge. I heard directly from Border Patrol agents about how the current surge of unaccompanied kids is draining resources and endangering not just those vulnerable kids but the security of our own border It was stunning to see people who unlawfully crossed the border during a ride-along patrol I joined on Thursday night. People just kept coming. The Border Patrol told me they are seeing an increase of about 150 to 200 percent of illegal entries in the El Paso sector, with many illegal crossers escaping into the United States because they have not apprehended them. Just as concerning, they told me unaccompanied children and families are being used by the smugglers as a distraction so the smugglers can more easily move dangerous and illicit substances across the border into our communities. While the Border Patrol is busy processing the kids and the families, which takes a while, the smugglers move. In fact, Customs and Border Protection has reported an increase of 360 percent in seizures of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is 50 times deadlier than heroin. There is no question that more of this is now coming across the border. It is already resulting in a surge of overdose deaths, by the way, over the past year during the COVID-19 pandemic. In my home State of Ohio and around the country, it looks like, sadly, we are in for a record year of overdose and overdose deaths, primarily from fentanyl and fentanyl being mixed with other drugs. Fentanyl used to come from China directly, mostly through our mail system. Now, increasingly, it is coming from Mexico, since we passed legislation here to stop it coming through our mail system. Down at the border, I also had the opportunity to visit with the facilities where they are currently holding unaccompanied kids. These children are being kept in tightly packed facilities, supervised by overworked Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, who should be out in the field. Due to a lack of space for children in the Department of Health and Human Services facilities, Border Patrol is having to detain unaccompanied kids for an average of about 137 hours, nearly double the 72-hour limit required by law. I am concerned about the well-being of these kids, as we all are, because when the system gets overwhelmed, people, and especially the kids, suffer. And the processing system right now is overwhelmed; it is overcrowded; it is irresponsible. It is a situation you would never want your own children to be in. Not only are these children crammed into the facilities that are, by their own rules and regulations, overcrowded, there is no testing for COVID-19 in these facilities. Current policy is going to result in tens of thousands more children being released into our communities, waiting for their immigration court cases. During previous surges at the border that overwhelmed our immigration system, HHS stopped doing background checks on sponsors for unaccompanied kids, and many fell into the custody of abusive human traffickers. In 2014, for example, HHS placed Guatemalan children with criminals who put the children into forced labor on an egg farm in my home State of Ohio, where they were forced to live and work in squalid conditions. It is an issue I have worked a long time on. Between 2015 and to 2020, as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led three bipartisan reports and hearings across two administrations that found repeated failures by the Federal Government to ensure the well-being of these vulnerable children once they were handed off to sponsors, as well as the fundamental refusal by HHS to accept that they were responsible for the welfare of these kids they placed with adults who are not their legal parent or guardian. Obviously, we are going to see a lot more pressure to get these kids out to as many sponsors as quickly as possible, and, again, I believe we are going to have some of these problems. Last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Responsibility for Unaccompanied Minors Act that will direct the Federal Government to meet the stringent requirements necessary to ensure children are not abused or exploited by their sponsors; that they show up for their asylum hearings to determine their eligibility to stay in the United States. These are necessary steps to address the current crisis at our border and safeguard these children. By the way, on the debate as to whether to call the chaos at the border a crisis or not, when I was on the border talking to Border Patrol agents, one of them told me, although he believes it is a crisis, that he is fine not calling it a crisis now because he knows it is going to get much worse, and he wants to have something to call it then. He wants to see, like all Americans, concrete actions and a change of course at the border, much more than having a debate about words. By the way, we should all sympathize with those migrants who want a better life for their families. I sympathize with them. I am sure we all do. There are millions of people around the world who want to come to our country. We have a legal immigration system that accepts a million people ayear. In addition to that, we accept refugees and those who apply for asylum. At the end of the day, those individuals coming to our southern border right now are making a rational choice to come to the border based on policy decisions by the Biden administration. What we need is a legal, orderly, and proper system to be sure the people follow the rules. The bottom line is, what I saw at the border is unsustainable, and, unfortunately, it is going to get worse. We are working against the clock to try to find a way forward. When the Biden administration changed the rules and dismantled the existing provisions that were keeping people from coming across the border, they could have put their own policies in place to try to deal with what everybody predicted was a surge that was coming. They didn't. More to the point, even if they weren't going to put their own policies in place, they should surely have waited until they had the facilities ready to handle the surge. They didn't. That is why you see this terrible overcrowding at Border Patrol detention facilities, holding these kids much longer than they should, and why you see HHS not having the beds prepared that they should have. By the way, some have said the Trump administration dismantled the asylum system. Well, because of the rules they had in place, there were very few people coming to apply for asylum. The facility I saw, which was a modern facility built just last year with $48 million of our taxpayer money, was built to try to deal with the next surge. Unfortunately, it is not big enough, and, again, it is overcrowded, so you have kids sleeping on the floor on thin foam mattresses with only a space blanket. None of them have been checked for COVID. They are living not 6 feet apart, as we are required to do here with social distancing, but inches apart and together. It is one thing to say we are going to change all these policies. It is another thing to say we are not going to put anything in its place or because that is OK--we are OK to have a surge come--at least to be prepared for that surge, and that is not what is happening. I believe there is a path forward for the Biden administration and the Congress to address this crisis in the short term; then work on medium- and long-term solutions to lower the risk of future surges. Here is what I would propose. First and foremost, the Biden administration should recommit to enforcing our immigration laws by providing overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and our Immigration and Customs the help they need to be able to ensure they can get what they need to be able to enforce the law. That means better pay for our Border Patrol. It also means better overtime provisions. We have legislation to do that. It also means ensuring that they have the tools they need to be able to protect the country. That means not stopping construction of the fence, which, by the way, is almost done. In the El Paso sector, I think there is 150 miles of fence totally--in total, 124 miles is already done. The parts that are not done, unfortunately, are some of the gates, so you have gaps. Border Patrol are very frustrated by this because they literally have to have people at the gaps because they can't monitor them as they can with the fence because with the fence, it takes people a while to get over the fence. With monitoring devices, which are, to me, more important even than the fence itself, they are able to do their jobs. They are also being told they can't continue the technology, so although there is 124 miles of fencing, there is much less technology than that. Yet they have been stopped from doing that as well. Let's give them what they need to be able to do their jobs. They are in an impossible situation. I am not talking about a new fence or a new wall, but at least for the part that has already been appropriated by Congress, let's complete it. Let's not leave these gaps. I literally saw the supplies they have. Construction material is on the ground, and the Border Patrol agents told me--these are rank-and-file Border Patrol agents: This is bad for morale. We see this stuff right there. If that could be put up to take the place of the temporary fencing migrants are able to simply push over or walk through, that would make our jobs much easier. No. 2, the asylum system needs to be changed immediately. Now, with a backlog of 1.2 million asylum seekers, they are waiting several years for court hearings to find out if they are qualified. During that time, they are living in the United States and often vanishing into the United States. We know from the data we have--and, by the way, the data is not very good on this--that only about half of them, maybe more or maybe less, are even showing up for their court cases. We know this because, for about 48 percent of those who are seeking asylum, there are now removal orders out for them for not showing up for their hearings. So about half of them have removal orders to be removed from the country because they haven't shown up for their hearings. Remember, this is a 1.2 million-person backlog, so it may be 3, 4, 5, 6 years before they get to their court cases. Is there any wonder some of these people are not showing up? Finally, at the very end of the process, after you go through all the adjudication, guess what the percentage of success would be for someone to achieve an asylum status: only 15 percent--15 percent--have a successful claim. So people are being told to go into the country and await their court cases, and 1.2 million people are doing that. It takes several years for that to happen. At the end of the day, only 15 percent will get asylum. Yet, again, many are not being removed even though there is a removal order out on them because the immigration system is overwhelmed, so they are focusing on those who have a criminal record, which I understand. This means, if you don't have a criminal record and you are in the United States, you know that it is unlikely you will actually be removed even if there is a removal order for you. So one policy change would be to simply resume a practice that was started in the last administration as a pilot and ended in November 2020. It is called the Prompt Asylum Claim Review process. An efficient and timely determination of who is eligible for asylum and who is not would really help. It would enable us to start reducing the number of migrants being held in custody and deter migrants who do not have a valid claim. You might say: Why not start with the 1.2 million backlog? That would be great. We should do that as well. We need more immigration judges. We need more lawyers involved in the process, on both sides, representing those who have the claim and representing the government. That would be good, but in the meantime, these rapid adjudications on the border with due process would have the effect of deterring the next migrant. Think about it. If you are just dealing with the last person on the list, the person who comes in most recently gets more of a deterrent than if you are dealing with the person who came in 4 or 5 years ago because they think: Well, if I get up there and make my claim and come into the United States and go out into one of the communities represented in this body, it will be 4 or 5 years before my court case comes up. Perhaps there will be amnesty during that period or something else or perhaps I will just stay. If you come to the border and you seek amnesty--you seek asylum--your claim will be adjudicated immediately, and you may receive asylum or you may not. Again, 15 percent is the number now. That is the best number we have, and that is from 2019. We don't have the numbers from 2020 yet Most think that is about what it will be. I think this is a good system. I don't know why it was ended in the Trump administration back in November. It shouldn't have been. I hope the new administration will take it up. As part of this, my colleagues from Texas and Arizona, Senator Cornyn and Senator Sinema, have suggested we stand up multiple regional processing centers to rapidly and fairly conduct asylum cases in one location. I support that. I think this idea is consistent with what I am talking about to discourage illegal immigration and to ensure that we have a quick decision with regard to asylum. Have all the Federal Agencies together--Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Justice Department, HHS--everybody together in one place, and quicklymake these decisions so that people aren't held for a long period of time, so they can have the decision made. I think it is worth the funding because it will be expensive. It will be expensive to hire the new immigration judges to have the system set up, but it is well worth it, in my view. Third, to deal with the asylum process, the Biden administration should look at the new Migrant Protection Protocols or ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. ``Remain in Mexico'' allowed us to keep our detention center populations down in the United States and asylum seekers close to the immigration courts while officials sorted out the claims. Getting rid of the policy served only to overcrowd our temporary housing and sent a lot more people into the interior, awaiting a hearing by an immigration judge. There are concerns about ``Remain in Mexico'' in terms of the conditions at some of the camps in Mexico. Although nongovernmental organizations play a substantial role there already, perhaps for those who are still in that process--and there are probably 45,000 people who are still in that process; there were initially maybe less, but, initially, there were about 75,000 people--a lot of people have just gone home because they don't want to remain in Mexico for their asylum claim. They would rather go back to their home in Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador--but for those who are there, perhaps there should be more oversight of those camps and more Federal funding provided through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR, and others to ensure those conditions are better. What the Biden administration is doing now is saying ``We are going to stop the program,'' and they are bringing people over the border. I saw this, the processing center. About 350 or 450 people a day are leaving the ``Remain in Mexico,'' the Migrant Protection Protocols Program, and coming into the United States. Those people are given the ability to come into the interior, so they are coming into communities in the United States. One thing you would hope they would get would be a notice as they go through the processing that says: Here is your court date. You have to show up at this court date. What we have learned in the last several days or what I learned down at the border is that they are not being given those court dates. They are given a piece of paper that has 24 ICE offices in the major metropolitan areas in America, and they are told: We don't know where you are going to end up. We don't know where you are going. You are welcome in the United States, but wherever you are going, please check into the ICE office in your region. My hope is we can at least get a system together where we don't, again, dismantle a program until we have something in its place to ensure people are going to their court dates to be able to have the asylum claims dealt with. On my trip to the border, I asked a reporter to come with me to the border wall because I believe it is important that the public know what is going on. I was surprised to learn that was the first time this reporter or other reporters had been able to kind of see what was going on for quite a while. They haven't been able to come into any of the detention facilities, including the processing center I talked about earlier, where the kids are crammed into--100 kids crammed into 1 room. I think the press should be able to see that because I think that will provide more transparency for all of us. My constituents don't know what is going on at the border, in part because the media haven't had that level of access. I know we have to protect the confidentiality of individual migrants, and I get that. I think that should be done. I think it can be done, but also by letting the media have that access, we would be able to have more transparency about the realities of what is going on along the border. So, fourth, I think the Biden administration should invest in finishing the work on the fence, as I said, but they should also work to enact something that is even more important than a fence, and that is to relieve the magnet. This is going to involve Congress. We did pass an immigration bill in this body with a strong provision called E-Verify several years ago. It basically says that for employers, there will be a sanction if you hire somebody who is not legal. The difference between E-Verify and some of the earlier programs that attempted to do that unsuccessfully is that E-Verify lets us use the new technologies we now have to ensure that fraudulent documents that are often used can be determined to be fraudulent. In other words, you can use technology--facial recognition and so on--to ensure that the employer knows for sure whether the person is legal or not. Again, this requires some Federal funding. Some of that software for small businesses, in particular, may be expensive, but to have an E-Verify Program that says you mandatorily--by the way, it is not mandatory right now either. It doesn't have the technology. It is not mandatory. You have to make it mandatory and say: If you want to hire somebody, you have to run them through the system. Make it as easy as possible to use the technology. In talking to the migrants I met--and my colleagues have spoken to many people who have come to this country, and I am sure they have had the same experience--when I asked them why they are coming here, they all have the same answer, basically, with slight variations, which is, as one guy told me from Guatemala, he can make 10 times as much money here. He cares about his family and their future. The economy is much better here, but that is because he knows he can get a job probably with a document, either a driver's license or a Social Security card that will be fraudulent, but he can buy it for 25 bucks. So we need a system here to stop the magnet. Don't put the Border Patrol and all of those involved--the immigration system is in such an impossible position that we have a wide-open system here where anybody can come and work. Let's do E-Verify. That is more important to me than any other enforcement tool that we have. Federal Reserve economists found that States that mandate the use of E-Verify reduce the number of likely unauthorized immigrants who stay in that State. Of course it does. Sixth--and this is the final one--the Biden administration should work with our Central American partners, including the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to discourage unlawful migration. They can do that by incentivizing migrants to apply for asylum in their countries of origin. Some have said this should be mandatory. To me, that seems to make sense. Maybe there is a reason it shouldn't be mandatory, but it certainly should be encouraged, and these countries should certainly offer this. We should provide more aid to the countries of Central America because there is a push factor. Everything I have talked about so far is the pull factors, bringing them in. But if we do that, that aid ought to be conditioned on them helping us to provide people the ability to seek asylum in their own country. Where they have such a fear of persecution that they can't do it in their own country, they should be able to do it in a third country. There was a program started in the Trump administration that never really got off the ground, and it was called Safe Third Country. The program with Guatemala was starting to work. Honduras and El Salvador had signed up, but it hadn't started to work yet. Mexico didn't provide it. But what it says basically is, if you cross through a third country, you have to seek asylum in that third country. Specifically with Guatemala--as you know, you have to go through Guatemala coming from Honduras or El Salvador or Ecuador or elsewhere. Why not have the asylum claims done there? Again, due process, yes, but don't make people take this long and treacherous journey up to the southern border of the United States. Don't make them go through this process of the detention facilities and so on. Have them seek asylum in their own country or in other countries. That, to me, seems like it makes a lot of sense. The Biden administration suspended the Safe Third Country program on February 6, shortly after the inauguration. One program they would like to restart that I think makes sense is called the Central American Minors Program. They are going to restart that programnow, starting in March. This is a program where, during the Obama administration, if you had a family member, a parent--it had to be a parent or a guardian--in the United States legally, then you could come through this program called CAM, Central American Minors Program. I am glad they have restarted that program. That makes sense. I will tell you, over 5 years, only 3,500 kids were processed in that program. Again, your parent has to be in the United States legally. There are 3,500 kids coming across our border every 9 days right now. So the program is not going to solve all our problems, but it will help, and that is a good idea. We need to take a hard look at all of this, at all of these pull factors we talked about and certainly at the push factors. I will say that the Biden administration has proposed $4 billion to go to these three countries--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. As a Congress, we have appropriated and $3.6 billion has been spent in the last 5 years in these three countries. So we have done almost that much in the last 5 years, and yet, because of the corruption, because of the lack of transparency, because of the lack of rule of law, the money has not been as effectively spent as it should have been. So we have to be sure the money is conditioned upon reforms to actually improve the lives of the individuals in those countries. Despite the corruption, we need to cut through that and say: If you take this money, you have to commit to the reforms. Second, again, it should be contingent upon helping with our asylum system to be sure that we can deal with this surge that we are now facing. If the Biden administration takes these six recommended actions I have laid out today, I believe we would move toward bringing a quicker end to this crisis on the border, and we would be able to secure our southern border with regard to the drugs that are coming over and other contraband and be able to say that we, together, worked on this. I know this is a time where everybody is in their corner, the Republicans and Democrats, and it is impossible, it seems like, to make progress. But I think these are pretty sensible ideas, and the alternative is a bad one: that this is going to get worse. You will have more and more kids in detention centers. You will have more and more families released to communities in the United States where they don't come forward for their hearings. And it is something that discourages people about our immigration system. It just doesn't seem to work. It is certainly not working on the border today. So my hope is that these ideas or others--maybe others in this Chamber have better ideas, but hopefully they can be bipartisan, and we can get some of this stuff done and actually deal with the crisis we all know exists and we have a responsibility to face. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1675-9 | null | 2,628 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak this evening. I just returned from the southern border and want to give a brief report and talk about some potential ways forward to deal with what is happening on the Mexican border. I went with Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas and also with the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, my colleague from Michigan, and also with my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from Connecticut, who are the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. We had a bipartisan group and those of us who were involved on the authorizing side and on the appropriations side. You probably heard that the situation is bad, and it is. There is a record number of unaccompanied children coming to our border today, being let in, and ending up in Border Patrol detention facilities. Just yesterday, CBP reported that there were more than 15,500 unaccompanied kids in Federal custody. That is a record. But it is not just children. More than 100,000 migrants were apprehended in February alone. This is a 15-year record, representing a 28-percent increase just since January. All the numbers from March look even higher. We won't know the final numbers for another couple of weeks, but the point is, it is getting worse, not better. These numbers, by the way, are worse than the previous two surges at our southern border--both the 2014 surge, we all remember, during the Obama administration and the 2019 surge during the Trump administration. And, by the way, we have yet toreach the predicted peak because that normally would happen in April and May. In fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was with us on this trip, said that he believes this will be the worst year in 20 years for unlawful entry into the United States. However, the numbers only tell part of the story. This is also a humanitarian crisis. Migrants often face violence, sickness, and tough terrain on their dangerous journey north--predominantly, those from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Many are abused by the smugglers who charge them large amounts of money and bring them. Unfortunately, this is a crisis that could have been avoided. On day one, the Biden administration issued five Executive orders to overturn Trump policies and since has taken more than a half dozen additional actions to dismantle policies from the previous administration. These included a 100-day pause on all deportations; no longer using the COVID-19 healthcare emergency under title 42 of the United States Code to turn away unaccompanied children and some families; suspending the construction of the border fence and technologies, such as sensors and scanners used by the Trump administration to help our overworked Border Patrol agents secure key stretches of our southern border; and abandoning the migrant protection protocols, also known as ``Remain in Mexico,'' which required some asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico rather than in the United States while their claim for asylum is being processed; and, of course, proposing an amnesty bill on day one. The administration has every right to do that, but it creates a disincentive to push back on new migrants coming in who are trying to get into the United States before that amnesty might become law. It certainly does unless you also make it clear that you don't qualify for amnesty unless you are already here. And I think that is an important message that I hope will be part of any future discussions about any kind of an amnesty bill so it doesn't encourage more people to come. The Biden administration took these and other actions that incentivize people to head north but then said: Please don't come yet. We are not ready for you. It was no surprise that didn't work. An unprecedented number of children and families came to take advantage of the new policies. As I heard on the southern border over the last few days, actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the new administration were clear. These abrupt moves to dismantle the immigration policies that were working to provide a disincentive for unlawful migrations hit the green light to a lot of people seeking a better life, but it also gave the smugglers and the human trafficking groups in the Northern Triangle and in Mexico the ability to convince more families and more children to take the dangerous trip north. It gave them a narrative, and, of course, they used it to their full advantage. That has overwhelmed Border Patrol and our immigration system, in general, unequipped to handle the surge. I heard directly from Border Patrol agents about how the current surge of unaccompanied kids is draining resources and endangering not just those vulnerable kids but the security of our own border It was stunning to see people who unlawfully crossed the border during a ride-along patrol I joined on Thursday night. People just kept coming. The Border Patrol told me they are seeing an increase of about 150 to 200 percent of illegal entries in the El Paso sector, with many illegal crossers escaping into the United States because they have not apprehended them. Just as concerning, they told me unaccompanied children and families are being used by the smugglers as a distraction so the smugglers can more easily move dangerous and illicit substances across the border into our communities. While the Border Patrol is busy processing the kids and the families, which takes a while, the smugglers move. In fact, Customs and Border Protection has reported an increase of 360 percent in seizures of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is 50 times deadlier than heroin. There is no question that more of this is now coming across the border. It is already resulting in a surge of overdose deaths, by the way, over the past year during the COVID-19 pandemic. In my home State of Ohio and around the country, it looks like, sadly, we are in for a record year of overdose and overdose deaths, primarily from fentanyl and fentanyl being mixed with other drugs. Fentanyl used to come from China directly, mostly through our mail system. Now, increasingly, it is coming from Mexico, since we passed legislation here to stop it coming through our mail system. Down at the border, I also had the opportunity to visit with the facilities where they are currently holding unaccompanied kids. These children are being kept in tightly packed facilities, supervised by overworked Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, who should be out in the field. Due to a lack of space for children in the Department of Health and Human Services facilities, Border Patrol is having to detain unaccompanied kids for an average of about 137 hours, nearly double the 72-hour limit required by law. I am concerned about the well-being of these kids, as we all are, because when the system gets overwhelmed, people, and especially the kids, suffer. And the processing system right now is overwhelmed; it is overcrowded; it is irresponsible. It is a situation you would never want your own children to be in. Not only are these children crammed into the facilities that are, by their own rules and regulations, overcrowded, there is no testing for COVID-19 in these facilities. Current policy is going to result in tens of thousands more children being released into our communities, waiting for their immigration court cases. During previous surges at the border that overwhelmed our immigration system, HHS stopped doing background checks on sponsors for unaccompanied kids, and many fell into the custody of abusive human traffickers. In 2014, for example, HHS placed Guatemalan children with criminals who put the children into forced labor on an egg farm in my home State of Ohio, where they were forced to live and work in squalid conditions. It is an issue I have worked a long time on. Between 2015 and to 2020, as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led three bipartisan reports and hearings across two administrations that found repeated failures by the Federal Government to ensure the well-being of these vulnerable children once they were handed off to sponsors, as well as the fundamental refusal by HHS to accept that they were responsible for the welfare of these kids they placed with adults who are not their legal parent or guardian. Obviously, we are going to see a lot more pressure to get these kids out to as many sponsors as quickly as possible, and, again, I believe we are going to have some of these problems. Last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Responsibility for Unaccompanied Minors Act that will direct the Federal Government to meet the stringent requirements necessary to ensure children are not abused or exploited by their sponsors; that they show up for their asylum hearings to determine their eligibility to stay in the United States. These are necessary steps to address the current crisis at our border and safeguard these children. By the way, on the debate as to whether to call the chaos at the border a crisis or not, when I was on the border talking to Border Patrol agents, one of them told me, although he believes it is a crisis, that he is fine not calling it a crisis now because he knows it is going to get much worse, and he wants to have something to call it then. He wants to see, like all Americans, concrete actions and a change of course at the border, much more than having a debate about words. By the way, we should all sympathize with those migrants who want a better life for their families. I sympathize with them. I am sure we all do. There are millions of people around the world who want to come to our country. We have a legal immigration system that accepts a million people ayear. In addition to that, we accept refugees and those who apply for asylum. At the end of the day, those individuals coming to our southern border right now are making a rational choice to come to the border based on policy decisions by the Biden administration. What we need is a legal, orderly, and proper system to be sure the people follow the rules. The bottom line is, what I saw at the border is unsustainable, and, unfortunately, it is going to get worse. We are working against the clock to try to find a way forward. When the Biden administration changed the rules and dismantled the existing provisions that were keeping people from coming across the border, they could have put their own policies in place to try to deal with what everybody predicted was a surge that was coming. They didn't. More to the point, even if they weren't going to put their own policies in place, they should surely have waited until they had the facilities ready to handle the surge. They didn't. That is why you see this terrible overcrowding at Border Patrol detention facilities, holding these kids much longer than they should, and why you see HHS not having the beds prepared that they should have. By the way, some have said the Trump administration dismantled the asylum system. Well, because of the rules they had in place, there were very few people coming to apply for asylum. The facility I saw, which was a modern facility built just last year with $48 million of our taxpayer money, was built to try to deal with the next surge. Unfortunately, it is not big enough, and, again, it is overcrowded, so you have kids sleeping on the floor on thin foam mattresses with only a space blanket. None of them have been checked for COVID. They are living not 6 feet apart, as we are required to do here with social distancing, but inches apart and together. It is one thing to say we are going to change all these policies. It is another thing to say we are not going to put anything in its place or because that is OK--we are OK to have a surge come--at least to be prepared for that surge, and that is not what is happening. I believe there is a path forward for the Biden administration and the Congress to address this crisis in the short term; then work on medium- and long-term solutions to lower the risk of future surges. Here is what I would propose. First and foremost, the Biden administration should recommit to enforcing our immigration laws by providing overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and our Immigration and Customs the help they need to be able to ensure they can get what they need to be able to enforce the law. That means better pay for our Border Patrol. It also means better overtime provisions. We have legislation to do that. It also means ensuring that they have the tools they need to be able to protect the country. That means not stopping construction of the fence, which, by the way, is almost done. In the El Paso sector, I think there is 150 miles of fence totally--in total, 124 miles is already done. The parts that are not done, unfortunately, are some of the gates, so you have gaps. Border Patrol are very frustrated by this because they literally have to have people at the gaps because they can't monitor them as they can with the fence because with the fence, it takes people a while to get over the fence. With monitoring devices, which are, to me, more important even than the fence itself, they are able to do their jobs. They are also being told they can't continue the technology, so although there is 124 miles of fencing, there is much less technology than that. Yet they have been stopped from doing that as well. Let's give them what they need to be able to do their jobs. They are in an impossible situation. I am not talking about a new fence or a new wall, but at least for the part that has already been appropriated by Congress, let's complete it. Let's not leave these gaps. I literally saw the supplies they have. Construction material is on the ground, and the Border Patrol agents told me--these are rank-and-file Border Patrol agents: This is bad for morale. We see this stuff right there. If that could be put up to take the place of the temporary fencing migrants are able to simply push over or walk through, that would make our jobs much easier. No. 2, the asylum system needs to be changed immediately. Now, with a backlog of 1.2 million asylum seekers, they are waiting several years for court hearings to find out if they are qualified. During that time, they are living in the United States and often vanishing into the United States. We know from the data we have--and, by the way, the data is not very good on this--that only about half of them, maybe more or maybe less, are even showing up for their court cases. We know this because, for about 48 percent of those who are seeking asylum, there are now removal orders out for them for not showing up for their hearings. So about half of them have removal orders to be removed from the country because they haven't shown up for their hearings. Remember, this is a 1.2 million-person backlog, so it may be 3, 4, 5, 6 years before they get to their court cases. Is there any wonder some of these people are not showing up? Finally, at the very end of the process, after you go through all the adjudication, guess what the percentage of success would be for someone to achieve an asylum status: only 15 percent--15 percent--have a successful claim. So people are being told to go into the country and await their court cases, and 1.2 million people are doing that. It takes several years for that to happen. At the end of the day, only 15 percent will get asylum. Yet, again, many are not being removed even though there is a removal order out on them because the immigration system is overwhelmed, so they are focusing on those who have a criminal record, which I understand. This means, if you don't have a criminal record and you are in the United States, you know that it is unlikely you will actually be removed even if there is a removal order for you. So one policy change would be to simply resume a practice that was started in the last administration as a pilot and ended in November 2020. It is called the Prompt Asylum Claim Review process. An efficient and timely determination of who is eligible for asylum and who is not would really help. It would enable us to start reducing the number of migrants being held in custody and deter migrants who do not have a valid claim. You might say: Why not start with the 1.2 million backlog? That would be great. We should do that as well. We need more immigration judges. We need more lawyers involved in the process, on both sides, representing those who have the claim and representing the government. That would be good, but in the meantime, these rapid adjudications on the border with due process would have the effect of deterring the next migrant. Think about it. If you are just dealing with the last person on the list, the person who comes in most recently gets more of a deterrent than if you are dealing with the person who came in 4 or 5 years ago because they think: Well, if I get up there and make my claim and come into the United States and go out into one of the communities represented in this body, it will be 4 or 5 years before my court case comes up. Perhaps there will be amnesty during that period or something else or perhaps I will just stay. If you come to the border and you seek amnesty--you seek asylum--your claim will be adjudicated immediately, and you may receive asylum or you may not. Again, 15 percent is the number now. That is the best number we have, and that is from 2019. We don't have the numbers from 2020 yet Most think that is about what it will be. I think this is a good system. I don't know why it was ended in the Trump administration back in November. It shouldn't have been. I hope the new administration will take it up. As part of this, my colleagues from Texas and Arizona, Senator Cornyn and Senator Sinema, have suggested we stand up multiple regional processing centers to rapidly and fairly conduct asylum cases in one location. I support that. I think this idea is consistent with what I am talking about to discourage illegal immigration and to ensure that we have a quick decision with regard to asylum. Have all the Federal Agencies together--Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Justice Department, HHS--everybody together in one place, and quicklymake these decisions so that people aren't held for a long period of time, so they can have the decision made. I think it is worth the funding because it will be expensive. It will be expensive to hire the new immigration judges to have the system set up, but it is well worth it, in my view. Third, to deal with the asylum process, the Biden administration should look at the new Migrant Protection Protocols or ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. ``Remain in Mexico'' allowed us to keep our detention center populations down in the United States and asylum seekers close to the immigration courts while officials sorted out the claims. Getting rid of the policy served only to overcrowd our temporary housing and sent a lot more people into the interior, awaiting a hearing by an immigration judge. There are concerns about ``Remain in Mexico'' in terms of the conditions at some of the camps in Mexico. Although nongovernmental organizations play a substantial role there already, perhaps for those who are still in that process--and there are probably 45,000 people who are still in that process; there were initially maybe less, but, initially, there were about 75,000 people--a lot of people have just gone home because they don't want to remain in Mexico for their asylum claim. They would rather go back to their home in Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador--but for those who are there, perhaps there should be more oversight of those camps and more Federal funding provided through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR, and others to ensure those conditions are better. What the Biden administration is doing now is saying ``We are going to stop the program,'' and they are bringing people over the border. I saw this, the processing center. About 350 or 450 people a day are leaving the ``Remain in Mexico,'' the Migrant Protection Protocols Program, and coming into the United States. Those people are given the ability to come into the interior, so they are coming into communities in the United States. One thing you would hope they would get would be a notice as they go through the processing that says: Here is your court date. You have to show up at this court date. What we have learned in the last several days or what I learned down at the border is that they are not being given those court dates. They are given a piece of paper that has 24 ICE offices in the major metropolitan areas in America, and they are told: We don't know where you are going to end up. We don't know where you are going. You are welcome in the United States, but wherever you are going, please check into the ICE office in your region. My hope is we can at least get a system together where we don't, again, dismantle a program until we have something in its place to ensure people are going to their court dates to be able to have the asylum claims dealt with. On my trip to the border, I asked a reporter to come with me to the border wall because I believe it is important that the public know what is going on. I was surprised to learn that was the first time this reporter or other reporters had been able to kind of see what was going on for quite a while. They haven't been able to come into any of the detention facilities, including the processing center I talked about earlier, where the kids are crammed into--100 kids crammed into 1 room. I think the press should be able to see that because I think that will provide more transparency for all of us. My constituents don't know what is going on at the border, in part because the media haven't had that level of access. I know we have to protect the confidentiality of individual migrants, and I get that. I think that should be done. I think it can be done, but also by letting the media have that access, we would be able to have more transparency about the realities of what is going on along the border. So, fourth, I think the Biden administration should invest in finishing the work on the fence, as I said, but they should also work to enact something that is even more important than a fence, and that is to relieve the magnet. This is going to involve Congress. We did pass an immigration bill in this body with a strong provision called E-Verify several years ago. It basically says that for employers, there will be a sanction if you hire somebody who is not legal. The difference between E-Verify and some of the earlier programs that attempted to do that unsuccessfully is that E-Verify lets us use the new technologies we now have to ensure that fraudulent documents that are often used can be determined to be fraudulent. In other words, you can use technology--facial recognition and so on--to ensure that the employer knows for sure whether the person is legal or not. Again, this requires some Federal funding. Some of that software for small businesses, in particular, may be expensive, but to have an E-Verify Program that says you mandatorily--by the way, it is not mandatory right now either. It doesn't have the technology. It is not mandatory. You have to make it mandatory and say: If you want to hire somebody, you have to run them through the system. Make it as easy as possible to use the technology. In talking to the migrants I met--and my colleagues have spoken to many people who have come to this country, and I am sure they have had the same experience--when I asked them why they are coming here, they all have the same answer, basically, with slight variations, which is, as one guy told me from Guatemala, he can make 10 times as much money here. He cares about his family and their future. The economy is much better here, but that is because he knows he can get a job probably with a document, either a driver's license or a Social Security card that will be fraudulent, but he can buy it for 25 bucks. So we need a system here to stop the magnet. Don't put the Border Patrol and all of those involved--the immigration system is in such an impossible position that we have a wide-open system here where anybody can come and work. Let's do E-Verify. That is more important to me than any other enforcement tool that we have. Federal Reserve economists found that States that mandate the use of E-Verify reduce the number of likely unauthorized immigrants who stay in that State. Of course it does. Sixth--and this is the final one--the Biden administration should work with our Central American partners, including the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to discourage unlawful migration. They can do that by incentivizing migrants to apply for asylum in their countries of origin. Some have said this should be mandatory. To me, that seems to make sense. Maybe there is a reason it shouldn't be mandatory, but it certainly should be encouraged, and these countries should certainly offer this. We should provide more aid to the countries of Central America because there is a push factor. Everything I have talked about so far is the pull factors, bringing them in. But if we do that, that aid ought to be conditioned on them helping us to provide people the ability to seek asylum in their own country. Where they have such a fear of persecution that they can't do it in their own country, they should be able to do it in a third country. There was a program started in the Trump administration that never really got off the ground, and it was called Safe Third Country. The program with Guatemala was starting to work. Honduras and El Salvador had signed up, but it hadn't started to work yet. Mexico didn't provide it. But what it says basically is, if you cross through a third country, you have to seek asylum in that third country. Specifically with Guatemala--as you know, you have to go through Guatemala coming from Honduras or El Salvador or Ecuador or elsewhere. Why not have the asylum claims done there? Again, due process, yes, but don't make people take this long and treacherous journey up to the southern border of the United States. Don't make them go through this process of the detention facilities and so on. Have them seek asylum in their own country or in other countries. That, to me, seems like it makes a lot of sense. The Biden administration suspended the Safe Third Country program on February 6, shortly after the inauguration. One program they would like to restart that I think makes sense is called the Central American Minors Program. They are going to restart that programnow, starting in March. This is a program where, during the Obama administration, if you had a family member, a parent--it had to be a parent or a guardian--in the United States legally, then you could come through this program called CAM, Central American Minors Program. I am glad they have restarted that program. That makes sense. I will tell you, over 5 years, only 3,500 kids were processed in that program. Again, your parent has to be in the United States legally. There are 3,500 kids coming across our border every 9 days right now. So the program is not going to solve all our problems, but it will help, and that is a good idea. We need to take a hard look at all of this, at all of these pull factors we talked about and certainly at the push factors. I will say that the Biden administration has proposed $4 billion to go to these three countries--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. As a Congress, we have appropriated and $3.6 billion has been spent in the last 5 years in these three countries. So we have done almost that much in the last 5 years, and yet, because of the corruption, because of the lack of transparency, because of the lack of rule of law, the money has not been as effectively spent as it should have been. So we have to be sure the money is conditioned upon reforms to actually improve the lives of the individuals in those countries. Despite the corruption, we need to cut through that and say: If you take this money, you have to commit to the reforms. Second, again, it should be contingent upon helping with our asylum system to be sure that we can deal with this surge that we are now facing. If the Biden administration takes these six recommended actions I have laid out today, I believe we would move toward bringing a quicker end to this crisis on the border, and we would be able to secure our southern border with regard to the drugs that are coming over and other contraband and be able to say that we, together, worked on this. I know this is a time where everybody is in their corner, the Republicans and Democrats, and it is impossible, it seems like, to make progress. But I think these are pretty sensible ideas, and the alternative is a bad one: that this is going to get worse. You will have more and more kids in detention centers. You will have more and more families released to communities in the United States where they don't come forward for their hearings. And it is something that discourages people about our immigration system. It just doesn't seem to work. It is certainly not working on the border today. So my hope is that these ideas or others--maybe others in this Chamber have better ideas, but hopefully they can be bipartisan, and we can get some of this stuff done and actually deal with the crisis we all know exists and we have a responsibility to face. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1675-9 | null | 2,629 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak this evening. I just returned from the southern border and want to give a brief report and talk about some potential ways forward to deal with what is happening on the Mexican border. I went with Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas and also with the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, my colleague from Michigan, and also with my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from Connecticut, who are the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. We had a bipartisan group and those of us who were involved on the authorizing side and on the appropriations side. You probably heard that the situation is bad, and it is. There is a record number of unaccompanied children coming to our border today, being let in, and ending up in Border Patrol detention facilities. Just yesterday, CBP reported that there were more than 15,500 unaccompanied kids in Federal custody. That is a record. But it is not just children. More than 100,000 migrants were apprehended in February alone. This is a 15-year record, representing a 28-percent increase just since January. All the numbers from March look even higher. We won't know the final numbers for another couple of weeks, but the point is, it is getting worse, not better. These numbers, by the way, are worse than the previous two surges at our southern border--both the 2014 surge, we all remember, during the Obama administration and the 2019 surge during the Trump administration. And, by the way, we have yet toreach the predicted peak because that normally would happen in April and May. In fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was with us on this trip, said that he believes this will be the worst year in 20 years for unlawful entry into the United States. However, the numbers only tell part of the story. This is also a humanitarian crisis. Migrants often face violence, sickness, and tough terrain on their dangerous journey north--predominantly, those from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Many are abused by the smugglers who charge them large amounts of money and bring them. Unfortunately, this is a crisis that could have been avoided. On day one, the Biden administration issued five Executive orders to overturn Trump policies and since has taken more than a half dozen additional actions to dismantle policies from the previous administration. These included a 100-day pause on all deportations; no longer using the COVID-19 healthcare emergency under title 42 of the United States Code to turn away unaccompanied children and some families; suspending the construction of the border fence and technologies, such as sensors and scanners used by the Trump administration to help our overworked Border Patrol agents secure key stretches of our southern border; and abandoning the migrant protection protocols, also known as ``Remain in Mexico,'' which required some asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico rather than in the United States while their claim for asylum is being processed; and, of course, proposing an amnesty bill on day one. The administration has every right to do that, but it creates a disincentive to push back on new migrants coming in who are trying to get into the United States before that amnesty might become law. It certainly does unless you also make it clear that you don't qualify for amnesty unless you are already here. And I think that is an important message that I hope will be part of any future discussions about any kind of an amnesty bill so it doesn't encourage more people to come. The Biden administration took these and other actions that incentivize people to head north but then said: Please don't come yet. We are not ready for you. It was no surprise that didn't work. An unprecedented number of children and families came to take advantage of the new policies. As I heard on the southern border over the last few days, actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the new administration were clear. These abrupt moves to dismantle the immigration policies that were working to provide a disincentive for unlawful migrations hit the green light to a lot of people seeking a better life, but it also gave the smugglers and the human trafficking groups in the Northern Triangle and in Mexico the ability to convince more families and more children to take the dangerous trip north. It gave them a narrative, and, of course, they used it to their full advantage. That has overwhelmed Border Patrol and our immigration system, in general, unequipped to handle the surge. I heard directly from Border Patrol agents about how the current surge of unaccompanied kids is draining resources and endangering not just those vulnerable kids but the security of our own border It was stunning to see people who unlawfully crossed the border during a ride-along patrol I joined on Thursday night. People just kept coming. The Border Patrol told me they are seeing an increase of about 150 to 200 percent of illegal entries in the El Paso sector, with many illegal crossers escaping into the United States because they have not apprehended them. Just as concerning, they told me unaccompanied children and families are being used by the smugglers as a distraction so the smugglers can more easily move dangerous and illicit substances across the border into our communities. While the Border Patrol is busy processing the kids and the families, which takes a while, the smugglers move. In fact, Customs and Border Protection has reported an increase of 360 percent in seizures of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is 50 times deadlier than heroin. There is no question that more of this is now coming across the border. It is already resulting in a surge of overdose deaths, by the way, over the past year during the COVID-19 pandemic. In my home State of Ohio and around the country, it looks like, sadly, we are in for a record year of overdose and overdose deaths, primarily from fentanyl and fentanyl being mixed with other drugs. Fentanyl used to come from China directly, mostly through our mail system. Now, increasingly, it is coming from Mexico, since we passed legislation here to stop it coming through our mail system. Down at the border, I also had the opportunity to visit with the facilities where they are currently holding unaccompanied kids. These children are being kept in tightly packed facilities, supervised by overworked Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, who should be out in the field. Due to a lack of space for children in the Department of Health and Human Services facilities, Border Patrol is having to detain unaccompanied kids for an average of about 137 hours, nearly double the 72-hour limit required by law. I am concerned about the well-being of these kids, as we all are, because when the system gets overwhelmed, people, and especially the kids, suffer. And the processing system right now is overwhelmed; it is overcrowded; it is irresponsible. It is a situation you would never want your own children to be in. Not only are these children crammed into the facilities that are, by their own rules and regulations, overcrowded, there is no testing for COVID-19 in these facilities. Current policy is going to result in tens of thousands more children being released into our communities, waiting for their immigration court cases. During previous surges at the border that overwhelmed our immigration system, HHS stopped doing background checks on sponsors for unaccompanied kids, and many fell into the custody of abusive human traffickers. In 2014, for example, HHS placed Guatemalan children with criminals who put the children into forced labor on an egg farm in my home State of Ohio, where they were forced to live and work in squalid conditions. It is an issue I have worked a long time on. Between 2015 and to 2020, as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led three bipartisan reports and hearings across two administrations that found repeated failures by the Federal Government to ensure the well-being of these vulnerable children once they were handed off to sponsors, as well as the fundamental refusal by HHS to accept that they were responsible for the welfare of these kids they placed with adults who are not their legal parent or guardian. Obviously, we are going to see a lot more pressure to get these kids out to as many sponsors as quickly as possible, and, again, I believe we are going to have some of these problems. Last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Responsibility for Unaccompanied Minors Act that will direct the Federal Government to meet the stringent requirements necessary to ensure children are not abused or exploited by their sponsors; that they show up for their asylum hearings to determine their eligibility to stay in the United States. These are necessary steps to address the current crisis at our border and safeguard these children. By the way, on the debate as to whether to call the chaos at the border a crisis or not, when I was on the border talking to Border Patrol agents, one of them told me, although he believes it is a crisis, that he is fine not calling it a crisis now because he knows it is going to get much worse, and he wants to have something to call it then. He wants to see, like all Americans, concrete actions and a change of course at the border, much more than having a debate about words. By the way, we should all sympathize with those migrants who want a better life for their families. I sympathize with them. I am sure we all do. There are millions of people around the world who want to come to our country. We have a legal immigration system that accepts a million people ayear. In addition to that, we accept refugees and those who apply for asylum. At the end of the day, those individuals coming to our southern border right now are making a rational choice to come to the border based on policy decisions by the Biden administration. What we need is a legal, orderly, and proper system to be sure the people follow the rules. The bottom line is, what I saw at the border is unsustainable, and, unfortunately, it is going to get worse. We are working against the clock to try to find a way forward. When the Biden administration changed the rules and dismantled the existing provisions that were keeping people from coming across the border, they could have put their own policies in place to try to deal with what everybody predicted was a surge that was coming. They didn't. More to the point, even if they weren't going to put their own policies in place, they should surely have waited until they had the facilities ready to handle the surge. They didn't. That is why you see this terrible overcrowding at Border Patrol detention facilities, holding these kids much longer than they should, and why you see HHS not having the beds prepared that they should have. By the way, some have said the Trump administration dismantled the asylum system. Well, because of the rules they had in place, there were very few people coming to apply for asylum. The facility I saw, which was a modern facility built just last year with $48 million of our taxpayer money, was built to try to deal with the next surge. Unfortunately, it is not big enough, and, again, it is overcrowded, so you have kids sleeping on the floor on thin foam mattresses with only a space blanket. None of them have been checked for COVID. They are living not 6 feet apart, as we are required to do here with social distancing, but inches apart and together. It is one thing to say we are going to change all these policies. It is another thing to say we are not going to put anything in its place or because that is OK--we are OK to have a surge come--at least to be prepared for that surge, and that is not what is happening. I believe there is a path forward for the Biden administration and the Congress to address this crisis in the short term; then work on medium- and long-term solutions to lower the risk of future surges. Here is what I would propose. First and foremost, the Biden administration should recommit to enforcing our immigration laws by providing overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and our Immigration and Customs the help they need to be able to ensure they can get what they need to be able to enforce the law. That means better pay for our Border Patrol. It also means better overtime provisions. We have legislation to do that. It also means ensuring that they have the tools they need to be able to protect the country. That means not stopping construction of the fence, which, by the way, is almost done. In the El Paso sector, I think there is 150 miles of fence totally--in total, 124 miles is already done. The parts that are not done, unfortunately, are some of the gates, so you have gaps. Border Patrol are very frustrated by this because they literally have to have people at the gaps because they can't monitor them as they can with the fence because with the fence, it takes people a while to get over the fence. With monitoring devices, which are, to me, more important even than the fence itself, they are able to do their jobs. They are also being told they can't continue the technology, so although there is 124 miles of fencing, there is much less technology than that. Yet they have been stopped from doing that as well. Let's give them what they need to be able to do their jobs. They are in an impossible situation. I am not talking about a new fence or a new wall, but at least for the part that has already been appropriated by Congress, let's complete it. Let's not leave these gaps. I literally saw the supplies they have. Construction material is on the ground, and the Border Patrol agents told me--these are rank-and-file Border Patrol agents: This is bad for morale. We see this stuff right there. If that could be put up to take the place of the temporary fencing migrants are able to simply push over or walk through, that would make our jobs much easier. No. 2, the asylum system needs to be changed immediately. Now, with a backlog of 1.2 million asylum seekers, they are waiting several years for court hearings to find out if they are qualified. During that time, they are living in the United States and often vanishing into the United States. We know from the data we have--and, by the way, the data is not very good on this--that only about half of them, maybe more or maybe less, are even showing up for their court cases. We know this because, for about 48 percent of those who are seeking asylum, there are now removal orders out for them for not showing up for their hearings. So about half of them have removal orders to be removed from the country because they haven't shown up for their hearings. Remember, this is a 1.2 million-person backlog, so it may be 3, 4, 5, 6 years before they get to their court cases. Is there any wonder some of these people are not showing up? Finally, at the very end of the process, after you go through all the adjudication, guess what the percentage of success would be for someone to achieve an asylum status: only 15 percent--15 percent--have a successful claim. So people are being told to go into the country and await their court cases, and 1.2 million people are doing that. It takes several years for that to happen. At the end of the day, only 15 percent will get asylum. Yet, again, many are not being removed even though there is a removal order out on them because the immigration system is overwhelmed, so they are focusing on those who have a criminal record, which I understand. This means, if you don't have a criminal record and you are in the United States, you know that it is unlikely you will actually be removed even if there is a removal order for you. So one policy change would be to simply resume a practice that was started in the last administration as a pilot and ended in November 2020. It is called the Prompt Asylum Claim Review process. An efficient and timely determination of who is eligible for asylum and who is not would really help. It would enable us to start reducing the number of migrants being held in custody and deter migrants who do not have a valid claim. You might say: Why not start with the 1.2 million backlog? That would be great. We should do that as well. We need more immigration judges. We need more lawyers involved in the process, on both sides, representing those who have the claim and representing the government. That would be good, but in the meantime, these rapid adjudications on the border with due process would have the effect of deterring the next migrant. Think about it. If you are just dealing with the last person on the list, the person who comes in most recently gets more of a deterrent than if you are dealing with the person who came in 4 or 5 years ago because they think: Well, if I get up there and make my claim and come into the United States and go out into one of the communities represented in this body, it will be 4 or 5 years before my court case comes up. Perhaps there will be amnesty during that period or something else or perhaps I will just stay. If you come to the border and you seek amnesty--you seek asylum--your claim will be adjudicated immediately, and you may receive asylum or you may not. Again, 15 percent is the number now. That is the best number we have, and that is from 2019. We don't have the numbers from 2020 yet Most think that is about what it will be. I think this is a good system. I don't know why it was ended in the Trump administration back in November. It shouldn't have been. I hope the new administration will take it up. As part of this, my colleagues from Texas and Arizona, Senator Cornyn and Senator Sinema, have suggested we stand up multiple regional processing centers to rapidly and fairly conduct asylum cases in one location. I support that. I think this idea is consistent with what I am talking about to discourage illegal immigration and to ensure that we have a quick decision with regard to asylum. Have all the Federal Agencies together--Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Justice Department, HHS--everybody together in one place, and quicklymake these decisions so that people aren't held for a long period of time, so they can have the decision made. I think it is worth the funding because it will be expensive. It will be expensive to hire the new immigration judges to have the system set up, but it is well worth it, in my view. Third, to deal with the asylum process, the Biden administration should look at the new Migrant Protection Protocols or ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. ``Remain in Mexico'' allowed us to keep our detention center populations down in the United States and asylum seekers close to the immigration courts while officials sorted out the claims. Getting rid of the policy served only to overcrowd our temporary housing and sent a lot more people into the interior, awaiting a hearing by an immigration judge. There are concerns about ``Remain in Mexico'' in terms of the conditions at some of the camps in Mexico. Although nongovernmental organizations play a substantial role there already, perhaps for those who are still in that process--and there are probably 45,000 people who are still in that process; there were initially maybe less, but, initially, there were about 75,000 people--a lot of people have just gone home because they don't want to remain in Mexico for their asylum claim. They would rather go back to their home in Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador--but for those who are there, perhaps there should be more oversight of those camps and more Federal funding provided through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR, and others to ensure those conditions are better. What the Biden administration is doing now is saying ``We are going to stop the program,'' and they are bringing people over the border. I saw this, the processing center. About 350 or 450 people a day are leaving the ``Remain in Mexico,'' the Migrant Protection Protocols Program, and coming into the United States. Those people are given the ability to come into the interior, so they are coming into communities in the United States. One thing you would hope they would get would be a notice as they go through the processing that says: Here is your court date. You have to show up at this court date. What we have learned in the last several days or what I learned down at the border is that they are not being given those court dates. They are given a piece of paper that has 24 ICE offices in the major metropolitan areas in America, and they are told: We don't know where you are going to end up. We don't know where you are going. You are welcome in the United States, but wherever you are going, please check into the ICE office in your region. My hope is we can at least get a system together where we don't, again, dismantle a program until we have something in its place to ensure people are going to their court dates to be able to have the asylum claims dealt with. On my trip to the border, I asked a reporter to come with me to the border wall because I believe it is important that the public know what is going on. I was surprised to learn that was the first time this reporter or other reporters had been able to kind of see what was going on for quite a while. They haven't been able to come into any of the detention facilities, including the processing center I talked about earlier, where the kids are crammed into--100 kids crammed into 1 room. I think the press should be able to see that because I think that will provide more transparency for all of us. My constituents don't know what is going on at the border, in part because the media haven't had that level of access. I know we have to protect the confidentiality of individual migrants, and I get that. I think that should be done. I think it can be done, but also by letting the media have that access, we would be able to have more transparency about the realities of what is going on along the border. So, fourth, I think the Biden administration should invest in finishing the work on the fence, as I said, but they should also work to enact something that is even more important than a fence, and that is to relieve the magnet. This is going to involve Congress. We did pass an immigration bill in this body with a strong provision called E-Verify several years ago. It basically says that for employers, there will be a sanction if you hire somebody who is not legal. The difference between E-Verify and some of the earlier programs that attempted to do that unsuccessfully is that E-Verify lets us use the new technologies we now have to ensure that fraudulent documents that are often used can be determined to be fraudulent. In other words, you can use technology--facial recognition and so on--to ensure that the employer knows for sure whether the person is legal or not. Again, this requires some Federal funding. Some of that software for small businesses, in particular, may be expensive, but to have an E-Verify Program that says you mandatorily--by the way, it is not mandatory right now either. It doesn't have the technology. It is not mandatory. You have to make it mandatory and say: If you want to hire somebody, you have to run them through the system. Make it as easy as possible to use the technology. In talking to the migrants I met--and my colleagues have spoken to many people who have come to this country, and I am sure they have had the same experience--when I asked them why they are coming here, they all have the same answer, basically, with slight variations, which is, as one guy told me from Guatemala, he can make 10 times as much money here. He cares about his family and their future. The economy is much better here, but that is because he knows he can get a job probably with a document, either a driver's license or a Social Security card that will be fraudulent, but he can buy it for 25 bucks. So we need a system here to stop the magnet. Don't put the Border Patrol and all of those involved--the immigration system is in such an impossible position that we have a wide-open system here where anybody can come and work. Let's do E-Verify. That is more important to me than any other enforcement tool that we have. Federal Reserve economists found that States that mandate the use of E-Verify reduce the number of likely unauthorized immigrants who stay in that State. Of course it does. Sixth--and this is the final one--the Biden administration should work with our Central American partners, including the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to discourage unlawful migration. They can do that by incentivizing migrants to apply for asylum in their countries of origin. Some have said this should be mandatory. To me, that seems to make sense. Maybe there is a reason it shouldn't be mandatory, but it certainly should be encouraged, and these countries should certainly offer this. We should provide more aid to the countries of Central America because there is a push factor. Everything I have talked about so far is the pull factors, bringing them in. But if we do that, that aid ought to be conditioned on them helping us to provide people the ability to seek asylum in their own country. Where they have such a fear of persecution that they can't do it in their own country, they should be able to do it in a third country. There was a program started in the Trump administration that never really got off the ground, and it was called Safe Third Country. The program with Guatemala was starting to work. Honduras and El Salvador had signed up, but it hadn't started to work yet. Mexico didn't provide it. But what it says basically is, if you cross through a third country, you have to seek asylum in that third country. Specifically with Guatemala--as you know, you have to go through Guatemala coming from Honduras or El Salvador or Ecuador or elsewhere. Why not have the asylum claims done there? Again, due process, yes, but don't make people take this long and treacherous journey up to the southern border of the United States. Don't make them go through this process of the detention facilities and so on. Have them seek asylum in their own country or in other countries. That, to me, seems like it makes a lot of sense. The Biden administration suspended the Safe Third Country program on February 6, shortly after the inauguration. One program they would like to restart that I think makes sense is called the Central American Minors Program. They are going to restart that programnow, starting in March. This is a program where, during the Obama administration, if you had a family member, a parent--it had to be a parent or a guardian--in the United States legally, then you could come through this program called CAM, Central American Minors Program. I am glad they have restarted that program. That makes sense. I will tell you, over 5 years, only 3,500 kids were processed in that program. Again, your parent has to be in the United States legally. There are 3,500 kids coming across our border every 9 days right now. So the program is not going to solve all our problems, but it will help, and that is a good idea. We need to take a hard look at all of this, at all of these pull factors we talked about and certainly at the push factors. I will say that the Biden administration has proposed $4 billion to go to these three countries--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. As a Congress, we have appropriated and $3.6 billion has been spent in the last 5 years in these three countries. So we have done almost that much in the last 5 years, and yet, because of the corruption, because of the lack of transparency, because of the lack of rule of law, the money has not been as effectively spent as it should have been. So we have to be sure the money is conditioned upon reforms to actually improve the lives of the individuals in those countries. Despite the corruption, we need to cut through that and say: If you take this money, you have to commit to the reforms. Second, again, it should be contingent upon helping with our asylum system to be sure that we can deal with this surge that we are now facing. If the Biden administration takes these six recommended actions I have laid out today, I believe we would move toward bringing a quicker end to this crisis on the border, and we would be able to secure our southern border with regard to the drugs that are coming over and other contraband and be able to say that we, together, worked on this. I know this is a time where everybody is in their corner, the Republicans and Democrats, and it is impossible, it seems like, to make progress. But I think these are pretty sensible ideas, and the alternative is a bad one: that this is going to get worse. You will have more and more kids in detention centers. You will have more and more families released to communities in the United States where they don't come forward for their hearings. And it is something that discourages people about our immigration system. It just doesn't seem to work. It is certainly not working on the border today. So my hope is that these ideas or others--maybe others in this Chamber have better ideas, but hopefully they can be bipartisan, and we can get some of this stuff done and actually deal with the crisis we all know exists and we have a responsibility to face. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1675-9 | null | 2,630 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak this evening. I just returned from the southern border and want to give a brief report and talk about some potential ways forward to deal with what is happening on the Mexican border. I went with Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas and also with the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, my colleague from Michigan, and also with my colleague from West Virginia and my colleague from Connecticut, who are the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Committee. We had a bipartisan group and those of us who were involved on the authorizing side and on the appropriations side. You probably heard that the situation is bad, and it is. There is a record number of unaccompanied children coming to our border today, being let in, and ending up in Border Patrol detention facilities. Just yesterday, CBP reported that there were more than 15,500 unaccompanied kids in Federal custody. That is a record. But it is not just children. More than 100,000 migrants were apprehended in February alone. This is a 15-year record, representing a 28-percent increase just since January. All the numbers from March look even higher. We won't know the final numbers for another couple of weeks, but the point is, it is getting worse, not better. These numbers, by the way, are worse than the previous two surges at our southern border--both the 2014 surge, we all remember, during the Obama administration and the 2019 surge during the Trump administration. And, by the way, we have yet toreach the predicted peak because that normally would happen in April and May. In fact, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was with us on this trip, said that he believes this will be the worst year in 20 years for unlawful entry into the United States. However, the numbers only tell part of the story. This is also a humanitarian crisis. Migrants often face violence, sickness, and tough terrain on their dangerous journey north--predominantly, those from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador. Many are abused by the smugglers who charge them large amounts of money and bring them. Unfortunately, this is a crisis that could have been avoided. On day one, the Biden administration issued five Executive orders to overturn Trump policies and since has taken more than a half dozen additional actions to dismantle policies from the previous administration. These included a 100-day pause on all deportations; no longer using the COVID-19 healthcare emergency under title 42 of the United States Code to turn away unaccompanied children and some families; suspending the construction of the border fence and technologies, such as sensors and scanners used by the Trump administration to help our overworked Border Patrol agents secure key stretches of our southern border; and abandoning the migrant protection protocols, also known as ``Remain in Mexico,'' which required some asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico rather than in the United States while their claim for asylum is being processed; and, of course, proposing an amnesty bill on day one. The administration has every right to do that, but it creates a disincentive to push back on new migrants coming in who are trying to get into the United States before that amnesty might become law. It certainly does unless you also make it clear that you don't qualify for amnesty unless you are already here. And I think that is an important message that I hope will be part of any future discussions about any kind of an amnesty bill so it doesn't encourage more people to come. The Biden administration took these and other actions that incentivize people to head north but then said: Please don't come yet. We are not ready for you. It was no surprise that didn't work. An unprecedented number of children and families came to take advantage of the new policies. As I heard on the southern border over the last few days, actions speak louder than words. And the actions of the new administration were clear. These abrupt moves to dismantle the immigration policies that were working to provide a disincentive for unlawful migrations hit the green light to a lot of people seeking a better life, but it also gave the smugglers and the human trafficking groups in the Northern Triangle and in Mexico the ability to convince more families and more children to take the dangerous trip north. It gave them a narrative, and, of course, they used it to their full advantage. That has overwhelmed Border Patrol and our immigration system, in general, unequipped to handle the surge. I heard directly from Border Patrol agents about how the current surge of unaccompanied kids is draining resources and endangering not just those vulnerable kids but the security of our own border It was stunning to see people who unlawfully crossed the border during a ride-along patrol I joined on Thursday night. People just kept coming. The Border Patrol told me they are seeing an increase of about 150 to 200 percent of illegal entries in the El Paso sector, with many illegal crossers escaping into the United States because they have not apprehended them. Just as concerning, they told me unaccompanied children and families are being used by the smugglers as a distraction so the smugglers can more easily move dangerous and illicit substances across the border into our communities. While the Border Patrol is busy processing the kids and the families, which takes a while, the smugglers move. In fact, Customs and Border Protection has reported an increase of 360 percent in seizures of the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl, which is 50 times deadlier than heroin. There is no question that more of this is now coming across the border. It is already resulting in a surge of overdose deaths, by the way, over the past year during the COVID-19 pandemic. In my home State of Ohio and around the country, it looks like, sadly, we are in for a record year of overdose and overdose deaths, primarily from fentanyl and fentanyl being mixed with other drugs. Fentanyl used to come from China directly, mostly through our mail system. Now, increasingly, it is coming from Mexico, since we passed legislation here to stop it coming through our mail system. Down at the border, I also had the opportunity to visit with the facilities where they are currently holding unaccompanied kids. These children are being kept in tightly packed facilities, supervised by overworked Border Patrol agents, law enforcement, who should be out in the field. Due to a lack of space for children in the Department of Health and Human Services facilities, Border Patrol is having to detain unaccompanied kids for an average of about 137 hours, nearly double the 72-hour limit required by law. I am concerned about the well-being of these kids, as we all are, because when the system gets overwhelmed, people, and especially the kids, suffer. And the processing system right now is overwhelmed; it is overcrowded; it is irresponsible. It is a situation you would never want your own children to be in. Not only are these children crammed into the facilities that are, by their own rules and regulations, overcrowded, there is no testing for COVID-19 in these facilities. Current policy is going to result in tens of thousands more children being released into our communities, waiting for their immigration court cases. During previous surges at the border that overwhelmed our immigration system, HHS stopped doing background checks on sponsors for unaccompanied kids, and many fell into the custody of abusive human traffickers. In 2014, for example, HHS placed Guatemalan children with criminals who put the children into forced labor on an egg farm in my home State of Ohio, where they were forced to live and work in squalid conditions. It is an issue I have worked a long time on. Between 2015 and to 2020, as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, I led three bipartisan reports and hearings across two administrations that found repeated failures by the Federal Government to ensure the well-being of these vulnerable children once they were handed off to sponsors, as well as the fundamental refusal by HHS to accept that they were responsible for the welfare of these kids they placed with adults who are not their legal parent or guardian. Obviously, we are going to see a lot more pressure to get these kids out to as many sponsors as quickly as possible, and, again, I believe we are going to have some of these problems. Last week, I introduced bipartisan legislation called the Responsibility for Unaccompanied Minors Act that will direct the Federal Government to meet the stringent requirements necessary to ensure children are not abused or exploited by their sponsors; that they show up for their asylum hearings to determine their eligibility to stay in the United States. These are necessary steps to address the current crisis at our border and safeguard these children. By the way, on the debate as to whether to call the chaos at the border a crisis or not, when I was on the border talking to Border Patrol agents, one of them told me, although he believes it is a crisis, that he is fine not calling it a crisis now because he knows it is going to get much worse, and he wants to have something to call it then. He wants to see, like all Americans, concrete actions and a change of course at the border, much more than having a debate about words. By the way, we should all sympathize with those migrants who want a better life for their families. I sympathize with them. I am sure we all do. There are millions of people around the world who want to come to our country. We have a legal immigration system that accepts a million people ayear. In addition to that, we accept refugees and those who apply for asylum. At the end of the day, those individuals coming to our southern border right now are making a rational choice to come to the border based on policy decisions by the Biden administration. What we need is a legal, orderly, and proper system to be sure the people follow the rules. The bottom line is, what I saw at the border is unsustainable, and, unfortunately, it is going to get worse. We are working against the clock to try to find a way forward. When the Biden administration changed the rules and dismantled the existing provisions that were keeping people from coming across the border, they could have put their own policies in place to try to deal with what everybody predicted was a surge that was coming. They didn't. More to the point, even if they weren't going to put their own policies in place, they should surely have waited until they had the facilities ready to handle the surge. They didn't. That is why you see this terrible overcrowding at Border Patrol detention facilities, holding these kids much longer than they should, and why you see HHS not having the beds prepared that they should have. By the way, some have said the Trump administration dismantled the asylum system. Well, because of the rules they had in place, there were very few people coming to apply for asylum. The facility I saw, which was a modern facility built just last year with $48 million of our taxpayer money, was built to try to deal with the next surge. Unfortunately, it is not big enough, and, again, it is overcrowded, so you have kids sleeping on the floor on thin foam mattresses with only a space blanket. None of them have been checked for COVID. They are living not 6 feet apart, as we are required to do here with social distancing, but inches apart and together. It is one thing to say we are going to change all these policies. It is another thing to say we are not going to put anything in its place or because that is OK--we are OK to have a surge come--at least to be prepared for that surge, and that is not what is happening. I believe there is a path forward for the Biden administration and the Congress to address this crisis in the short term; then work on medium- and long-term solutions to lower the risk of future surges. Here is what I would propose. First and foremost, the Biden administration should recommit to enforcing our immigration laws by providing overwhelmed Border Patrol agents and our Immigration and Customs the help they need to be able to ensure they can get what they need to be able to enforce the law. That means better pay for our Border Patrol. It also means better overtime provisions. We have legislation to do that. It also means ensuring that they have the tools they need to be able to protect the country. That means not stopping construction of the fence, which, by the way, is almost done. In the El Paso sector, I think there is 150 miles of fence totally--in total, 124 miles is already done. The parts that are not done, unfortunately, are some of the gates, so you have gaps. Border Patrol are very frustrated by this because they literally have to have people at the gaps because they can't monitor them as they can with the fence because with the fence, it takes people a while to get over the fence. With monitoring devices, which are, to me, more important even than the fence itself, they are able to do their jobs. They are also being told they can't continue the technology, so although there is 124 miles of fencing, there is much less technology than that. Yet they have been stopped from doing that as well. Let's give them what they need to be able to do their jobs. They are in an impossible situation. I am not talking about a new fence or a new wall, but at least for the part that has already been appropriated by Congress, let's complete it. Let's not leave these gaps. I literally saw the supplies they have. Construction material is on the ground, and the Border Patrol agents told me--these are rank-and-file Border Patrol agents: This is bad for morale. We see this stuff right there. If that could be put up to take the place of the temporary fencing migrants are able to simply push over or walk through, that would make our jobs much easier. No. 2, the asylum system needs to be changed immediately. Now, with a backlog of 1.2 million asylum seekers, they are waiting several years for court hearings to find out if they are qualified. During that time, they are living in the United States and often vanishing into the United States. We know from the data we have--and, by the way, the data is not very good on this--that only about half of them, maybe more or maybe less, are even showing up for their court cases. We know this because, for about 48 percent of those who are seeking asylum, there are now removal orders out for them for not showing up for their hearings. So about half of them have removal orders to be removed from the country because they haven't shown up for their hearings. Remember, this is a 1.2 million-person backlog, so it may be 3, 4, 5, 6 years before they get to their court cases. Is there any wonder some of these people are not showing up? Finally, at the very end of the process, after you go through all the adjudication, guess what the percentage of success would be for someone to achieve an asylum status: only 15 percent--15 percent--have a successful claim. So people are being told to go into the country and await their court cases, and 1.2 million people are doing that. It takes several years for that to happen. At the end of the day, only 15 percent will get asylum. Yet, again, many are not being removed even though there is a removal order out on them because the immigration system is overwhelmed, so they are focusing on those who have a criminal record, which I understand. This means, if you don't have a criminal record and you are in the United States, you know that it is unlikely you will actually be removed even if there is a removal order for you. So one policy change would be to simply resume a practice that was started in the last administration as a pilot and ended in November 2020. It is called the Prompt Asylum Claim Review process. An efficient and timely determination of who is eligible for asylum and who is not would really help. It would enable us to start reducing the number of migrants being held in custody and deter migrants who do not have a valid claim. You might say: Why not start with the 1.2 million backlog? That would be great. We should do that as well. We need more immigration judges. We need more lawyers involved in the process, on both sides, representing those who have the claim and representing the government. That would be good, but in the meantime, these rapid adjudications on the border with due process would have the effect of deterring the next migrant. Think about it. If you are just dealing with the last person on the list, the person who comes in most recently gets more of a deterrent than if you are dealing with the person who came in 4 or 5 years ago because they think: Well, if I get up there and make my claim and come into the United States and go out into one of the communities represented in this body, it will be 4 or 5 years before my court case comes up. Perhaps there will be amnesty during that period or something else or perhaps I will just stay. If you come to the border and you seek amnesty--you seek asylum--your claim will be adjudicated immediately, and you may receive asylum or you may not. Again, 15 percent is the number now. That is the best number we have, and that is from 2019. We don't have the numbers from 2020 yet Most think that is about what it will be. I think this is a good system. I don't know why it was ended in the Trump administration back in November. It shouldn't have been. I hope the new administration will take it up. As part of this, my colleagues from Texas and Arizona, Senator Cornyn and Senator Sinema, have suggested we stand up multiple regional processing centers to rapidly and fairly conduct asylum cases in one location. I support that. I think this idea is consistent with what I am talking about to discourage illegal immigration and to ensure that we have a quick decision with regard to asylum. Have all the Federal Agencies together--Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, ICE, the Justice Department, HHS--everybody together in one place, and quicklymake these decisions so that people aren't held for a long period of time, so they can have the decision made. I think it is worth the funding because it will be expensive. It will be expensive to hire the new immigration judges to have the system set up, but it is well worth it, in my view. Third, to deal with the asylum process, the Biden administration should look at the new Migrant Protection Protocols or ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. ``Remain in Mexico'' allowed us to keep our detention center populations down in the United States and asylum seekers close to the immigration courts while officials sorted out the claims. Getting rid of the policy served only to overcrowd our temporary housing and sent a lot more people into the interior, awaiting a hearing by an immigration judge. There are concerns about ``Remain in Mexico'' in terms of the conditions at some of the camps in Mexico. Although nongovernmental organizations play a substantial role there already, perhaps for those who are still in that process--and there are probably 45,000 people who are still in that process; there were initially maybe less, but, initially, there were about 75,000 people--a lot of people have just gone home because they don't want to remain in Mexico for their asylum claim. They would rather go back to their home in Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador--but for those who are there, perhaps there should be more oversight of those camps and more Federal funding provided through the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, HCR, and others to ensure those conditions are better. What the Biden administration is doing now is saying ``We are going to stop the program,'' and they are bringing people over the border. I saw this, the processing center. About 350 or 450 people a day are leaving the ``Remain in Mexico,'' the Migrant Protection Protocols Program, and coming into the United States. Those people are given the ability to come into the interior, so they are coming into communities in the United States. One thing you would hope they would get would be a notice as they go through the processing that says: Here is your court date. You have to show up at this court date. What we have learned in the last several days or what I learned down at the border is that they are not being given those court dates. They are given a piece of paper that has 24 ICE offices in the major metropolitan areas in America, and they are told: We don't know where you are going to end up. We don't know where you are going. You are welcome in the United States, but wherever you are going, please check into the ICE office in your region. My hope is we can at least get a system together where we don't, again, dismantle a program until we have something in its place to ensure people are going to their court dates to be able to have the asylum claims dealt with. On my trip to the border, I asked a reporter to come with me to the border wall because I believe it is important that the public know what is going on. I was surprised to learn that was the first time this reporter or other reporters had been able to kind of see what was going on for quite a while. They haven't been able to come into any of the detention facilities, including the processing center I talked about earlier, where the kids are crammed into--100 kids crammed into 1 room. I think the press should be able to see that because I think that will provide more transparency for all of us. My constituents don't know what is going on at the border, in part because the media haven't had that level of access. I know we have to protect the confidentiality of individual migrants, and I get that. I think that should be done. I think it can be done, but also by letting the media have that access, we would be able to have more transparency about the realities of what is going on along the border. So, fourth, I think the Biden administration should invest in finishing the work on the fence, as I said, but they should also work to enact something that is even more important than a fence, and that is to relieve the magnet. This is going to involve Congress. We did pass an immigration bill in this body with a strong provision called E-Verify several years ago. It basically says that for employers, there will be a sanction if you hire somebody who is not legal. The difference between E-Verify and some of the earlier programs that attempted to do that unsuccessfully is that E-Verify lets us use the new technologies we now have to ensure that fraudulent documents that are often used can be determined to be fraudulent. In other words, you can use technology--facial recognition and so on--to ensure that the employer knows for sure whether the person is legal or not. Again, this requires some Federal funding. Some of that software for small businesses, in particular, may be expensive, but to have an E-Verify Program that says you mandatorily--by the way, it is not mandatory right now either. It doesn't have the technology. It is not mandatory. You have to make it mandatory and say: If you want to hire somebody, you have to run them through the system. Make it as easy as possible to use the technology. In talking to the migrants I met--and my colleagues have spoken to many people who have come to this country, and I am sure they have had the same experience--when I asked them why they are coming here, they all have the same answer, basically, with slight variations, which is, as one guy told me from Guatemala, he can make 10 times as much money here. He cares about his family and their future. The economy is much better here, but that is because he knows he can get a job probably with a document, either a driver's license or a Social Security card that will be fraudulent, but he can buy it for 25 bucks. So we need a system here to stop the magnet. Don't put the Border Patrol and all of those involved--the immigration system is in such an impossible position that we have a wide-open system here where anybody can come and work. Let's do E-Verify. That is more important to me than any other enforcement tool that we have. Federal Reserve economists found that States that mandate the use of E-Verify reduce the number of likely unauthorized immigrants who stay in that State. Of course it does. Sixth--and this is the final one--the Biden administration should work with our Central American partners, including the Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, to discourage unlawful migration. They can do that by incentivizing migrants to apply for asylum in their countries of origin. Some have said this should be mandatory. To me, that seems to make sense. Maybe there is a reason it shouldn't be mandatory, but it certainly should be encouraged, and these countries should certainly offer this. We should provide more aid to the countries of Central America because there is a push factor. Everything I have talked about so far is the pull factors, bringing them in. But if we do that, that aid ought to be conditioned on them helping us to provide people the ability to seek asylum in their own country. Where they have such a fear of persecution that they can't do it in their own country, they should be able to do it in a third country. There was a program started in the Trump administration that never really got off the ground, and it was called Safe Third Country. The program with Guatemala was starting to work. Honduras and El Salvador had signed up, but it hadn't started to work yet. Mexico didn't provide it. But what it says basically is, if you cross through a third country, you have to seek asylum in that third country. Specifically with Guatemala--as you know, you have to go through Guatemala coming from Honduras or El Salvador or Ecuador or elsewhere. Why not have the asylum claims done there? Again, due process, yes, but don't make people take this long and treacherous journey up to the southern border of the United States. Don't make them go through this process of the detention facilities and so on. Have them seek asylum in their own country or in other countries. That, to me, seems like it makes a lot of sense. The Biden administration suspended the Safe Third Country program on February 6, shortly after the inauguration. One program they would like to restart that I think makes sense is called the Central American Minors Program. They are going to restart that programnow, starting in March. This is a program where, during the Obama administration, if you had a family member, a parent--it had to be a parent or a guardian--in the United States legally, then you could come through this program called CAM, Central American Minors Program. I am glad they have restarted that program. That makes sense. I will tell you, over 5 years, only 3,500 kids were processed in that program. Again, your parent has to be in the United States legally. There are 3,500 kids coming across our border every 9 days right now. So the program is not going to solve all our problems, but it will help, and that is a good idea. We need to take a hard look at all of this, at all of these pull factors we talked about and certainly at the push factors. I will say that the Biden administration has proposed $4 billion to go to these three countries--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. As a Congress, we have appropriated and $3.6 billion has been spent in the last 5 years in these three countries. So we have done almost that much in the last 5 years, and yet, because of the corruption, because of the lack of transparency, because of the lack of rule of law, the money has not been as effectively spent as it should have been. So we have to be sure the money is conditioned upon reforms to actually improve the lives of the individuals in those countries. Despite the corruption, we need to cut through that and say: If you take this money, you have to commit to the reforms. Second, again, it should be contingent upon helping with our asylum system to be sure that we can deal with this surge that we are now facing. If the Biden administration takes these six recommended actions I have laid out today, I believe we would move toward bringing a quicker end to this crisis on the border, and we would be able to secure our southern border with regard to the drugs that are coming over and other contraband and be able to say that we, together, worked on this. I know this is a time where everybody is in their corner, the Republicans and Democrats, and it is impossible, it seems like, to make progress. But I think these are pretty sensible ideas, and the alternative is a bad one: that this is going to get worse. You will have more and more kids in detention centers. You will have more and more families released to communities in the United States where they don't come forward for their hearings. And it is something that discourages people about our immigration system. It just doesn't seem to work. It is certainly not working on the border today. So my hope is that these ideas or others--maybe others in this Chamber have better ideas, but hopefully they can be bipartisan, and we can get some of this stuff done and actually deal with the crisis we all know exists and we have a responsibility to face. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-22-pt1-PgS1675-9 | null | 2,631 |
formal | every single time | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, while House Democrats try to overturn a certified election result from last November, some Senate Democrats are agitating to break Senate rules to ram through a partisan rewrite of all 50 States' election laws--all 50 States' election laws. The 60-vote threshold is the reason huge pillars of domestic policy don't oscillate back and forth every time a different party wins the majority. So let's think of something like the Mexico City policy, the executive branch policy about funding overseas abortions. It has flipped back and forth every single time the White House has changed parties since the 1980s. Republican Presidents issue the memo; the Democratic Presidents retract it. The legislative filibuster is what keeps the entirety of Federal law from working that way. For a long time, Senators on both sides have recognized the Senate and the country are better off with some actual stability. Both sides have understood there are no permanent majorities in American politics, so a system that gives both sides a voice benefits, actually, everyone in the long term. That is what 33 of our Democratic colleagues said just a few years ago, when they all signed a joint letter insisting that rules protecting debate on legislation be preserved. That is what President Biden believed consistently throughout his long Senate tenure. About 15 years ago, then-Senator Biden said killing the filibuster would be, ``an example of the arrogance of power.'' That was President Biden. He restated his long-held position during the campaign just last year. Here is what my colleague the Democratic leader said in 2017. Senator Schumer said: The legislative filibuster . . . is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House. . . . [L]et's find a way to further protect the 60-vote rule for legislation. That was the Democratic leader in 2017. And Democrats didn't just spend the last 4 years supporting the filibuster; they spent 4 years using it. Senate Democrats used the filibuster to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. We could have had Federal legislation on the books since last summer, putting more body cameras on police officers, requiring fuller incident reporting to the FBI, and finally making lynching a Federal crime, among other things. Democrats stopped it. They stopped it using the filibuster. A few months before, they used the filibuster to briefly turn the bipartisan sprint toward the CARES Act into a partisan standoff. The press marveled that Senate Democrats had the gall to block relief--a tactic that helped tank the markets--in order to demand further changes. Back in early 2018, Senate Democrats used the filibuster to block government funding and force a brief governmen shutdown over, of all things, immigration. One of the Democratic leader's first major acts as the leader of his conference was to wield the filibuster to shut down the entire Federal Government. So, look, the Democratic side just spent 4 years defending and, of course, happily using the same Senate rule that many of our colleagues now attack. So this reversal is not about principle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with principle. It is just raw power--raw power. Three years ago, the assistant Democratic leader was asked about the Senate majority going ``nuclear'' and killing the legislative filibuster. Here's what Senator Durbin had to say: I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. That was Senator Durbin in 2018, just a few years ago. Now he argues the opposite. Now I understand our colleague has rotated through several different explanations for his reversal in just the last few days. First, our colleague from Illinois indicated he changed his mind--changed his mind--because Republicans, and I specifically, had used the filibuster so much in the intervening years. But, Mr. President, Republicans were in the majority the whole time. We were in the majority the whole time. It was the Democrats who used the filibuster in the minority in 2018, 2019, and 2020--not Republicans. That argument makes no sense whatsoever. A few days later, there was a new made-up rationale: It is just that the Senate hasn't been getting anything done, so the institution needs an overhaul. Except we have just had a uniquely terrible year to make that argument. Last year was not a good year to make that argument. We passed five--five--bipartisan COVID bills with big bipartisan majorities that spent the most money in American history and helped save the country. Don't see any obstruction in that. We passed a historic bipartisan bill for national parks and public lands. Didn't see any outrageous use of the filibuster on that. So there is fake history swirling all around the discussion--fake history. About a year ago, former President Obama launched a new, coordinated, and very obvious campaign to get liberals repeating the claim that the Senate rules are somehow a relic of racism and bigotry. That came just a month after Democrats had used the filibuster to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform and anti-lynching bill. So these talking points are an effort to use the terrible history of racism to justify a partisan power grab in the present. It is not unlike what we saw last summer, when some protest mobs ended up defacing statues of people who actually crusaded for justice--like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and the abolitionist Matthias Baldwin--mistakenly damaging good institutions because of our troubled past. Multiple fact checkers have torn into this simplistic notion that the rules of the Senate are rooted in racism: ``Historians told PolitiFact that the filibuster did not emerge from debates over slavery or segregation.'' One scholar's account was that ``the very first Senate filibuster was over a bridge across the Potomac River.'' The very first filibuster was over a bridge over the Potomac River. The junior Senator from Massachusetts just got three Pinocchios from the Washington Post for these arguments. Their look--the Washington Post's look--at history found ``the first recorded filibusters in the Senate concerned issues such as where to locate Congress, what to do about Andrew Jackson's censure over withdrawn federal deposits, who would be appointed to a publication called the Congressional Globe and whether to create a national bank''--nothing to do with racism. But I am curious. If my Democratic colleagues really believe what they are saying, did they themselves use a racist tool against Senator Scott's police reform bill just last year? Did they use a racist relic when they delayed the CARES Act or blocked legislation to protect unborn babies who can feel pain? Were Senators Schumer and Durbin and their 33 colleagues who signed that letter all endorsing a racist relic? Or is our colleagues' story that the filibuster was not an offensive relic as recently as last summer but magically--imagine this--just magically, within a year, magically became an offensive relic the instant the Democrats came to power? All of a sudden, it is an offensive, racist relic when the Democrats came to power. Jaw-dropping hypocrisy. These backflips insult the intelligence of the American people. The far left is desperate to change the subject to the 1960s because they want people to forget how Senate Democrats behaved just last year. This is not about the 1960s. It is not a racist relic. Look, if some of my Democratic colleagues want to keep lobbying two of their colleagues to go back on their word, they should at least have the courage to be honest. The far left wants Democrats to break the Senate rules for no other reason--no other reason--than they want more power. They want more power. The same people who are trying to overturn a certified election result over at the House want to break Senate rules so they can override the election laws of all 50 States from right here in Washington. It is that simple. And it is not going to be hidden by a coordinated campaign to change the subject. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1682-3 | null | 2,632 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, while House Democrats try to overturn a certified election result from last November, some Senate Democrats are agitating to break Senate rules to ram through a partisan rewrite of all 50 States' election laws--all 50 States' election laws. The 60-vote threshold is the reason huge pillars of domestic policy don't oscillate back and forth every time a different party wins the majority. So let's think of something like the Mexico City policy, the executive branch policy about funding overseas abortions. It has flipped back and forth every single time the White House has changed parties since the 1980s. Republican Presidents issue the memo; the Democratic Presidents retract it. The legislative filibuster is what keeps the entirety of Federal law from working that way. For a long time, Senators on both sides have recognized the Senate and the country are better off with some actual stability. Both sides have understood there are no permanent majorities in American politics, so a system that gives both sides a voice benefits, actually, everyone in the long term. That is what 33 of our Democratic colleagues said just a few years ago, when they all signed a joint letter insisting that rules protecting debate on legislation be preserved. That is what President Biden believed consistently throughout his long Senate tenure. About 15 years ago, then-Senator Biden said killing the filibuster would be, ``an example of the arrogance of power.'' That was President Biden. He restated his long-held position during the campaign just last year. Here is what my colleague the Democratic leader said in 2017. Senator Schumer said: The legislative filibuster . . . is the most important distinction between the Senate and the House. . . . [L]et's find a way to further protect the 60-vote rule for legislation. That was the Democratic leader in 2017. And Democrats didn't just spend the last 4 years supporting the filibuster; they spent 4 years using it. Senate Democrats used the filibuster to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill in the wake of the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. We could have had Federal legislation on the books since last summer, putting more body cameras on police officers, requiring fuller incident reporting to the FBI, and finally making lynching a Federal crime, among other things. Democrats stopped it. They stopped it using the filibuster. A few months before, they used the filibuster to briefly turn the bipartisan sprint toward the CARES Act into a partisan standoff. The press marveled that Senate Democrats had the gall to block relief--a tactic that helped tank the markets--in order to demand further changes. Back in early 2018, Senate Democrats used the filibuster to block government funding and force a brief governmen shutdown over, of all things, immigration. One of the Democratic leader's first major acts as the leader of his conference was to wield the filibuster to shut down the entire Federal Government. So, look, the Democratic side just spent 4 years defending and, of course, happily using the same Senate rule that many of our colleagues now attack. So this reversal is not about principle. It has nothing whatsoever to do with principle. It is just raw power--raw power. Three years ago, the assistant Democratic leader was asked about the Senate majority going ``nuclear'' and killing the legislative filibuster. Here's what Senator Durbin had to say: I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. That was Senator Durbin in 2018, just a few years ago. Now he argues the opposite. Now I understand our colleague has rotated through several different explanations for his reversal in just the last few days. First, our colleague from Illinois indicated he changed his mind--changed his mind--because Republicans, and I specifically, had used the filibuster so much in the intervening years. But, Mr. President, Republicans were in the majority the whole time. We were in the majority the whole time. It was the Democrats who used the filibuster in the minority in 2018, 2019, and 2020--not Republicans. That argument makes no sense whatsoever. A few days later, there was a new made-up rationale: It is just that the Senate hasn't been getting anything done, so the institution needs an overhaul. Except we have just had a uniquely terrible year to make that argument. Last year was not a good year to make that argument. We passed five--five--bipartisan COVID bills with big bipartisan majorities that spent the most money in American history and helped save the country. Don't see any obstruction in that. We passed a historic bipartisan bill for national parks and public lands. Didn't see any outrageous use of the filibuster on that. So there is fake history swirling all around the discussion--fake history. About a year ago, former President Obama launched a new, coordinated, and very obvious campaign to get liberals repeating the claim that the Senate rules are somehow a relic of racism and bigotry. That came just a month after Democrats had used the filibuster to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform and anti-lynching bill. So these talking points are an effort to use the terrible history of racism to justify a partisan power grab in the present. It is not unlike what we saw last summer, when some protest mobs ended up defacing statues of people who actually crusaded for justice--like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and the abolitionist Matthias Baldwin--mistakenly damaging good institutions because of our troubled past. Multiple fact checkers have torn into this simplistic notion that the rules of the Senate are rooted in racism: ``Historians told PolitiFact that the filibuster did not emerge from debates over slavery or segregation.'' One scholar's account was that ``the very first Senate filibuster was over a bridge across the Potomac River.'' The very first filibuster was over a bridge over the Potomac River. The junior Senator from Massachusetts just got three Pinocchios from the Washington Post for these arguments. Their look--the Washington Post's look--at history found ``the first recorded filibusters in the Senate concerned issues such as where to locate Congress, what to do about Andrew Jackson's censure over withdrawn federal deposits, who would be appointed to a publication called the Congressional Globe and whether to create a national bank''--nothing to do with racism. But I am curious. If my Democratic colleagues really believe what they are saying, did they themselves use a racist tool against Senator Scott's police reform bill just last year? Did they use a racist relic when they delayed the CARES Act or blocked legislation to protect unborn babies who can feel pain? Were Senators Schumer and Durbin and their 33 colleagues who signed that letter all endorsing a racist relic? Or is our colleagues' story that the filibuster was not an offensive relic as recently as last summer but magically--imagine this--just magically, within a year, magically became an offensive relic the instant the Democrats came to power? All of a sudden, it is an offensive, racist relic when the Democrats came to power. Jaw-dropping hypocrisy. These backflips insult the intelligence of the American people. The far left is desperate to change the subject to the 1960s because they want people to forget how Senate Democrats behaved just last year. This is not about the 1960s. It is not a racist relic. Look, if some of my Democratic colleagues want to keep lobbying two of their colleagues to go back on their word, they should at least have the courage to be honest. The far left wants Democrats to break the Senate rules for no other reason--no other reason--than they want more power. They want more power. The same people who are trying to overturn a certified election result over at the House want to break Senate rules so they can override the election laws of all 50 States from right here in Washington. It is that simple. And it is not going to be hidden by a coordinated campaign to change the subject. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1682-3 | null | 2,633 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, as I mentioned, the shooting in Colorado comes only a week after another tragedy in the communities outside Atlanta, GA, where eight people were killed in a string of shootings, six of whom were women of Asian descent. It is important to place the Atlanta area shootings in context. Over the past year, there has been a rising tide of violence against Asian Americans driven by fear, misinformation, and age-old prejudices against the Asian-American community, from shouted insults and racial slurs to outright assault. A 61-year-old Filipino American was slashed in the face by a box cutter on the New York subway. An 84-year-old Thai American in San Francisco was shoved so violently it led to his death. And now this attack in Georgia. Every day, Asian Americans walk down the streets looking over their shoulders, wondering if they will be assaulted or even worse--even worse. The poison of racism has always existed in America, but over the past 4 years it seems to have found new life. There is no question that the former President Donald Trump, through word and deed, fanned the flames of racial bias in our country. It is not a coincidence that it is worse now than it has been before. Donald Trump fanned those flames--fanned those flames, often with glee. With respect to the Asian-American community, specifically, the former President encouraged rhetoric that blamed the Chinese people for the coronavirus--an absolutely despicable notion that has led to all sorts of verbal and physical assaults on Asian Americans. You could see him with his chin strutted out when he called it the virus that he named it--you know what--the China virus. So despicable. And he did it with almost a joy. Here in America, we all know that an attack against any one group is an attack against all of us. So it is up to all of us now to stand up and speak out in support of the Asian-American community in America. Over the weekend, I joined several vigils to stand with Americans of all ages, races, and faiths to support the Asian-American community. There was a large turnout, and our Asian brothers and sisters were so relieved that so many of us from the elected community were there. We should all be doing that in every part of the country. Here on the floor of the Senate this morning, I started the process to make two pieces of legislation available for action by the full Senate. First is a bill led by my friend Senator Hirono of Hawaii, very similar to the same bill introduced by our New York Congress Member, Grace Meng, of Queens. This legislation by Senator Hirono will address COVID-related hate crimes against Asian Americans head-on. It would assign a point person at the Department of Justice to expedite the review of COVID-19-related hate crimes, provide support for State and local law enforcement agencies to respond to hate crimes, and work on solutions to the problem of racially discriminatory language that has been used to describe the pandemic. Second is a bill led by my friend Senator Durbin to counter the threat of domestic terrorism and violent White supremacy. This is a bill that passed the House of Representatives last year on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. As far as legislation goes, it is as much of a no-brainer as it comes. Every one of us--every one of us--has an obligation to speak out against these hate crimes. One of the best antidotes--there are many--but one of the best antidotes when hate occurs is to answer it forcefully, strongly, and repeatedly so that no one thinks it is acceptable, and those who perpetrate it are shunned and then, if they have broken the law, punished. Every one of us must do this. We must speak out. Here in the Senate, we have more than a responsibility to just speak out; we must take action. I hope we will have universal support for these pieces of legislation that I mentioned. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1682 | null | 2,634 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, as I mentioned, the shooting in Colorado comes only a week after another tragedy in the communities outside Atlanta, GA, where eight people were killed in a string of shootings, six of whom were women of Asian descent. It is important to place the Atlanta area shootings in context. Over the past year, there has been a rising tide of violence against Asian Americans driven by fear, misinformation, and age-old prejudices against the Asian-American community, from shouted insults and racial slurs to outright assault. A 61-year-old Filipino American was slashed in the face by a box cutter on the New York subway. An 84-year-old Thai American in San Francisco was shoved so violently it led to his death. And now this attack in Georgia. Every day, Asian Americans walk down the streets looking over their shoulders, wondering if they will be assaulted or even worse--even worse. The poison of racism has always existed in America, but over the past 4 years it seems to have found new life. There is no question that the former President Donald Trump, through word and deed, fanned the flames of racial bias in our country. It is not a coincidence that it is worse now than it has been before. Donald Trump fanned those flames--fanned those flames, often with glee. With respect to the Asian-American community, specifically, the former President encouraged rhetoric that blamed the Chinese people for the coronavirus--an absolutely despicable notion that has led to all sorts of verbal and physical assaults on Asian Americans. You could see him with his chin strutted out when he called it the virus that he named it--you know what--the China virus. So despicable. And he did it with almost a joy. Here in America, we all know that an attack against any one group is an attack against all of us. So it is up to all of us now to stand up and speak out in support of the Asian-American community in America. Over the weekend, I joined several vigils to stand with Americans of all ages, races, and faiths to support the Asian-American community. There was a large turnout, and our Asian brothers and sisters were so relieved that so many of us from the elected community were there. We should all be doing that in every part of the country. Here on the floor of the Senate this morning, I started the process to make two pieces of legislation available for action by the full Senate. First is a bill led by my friend Senator Hirono of Hawaii, very similar to the same bill introduced by our New York Congress Member, Grace Meng, of Queens. This legislation by Senator Hirono will address COVID-related hate crimes against Asian Americans head-on. It would assign a point person at the Department of Justice to expedite the review of COVID-19-related hate crimes, provide support for State and local law enforcement agencies to respond to hate crimes, and work on solutions to the problem of racially discriminatory language that has been used to describe the pandemic. Second is a bill led by my friend Senator Durbin to counter the threat of domestic terrorism and violent White supremacy. This is a bill that passed the House of Representatives last year on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. As far as legislation goes, it is as much of a no-brainer as it comes. Every one of us--every one of us--has an obligation to speak out against these hate crimes. One of the best antidotes--there are many--but one of the best antidotes when hate occurs is to answer it forcefully, strongly, and repeatedly so that no one thinks it is acceptable, and those who perpetrate it are shunned and then, if they have broken the law, punished. Every one of us must do this. We must speak out. Here in the Senate, we have more than a responsibility to just speak out; we must take action. I hope we will have universal support for these pieces of legislation that I mentioned. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1682 | null | 2,635 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to one of Vietnam's highest ranking military officers, Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh. General Vinh, who has served as Vietnam's Deputy Minister of National Defense since 2009, has played an indispensable role in the reconciliation between Vietnam and the United States. After more than four decades of military service, he is finally nearing retirement from the Ministry of National Defense. General Vinh was born in 1957. He studied at the Institute of Military Technology before embarking on his long and distinguished career in the Vietnamese People's Army. His father, General Nguyen Chi Thanh, came from a humble family and rose to become a decorated military officer and politician. Today, one of Hanoi's main thoroughfares bears his name. As someone who lived through the Vietnam war era, I remember it a catastrophe for both countries. The more than 58,000 American soldiers and other servicemembers who died, whose names are etched in the granite Vietnam Veterans Memorial, are only part of the story. We remember their families and the many tens of thousands who returned home with severe disabilities. In Vietnam, virtually no family was unscathed. Hundreds of thousands are still missing among the estimated 3 million Vietnamese who died. The majority were civilians, whose families suffered grievous losses and severe hardships as the fighting raged around them. Many of their stories remain untold. In the decades since, memories of that time have faded and the world's attention has turned elsewhere. Yet during the past quarter century since the normalization of relations with Vietnam, there has been a sustained effort by both countries to address some of the worst legacies of the war. By doing so, we have built a new partnership and set an example for other former enemies. It began in the late 1980s with the first use of the Leahy War Victims Fund by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, to assist people with severe war-related disabilities. That was authorized by President George H. W. Bush, after he and I discussed the need to assist Vietnamese who had been injured during the war. It led to funding by the State Department to locate and destroy unexploded landmines and bombs, which litter the Vietnamese countryside and have maimed and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, including children, since the war ended. Nearly 15 years ago, those war legacy programs expanded to address the cruel legacy of Agent Orange, and it is in this that General Vinh and I became acquainted. Since then, General Vinh has been my principal Vietnamese counterpart in working to address the legacy of dioxin contamination at former U.S. military bases and the needs of Vietnamese with severe physical and cognitive disabilities resulting from exposure to dioxin. I consider him a friend and am grateful for the hospitality he has shown me, my wife Marcelle, and other Senators when we have visited Vietnam. From 1961 to 1971, the U.S. Air Force sprayed nearly 19 million gallons of herbicides in Vietnam, of which at least 11 million gallons were Agent Orange, in an effort to defoliate trees and shrubs and kill agricultural crops that were providing cover and food to North Vietnamese soldiers. Decades later, we learned that the Agent Orange was contaminated with dioxin, which can cause problems with reproduction, development, and the immune system. Dioxin can disrupt hormones and lead to cancer. It is also a persistent pollutant that can remain in the environment for many years. Millions of Vietnamese were exposed, and hundreds of thousands suffered severe physical and cognitive disabilities. My wife Marcelle and I have met three generations of Agent Orange victims, from young children to their parents and grandparents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who served in Vietnam were also exposed, and thousands have been battling cancers for years. Fortunately, thanks to studies funded by the Ford Foundation, it was possible to identify key ``hotspots'' with significant contamination, and working closely with General Vinh and USAID, we cleaned up the contaminated soil and sediment at the former U.S. airbase in Da Nang. Seven years and $110 million dollars later, it is once again a busy commercial airport. In fact, Air Force One landed there in 2017, when President Trump visited Vietnam. That project would not have been possible without the leadership and perseverance of General Nguyen Chi Vinh, and I will never forget visiting the site with him when we formally launched the project in 2014. Since then, we have moved on to Bien Hoa, on the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City, the site of the largest U.S. airbase during the war where Agent Orange was stored and loaded onto airplanes. Today it is a shadow of what it once was, and it is contaminated with dioxin that has been leaching into the nearby Dong Nai River for half a century. In 2019, General Vinh and I, along with Deputy Prime Minister Truong Hoa Binh and U.S. Ambassador Daniel Kritenbrink, and in the presence of eight other U.S. Senators, inaugurated a joint U.S.-Vietnam project to clean up Bien Hoa, including a U.S. commitment to contribute $300 million over 10 years, half from the U.S. Department of Defense and half from USAID. I had several conversations with Secretary of Defense James Mattis about Bien Hoa, and the Pentagon's contribution is the result of his recognition that we have a responsibility and a national interest in helping Vietnam address war legacy issues. At the same time, USAID launched a 5-year, $65 million effort to expand our health and disability programs, which are being implemented in eight provinces that were sprayed with Agent Orange. Over more than four decades, the Government of Vietnam has provided essential access and support in locating the remains of hundreds of American MIAs. This year, we are embarking on a 5-year, $15 million program, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and USAID, to help the Vietnamese locate and identify some of their own people missing or killed during the war. Much has been written, and I suspect more will be, about the collaboration between our two countries in addressing the legacies of the Vietnam war. Issues that for years were a cause of anger and resentment are today examples of how two former enemies can work together for the betterment of the people of both countries. These projects opened the door for the United States and Vietnam to cooperate on a wide array of other issues, from climate change and wildlife trafficking, to public health and regional security.Tens of thousands of Vietnamese students are studying in the United States, and we are supporting institutions of higher education in Vietnam. This has been possible because of the efforts of many people over many years. Senators John McCain and John Kerry played an instrumental role in the normalization of relations. By doing so, they set the stage for both countries to build trust based on mutual respect by addressing sensitive war legacy issues, which Ambassadors of both countries have also strongly encouraged. It is in this that Senior Lieutenant General Nguyen Chi Vinh has built his own legacy. The partnership that has developed from our cooperation on war legacies and which today extends to programs jointly funded and implemented by Vietnam's Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense would not have been possible without General Vinh's vision, his leadership, and his good will. For that we owe him our lasting appreciation and respect. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1702-2 | null | 2,636 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mr. Joseph Martin Rose, Sr., Moka'ang Giizis or ``Rising Sun'' in the Ojibwe language, a beloved elder and member of the Eagle Clan of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe. As a member of the Three Fires Midewiwin Grand Medicine Lodge, Joe was a teacher, culture keeper, pipe carrier, and treasure to his community. His life was one of far too many claimed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Joe was born on April 24, 1935, to Carl Rose, Sr., and Mary ``Dolly'' (Jackson) Rose in Oklahoma. When his father volunteered to repair naval ships in Alaska during World War II, his mother brought the family back home to Odanah to live with her parents on the Bad River Native American Reservation. Joe often told stories about growing up in Odanah, calling it a ``time of kerosene lamps, outhouses, and wood heat.'' He credited his grandfather, Dan Jackson, with instilling in him a strong connection to the natural world by teaching him about traditional plants, ceremonies, and medicines. He spent his youth netting fish in the spring, wild ricing in late summer, duck hunting in the fall, then ice skating and enjoying bonfires in the winter. He attended DePadua High School in Ashland, where he played nose tackle on the football team, wrestled, and sang in the school choir. His athleticism earned him a scholarship to Northland College, where he majored in biology and secondary education, earning a certification to teach high school science and math. After graduation, he spent the next 10 years teaching in South Dakota and Wyoming, while coaching youth sports. With the help of his parents, he raised two children, taught full time, and earned a master's degree in guidance counseling before returning to Bad River in 1970. Back in Wisconsin, he became the homeschool coordinator and guidance counselor at Ashland High School. As an advocate for Bad River children, he taught them Native American arts and crafts and offered courses about culture. In 1974, he was asked to develop the newly formed Native American Studies Program at Northland College, one of the first such programs in America. As its director, he created a culture-based curriculum that emphasized environmental stewardship and the connection Ojibwe people have with Lake Superior. Joe's experiential learning courses were memorable for the visits to his home on Waverly Beach, birch bark canoes, ceremonial lodges, and a round house built by his students. He helped create the Traditional Ways Gathering, an annual event celebrating Ojibwe crafts such as beading, basket making, and flintknapping. He formed a relationship with the recently dedicated David R. Obey Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center in Ashland and curated its exhibits on Lake Superior tribal history and culture. As a staunch defender of Native American treaty rights, Joe and his son, Joe Dan, were among Lake Superior Ojibwe who exercised their rights to spearfish lakes in the ceded territory. They did so in the face of sometimes violent demonstrations in opposition to those rights. He later served on the Voigt Intertribal Task Force, which facilitates the cooperative management of shared natural resources in ceded territory. Joe retired as an associate professor in 2007, although he continued to teach and serve in leadership roles until the end of his life. Even after retirement, Joe continued his activism against environmental threats facing Lake Superior, including nuclear waste, oil exploration, garbageincineration, factory farming, and taconite mining in the Penokee Hills. His most recent fight was against the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline that crosses the Bad River reservation, one of his primary issues of concern as a member of the Ashland County Board. One way or another, Joe was a part of virtually every significant environmental and treaty-rights struggle in the region over the past half century. While soft-spoken, Joe had a voice that proved powerful and deeply resonant. He believed that he had the responsibility to ``go out and share this knowledge and wisdom of how to live in harmony and balance with the natural world.'' With this ethos and an indomitable faith in grassroots organizing, he never turned down an opportunity fight the good fight and share his knowledge with others. The countless people who were fortunate enough to know and learn from Joe Rose, Sr., will keep his memory alive and continue his good work for generations to come. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. BALDWIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1703-2 | null | 2,637 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers inBoston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh--with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things--these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''--thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice becausethe voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1717-7 | null | 2,638 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers inBoston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh--with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things--these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''--thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice becausethe voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1717-7 | null | 2,639 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers inBoston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh--with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things--these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''--thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice becausethe voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1717-7 | null | 2,640 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers inBoston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh--with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things--these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''--thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice becausethe voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1717-7 | null | 2,641 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers inBoston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh--with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things--these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''--thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice becausethe voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1717-7 | null | 2,642 |
formal | you know who | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not often I come down to the floor to say I have a lot in common with the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer from New York. In fact, in my 6 years in the Senate, I don't think I have ever done that. But after reading his remarks prior to the vote that we took yesterday on the Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, I thought I would come down and make a few points on that nominee, that vote, and some issues I have in common with the majority leader and now-Secretary Walsh and maybe some issues I don't have so much in common with the majority leader but I think I do have with Secretary Walsh, which is why I voted for him. First, as I mentioned, I, too, supported our now-Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh, for some of the reasons that Senator Schumer did. Let me explain. Secretary Walsh started in the Laborers' Union, Local 223, in Boston, age 21, following in his father's footsteps. Now, as many people know, the Laborers are the biggest building construction union in the country. They build things--pipelines, roads, oil wells, bridges. They have made America strong. I am a big fan of Laborers and leaders like Joey Merritt back home and Terry O'Sullivan, whom I am going to talk a little bit about. Secretary Walsh followed his father's example and joined the Laborers inBoston. He is also the son of Irish immigrants, which is something that is near and dear to my heart. And Senator Schumer said he has something very much in common--yesterday, when he spoke about Secretary Walsh--with Secretary Walsh because his grandfather was an immigrant from Eastern Europe who also, when he came over to America, got very involved with the labor movement. That is really a very common, powerful story of the American dream, common to millions--Senator Schumer's family, Secretary Walsh's family, and it is certainly a story that I have in common with those two. You see, my great-grandfather was from a family of Irish immigrants, and he was also very involved in the labor movement. In fact, he was one of the original cofounders of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the IBEW. He was its first grand marshal. I have something I am quite proud of here. It is a page from the history books of the IBEW, talking about my great-grandfather's great work for the IBEW when it first got off the ground. I look forward to working with Secretary Walsh on helping the men and women in America, certainly in my State, who build things. They have succeeded. They rise up and help others rise up--other working men and women--the way Secretary Walsh's father did, the way Senator Schumer's grandfather did, the way my great-grandfather did. It is a great American story. But I must say that my views and Senator Schumer's diverge on some of the other things he may have been speaking about when he talked about Secretary Walsh's nomination yesterday. One, he was critical of some of the Trump administration's Department of Labor policies as related to the men and women who build things--these working men and women--despite the fact that prior to the pandemic, with some of the policies that we implemented here, the United States had the strongest economy in decades, the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years, wages were finally going up after 2 decades of stagnation. And very importantly for the working men and women of this country, there was a huge expansion and boom in the American energy sector, ``all of the above'' energy: oil, gas, renewables, as important to the Presiding Officer as it is to Alaska. Let me describe one other narrative that I believe certainly is true that I have seen in my professional life in Alaska--in America but certainly back home in my State--and that is the narrative that I am not so sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to highlight. But I am going to highlight it because I think it is really important, particularly now, and it is this: When national Democrats, whether during the Obama administration or now, during the Biden administration, are set up with the choice where they have to choose between the interests of the working men and women in this country who build things versus the interests of the extremists--radical environmental groups who want to kill jobs and shut them down--they almost always sid with these groups who kill jobs, not the working men and women of America, not the working men and women of Alaska. This is true. My colleagues sometimes don't want to admit it, but it is true. Do you know who else has seen it, and do you know who else I believe knows it is true? Secretary Walsh as a laborer. He has seen it. That is another reason why I voted for him. He and his fellow laborers, whether in Boston or Alaska, also know that this issue is true. When there is a choice between the working men and women of America who build things versus the extremists who want to shut things down, way too often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle go with the extremists, not the men and women who build things in this country. Now, this narrative is not only continuing under the Biden administration; it is accelerating, and it has been bad for Alaska, bad for America, bad for working families, and, to be honest, it is a bit surprising. President Biden came into office talking about his blue collar roots, but right now, the record is anything but supporting the men and women who build things. Here is a snapshot of what is going on in my State. In the first 4 weeks of the Biden administration, there were eight Executive orders focused on Alaska--eight. No other State has had that many Executive orders focused on Alaskan working families. Day one, ANWR--trying to shut that down. We got that done in this body. They also killed the Keystone Pipeline--10,000 jobs, laborers' jobs. Marty Walsh knows a lot about that. It goes on and on and on. There are Executive orders right now that, from my State's perspective, are focused on hurting working men and women. There is another one I will talk about. It is a project we have, a big energy project in Alaska called the Willow project. This has been permitted by Democratic and Republican administrations for 25 years to finally get it going--the Clinton administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, everybody. It is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, a place set aside by Congress over 70 years ago for oil and gas development and good jobs. It is not controversial at all. The Biden administration has put a hold on that. Here is the estimate. It is a $7 billion project that will produce American energy and an estimated 2,000 direct jobs on the Willow project. This isn't some pie-in-the-sky project that we were starting this winter. There were 2,000 direct jobs, 75 percent of which are union jobs, and they are saying ``We are going to put a hold on it''--thousands of additional supporting jobs, and they are going to put a hold on that. Why? Well, we know why, because in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, some of the most extreme radical environmental groups in the country sued to stop it, and they were successful. So guess what happened in Alaska this winter during a recession. The 2,000 men and women who were working on this project were given pink slips and told to go home. That is what happened. Mr. President, don't just take my word for it. I want to quote again from Terry O'Sullivan. He is the head of the Laborers, the biggest construction union in the country. This was his reaction after day one of the Biden administration, where there was a choice of working men and women who build things like pipelines or the radical extremist environmental groups who want to shut down and kill American jobs. It is a choice--day one, the radical environmentalists win. Here is what the head of the Laborers--remember, Marty Walsh, Secretary Walsh is a Laborer from Boston. Here is what the head of the Laborers, the great American Terry O'Sullivan, said: The Biden administration's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline permit on day one of his presidency is both insulting and disappointing to the thousands of hard-working LIUNA members-- Those are the Laborers. --who will lose good-paying, middle class family-supporting jobs. By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists-- Remember, this is Terry O'Sullivan talking, not Senator Sullivan talking. --a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone. That is Terry O'Sullivan. Remember the choice: Men and women who build things and make our country great versus extremist groups like the Center for Biological Diversity--they go with the extremists. Here is Mark McManus, general president of the United Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters. They were going to build the Keystone Pipeline, too, just like LIUNA members: In revoking this permit, the Biden Administration has chosen to listen to the voices of fringe activists instead of union members and the American consumer on Day 1 [of the Biden administration]. Let me be . . . clear. This is Mark McManus still talking. When built with union labor by the men and women of the United Association, pipelines like Keystone XL remain the safest and most efficient modes of energy transportation in the world. Sadly, the Biden Administration has now put thousands of union members and workers out of work. This is why the Secretary of Labor we just confirmed--and I was glad to support him because he is a Laborer. He knows how to build things. He knows these politics. This is why it is important to have his voice becausethe voice of the extremist is much stronger in this administration. It is not just policies of killing union jobs--the men and women who build things for America--but if you listen, it is how the new members of this administration talk about these jobs. Listen. You have to listen, and what you hear is a condescending tone as it relates to these jobs. You may have heard John Kerry and Gina McCarthy, the climate change czars in the White House, who were saying in one of their press conferences that we need to help people make ``better choices'' on their jobs. That is pretty condescending. They are talking about laborers. They are talking about my oil and gas workers in the great State of Alaska or in Colorado. The Secretary of Energy, in her confirmation hearing, talked about how some of the jobs might have to be ``sacrificed.'' Even in the Environment and Public Works Committee--and I am a very bipartisan guy--some of my Senate colleagues on the other side of the aisle were recently talking about: We need to encourage people to get more ``relevant jobs.'' What is more relevant than powering America? Until recently, the men and women who built America--pipelines, oil and gas rigs, roads, bridges, the men and women with dirt under their fingernails--were celebrated, which is as they should be. They built this country. They powered this country. They won wars for this country. By the way, they often fought in wars for this country. Then they came home. They got good jobs in the building trades as laborers, operating engineers, pipefitters, teamsters, IBEWs--the IBEW like my great-grandfather helped start. Not so much anymore. The new Secretary of Energy is now calling them ``fossil workers'' who are from ``fossil communities.'' I am not kidding. Listen to her. I have been trying to give them a little bit of advice: Don't use that term. It is condescending. You are talking to workers as if they are some kind of dinosaur that should be put in a museum. Communities? Fossil communities? Really? Madam Secretary, if you are listening, ditch that language. It drips with an attitude of being condescending toward these great Americans. Well, I was just home in my State with a bunch of these so-called ``fossil workers'' this past weekend. These are some of the best, most patriotic Americans anywhere. They are tough; they are hard-working; they love their country, but I will tell you they are concerned. They are concerned. Why? Because they know that exactly what I have been talking about here is happening--the radical, extremist environmental groups want to kill and are killing jobs. By the way, as for that lawsuit I talked about on the Willow Project, 200 Alaskans were sent home during a recession. Men and women who have to pay mortgages and pay tuitions were sent home. So my workers in the great State of Alaska are concerned. They know that these groups they are sending have a beeline into the White House and that they want to kill jobs--energy jobs--in my State and in America. They are worried that the majority now, the Senate majority, has similar views, so they are nervous. Yet I am hopeful on one thing. Given his background and his heritage--now I am talking about the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Walsh. I believe that, when the decisions are made--and I hope when the decisions are being made in the Biden administration to kill more good-paying energy jobs that built this country--and when they are coming before the Biden administration, the new Secretary of Labor is going to stand up for the working men and women, stand up for the laborers in Boston whom he knows so well or the laborers in Alaska whom he knows so well and look at the other Cabinet members and say: Not on my watch. We are not going to kill any more of these jobs. That is what I am hopeful for. That is what he committed to me to do, and that is why I voted for Secretary Walsh as the new Secretary of Labor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1717-7 | null | 2,643 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have one more topic I would like to talk about today. It is another important one, and it is one that many have been talking about here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Many have spoken very eloquently about this topic, and depending on when they have spoken about it--this year, this week, last year, a decade ago, a century ago--it is a topic that is really fundamental to this institution, and it looks as if Members in this institution are trying to change the institution forever. Now, I am talking about the filibuster. As you know, there has been much talk recently about the possibility of getting rid of the filibuster. This is an action that will fundamentally transform this institution, certainly, but I believe, frankly, it will transform our country. I don't think this is a wise move at all. The irony is--and I am going to talk about it--until very recently, the vast majority of my colleagues, Republican and Democratic, were in agreement on this topic in that getting rid of the legislative filibuster was not a wise move for the Senate and not a wise move for America. Now, this might seem like an insular issue--something that people in Washington, DC, get incensed about, wound up about, and the people back home might not necessarily care because it might not impact them--but I don't think that this is the case at all. This rule, the filibuster, is at the very heart of what keeps extreme legislation, pushed by a small minority of the public, from passing. It is a rule that, in the Senate, certainly encourages, if not demands, compromise and bipartisan work both when one's party is in or out of power. Now, look, our instincts as Senators--all of our instincts--are to get things done for our States, for our country, but what is good for Alaska isn't always good for Colorado, and what is good for Colorado isn't always good for New York. What is good for the majority isn't alway good for the minority and vice versa and isn't always good for the Nation. That is the heart of federalism. It is also why the majority can't wield unfettered power in the U.S. Senate. With the exception of a few laws, what is required here is typically 60 votes on legislation. It is what separates this body, the Senate, from the House. For the good of the country, if you look at our history, we must work together, find compromise, find consensus, find solutions, particularly on major legislation, to get a broad-based buy-in from all Americans or most Americans. This is what the filibuster has required. Remember, the Framers understood that, here in the Senate, we would be different from the House. We would be the bulwark against what James Madison called an anchor, a necessary fence, against the fickleness and passions that pervade the House. No offense to our Members of the House of Representatives, but as George Washington is said to have told Thomas Jefferson, the Framers created the Senate to cool House legislation. It was the cooling saucer you had with regard to the tea in the cup. Indeed, the Senate--often referred to as the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' in its earliest days--was founded on the right of unlimited debate. That is what the filibuster is. Even in the first session of the Senate in 1789, Senators used this right to debate and debate and debate in order to delay consideration of legislation. It wasn't until the mid-1800s that this tactic was coined the ``filibuster.'' The point is that this procedural rule in the Senate has been here, in one form or another, since the founding of the Republic, and when you hear my colleagues talk about it as some new, recent procedure, it is just not factually accurate. Before the 1900s, there was no formal procedure to even end debate if a Senator chose to talk a bill to death. It wasn't until 1917, during a debate about arming Merchant Marine vessels during World War I, that the Senate established the cloture tool, giving the body the ability to end debate by a certain margin of Senators. Now, as some of my colleagues have been debating recently and have mentioned throughout its history, we have seen the filibuster, cloture used for good. We have used it to stop legislation, and it has also been used for ill--to delay much needed, historic reforms like civil rights legislation during thefifties and sixties, legislation which was filibustered by Democratic Senators until the filibuster was finally broken in the sixties. It has also been used for many other purposes, but Members on both sides have used it for centuries. In fact, one scholar's account was that the very first Senate filibuster was over a bridge across the Potomac River. I am not sure why, but I guess it was an important issue back then. So slowing things down, cooling passions, that is what this body was designed to do, and that is what this procedure has done for decades. That is why my friends on the other side, who are undertaking a push to get rid of this, need to think. They need to stop. They need to think. The American people need to understand the consequences, and our good friends in the media who are covering the Senate need to write some real history about this. As my friends on the other side of the aisle know, this is one of these issues that, when the shoe was on the other foot, we did not take action. What am I talking about? Recently, the Republicans held the majority in the Senate, and, recently, with President Trump, we had a Republican in the White House. There was frustration, and they wanted to move things quicker, and the President, President Trump, was pressuring many Senators: Let's get rid of the filibuster. We didn't. We didn't. We told the President: It is not a good idea for the Senate, and it is not a good idea for the country. That is what we did when the shoe was on the other foot. We said no. It is not good for this body, and it is not good for the country. The Republican President was pushing: We need to get things done. We need to get rid of it. No. Let me just read a few of the things that were said recently about the necessity of keeping the filibuster. My friend from Delaware, in 2018, said: I am committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster. Now, he said that when a Republican President was in the White House. My friend from New Jersey, in 2009, said: My colleagues and I--everybody I have talked to--believes the legislative filibuster should stay here, and I will personally resist any efforts to get rid of it. My Democratic friend from Montana said just a little over a year ago: I am a ``no'' on changing the filibuster. The move to make the Senate like the House, I think, is a mistake. I could go on. I don't want the Senate to become like the House. The consequences of getting rid of the filibuster are too great. These are all words spoken very recently by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Even more impressive, just a few years ago, we had 61 Senators--33 Republicans, 25 of whom are still here, and 30 Democrats, 27 of whom are still in the Senate today--who sent a letter. I have it right here. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter sent to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, saying we have to maintain the 60-vote threshold for filibusters involving legislation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-23-pt1-PgS1719 | null | 2,644 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Border Security Madam President, on another subject, I want to speak again about the border crisis created by the Biden administration. I spoke on this subject just last week, and the situation has not improved since then. Encounters with family units and unaccompanied alien children continue to increase. There are now new reports that at some segments of the border, illegal immigrants are being released into the interior of the United States without receiving a notice to appear in immigration court. To be clear, it appears that the administration is now releasing some illegal immigrants into the United States without even attempting to give them immigration court dates, much less taking any real steps to ensure that they actually schedule their hearings and show up for their court dates in the future. Once again, this is totally unacceptable. This is catch-and-release without even pretending to care whether the immigrants show up for court or are removed from the country in the future. This is also not sustainable. Every sovereign nation has a right as well as a duty to its citizens to control its borders. What we are seeing from this administration isn't border control or security. You see it on television. It is chaos. It is what happens when you broadcast to the world that you have no intention of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. The President could take action to end this crisis today if he actually wanted to. He could restore the Migrant Protection Protocols and the asylum cooperative agreements that the Trump administration signed with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. He could start building more physical infrastructure along our southern border as administrations of both parties have done for over 20 years, including the administration in which Biden served as Vice President. Fencing isn't something new, and it has not been a partisan issue until just here lately. Rather than propose unserious blanket amnesty legislation that contains no real border security, the President could work with Congress on commonsense changes to our immigration laws that we all know are needed. Finally, the President could make clear that he is in favor of fully enforcing our immigration laws as written, across the board, remembering that he takes an oath that has the words to ``faithfully execute'' the laws. Unfortunately, this administration believes that the surge in illegal immigration at the southern border, due to its policies, is a process to be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. As long as that is the case, we won't be able to truly secure our border and cut off the flow of illegal immigration to this country. Let's hope things change soon. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1742-2 | null | 2,645 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Border Security Madam President, on another subject, I want to speak again about the border crisis created by the Biden administration. I spoke on this subject just last week, and the situation has not improved since then. Encounters with family units and unaccompanied alien children continue to increase. There are now new reports that at some segments of the border, illegal immigrants are being released into the interior of the United States without receiving a notice to appear in immigration court. To be clear, it appears that the administration is now releasing some illegal immigrants into the United States without even attempting to give them immigration court dates, much less taking any real steps to ensure that they actually schedule their hearings and show up for their court dates in the future. Once again, this is totally unacceptable. This is catch-and-release without even pretending to care whether the immigrants show up for court or are removed from the country in the future. This is also not sustainable. Every sovereign nation has a right as well as a duty to its citizens to control its borders. What we are seeing from this administration isn't border control or security. You see it on television. It is chaos. It is what happens when you broadcast to the world that you have no intention of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. The President could take action to end this crisis today if he actually wanted to. He could restore the Migrant Protection Protocols and the asylum cooperative agreements that the Trump administration signed with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. He could start building more physical infrastructure along our southern border as administrations of both parties have done for over 20 years, including the administration in which Biden served as Vice President. Fencing isn't something new, and it has not been a partisan issue until just here lately. Rather than propose unserious blanket amnesty legislation that contains no real border security, the President could work with Congress on commonsense changes to our immigration laws that we all know are needed. Finally, the President could make clear that he is in favor of fully enforcing our immigration laws as written, across the board, remembering that he takes an oath that has the words to ``faithfully execute'' the laws. Unfortunately, this administration believes that the surge in illegal immigration at the southern border, due to its policies, is a process to be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. As long as that is the case, we won't be able to truly secure our border and cut off the flow of illegal immigration to this country. Let's hope things change soon. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1742-2 | null | 2,646 |
formal | secure our border | null | anti-Latino | Border Security Madam President, on another subject, I want to speak again about the border crisis created by the Biden administration. I spoke on this subject just last week, and the situation has not improved since then. Encounters with family units and unaccompanied alien children continue to increase. There are now new reports that at some segments of the border, illegal immigrants are being released into the interior of the United States without receiving a notice to appear in immigration court. To be clear, it appears that the administration is now releasing some illegal immigrants into the United States without even attempting to give them immigration court dates, much less taking any real steps to ensure that they actually schedule their hearings and show up for their court dates in the future. Once again, this is totally unacceptable. This is catch-and-release without even pretending to care whether the immigrants show up for court or are removed from the country in the future. This is also not sustainable. Every sovereign nation has a right as well as a duty to its citizens to control its borders. What we are seeing from this administration isn't border control or security. You see it on television. It is chaos. It is what happens when you broadcast to the world that you have no intention of enforcing our Nation's immigration laws. The President could take action to end this crisis today if he actually wanted to. He could restore the Migrant Protection Protocols and the asylum cooperative agreements that the Trump administration signed with El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. He could start building more physical infrastructure along our southern border as administrations of both parties have done for over 20 years, including the administration in which Biden served as Vice President. Fencing isn't something new, and it has not been a partisan issue until just here lately. Rather than propose unserious blanket amnesty legislation that contains no real border security, the President could work with Congress on commonsense changes to our immigration laws that we all know are needed. Finally, the President could make clear that he is in favor of fully enforcing our immigration laws as written, across the board, remembering that he takes an oath that has the words to ``faithfully execute'' the laws. Unfortunately, this administration believes that the surge in illegal immigration at the southern border, due to its policies, is a process to be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. As long as that is the case, we won't be able to truly secure our border and cut off the flow of illegal immigration to this country. Let's hope things change soon. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1742-2 | null | 2,647 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Election of Mariannette Miller-Meeks Madam President, on one other very short matter, I want to speak about something that is going on in the House of Representatives that I think we all ought to abhor. Congress should not overturn a legal, State-certified election. I defended President Trump's right to litigate claims of election irregularities in our independent court system and defer to the judgment of independent judges. I was initially criticized for that position by partisans on the left who wanted me to make some sort of independent determination of election claims before the courts had ruled. I maintained my deference to the independent judges once the courts had ruled and Trump partisans did not like the rulings. So what happened? It led to criticism of me from the right then. When objections were raised to counting certain States' electoral votes based upon State-certified elections, I voted against overturning those elections. My position remains the same with respect to the purpose of my remarks today, and that is the State-certified election of Representative Miller-Meeks, who now ably represents Iowa's Second Congressional District. Miller-Meeks' opponent chose to forgo her right under Iowa law to present any claims of election irregularities to an independent panel of judges. Guess what. That is because, under Iowa law, she had no legal claim. Representative Miller-Meeks won fair and square as certified by Iowa's bipartisan election board. The House Administration Committee is moving forward with a process to overturn this certified election, stating it will ``exercise its discretion to depart from Iowa law.'' That is a quote I just gave from information given by the House Administration Committee. They are proposing that the House of Representatives exercise its discretion to depart from Iowa law. They were elected under Iowa law. Every one of the 435 Congressmen were elected under the laws of their State. Isn't it a little bit outrageous that people would say we should ignore the law of Iowa in this case? I hope that we can get every one of Iowa's four Congressmen and -women to vote to keep Miller-Meeks in office, and I want to hear from every one of my colleagues who decried overturning State-certified elections in January if each still holds that position. Of course, attention to the Press Gallery--I was asked more times than I can count if I accepted the results of the Presidential election. It would be very timely and a very relevant question to ask Senators in the hallways if they accept the certified election of Representative Miller-Meeks I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1742-3 | null | 2,648 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Remembering Judge Peter W. Hall Madam President, now on an entirely different matter, I want to speak about a dear friend, U.S. Second Circuit Court Judge Peter Hall, who died on March 11. Ever since then, I have thought back to a conversation I had with him--just like many, many conversations I had with Judge Hall over the years--just a few days before he died. He was telling me about the health concerns he had, very serious ones, but that he was going to try one other thing that weekend that he had hoped may give him a longer spell of life, but it didn't. It was only a matter of days after that last conversation. As I said, it was one of many I had with him. A few days after that last conversation, he died. He died on March 11, just 1 week after announcing his decision to take senior status. Chief judge of the Second Circuit, Debra Ann Livingston, gave a remarkable tribute in which she acknowledged his death. In speaking for the court, Chief Judge Livingston said: Judge Hall was our beloved colleague, and this is a grievous loss for our Court and for all of our judges. Over the course of nearly 17 years on the Court of Appeals, Judge Hall distinguished himself as a thoughtful and humane jurist. He was generous with his colleagues and ever considerate in matters both big and small. Judge Hall was committed to public service and taught us all by his example. He was a kind and very dear friend. This is a sad day for the judges of the Court of Appeals. A deeper read of the two-page announcement offered more insights that help us understand what made Judge Hall the exceptional jurist that he was. Noting that Judge Hall left a ``lasting mark'' on a generation of law clerks, Chief Judge Livingston shared an anecdote as was told by one of those clerks. She said: One winter morning we were working away in chambers, and he had not turned up. Not unusual, but we were all wondering if something had happened. He rolled in midday with his dirty work pants and torn flannel shirt--in other words, no more haggard than usual. He explained that he had taken his truck through the woods that morning after taking care of the horses but had gotten stuck. Luckily, he had an axe, so it was only a matter of chopping down a few trees to put under the truck tires for traction. He freed himself and made his way into chambers like it was nothing--just another day on the Second Circuit. Chief Judge Livingston repeated that story, told by one of Judge Hall's clerks. But, you know, the story speaks to the person Judge Hall was: never too important to carry out the chores of the day; never too far from the Vermont woods that he loved so much. I don't know how many times I would talk with him, and we might talk a little bit about the law or things like that, and then we would quickly go to tales of other Vermonters we knew, the things they had done, the places that we liked especially in our State. And I thought, as more tributes have flooded in, the most common remembrances, of Judge Hall include words such as ``decent,'' ``gentle,'' and ``caring.'' His long career, which spanned years in both private practice and as a Federal prosecutor before joining the bench, demonstrated his commitment to the rule of law. It was a commitment that he showed early on when he served as president of the Legal Aid Clinic, while still earning his juris doctorate at Cornell Law School. When I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003, I was proud to recommend Peter Hall for the circuit court vacancy left by the passing of another dear friend, Judge Fred I. Parker. And it was no surprise to me that his nomination was met with very little resistance, either from the White House or from Republicans and Democrats alike on the Judiciary Committee. I teased him sometimes about the fact that he was born in Hartford, CT, but moved to Vermont at the age of 11. Did that make him a real Vermonter? And the reaction I got from him was: Patrick, my great-great-grandfather served as Governor of Vermont in the mid-1850s. I had to admit, the judge had me there. He always considered Vermont his home, and we are grateful that he did. Marcelle and I enjoyed our friendship, and we send our sincere condolences to his wife Maria Dunton and his five children and his five grandchildren. I would also note, in concluding, that Judge Hall's former law clerks released a touching tribute, and I ask consent--and I will ask consent in a moment that it be printed in the Record, along with a list of their names, over 60 law clerks. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, their statement and their names be included in the Record. Vermont and the legal community and the Federal bench have lost a great champion of justice. As Chief Judge Livingston concluded in her statement, ``Peter Hall lived a life of fidelity to principles, kindness to individuals, and service to the human community. He will be greatly missed.'' This is a great truth | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1743 | null | 2,649 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a Member of Congress, I have cast a number of important votes over the years, votes on whether to send our Nation's brave servicemembers to war or to impeach a President, but perhaps the most important vote I have ever cast was 11 years ago this week, in support of the Affordable Care Act. Since the law's passage in 2010, the ACA has provided health insurance to more than 23 million Americans, including nearly 1 million Illinoisans. That is almost 1 out of every 20 peopleliving in my home State. Thanks to the ACA, they are now covered. That measure was called the Affordable Care Act for a reason: It is estimated to have saved every family in America about $4,000 in health insurance premiums. I don't think any of us could have predicted 11 years ago just how important the protections it guaranteed to Americans would become. Then came the coronavirus. In the year since the pandemic was declared, the virus has claimed more than half a million American lives. That is more than the number of American lives lost in World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam war combined. We grieve with every family who has suffered a loss, and we know there are millions more Americans who have been affected by the virus. Thirty million of our family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbors have been diagnosed with COVID-19. That is 30 million Americans who are now living with a preexisting condition. We have heard stories about the so-called long-haulers, individuals who report they are still having health problems months after their original diagnosis. They are struggling with shortness of breath, trouble sleeping, severe fatigue, and other symptoms that NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins has deemed a ``significant public health concern.'' These Americans have enough to worry about as it is with their recovery; could you imagine if they also had to worry about being able qualify for health coverage? In a world without the ACA, they would have. Before the ACA was the law of the land, people could be denied health coverage or charged significantly higher premiums for having diabetes or asthma--even acne. Could you imagine if this pandemic hit before we passed that law? The tens of millions of Americans who would have to wonder how they were going to pay for their care, their children's care, in the middle of a pandemic? Thanks to the ACA, they are covered. It has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, like Michelle Crifasi, one of my neighbors in Springfield, IL. Recently, Michelle wrote to me about what the ACA has meant for her and her family. For much of her life, Michelle was burdened with an unknown illness, until she was finally diagnosed with common variable immune deficiency in her mid-thirties. It is a rare condition that limits the immune system's ability to fight infection. The diagnosis was bittersweet. While she could finally begin to understand and treat her condition, she later learned that she had passed it down to her daughter. Her husband also developed it after undergoing cancer treatment. The good news is that Michelle and her family have health insurance through her employer, and because of the Affordable Care Act, this employer-based health plan can no longer deny Michelle health coverage or charge her higher premiums because she has a preexisting condition. Her insurer can no longer impose annual or lifetime caps on her care. It can't cut her off right when she needs healthcare the most. Michelle's daughter, Meredith, a junior at the University of Illinois-Springfield, is able to stay on her parents' plan until age 26. Because of the ACA, Michelle's health plan must cover her family's prescription drug costs. Without insurance coverage, treating common variable immune deficiency can cost patients more than $100,000 a year. Put simply, these protections were not in place before the Affordable Care Act, and Michelle and her family are alive today because of these protections. This family's story is proof that the ACA is one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in modern American history, and it is also proof that there is a lot more we can do to protect people like her and her family. While Michelle is grateful for the ACA, she recently told me that ``I feel there is more work to be done.'' And she is right, which is why we fought, as part of the American Rescue Plan, to expand health insurance subsidies and eligibility for plans covered under the ACA. These provisions will ensure that no enrollee spends more than 8.5 percent of their income on health insurance premiums. The typical 60-year-old couple in Illinois could see their premiums reduced by $1,300. The ARP also increases eligibility for premium subsidies to working-class American families earning more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. Outside of the ARP, the Biden-Harris administration has taken other steps to bolster the ACA, like creating a special open enrollment period and ensuring that the DOJ defends the law in the case before the Supreme Court. All of this is welcome news, and I look forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration to accomplish even more. That is why we not only celebrate the historic passage of the ACA but all of the lives it has saved as well. After years of unrelenting, unjustified attacks on this critical piece of legislation, we are finally in a position to build on it. I am ready to work with the Biden-Harris administration to create a public option, lower prescription drug prices, and address racial and ethnic disparities in our healthcare system. After 11 years since its passage, I am proud to declare: The ACA is here to stay. And here in Congress, we will continue working to perfect it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1760 | null | 2,650 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a Member of Congress, I have cast a number of important votes over the years, votes on whether to send our Nation's brave servicemembers to war or to impeach a President, but perhaps the most important vote I have ever cast was 11 years ago this week, in support of the Affordable Care Act. Since the law's passage in 2010, the ACA has provided health insurance to more than 23 million Americans, including nearly 1 million Illinoisans. That is almost 1 out of every 20 peopleliving in my home State. Thanks to the ACA, they are now covered. That measure was called the Affordable Care Act for a reason: It is estimated to have saved every family in America about $4,000 in health insurance premiums. I don't think any of us could have predicted 11 years ago just how important the protections it guaranteed to Americans would become. Then came the coronavirus. In the year since the pandemic was declared, the virus has claimed more than half a million American lives. That is more than the number of American lives lost in World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam war combined. We grieve with every family who has suffered a loss, and we know there are millions more Americans who have been affected by the virus. Thirty million of our family members, friends, colleagues, and neighbors have been diagnosed with COVID-19. That is 30 million Americans who are now living with a preexisting condition. We have heard stories about the so-called long-haulers, individuals who report they are still having health problems months after their original diagnosis. They are struggling with shortness of breath, trouble sleeping, severe fatigue, and other symptoms that NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins has deemed a ``significant public health concern.'' These Americans have enough to worry about as it is with their recovery; could you imagine if they also had to worry about being able qualify for health coverage? In a world without the ACA, they would have. Before the ACA was the law of the land, people could be denied health coverage or charged significantly higher premiums for having diabetes or asthma--even acne. Could you imagine if this pandemic hit before we passed that law? The tens of millions of Americans who would have to wonder how they were going to pay for their care, their children's care, in the middle of a pandemic? Thanks to the ACA, they are covered. It has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, like Michelle Crifasi, one of my neighbors in Springfield, IL. Recently, Michelle wrote to me about what the ACA has meant for her and her family. For much of her life, Michelle was burdened with an unknown illness, until she was finally diagnosed with common variable immune deficiency in her mid-thirties. It is a rare condition that limits the immune system's ability to fight infection. The diagnosis was bittersweet. While she could finally begin to understand and treat her condition, she later learned that she had passed it down to her daughter. Her husband also developed it after undergoing cancer treatment. The good news is that Michelle and her family have health insurance through her employer, and because of the Affordable Care Act, this employer-based health plan can no longer deny Michelle health coverage or charge her higher premiums because she has a preexisting condition. Her insurer can no longer impose annual or lifetime caps on her care. It can't cut her off right when she needs healthcare the most. Michelle's daughter, Meredith, a junior at the University of Illinois-Springfield, is able to stay on her parents' plan until age 26. Because of the ACA, Michelle's health plan must cover her family's prescription drug costs. Without insurance coverage, treating common variable immune deficiency can cost patients more than $100,000 a year. Put simply, these protections were not in place before the Affordable Care Act, and Michelle and her family are alive today because of these protections. This family's story is proof that the ACA is one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in modern American history, and it is also proof that there is a lot more we can do to protect people like her and her family. While Michelle is grateful for the ACA, she recently told me that ``I feel there is more work to be done.'' And she is right, which is why we fought, as part of the American Rescue Plan, to expand health insurance subsidies and eligibility for plans covered under the ACA. These provisions will ensure that no enrollee spends more than 8.5 percent of their income on health insurance premiums. The typical 60-year-old couple in Illinois could see their premiums reduced by $1,300. The ARP also increases eligibility for premium subsidies to working-class American families earning more than 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. Outside of the ARP, the Biden-Harris administration has taken other steps to bolster the ACA, like creating a special open enrollment period and ensuring that the DOJ defends the law in the case before the Supreme Court. All of this is welcome news, and I look forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration to accomplish even more. That is why we not only celebrate the historic passage of the ACA but all of the lives it has saved as well. After years of unrelenting, unjustified attacks on this critical piece of legislation, we are finally in a position to build on it. I am ready to work with the Biden-Harris administration to create a public option, lower prescription drug prices, and address racial and ethnic disparities in our healthcare system. After 11 years since its passage, I am proud to declare: The ACA is here to stay. And here in Congress, we will continue working to perfect it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1760 | null | 2,651 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier this week, I joined Senator Leahy in introducing the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act. Our bill would strengthen Federal law by making it easier for prosecutors to go after gun traffickers and straw purchasers, those individuals without criminal records who buy firearms for other people so they can bypass the Federal background checks law. Our bill would also fully protect the rights of the vast majority of gun owners who are law-abiding citizens. Straw purchasing is intended to achieve one result: to put a gun in the hands of a criminal who cannot legally obtain one. Today, traffickers, in particular, exploit weaknesses in Federal law by targeting people who can lawfully purchase guns. Then, those traffickers use those guns to commit crimes or sell them to other criminals. They often ship them across State lines, straight up I-95's ``Iron Pipeline'' and other interstate highways. They frequently connect with criminal gangs that are ready to sell or trade those guns for prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl, and commit other crimes. Yet right now, a straw purchaser can be prosecuted only for lying on a Federal form, a paperwork violation. Our bill would create new criminal offenses for straw purchasing, which would help law enforcement officials take down these criminal enterprises. The heroin and fentanyl epidemic is taking a devastating toll on all of our communities. Police officers in Maine tell me about the familiar patterns they see: Drug dealers and gang members, often from out-of-State and with criminal records, cross into Maine and approach drug addicts to be their straw buyers, people with clean records who may legally purchase firearms. They target addicts, who exchange guns for heroin to support their drug dependencies, and the cycle repeats time and again. I received a briefing from Federal law enforcement officials about a case in Maine fitting this exact pattern. Gang members trafficked crack cocaine and heroin between New Haven, CT, and Bangor, ME, and committed acts of violence including assaults, armed robberies, attempted murder, and murder. They traded narcotics for firearms and then distributed those firearms to other gang members. This is exactly the criminal activity our bill aims to prevent. And our bill would complement existing laws that target criminals who are profiting off of firearm and drug trafficking. It is very difficult to prevent and prosecute straw purchasing offenses under current Federal law. As I stated, right now, a straw purchaser can be prosecuted only for lying on a Federal form, which amounts to a paperwork violation. The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act would create new, specific criminal offenses for straw purchasing and trafficking in firearms. Instead of a slap on the wrist, these crimes would be punishable by up to 15 years in prison. For those straw purchasers who know or have reasonable cause to believe that the firearm they are acquiring will be used to commit a crime of violence, that crime would be punishable by up to 25 years in prison. Our bill would also strengthen existing laws that prohibit gun smuggling. Right now, it is illegal for someone to smuggle a firearm into the United States with the intent to engage in drug trafficking or violent crime. To combat the drug cartels operating across our southern border, however, we must also prohibit firearms and ammunition from being trafficked out of the United States for these illegal purposes. In doing so, our bill would provide an important tool to combat trafficking organizations that are exporting firearms and ammunition from the United States and into Mexico where they are used by drug cartels that are in turn fueling the heroin crisis here at home. I also want to emphasize that our bill protects the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens. It protects legitimate private gun sales and is drafted to avoid sweeping in innocent transactions and placing unnecessary burdens on lawful, private sales. It expressly exempts certain transactions that are allowed under current law, such as gifts, raffles, and auctions. Furthermore, the bill expressly prohibits any authority provided by this act from being used to establish a Federal firearms registry. The Stop Illegal Trafficking and Firearms Act will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1763 | null | 2,652 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate Irish-American Heritage Month and the many contributions of Irish immigrants to the United States of America. The Irish have been a part of our country since its foundation. Donegal-born Richard Montgomery was the first American general to lose his life in the Revolutionary War. Especially during the 19th and early 20th centuries, many Irish immigrants came to America to escape religious persecution, famine, and economic hardship, and to seek new opportunities for themselves and their families. Maryland's long tradition of religious tolerance provided safe haven for many Irish Catholics fleeing religious persecution as early as the 17th century. Maryland again became a leading destination for the Irish during the Great Hunger in the early 19th century. The Irish helped build and defend our country. They became farmers, soldiers, firefighters, police officers, factory workers, labor organizers, and politicians. Many Irish immigrants settled in southwest Baltimore and contributed great numbers to the workforce that built America's first railroad, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. Irish Marylanders have made notable contributions to both our Nation and our State in politics, science, and education. Marylander Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a third-generation Irish American, signed the Declaration of Independence, was a Founding Father, and served as the first U.S. Senator for Maryland. Medical trailblazer John Crawford emigrated from Ireland to Maryland and became famous for his contributions to eradicating smallpox, helping to identify transmission pathways, and improving vaccine distribution. Maryland has been home to numerous Irish Catholic bishops including John Carroll, James Gibbons, and Michael Curley. Bishop Carroll founded two universities, including St. Mary's College and Seminary. Bishop Gibbons advocated for the protection of exploited laborers during industrial expansion. Bishop Curley expanded education opportunities throughout Maryland. Descendants of Irish immigrants have also left their mark on America and on Maryland. Famous Marylanders with Irish ancestry include Edgar Allen Poe and Michael Phelps. When the Irish came to America, they brought a tremendous sense of pride and grit. The resiliency of Irish Americans has helped pull our Nation through difficult times. Irish Americans, despite facing trials and persecution, have persevered and have left a lasting, beneficial impact on our Nation; Yet they also maintain a strong and unique sense of identity and love for the Emerald Isle, enriching the diversity of our lives and communities. So, this month, in addition to donning your green and enjoying a pint of Guinness, I call on all Americans to remember and appreciate the many contributions of the Irish here in America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1764 | null | 2,653 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first time: H.R. 1868. An act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes. S. 963. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1765-5 | null | 2,654 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | The following bills were read the first time: H.R. 1868. An act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes. S. 963. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1765-5 | null | 2,655 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | The following bills were read the first time: H.R. 1868. An act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes. S. 963. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1765-5 | null | 2,656 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Smith, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Reed, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Warren, Mr. Coons, Ms. Hassan, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Baldwin, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Casey, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Lujan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 135 Whereas the United States celebrates National Women's History Month every March to recognize and honor the achievements of women throughout the history of the United States; Whereas there are nearly 29,000,000 Latinas living in the United States; Whereas 1 in 6 women in the United States is a Latina; Whereas Latinas have helped shape the history of the United States since its inception; Whereas Latinas contribute to the society of the United States through working in many industries, including business, education, science and technology, medicine, engineering, mathematics, literature and the arts, the military, agriculture, hospitality, and public service; Whereas Latinas serve as essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, filling vital positions that keep the economy going and the people of the United States safe; Whereas Latinas come from diverse cultures across North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, and Afro-Latinas face disparities in recognition; Whereas Latinas are dedicated public servants, holding posts at the highest levels of the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court of the United States, Cabinet- level positions, the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives; Whereas Latinas make up an estimated 19 percent of women serving in the Armed Forces, and the first Latina to become a general in the Marine Corps reached that rank in 2006; Whereas Latinas are breaking the glass ceiling in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, with the first Latina to travel into space doing so during a 9-day Space Shuttle Discovery mission in 1993; Whereas Latinas own more than 2,000,000 businesses, and 18 percent of all women-owned companies in the United States are owned by a Latina; Whereas Latina activists have led the fight for civil rights, including labor rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights, and racial equality; Whereas Latinas create award-winning art and are recipients of Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony awards; Whereas Latina singers and songwriters, like Selena, also known as the Queen of Tejano music, and Celia Cruz, also known as the Queen of Salsa, have made lasting and significant contributions to music throughout the world; Whereas Latinas serve in the medical profession, and the first female and first Hispanic Surgeon General of the United States was appointed in 1990; Whereas Latinas serve as journalists, reporting vital news and information to the public; Whereas Latinas are world-class athletes, representing the United States in the Olympics and other international competitions; Whereas Latinas are paid just 55 cents for every dollar paid to White, non-Hispanic men; Whereas, in the face of societal obstacles, including unequal pay, disparities in education, health care needs, and civil rights struggles, Latinas continue to break through and thrive; Whereas the United States should continue to invest in the future of Latinas to address the barriers they face; and Whereas, by 2060, Latinas will represent \1/4\ of the female population of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) celebrates and honors the successes of Latinas and the contributions they have made and continue to make to the United States; and (2) recognizes the changes that are still to be made to ensure that Latinas can realize their full potential as equal members of society. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1776-2 | null | 2,657 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is not Thursday yet, but it is almost Thursday, and that is when I love to come down to the floor of the U.S. Senate to recognize an Alaskan who is doing something great for our State. And as many know here, we call this person our Alaskan of the Week. Now, it is one of my favorite times of the week. I know that a couple of Hill watchers like it too. I want to give a shout-out to Chris Cioffi from Roll Call. He actually did a piece in Roll Call today about the ``Alaskan of the Week'' series. So thank you, Chris. I hope you are watching. It is a little late, and it is not Thursday. But anyway, I appreciate the shout-out in your series today. I am going to get to the punch. Our Alaskan of the Week tonight, this week, is Rod Boyce, a friend of mine, a former longtime editor of one of my favorite--actually, it is my favorite newspaper in Alaska, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. He clearly is deserving of this great, important award. But before I talk about Rod, let me give you a little update about what is going on in the State. First, some good news, something we are all very proud of in Alaska. The economy is hurting; we are not proud of that. But in terms of the pandemic, the health elements, our State continues to be the No. 1 State vaccinated per capita of any State in the country. This is a minimiracle, by the way, because we are a really big State, and we are really spread out, a really small population. And yet, the Federal Government, Tribal healthcare system, VA, State of Alaska, everybody coming together is making it happen. About 3 weeks ago, we announced that anyone over 16 could get a vaccine. And some communities are hitting 60, 70 percent vaccinated already in Alaska. Really important. We are opening up. If you are watching, and you don't live in Alaska, come visit. It is going to be safe, but we are very proud of that accomplishment because it has taken a lot of work. Of course, it is cold in Alaska, but the Sun has been shining. The snow has been amazing. We have had a lot of it recently. The spirits are up. We have an Iditarod winner. Congratulations to Dallas Seavey on your fifth Iditarod win. Incredible, incredible. You know, some may take issue with the claim that Alaska is the most unique State in the Union, but consider this: Every year, teams of mushers and their dogs barrel hundreds of miles across the State toward the city of Nome, in some of the harshest conditions, rugged conditions on the planet Earth. Certainly, these are the kind of events that we think make Alaska unique and a big sense of community. I have said it before: Alaska isn't always the easiest place to live. It is far from the lower 48. The weather can be extreme, very tough. But as a result, the people and communities bond, and they work together, particularly in some of our most remote communities. We are one big community in the great State of Alaska, as my colleague from Nebraska knows. Every community in Alaska, in America, needs to be able to share reliable, credible information. On that topic, of course, there has been a lot of negative attention in the past couple of years paid to some in the national media, particularly in the last few years. But the vital role, the vital role of local journalism and how that role that plays in different communities across our country, in my view, hasn't had nearly enough attention, and it is a positive role, our local reporters. So our Alaskan of the Week, Rod Boyce, who, until just a few weeks ago was the longtime editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, spent nearly his entire career, 35 years, ensuring that Alaskans stayed connected through local news. Now, Rod himself hasn't made huge headlines in the State. As a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons for the Alaskan of the Week, to do a shout-out to someone wh has not gotten a lot of recognition. The only time Rod has gotten a lot of headlines was one instance of a mushing mishap. I am going to talk briefly about that. But as an old-school newsman, he liked to stay behind the headlines, behind the scenes. But he has been behind the scenes of so many of those headlines in our State. For years, he worked tirelessly--first at papers across the State and then for 27 years at the News-Miner--to keep the great community of Fairbanks and North Pole, AK, the interior part of our State, connected and informed. So here is a little bit about Rod. Born in London, England--I have known Rod for many years, but I did not know that fact. Born in London, England, his family moved to Southern California in the 1960s. His father designed and engineered refineries. And Rod's father and his wife--Rod's mom--raised both him and his sister. He wasn't sure what he wanted to do in life, but he was inspired by a trip he took to England early in his college career, came back with a camera that he actually found on a bench in the Heathrow Airport. It is an interesting detail. And he found his calling in journalism. He was the editor of the school newspaper at Humboldt State University and did some stints at small papers, landed at the Sacramento Union--the oldest paper in the West, by the way--one that Mark Twain used to write for. It was his first experience with a good old-fashioned newspaper war. The younger, afternoon paper, the Sacramento Bee, decided to take on the establishment Sacramento Union. Eventually, the Bee won. But by then, Rod had made his way to the great State of Alaska to enter another, even bigger newspaper war: the Anchorage Times, the established paper, versus the upstart Anchorage Daily News. Any person in news in Alaska who has been around a while will talk about that newspaper war with something of awe in their voice. Both papers then were fully staffed up, at least 30 reporters each, bureaus all across the State, even bureaus here in DC, pre-social media days, pre-Twitter days. Reporters spent their days on the streets, knocking on doors, stealing each other's scoops. It was called shoe leather reporting, and some great journalism in Alaska emerged. Eventually, the upstart, the young Anchorage Daily News--still around--won the war. So Rod was on the losing team. He began to work for a small chain of six or seven rural papers called Alaska Newspapers, Inc. It was here that Rod got his first glimpse of rural Alaska. He learned about fisheries issues, ate his first piece of muktuk. That is whale blubber. He experienced the beauty and became aware of the heartbreak of rural Alaska, the true spiritual soul of our State, one of the spiritual souls of America, I would argue. After a few years with Alaska newspapers, he took the job that he has been so good at for almost three decades, editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, which is my wonderful wife Julie's hometown. It is the first city I lived in with Julie and our brandnew daughter of ours, Meghan, and, of course, I can still consider the News-Miner to be my hometown newspaper. As I mentioned, Rod was an editor for 27 years for this great interior Alaska paper. The News-Miner is small but mighty in Alaska, punching way above its weight, winning numerous journalism awards, breaking important stories on health crises, injustice, scandals, economic opportunities, everyday stories about everyday people, the kind of stories that draw us together as communities. As Rod said, ``It's not just national journalism that matters. Local journalism matters [too].'' To that end, it was his policy, until he just retired a couple of weeks ago, to have at least 95 percent of the front page of the News-Miner devoted to local news. That is a great idea. So many Alaskans have interests, hobbies, lifestyles that many here in the lower 48 just don't understand, Rod included. For many years, he spent his days in the newsroom and his evenings and weekends mushing dogs. And he still mushes. He loves it. It is a family affair. He and his wife Julie used to put their daughter, Edie, in a sled when she was just in diapers. And Edie is still doing it. The most dogs they have everhad now is 27. It is down to 18. This is hard work. It is tons of work. My wife Julie and her family also raised sled dogs. It is really hard work, particularly in the cold, interior Alaska winters. And it is also dangerous, as Rod can attest. In 2000, when competing for the first time in the 200-mile Tustumena 200 Sled Dog Race on the Kenai Peninsula, he took a wrong turn. It was snowing hard. It was difficult to see. The trail got obliterated. And he couldn't figure out how to get back on the trail. So he staked his dogs and hunkered down on a ridge to build camp. He had some candy, Reese's Pieces, dried lamb for the dogs. He had a cooker, thermos, some fuel, some twigs. He had bunny boots, fortunately, but not a parka. He spent his days exploring, going as far as he dared to try to find the trail at night. At night, he could hear the helicopters above, looking for Rod, but they couldn't see him through the cloud cover. What was going on turned out to be one of the largest land search and rescue missions in Alaska history, trying to find Rod Boyce, the intrepid editor of the News-Miner. But he didn't know that. He just knew that his days were ticking away. Rod's wife Julie was worried sick, of course, but kept it together throughout. On the sixth day--sixth day--almost a week, when the sky cleared, he headed out again and a snow machine came his way. ``I think I am the guy you're looking for,'' he told the driver, Ron Poston. Ron gave him a candy bar and a ride to safety. That night, he and his wife celebrated with a beer and a cheeseburger. His feet were in bad shape, but otherwise he was unharmed. When he made it back to the newsroom, his fellow reporters put up markers that led from his parking space into the building in case he got lost again. He thought it was pretty funny. On January 22, Rod Boyce left the News-Miner to take a job as a science writer and public information officer at the very cool and esteemed Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He spends his days now writing about Tsunamis and the skies and the heavens. He said: It is a nerd's dream . . . I had a good 35-year run in newspapers and was very fortunate to experience the things that I did and interact with all sorts of public officials and regular folks on the street. I got to see them at their highs and lows, their tragedies and their happiest moments. He still has hopes for local news. ``A local news outlet can tie a local community together and that is super important. I hope that never changes,'' said Rod. Me, too, Rod. Here is to local journalism. Here is to the mighty Fairbanks News-Miner, and here is to Rod Boyce. Thank you for being the guy behind the headlines all these many years. Thank you for keeping our communities and interior connected, and congratulations on perhaps one of the biggest awards you have ever received, our Alaskan of the Week. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1781 | null | 2,658 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak at some length, if time will permit me, about the same subject my friend from Washington State so eloquently addressed. My colleagues know that although when I speak, I sometimes get very passionate, I have not very often, in past years, risen to the floor for any extended period of time. I do that today because so much is at stake. For over 200 years, the Senate has embodied the brilliance of our Founding Fathers in creating an intricate system of checks and balances among the three branches of Government. This system has served two critical purposes, both allowing the Senate to act as an independent, restraining force on the excesses of the executive branch, and protecting minority rights within the Senate itself. The Framers used this dual system of checks and balances to underscore the independent nature of the Senate and its members. The Framers sought not to ensure simple majority rule, but to allow minority views--whether they are conservative, liberal, or moderate--to have an enduring role in the Senate in order to check the excesses of the majority. This system is now being tested in the extreme. I believe the proposed course of action we are hearing about these days is one that has the potential to do more damage to this system than anything that has occurred since I have become a Senator. History will judge us harshly, in my view, if we eliminate over 200 years of precedent and procedure in this body and, I might add, doing it by breaking a second rule of the Senate, and that is changing the rules of the Senate by a mere majority vote. When examining the Senate's proper role in our system of Government generally and in the process of judicial nominations specifically, we should begin, in my view, but not end with our Founding Fathers. As any grade school student knows, our Government is one that was infused by the Framers with checks and balances. I should have said at the outset that I owe special thanks--and I will list them--to a group of constitutional scholars and law professors in some of our great universities and law schools for editing this speech for me and for helping me write this speech because I think it may be one of the most important speeches for historical purposes that I will have given in the 32 years since I have been in the Senate. When examining the Senate's proper role in our system of Government and in the process of judicial nominations, as I said, we have to look at what our Founders thought about when they talked about checks and balances. The theoretical underpinning of this system can be found in Federalist 51 where the architect of our Constitution, James Madison, advanced his famous theory that the Constitution set up a system in which ``ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' As Madison notes, this is because ``[The] great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments by the other.'' Our Founders made the conscious decision to set up a system of government that was different from the English parliamentary system--the system, by the way, with which they were the most familiar. The Founders reacted viscerally to the aggrandizement of power in any one branch or any person, even in a person or body elected by the majority of the citizens of this country. Under the system the Founders created, they made sure that no longer would any one person or one body be able to run roughshod over everyone else. They wanted to allow the sovereign people--not the sovereign Government, the sovereign people--to pursue a strategy of divide and conquer and, in the process, to protect the few against the excesses of the many which they would witness in the French Revolution. The independence of the judiciary was vital to the success of that venture. As Federalist 78 notes: The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. Our Founders felt strongly that judges should exercise independent judgment and not be beholden to any one person or one body. John Adams, in 1776, stated: The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society, depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks upon that. Adams continues: The judges, therefore, should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness and attention; their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any one man or any body of men. In order to ensure that judicial independence, the very independence of which Adams spoke, the Founders did not give the appointment power to any one person or body, although it is instructive for us, as we debate this issue in determining the respective authority of the Senate and the Executive, it is important to note that for much of the Constitutional Convention, the power of judicial appointment was solely--solely--vested in the hands of the legislature. For the numerous votes taken about how to resolve this issue, never did the Founders conclude that it should start with the Executive and be within the power of the Executive. James Madison, for instance, was ``not satisfied with referring the appointment to the Executive;'' instead, he was ``rather inclined to give it to the Senatorial branch'' which he envisioned as a group ``sufficiently stable and independent'' to provide ``deliberative judgments.'' It was widely agreed that the Senate ``would be composed of men nearly equal to the Executive and would, of course, have on the whole more wisdom'' than the Executive. It is very important to point out that they felt ``it would be less easy for candidates''--referring to candidates to the bench--``to intrigue with [the Senators], more than with the Executive.'' In fact, during the drafting of the Constitution, four separate attempts were made to include Presidential involvement in judicial appointments, but because of the widespread fear of Presidential power, they all failed. There continued to be proponents of Presidential involvement, however, and finally, at the eleventh hour, the appointment power was divided and shared, as a consequence of the Connecticut Compromise I will speak to in a minute, between the two institutions, the President and the Senate. In the end, the Founders set up a system in which the President nominates and the Senate has the power to give or withhold--or withhold--its ``advice and consent.'' The role of ``advice and consent'' was not understood to be purely formal. The Framers clearly contemplated a substantive role on the part of the Senate in checking the President. This bifurcation of roles makes a lot of sense, for how best can we ensure that an independent judiciary is beholden to no one man or no one group than by requiring two separate and wholly independent entities to sign off before a judge takes the bench? There is a Latin proverb which translates to ``Who will guard the guardians?'' Our judges guard our rights, and our Founders were smart enough to put both the President and the Senate, acting independently, in charge of guarding our judicial guardians. Who will guard the guardians? As a Senator, I regard this not as just a right but as a solemn duty and responsibility, one that transcends the partisan disputes of any day or any decade. The importance of multiple checks in determining who our judges would be was not lost on our Founders, even on those who were very much in favor of a strong Executive. For example, Alexander Hamilton, probably the strongest advocate for a stronger Executive, wrote: The possibility of rejection [by the Senate] would be a strong motive to [take] care in proposing [nominations. The President] . . . would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward . . . candidates who had no other merit, than that . . . of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instrument of his pleasure. Hamilton also rebutted the argument that the Senate's rejection of nominees would give it an improper influence over the President, as some here have suggested, by stating: If by influencing the President be meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intended. And it has been shown that the restraint would be salutary. The end result of our Founders was a system in which both the President and the Senate had significant roles, a system in which the Senate was constitutionally required to exercise independent judgment, not simply to rubberstamp the President's desires. As Senator William Maclay said: [W]hoever attends strictly to the Constitution of the United States will readily observe that the part assigned to the Senate was an important one--no less that of being the great check, the regulator and corrector, or, if I may so speak, the balance of this government. . . .The approbation of the Senate was certainly meant to guard against the mistakes of the President in his appointments to office . . . The depriving power should be the same as the appointing power. The Founders gave us a system in which the Senate was to play a significant and substantive role in judicial nominations. They also provided us guidance on what type of legislative body they envisioned. In this new type of governance system they set up in 1789 where power would be separated and would check other power, the Founders envisioned a special unique role for the Senate that does not exist anywhere else in governance or in any parliamentary system. There is the oft-repeated discussion between two of our most distinguished Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reportedly, at a breakfast that Jefferson was having with Washington upon returning from Paris, because he was not here when the Constitution was written, Jefferson was somewhat upset that there was a bicameral legislative body, that a Senate was set up. He asked Washington: Why did you do this, set up a Senate? And Washington looked at Jefferson as they were having tea and said: Why did you pour that tea into your saucer? And Jefferson responded: To cool it. I might note parenthetically that was the purpose of a saucer originally. It was not to keep the tablecloth clean. Jefferson responded: To cool it, and Washington then sagely stated: Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it. The Senate was designed to play this independent and, I might emphasize, moderating--a word not heard here very often--moderating and reflective role in our Government. But what aspects of the Senate led it to become this saucer, cooling the passions of the day for the betterment of America's long-term future? First, the Founders certainly did not envision the Senate as a body of unadulterated majoritarianism. In fact, James Madison and other Founders were amply concerned about the majority's ability, as they put it, ``to oppress the minority.'' It was in this vein the Senate was set up ``first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly, to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led. . . .The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' Structurally, the Founders set up a ``different type of legislature'' by ensuring that each citizen--now here is an important point, and if anybody in this Chamber understands this, the Presiding Officer does--the Founders set up this different type of legislative body by ensuring that each citizen did not have an equal say in the functioning of the Senate--that sounds outrageous, to ensure they did not have an equal say--but that each State did have an equal say. In fact, for over a century, Senators were not originally chosen by the people, as the Presiding Officer knows, and it was not until 1913 that they were elected by the people as opposed to selected by their State legislative bodies. Today, Mr. President, you and I do stand directly before the people of our State for election, but the Senate remains to this day a legislative body that does not reflect the simple popular majority because representation is by States. That means someone from Maine has over 25 times as much effective voting power in this body as the Senator from California. An interesting little fact, and I do not say this to say anything other than how the system works, there are more desks on that side of the aisle. That side has 55. Does that side of the aisle realize this side of the aisle, with 45 desks, represents moreAmericans than they do? If we add up all the people represented by the Republican Party in the Senate, they add up to fewer people than the Democratic Party represents in the Senate. We represent the majority of the American people, but in this Chamber it is irrelevant and it should be because this was never intended in any sense to be a majoritarian institution. This distinctive quality of the Senate was part of that Great Compromise without which we would not have a Constitution referred to as the Connecticut Compromise. Edmund Randolph, who served as the first Attorney General of the United States and would later be Secretary of State, represented Virginia at the Constitutional Convention, and in that context he argued for fully proportionate representation in the debates over the proper form of the legislative branch, but ultimately he agreed to the Connecticut Compromise. After reflection, that so seldom happens among our colleagues, myself included, he realized his first position was incorrect and he stated: The general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man-- Referring to every man who agreed to the compromise-- had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be sought against this tendency of our Governments; and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer this purpose. So the Founders quite intentionally designed the Senate with these distinctive features. Specifically, article 1, section 5 of the Constitution states that each House may determine its own rules for its own proceedings. Precisely: ``Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.'' The text contains no limitations or conditions. This clause plainly vests the Senate with plenary power to devise its internal rules as it sees fit, and the filibuster was just one of those procedural rules of the many rules that vest a minority within the Senate with the potential to have a final say over the Senate's business. It was clear from the start that the Senate would be a different type of legislative body; it would be a consensus body that respects the rights of minorities, even the extreme minority power of a single Senator because that single Senator can represent a single and whole State. The way it is played out in practice was through the right of unlimited debate. I find it fascinating, we are talking about the limitation of a right that has already limited the original right of the Founding Fathers. The fact was there was no way to cut off debate for the first decades of this Republic. Joseph Story, famous justice and probably one of the best known arbiters of the Constitution in American history, his remark about the importance of the right of debate was ``the next great and vital privilege is the freedom of speech and debate, without which all other privileges would be comparatively unimportant, or ineffectual.'' And that goes to the very heart of what made the Senate different. In the Senate, each individual Senator was more than a number to be counted on the way to a majority vote, something I think some of us have forgotten. Daniel Webster put it this way: This is a Senate of equals, of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. We know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. Extended debate, the filibuster, was a means to reach a more modest and moderate result to achieve compromise and common ground to allow Senators, as Webster had put it, to be men--and now men and women--of absolute independence. Until 1917, there was no method to cut off debate in the Senate, to bring any measure to a vote, legislative or nomination--none, except unanimous consent. Unanimous consent was required up until 1917 to get a vote on a judge, on a bill, on anything on the Executive Calendar. The Senate was a place where minority rights flourished completely, totally unchecked, a place for unlimited rights of debate for each and every Senator. In part this can be understood as a recognition of our federal system of government in which we were not just a community of individuals but we were also a community of sovereign States. Through the Senate, each State, through their two Senators, had a right to extensive debate and full consideration of its views. For much of the Senate's history, until less than 100 years ago, to close off debate required not just two-thirds of the votes, but it required all of the votes. The Senate's history is replete with examples of situations in which a committed minority flexed its ``right to debate'' muscles. In fact, there was a filibuster over the location of the Capitol of the United States in the First Congress. But what about how this tradition of allowing unlimited debate and respect for minority rights played out in the nomination context, as opposed to the legislative process? First, the text of the Constitution makes no distinction whatsoever between nominations and legislation. Nonetheless, those who are pushing the nuclear option seem to suggest that while respect for minority rights has a long and respected tradition on the legislative side of our business, things were somehow completely different when it came to considering nominations. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The history of the Senate shows, and I will point to it now, that previous Senates certainly did not view that to be the case. While it is my personal belief that the Senate should be more judicious in the use of the filibuster, that is not how it has always been. For example, a number of President Monroe's nominations never reached the floor by the end of his administration and were defeated by delay, in spite of his popularity and his party's control of the Senate. Furthermore, President Adams had a number of judicial nominations blocked from getting to the floor. More than 1,300 appointments by President Taft were filibustered. President Wilson also suffered from the filibusters of his nominees. Not only does past practice show no distinction between legislation and judicial nominations in regards to the recognition of minority rights, the formal rules of the Senate have never recognized such a distinction, except for a 30-year stretch in the Senate history, 1917 to 1949, when legislation was made subject to cloture but nominations were not. Do my colleagues hear this? All of those who think a judge is more entitled to a vote than legislation, in 1917 it was decided that absolute unlimited debate should be curtailed, and there needs to be a two-thirds vote to cut off debate in order to bring legislation to the floor. But there was no change with regard to judicial nominees. There was a requirement of unanimous consent to get a nominee voted on. So much for the argument that the Constitution leans toward demanding a vote on nominations more than on legislation. It flies in the face of the facts, the history of America and the intent of our Framers. This fact in itself certainly undercuts the claim that there has been, by tradition, the insulating of judicial nominees from filibusters. In both its rules and its practices, the Senate has long recognized the exercise of minority rights with respect to nominations. And it should come as no surprise that in periods where the electorate is split very evenly, as it is now, the filibustering of nominations was used extensively. For example, my good friend Senator Hatch who is on the Senate floor--as my mother would say, God love him, because she likes him so much, and I like him, too--he may remember when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee back in the bad old days when the Democrats controlled the Senate during President Clinton's first 2 years in office, a time when the Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Senate but nonetheless the country remained very divided, numerous filibusters resulted, even in cases not involving the judiciary. I remind my friends, for example, that the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster for Surgeon General, Sam Brown to be ambassador to the Conference on Cooperation and Security in Europe, Janet Napolitano to be U.S. attorney in the District of Arizona, and Ricki Tigert for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation head, were all filibustered. We controlled the Senate, the House, the Presidency, but the Nation was nonetheless divided. Some may counter that there should be a difference between how judicialnominees should be treated versus the treatment accorded executive branch nominees, the Cabinet, and the rest. Constitutional text, historical practice and principle all run contrary to that proposition. On the textual point, we only have one appointments clause. It is also instructive to look at a few historical examples. In 1881, Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Stanley Matthews to the Supreme Court. A filibuster was mounted, but the Republican majority in the Senate was unable to break the filibuster, and Stanley Matthews' Supreme Court nomination failed without getting a vote. In 1968, the filibuster to block both Justice Abe Fortas from becoming Chief Justice and Fifth Circuit Court Judge Homer Thornberry to occupy the seat that Justice Fortas was vacating was one where the Democrats controlled the Senate, and the Republicans filibustered. The leader of that successful filibuster effort against Justice Fortas was Republican Senator Robert Griffin from Michigan. In commenting on the Senate's rejection of President George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Republican Senator who mounted a successful filibuster against Fortas on the floor-- translated, Fortas never got a vote, even though he was a sitting Supreme Court Justice about to be elevated to Chief Justice--what did the Senator from Michigan who led that fight say about the first fight in the Senate? That action in 1795 said to the President then in office and to future Presidents: ``Don't expect the Senate to be a rubberstamp. We have an independent coequal responsibility in the appointing process; and we intend to exercise that responsibility, as those who drafted the Constitution so clearly intended.'' There is also a very important difference between judicial and executive nominees that argued for greater Senate scrutiny of judicial nominees. It should be noted that legislation is not forever. Judicial appointments are for the life of the candidate. Of course, no President has unlimited authority, even related to his own Cabinet. But when you look at judges, they serve for life. An interesting fact that differentiates us from the 1800s, when these filibusters took place, and 1968, when they took place: The average time a Federal judge spends on the bench, if appointed in the last 10 years from today, has increased from 15 years to 24 years. That means that on average, every judge we vote for will be on that bench for a quarter century. Since the impeachment clause is fortunately not often used, the only opportunity the Senate has to have its say is in this process. The nuclear option was so named because it would cause widespread bedlam and dysfunction throughout the Senate, as the minority party, my party, has pledged to render its vigorous protest. But I do not want to dwell on those immediate consequences which, I agree with my Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, would be dramatic. He said: If we come to the nuclear option the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be in hell. However serious the immediate consequences may be, and however much such dysfunction would make both parties look juvenile and incompetent, the more important consequence is the long-term deterioration of the Senate. Put simply, the nuclear option threatens the fundamental bulwark of the constitutional design. Specifically, the nuclear option is a double-barreled assault on this institution. First, requiring only a bare majority of Senators to confirm a judicial nominee is completely contrary to the history and intent of the Senate. The nuclear option also upsets a tradition and history that says we are not going to change the rules of the Senate by a majority vote. It breaks the rule to change the rule. If we go down this path of the nuclear option, we will be left with a much different system from what our Founders intended and from how the Senate has functioned throughout its history. The Senate has always been a place where the structure and rules permit fast-moving partisan agendas to be slowed down; where hotheads could cool and where consensus was given a second chance, if not a third and a fourth. While 90 percent of the business is conducted by unanimous consent in this body, those items that do involve a difference of opinion, including judicial nominations, must at least gain the consent of 60 percent of its Members in order to have that item become law. This is not a procedural quirk. It is not an accident of history. It is what differentiates the Senate from the House of Representatives and the English Parliament. President Lyndon Johnson, the ``Master of the Senate,'' put it this way: In this country, a majority may govern but it does not rule. The genius of our constitutional and representative government is the multitude of safeguards provided to protect minority interests. And it is not just leaders from the Democratic Party who understand the importance of protecting minority rights. Former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker wrote in 1993 that compromising the filibuster: would topple one of the pillars of American Democracy: the protection of minority rights from majority rule. The Senate is the only body in the federal government where these minority rights are fully and specifically protected. Put simply, the nuclear option'' would eviscerate the Senate and turn it into the House of Representatives. It is not only a bad idea, it upsets the Constitutional design and it disserves the country. No longer would the Senate be that different kind of legislative body'' that the Founders intended. No longer would the Senate be the saucer'' to cool the passions of the immediate majority. Without the filibuster, more than 40 Senators would lack the means by which to encourage compromise in the process of appointing judges. Without the filibuster, the majority would transform this body into nothing more than a rubber stamp for every judicial nomination. The Senate needs the threat of filibuster to force a President to appoint judges who will occupy the sensible center rather than those who cater to the whim of a temporary majority. And here is why--it is a yes or no vote; you can't amend a nomination. With legislation, you can tinker around the edges and modify a bill to make it more palatable. You can't do that with a judge. You either vote for all of him or her, or none. So only by the threat of filibuster can we obtain compromise when it comes to judges. We, as Senators, collectively need to remember that it is our institutional duty to check any Presidential attempt to take over the Judiciary. As the Congressional Research Service, the independent and non-partisan research arm of Congress, stated, the ``nuclear option'' would: . . . strengthen the executive branch's hand in the selection of federal judges. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but an institutional one. Will the Senate aid and abet in the erosion of its Article I power by conceding to another branch greater influence over our courts? As Senator Stennis once said to me in the face of an audacious claim by President Nixon: Are we the President's men or the Senate's? He resolved that in a caucus by speaking to us as only John Stennis could, saying: I am a Senate man, not the President's man. Too many people here forget that. Earlier, I explained that for much of the Senate's history, a single Senator could stop legislation or a nomination dead in its tracks. More recent changes to the Senate Rules now require only \3/5\ of the Senate, rather than all of its Members, to end debate. Proponents of the ``nuclear option'' argue that their proposal is simply the latest iteration of a growing trend towards majoritarianism in the Senate. God save us from that fate, if it is true. I strongly disagree. Even a cursory review of these previous changes to the Senate Rules on unlimited debate show that these previous mechanisms to invoke cloture always respected minority rights. The ``nuclear option'' completely eviscerates minority rights. It is not simply a change in degree but a change in kind. It is a discontinuous action that is a sea change, fundamentally restructuring what the Senate is all about. It would change the Senate from a body that protects minority rights to one that is purely majoritarian. Thus, rather than simply being the next logical step in accommodating the Senate Rules to the demands of legislative and policy modernity, the ``nuclear option'' is a leap off the institutional precipice. And so here we collectively stand--on the edge of the most important procedural change during my 32-year Senate career, and one of the most important ever considered in the Senate; a change that would effectively destroy the Senate's independence in providing advice and consent. I ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for another 15 minutes. The PRESIDNG OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SASSE | Senate | CREC-2021-03-24-pt1-PgS1782-2 | null | 2,659 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, despite unprecedented obstacles, the Senate has had an extremely productive first period of business. It has been a little over 60 days since Democrats assumed the majority in the Senate and Joe Biden was sworn in as President. In that relatively short amount of time, the Senate has confirmed every available Cabinet Secretary--a group filled with a bevy of historic firsts--faster than under the prior two administrations. Every single Cabinet nominee has received a bipartisan vote of approval here on the floor, a tribute to their character, their qualifications, and their caliber. The Senate also conducted a fair and honest impeachment trial of the former President, resulting in the largest and most bipartisan convictionvote in the history, in the history of Presidential impeachments. And, of course, the Democratic majority in the Senate passed the most sweeping Federal recovery effort in decades, the American Rescue Plan. Again, despite several unprecedented obstacles, not only did we get a late start on our work, a result of the runoff elections in Georgia, we have had to contend with the aftermath of an armed insurrection at the Capitol, an impeachment trial, and the difficulty of navigating an evenly divided Senate. Let's take a quick look at the scoreboard. Economists project that the American Rescue Plan could double economic growth while cutting child poverty in half--the biggest anti-poverty effort in a generation. We have made the single largest investment in American education and Native Tribes ever. Experts have called the American Rescue Plan the most significant legislation for Black farmers since the Civil Rights Act. The American Rescue Plan provides a lifeline to Main Street businesses from one end of the country to the other. Companies are already scaling back layoffs. In less than 100 days, the Biden administration and Democratic majorities have helped deliver more than 100 million shots in people's arms and 100 million checks in people's pockets. As a result, the American people are more optimistic than at any time over the past year, and for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic began, a clear majority of Americans believe our country is back on track. Just this morning, the jobs report showed that applications for unemployment benefits fell by nearly 100,000 people--a sign that businesses are reopening and Americans are optimistic about getting back to work. After one of the most difficult years in American history, the country is finally turning the corner, and the Senate is off to a fantastic start. Now looking forward, of course the job certainly isn't done yet. Now that we have passed the American Rescue Plan, the Senate must continue to make progress on other issues facing the American people. When the Senate returns to session, our agenda will be no less ambitious than it was over the past few months. We will focus on three areas: one, voting rights, civil rights; two, economic recovery and jobs, with an emphasis on climate change and building back better; and three, health and gun safety. This Senate will once again be the forum where civil rights are debated and historic action is taken to secure them for all Americans. Last week, the Judiciary Committee held the first-ever hearing on the Equality Act, landmark legislation that would enshrine as a matter of law that no American shall be denied justice based on their gender or sexual orientation. In the coming work period, the Democratic majority will also seek to repeal a Trump administration rule that gives employers an unfair advantage over workers when settling discriminatory claims. At the same time, the Judiciary and Rules Committees have started their work responding to the concerted, nationwide, despicable attack on voting rights. In one State after another, new restrictions on the franchise are taking aim at communities of color in ways we haven't seen since the days of Jim Crow. Yesterday, I attended the Rules Committee hearing on S. 1, the For the People Act, and I listened to my Republican colleagues try to defend these outrageous voter suppression laws. One member on the committee told us not to worry about them because many are just proposals and won't become law. Later that day, the same day, the Montana State Senate advanced a bill to end same-day voter registration. Another member on the committee defended limits to early voting on Sundays--a day when many African Americans go to vote after church--by quoting the Bible and the Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. I don't know where to begin with that one, but I will start by reminding my colleagues of the separation between church and state, and, frankly, the Bible passage she talked about comes from the Old Testament, when the Sabbath was on Saturday. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Across the country, the Republican Party seems to believe that the best strategy for winning elections is not to win more voters but to try to prevent the other side from voting. That is not America. That is not democracy. And this Senate will take action to protect the voting rights of tens of millions of Americans. The Senate will vote on the For the People Act. We will also keep a laser focus on our economic recovery. In the coming months, the Senate will consider legislation to rebuild our infrastructure and fight climate change, boost research and development and domestic manufacturing, reform our broken immigration system, and grow the power of American workers. Finally, the Senate will address health and gun safety. When the Senate gavels back into session, we will vote on Senator Hirono's COVID hate crimes bill, which my colleague Grace Meng has sponsored in the House. It will give the Department of Justice and our local police departments crucial tools to fight the wave of racist violence we have seen against Asian Americans. I have also committed to put a bill on expanded background checks on the floor of the Senate. On the health front, we will take aim against the former administration's decision to roll back limits on methane emissions from oil and gas production--gases that pack a much greater punch than carbon dioxide when it comes to our climate. Senators Heinrich, King, and Markey have been working very hard on this issue. I applaud them. The Senate will take up a Congressional Review Act measure to reinstate the commonsense regulation of methane emissions to fight climate change. The bottom line is this: The Senate of the 117th Congress has accomplished a lot in its first few months, but we have a lot of work left to do. The challenges our country still faces are immense, and there is no reason both sides cannot work together on issues that will affect our country and our children's future. We won't agree on everything, but we must agree that inaction is unacceptable. The Senate must help the country finish the job against COVID while continuing to build a more equal economy and a more just society. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1791-8 | null | 2,660 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, despite unprecedented obstacles, the Senate has had an extremely productive first period of business. It has been a little over 60 days since Democrats assumed the majority in the Senate and Joe Biden was sworn in as President. In that relatively short amount of time, the Senate has confirmed every available Cabinet Secretary--a group filled with a bevy of historic firsts--faster than under the prior two administrations. Every single Cabinet nominee has received a bipartisan vote of approval here on the floor, a tribute to their character, their qualifications, and their caliber. The Senate also conducted a fair and honest impeachment trial of the former President, resulting in the largest and most bipartisan convictionvote in the history, in the history of Presidential impeachments. And, of course, the Democratic majority in the Senate passed the most sweeping Federal recovery effort in decades, the American Rescue Plan. Again, despite several unprecedented obstacles, not only did we get a late start on our work, a result of the runoff elections in Georgia, we have had to contend with the aftermath of an armed insurrection at the Capitol, an impeachment trial, and the difficulty of navigating an evenly divided Senate. Let's take a quick look at the scoreboard. Economists project that the American Rescue Plan could double economic growth while cutting child poverty in half--the biggest anti-poverty effort in a generation. We have made the single largest investment in American education and Native Tribes ever. Experts have called the American Rescue Plan the most significant legislation for Black farmers since the Civil Rights Act. The American Rescue Plan provides a lifeline to Main Street businesses from one end of the country to the other. Companies are already scaling back layoffs. In less than 100 days, the Biden administration and Democratic majorities have helped deliver more than 100 million shots in people's arms and 100 million checks in people's pockets. As a result, the American people are more optimistic than at any time over the past year, and for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic began, a clear majority of Americans believe our country is back on track. Just this morning, the jobs report showed that applications for unemployment benefits fell by nearly 100,000 people--a sign that businesses are reopening and Americans are optimistic about getting back to work. After one of the most difficult years in American history, the country is finally turning the corner, and the Senate is off to a fantastic start. Now looking forward, of course the job certainly isn't done yet. Now that we have passed the American Rescue Plan, the Senate must continue to make progress on other issues facing the American people. When the Senate returns to session, our agenda will be no less ambitious than it was over the past few months. We will focus on three areas: one, voting rights, civil rights; two, economic recovery and jobs, with an emphasis on climate change and building back better; and three, health and gun safety. This Senate will once again be the forum where civil rights are debated and historic action is taken to secure them for all Americans. Last week, the Judiciary Committee held the first-ever hearing on the Equality Act, landmark legislation that would enshrine as a matter of law that no American shall be denied justice based on their gender or sexual orientation. In the coming work period, the Democratic majority will also seek to repeal a Trump administration rule that gives employers an unfair advantage over workers when settling discriminatory claims. At the same time, the Judiciary and Rules Committees have started their work responding to the concerted, nationwide, despicable attack on voting rights. In one State after another, new restrictions on the franchise are taking aim at communities of color in ways we haven't seen since the days of Jim Crow. Yesterday, I attended the Rules Committee hearing on S. 1, the For the People Act, and I listened to my Republican colleagues try to defend these outrageous voter suppression laws. One member on the committee told us not to worry about them because many are just proposals and won't become law. Later that day, the same day, the Montana State Senate advanced a bill to end same-day voter registration. Another member on the committee defended limits to early voting on Sundays--a day when many African Americans go to vote after church--by quoting the Bible and the Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. I don't know where to begin with that one, but I will start by reminding my colleagues of the separation between church and state, and, frankly, the Bible passage she talked about comes from the Old Testament, when the Sabbath was on Saturday. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Across the country, the Republican Party seems to believe that the best strategy for winning elections is not to win more voters but to try to prevent the other side from voting. That is not America. That is not democracy. And this Senate will take action to protect the voting rights of tens of millions of Americans. The Senate will vote on the For the People Act. We will also keep a laser focus on our economic recovery. In the coming months, the Senate will consider legislation to rebuild our infrastructure and fight climate change, boost research and development and domestic manufacturing, reform our broken immigration system, and grow the power of American workers. Finally, the Senate will address health and gun safety. When the Senate gavels back into session, we will vote on Senator Hirono's COVID hate crimes bill, which my colleague Grace Meng has sponsored in the House. It will give the Department of Justice and our local police departments crucial tools to fight the wave of racist violence we have seen against Asian Americans. I have also committed to put a bill on expanded background checks on the floor of the Senate. On the health front, we will take aim against the former administration's decision to roll back limits on methane emissions from oil and gas production--gases that pack a much greater punch than carbon dioxide when it comes to our climate. Senators Heinrich, King, and Markey have been working very hard on this issue. I applaud them. The Senate will take up a Congressional Review Act measure to reinstate the commonsense regulation of methane emissions to fight climate change. The bottom line is this: The Senate of the 117th Congress has accomplished a lot in its first few months, but we have a lot of work left to do. The challenges our country still faces are immense, and there is no reason both sides cannot work together on issues that will affect our country and our children's future. We won't agree on everything, but we must agree that inaction is unacceptable. The Senate must help the country finish the job against COVID while continuing to build a more equal economy and a more just society. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1791-8 | null | 2,661 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, our Nation is built on some fundamental ideas. One of those ideas is fairness. But there are millions of women across this country today who are doing the same job as their male colleagues and are being paid less. That is why on this National Equal Pay Day, I stand with my fellow Senators to close the pay equity gap and ensure equal pay for equal work. Fifty-eight years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still only earn, on average, 82 cents for every dollar paid to men. This wage gap is even worse for women of color. African-American women who work full time make only 63 cents for every dollar paid to White males. Hispanic women make only 55 cents on the dollar. In nearly every industry in our country, women's median earnings remain less than their male counterparts. There has been one profound change since the passage of the Equal Pay Act 58 years ago. Forty-one percent of women are now the primary-or only-breadwinners for their families. In my own State of Illinois, women earn, on average, just 81 cents for every dollar earned by men. African-American women in Illinois make just 63 cents for every dollar paid to White males. Hispanic women are paid even less-just 49 cents on the dollar. This pay discrimination hurts working families. More than one-third of households led by women in Illinois live in poverty. Over their lifetimes, this persistent pay equity gap will cost the average woman in my State nearly $500,000 in lost wages. This is not right, and it is not fair. And it means women have to work that much harder to support their families and retire in dignity, and too many can't achieve those goals no matter how long or hard they work. The coronavirus pandemic has underscored just how deep and damaging pay inequality is in the United States. Nearly 2 in 3 frontline workers are women. Yet they-nearly universally-are paid less than men in the same roles. For example, 88 percent of registered nurses are women. Yet they make 93 cents for every dollar a male nurse makes. Women who work as home health aides, personal care aides, or nursing assistants typically lose $250 per month, or $3,000 per year, because of the gender wage gap. While our economy is slowing starting to recover as people become vaccinated and the virus is brought under control, economists warn that it may take years for women to recover from the economic and career setbacks they have suffered during this pandemic. Four times as many women as men left the workforce in September of 2020 alone. More than 860,000 women compared to 216,000 men. From wage discrimination to the unavailability of childcare, women are not getting a fair deal. That means working families are not getting a fair deal. That must change. This Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act reintroduced by Senator Murray. The Paycheck Fairness Act would build on the successes of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was the first bill signed into law by President Obama back in 2009. The Lily Ledbetter Act prohibits gender-based pay discrimination, but it is hard to enforce because many employers still maintain policies that punish employees who voluntarily share salary information with their coworkers. Workers can't demand equal pay if they don't know that they are being underpaid. The Paycheck Fairness Act would close loopholes that still permit retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. It would prohibit employers from asking prospective employees about their salary history. It would require that employers prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons, not simply because they think that ``women's work'' is worth less. I am disappointed that Republican opposition has prevented the Senate from passing this bill, which is vital to the economic security of millions of American women and their families. But we are not giving up. Women have carried America's families and our economy through this pandemic. As the pandemic begins to end, so should the persistent pay discrimination against women. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to commit to passing the Paycheck Fairness Act and working with us to close this gender wage gap once and for all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-2 | null | 2,662 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, our Nation is built on some fundamental ideas. One of those ideas is fairness. But there are millions of women across this country today who are doing the same job as their male colleagues and are being paid less. That is why on this National Equal Pay Day, I stand with my fellow Senators to close the pay equity gap and ensure equal pay for equal work. Fifty-eight years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women still only earn, on average, 82 cents for every dollar paid to men. This wage gap is even worse for women of color. African-American women who work full time make only 63 cents for every dollar paid to White males. Hispanic women make only 55 cents on the dollar. In nearly every industry in our country, women's median earnings remain less than their male counterparts. There has been one profound change since the passage of the Equal Pay Act 58 years ago. Forty-one percent of women are now the primary-or only-breadwinners for their families. In my own State of Illinois, women earn, on average, just 81 cents for every dollar earned by men. African-American women in Illinois make just 63 cents for every dollar paid to White males. Hispanic women are paid even less-just 49 cents on the dollar. This pay discrimination hurts working families. More than one-third of households led by women in Illinois live in poverty. Over their lifetimes, this persistent pay equity gap will cost the average woman in my State nearly $500,000 in lost wages. This is not right, and it is not fair. And it means women have to work that much harder to support their families and retire in dignity, and too many can't achieve those goals no matter how long or hard they work. The coronavirus pandemic has underscored just how deep and damaging pay inequality is in the United States. Nearly 2 in 3 frontline workers are women. Yet they-nearly universally-are paid less than men in the same roles. For example, 88 percent of registered nurses are women. Yet they make 93 cents for every dollar a male nurse makes. Women who work as home health aides, personal care aides, or nursing assistants typically lose $250 per month, or $3,000 per year, because of the gender wage gap. While our economy is slowing starting to recover as people become vaccinated and the virus is brought under control, economists warn that it may take years for women to recover from the economic and career setbacks they have suffered during this pandemic. Four times as many women as men left the workforce in September of 2020 alone. More than 860,000 women compared to 216,000 men. From wage discrimination to the unavailability of childcare, women are not getting a fair deal. That means working families are not getting a fair deal. That must change. This Senate should pass the Paycheck Fairness Act reintroduced by Senator Murray. The Paycheck Fairness Act would build on the successes of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was the first bill signed into law by President Obama back in 2009. The Lily Ledbetter Act prohibits gender-based pay discrimination, but it is hard to enforce because many employers still maintain policies that punish employees who voluntarily share salary information with their coworkers. Workers can't demand equal pay if they don't know that they are being underpaid. The Paycheck Fairness Act would close loopholes that still permit retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. It would prohibit employers from asking prospective employees about their salary history. It would require that employers prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons, not simply because they think that ``women's work'' is worth less. I am disappointed that Republican opposition has prevented the Senate from passing this bill, which is vital to the economic security of millions of American women and their families. But we are not giving up. Women have carried America's families and our economy through this pandemic. As the pandemic begins to end, so should the persistent pay discrimination against women. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to commit to passing the Paycheck Fairness Act and working with us to close this gender wage gap once and for all. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-2 | null | 2,663 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I'm reintroducing a piece of legislation that I first introduced in 2017: the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. Back then, we knew there was an urgent need to address the crisis of hate and violent extremism in America. In the years since, that crisis has only gotten worse, and Congress has failed to take meaningful steps to address it. We can change that, and we can change it now. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on gun violence in America. It happened just one day after a mass shooting in Boulder, CO claimed 10 lives and just 1 week after a shooting spree at 3 Atlanta-area spas claimed 8 lives. During the hearing, I mentioned how these tragedies--mass shootings, acts of terror, hate crimes--they occur with such frequency, that we can't keep track. Each life lost is added to our national tally of failure. A failure to save American lives. And behind each number is a person. We lost eight of them last week in the Atlanta area in a hateful act of violence. Each of them had a name and a story. Xiaojie Tan was a hard-working mother, wife, and business-owner. Soon Chung Park was a mother and grandmother who loved to stay active. Her family was sure she was going to live to 100. Hyun Jung Kim was a former elementary school teacher who had immigrated to the United States from SouthKorea. She dedicated her life to raising her two sons. Delaina Ashley Yaun was a newlywed and a mother of two, one of whom was an 8-month-old baby. She and her husband were getting a couple's massage at the time of the shooting. Young Ae Yue was a wife and mother of two sons who looked forward to sitting down for a traditional Korean dinner every Sunday night. Paul Andre Michels was a loving husband and a U.S. Army veteran. Daoyou Feng had recently started working at one the massage parlors that was attacked. She was described by a friend as ``kind and quiet.'' Sooncha Kim was a wife, mother, grandmother, and avid line dancer. She and her husband had been married for 50 years. All of their lives were cut short by a lone gunman with hate in his heart. How many more lives must we lose before we act? How many more vigils, funerals must we hold? How many more families must be devastated forever? While the motives behind these horrific attacks are still being investigated, it is impossible to ignore that six of the victims in the Atlanta attack were Asian-American women. It happened at a moment when violence against members of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community has been on the rise. Two of my colleagues in the Senate have shown tremendous courage in the wake of last week's attack in Atlanta. I am proud to have Senator Hirono as my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I am proud to serve alongside Senator Duckworth and represent our home State of Illinois. The two of them have, rightfully, criticized the Federal Government for failing to protect members of the AAPI community from acts of hate and violent extremism. And they have every reason to be angry. A year ago, they warned us. They-along with Vice President Harris, who was serving in the Senate at the time-introduced a resolution expressing alarm that people are, quote, ``living in fear and terror following the dramatic increase of threats and attacks against those of Asian descent.'' They called on us, the Members of this body, to have a ``singular focus'' on protecting the safety of AAPI people, along with every American. We failed to do that. Since the pandemic began last March, nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting members of the AAPI community have been reported. Now these Americans are afraid to walk the streets of their own neighborhoods. It is one of many examples that highlight the dire need to transform the way we deal with domestic terrorism in this country. Even before the pandemic began, a tide of hatred had begun sweeping over America. In 2019, the FBI reported that hate crimes had increased to the highest level in more than a decade. Another report, from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, found that the number of hate-motivated aggravated assaults in America had increased by nearly 50 percent between 2013 and 2019. Since hate crimes are historically underreported, we know that the increase is probably much greater. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent, White supremacy is now ``the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.'' Violent extremism is a threat to all of us, whether it is a lone gunman in Atlanta or hordes of blood-thirsty extremists battering down the doors of this very chamber. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will enhance the Federal Government's ability to prevent these acts of extremist violence. It will establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Those offices would regularly assess the threat of violent extremism so law enforcement can focus their limited resources on the most significant ones. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act would also provide training and resources to assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing those threats. I want to thank Majority Leader Schumer for working expeditiously to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Duckworth for their leadership and for joining me in cosponsoring a version of this legislation that combines the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act with their COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. This combined bill, which we have named the ``Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021'', would both combat the broader threat of domestic terrorism and ensure that the Department of Justice is promptly addressing the particular threats facing the AAPI community. Over the past week, in response to the attacks in Atlanta and Boulder, CO, I have heard Senators on both sides of the aisle make speeches about taking action to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. Well, I can think of no better first step than voting in support of this legislation. To be clear, it is just one step. There is more we can and must do to combat domestic terrorism. But we have been waiting 4 years too long to sign this bill into law. Too many Americans have died. Let's work to save ourselves from another 4 years of unthinkable tragedies. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-3 | null | 2,664 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I'm reintroducing a piece of legislation that I first introduced in 2017: the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. Back then, we knew there was an urgent need to address the crisis of hate and violent extremism in America. In the years since, that crisis has only gotten worse, and Congress has failed to take meaningful steps to address it. We can change that, and we can change it now. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on gun violence in America. It happened just one day after a mass shooting in Boulder, CO claimed 10 lives and just 1 week after a shooting spree at 3 Atlanta-area spas claimed 8 lives. During the hearing, I mentioned how these tragedies--mass shootings, acts of terror, hate crimes--they occur with such frequency, that we can't keep track. Each life lost is added to our national tally of failure. A failure to save American lives. And behind each number is a person. We lost eight of them last week in the Atlanta area in a hateful act of violence. Each of them had a name and a story. Xiaojie Tan was a hard-working mother, wife, and business-owner. Soon Chung Park was a mother and grandmother who loved to stay active. Her family was sure she was going to live to 100. Hyun Jung Kim was a former elementary school teacher who had immigrated to the United States from SouthKorea. She dedicated her life to raising her two sons. Delaina Ashley Yaun was a newlywed and a mother of two, one of whom was an 8-month-old baby. She and her husband were getting a couple's massage at the time of the shooting. Young Ae Yue was a wife and mother of two sons who looked forward to sitting down for a traditional Korean dinner every Sunday night. Paul Andre Michels was a loving husband and a U.S. Army veteran. Daoyou Feng had recently started working at one the massage parlors that was attacked. She was described by a friend as ``kind and quiet.'' Sooncha Kim was a wife, mother, grandmother, and avid line dancer. She and her husband had been married for 50 years. All of their lives were cut short by a lone gunman with hate in his heart. How many more lives must we lose before we act? How many more vigils, funerals must we hold? How many more families must be devastated forever? While the motives behind these horrific attacks are still being investigated, it is impossible to ignore that six of the victims in the Atlanta attack were Asian-American women. It happened at a moment when violence against members of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community has been on the rise. Two of my colleagues in the Senate have shown tremendous courage in the wake of last week's attack in Atlanta. I am proud to have Senator Hirono as my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I am proud to serve alongside Senator Duckworth and represent our home State of Illinois. The two of them have, rightfully, criticized the Federal Government for failing to protect members of the AAPI community from acts of hate and violent extremism. And they have every reason to be angry. A year ago, they warned us. They-along with Vice President Harris, who was serving in the Senate at the time-introduced a resolution expressing alarm that people are, quote, ``living in fear and terror following the dramatic increase of threats and attacks against those of Asian descent.'' They called on us, the Members of this body, to have a ``singular focus'' on protecting the safety of AAPI people, along with every American. We failed to do that. Since the pandemic began last March, nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting members of the AAPI community have been reported. Now these Americans are afraid to walk the streets of their own neighborhoods. It is one of many examples that highlight the dire need to transform the way we deal with domestic terrorism in this country. Even before the pandemic began, a tide of hatred had begun sweeping over America. In 2019, the FBI reported that hate crimes had increased to the highest level in more than a decade. Another report, from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, found that the number of hate-motivated aggravated assaults in America had increased by nearly 50 percent between 2013 and 2019. Since hate crimes are historically underreported, we know that the increase is probably much greater. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent, White supremacy is now ``the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.'' Violent extremism is a threat to all of us, whether it is a lone gunman in Atlanta or hordes of blood-thirsty extremists battering down the doors of this very chamber. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will enhance the Federal Government's ability to prevent these acts of extremist violence. It will establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Those offices would regularly assess the threat of violent extremism so law enforcement can focus their limited resources on the most significant ones. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act would also provide training and resources to assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing those threats. I want to thank Majority Leader Schumer for working expeditiously to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Duckworth for their leadership and for joining me in cosponsoring a version of this legislation that combines the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act with their COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. This combined bill, which we have named the ``Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021'', would both combat the broader threat of domestic terrorism and ensure that the Department of Justice is promptly addressing the particular threats facing the AAPI community. Over the past week, in response to the attacks in Atlanta and Boulder, CO, I have heard Senators on both sides of the aisle make speeches about taking action to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. Well, I can think of no better first step than voting in support of this legislation. To be clear, it is just one step. There is more we can and must do to combat domestic terrorism. But we have been waiting 4 years too long to sign this bill into law. Too many Americans have died. Let's work to save ourselves from another 4 years of unthinkable tragedies. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-3 | null | 2,665 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I'm reintroducing a piece of legislation that I first introduced in 2017: the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. Back then, we knew there was an urgent need to address the crisis of hate and violent extremism in America. In the years since, that crisis has only gotten worse, and Congress has failed to take meaningful steps to address it. We can change that, and we can change it now. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on gun violence in America. It happened just one day after a mass shooting in Boulder, CO claimed 10 lives and just 1 week after a shooting spree at 3 Atlanta-area spas claimed 8 lives. During the hearing, I mentioned how these tragedies--mass shootings, acts of terror, hate crimes--they occur with such frequency, that we can't keep track. Each life lost is added to our national tally of failure. A failure to save American lives. And behind each number is a person. We lost eight of them last week in the Atlanta area in a hateful act of violence. Each of them had a name and a story. Xiaojie Tan was a hard-working mother, wife, and business-owner. Soon Chung Park was a mother and grandmother who loved to stay active. Her family was sure she was going to live to 100. Hyun Jung Kim was a former elementary school teacher who had immigrated to the United States from SouthKorea. She dedicated her life to raising her two sons. Delaina Ashley Yaun was a newlywed and a mother of two, one of whom was an 8-month-old baby. She and her husband were getting a couple's massage at the time of the shooting. Young Ae Yue was a wife and mother of two sons who looked forward to sitting down for a traditional Korean dinner every Sunday night. Paul Andre Michels was a loving husband and a U.S. Army veteran. Daoyou Feng had recently started working at one the massage parlors that was attacked. She was described by a friend as ``kind and quiet.'' Sooncha Kim was a wife, mother, grandmother, and avid line dancer. She and her husband had been married for 50 years. All of their lives were cut short by a lone gunman with hate in his heart. How many more lives must we lose before we act? How many more vigils, funerals must we hold? How many more families must be devastated forever? While the motives behind these horrific attacks are still being investigated, it is impossible to ignore that six of the victims in the Atlanta attack were Asian-American women. It happened at a moment when violence against members of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community has been on the rise. Two of my colleagues in the Senate have shown tremendous courage in the wake of last week's attack in Atlanta. I am proud to have Senator Hirono as my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I am proud to serve alongside Senator Duckworth and represent our home State of Illinois. The two of them have, rightfully, criticized the Federal Government for failing to protect members of the AAPI community from acts of hate and violent extremism. And they have every reason to be angry. A year ago, they warned us. They-along with Vice President Harris, who was serving in the Senate at the time-introduced a resolution expressing alarm that people are, quote, ``living in fear and terror following the dramatic increase of threats and attacks against those of Asian descent.'' They called on us, the Members of this body, to have a ``singular focus'' on protecting the safety of AAPI people, along with every American. We failed to do that. Since the pandemic began last March, nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting members of the AAPI community have been reported. Now these Americans are afraid to walk the streets of their own neighborhoods. It is one of many examples that highlight the dire need to transform the way we deal with domestic terrorism in this country. Even before the pandemic began, a tide of hatred had begun sweeping over America. In 2019, the FBI reported that hate crimes had increased to the highest level in more than a decade. Another report, from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, found that the number of hate-motivated aggravated assaults in America had increased by nearly 50 percent between 2013 and 2019. Since hate crimes are historically underreported, we know that the increase is probably much greater. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent, White supremacy is now ``the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.'' Violent extremism is a threat to all of us, whether it is a lone gunman in Atlanta or hordes of blood-thirsty extremists battering down the doors of this very chamber. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will enhance the Federal Government's ability to prevent these acts of extremist violence. It will establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Those offices would regularly assess the threat of violent extremism so law enforcement can focus their limited resources on the most significant ones. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act would also provide training and resources to assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing those threats. I want to thank Majority Leader Schumer for working expeditiously to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Duckworth for their leadership and for joining me in cosponsoring a version of this legislation that combines the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act with their COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. This combined bill, which we have named the ``Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021'', would both combat the broader threat of domestic terrorism and ensure that the Department of Justice is promptly addressing the particular threats facing the AAPI community. Over the past week, in response to the attacks in Atlanta and Boulder, CO, I have heard Senators on both sides of the aisle make speeches about taking action to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. Well, I can think of no better first step than voting in support of this legislation. To be clear, it is just one step. There is more we can and must do to combat domestic terrorism. But we have been waiting 4 years too long to sign this bill into law. Too many Americans have died. Let's work to save ourselves from another 4 years of unthinkable tragedies. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-3 | null | 2,666 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I'm reintroducing a piece of legislation that I first introduced in 2017: the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. Back then, we knew there was an urgent need to address the crisis of hate and violent extremism in America. In the years since, that crisis has only gotten worse, and Congress has failed to take meaningful steps to address it. We can change that, and we can change it now. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on gun violence in America. It happened just one day after a mass shooting in Boulder, CO claimed 10 lives and just 1 week after a shooting spree at 3 Atlanta-area spas claimed 8 lives. During the hearing, I mentioned how these tragedies--mass shootings, acts of terror, hate crimes--they occur with such frequency, that we can't keep track. Each life lost is added to our national tally of failure. A failure to save American lives. And behind each number is a person. We lost eight of them last week in the Atlanta area in a hateful act of violence. Each of them had a name and a story. Xiaojie Tan was a hard-working mother, wife, and business-owner. Soon Chung Park was a mother and grandmother who loved to stay active. Her family was sure she was going to live to 100. Hyun Jung Kim was a former elementary school teacher who had immigrated to the United States from SouthKorea. She dedicated her life to raising her two sons. Delaina Ashley Yaun was a newlywed and a mother of two, one of whom was an 8-month-old baby. She and her husband were getting a couple's massage at the time of the shooting. Young Ae Yue was a wife and mother of two sons who looked forward to sitting down for a traditional Korean dinner every Sunday night. Paul Andre Michels was a loving husband and a U.S. Army veteran. Daoyou Feng had recently started working at one the massage parlors that was attacked. She was described by a friend as ``kind and quiet.'' Sooncha Kim was a wife, mother, grandmother, and avid line dancer. She and her husband had been married for 50 years. All of their lives were cut short by a lone gunman with hate in his heart. How many more lives must we lose before we act? How many more vigils, funerals must we hold? How many more families must be devastated forever? While the motives behind these horrific attacks are still being investigated, it is impossible to ignore that six of the victims in the Atlanta attack were Asian-American women. It happened at a moment when violence against members of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community has been on the rise. Two of my colleagues in the Senate have shown tremendous courage in the wake of last week's attack in Atlanta. I am proud to have Senator Hirono as my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I am proud to serve alongside Senator Duckworth and represent our home State of Illinois. The two of them have, rightfully, criticized the Federal Government for failing to protect members of the AAPI community from acts of hate and violent extremism. And they have every reason to be angry. A year ago, they warned us. They-along with Vice President Harris, who was serving in the Senate at the time-introduced a resolution expressing alarm that people are, quote, ``living in fear and terror following the dramatic increase of threats and attacks against those of Asian descent.'' They called on us, the Members of this body, to have a ``singular focus'' on protecting the safety of AAPI people, along with every American. We failed to do that. Since the pandemic began last March, nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting members of the AAPI community have been reported. Now these Americans are afraid to walk the streets of their own neighborhoods. It is one of many examples that highlight the dire need to transform the way we deal with domestic terrorism in this country. Even before the pandemic began, a tide of hatred had begun sweeping over America. In 2019, the FBI reported that hate crimes had increased to the highest level in more than a decade. Another report, from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, found that the number of hate-motivated aggravated assaults in America had increased by nearly 50 percent between 2013 and 2019. Since hate crimes are historically underreported, we know that the increase is probably much greater. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent, White supremacy is now ``the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.'' Violent extremism is a threat to all of us, whether it is a lone gunman in Atlanta or hordes of blood-thirsty extremists battering down the doors of this very chamber. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will enhance the Federal Government's ability to prevent these acts of extremist violence. It will establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Those offices would regularly assess the threat of violent extremism so law enforcement can focus their limited resources on the most significant ones. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act would also provide training and resources to assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing those threats. I want to thank Majority Leader Schumer for working expeditiously to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Duckworth for their leadership and for joining me in cosponsoring a version of this legislation that combines the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act with their COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. This combined bill, which we have named the ``Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021'', would both combat the broader threat of domestic terrorism and ensure that the Department of Justice is promptly addressing the particular threats facing the AAPI community. Over the past week, in response to the attacks in Atlanta and Boulder, CO, I have heard Senators on both sides of the aisle make speeches about taking action to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. Well, I can think of no better first step than voting in support of this legislation. To be clear, it is just one step. There is more we can and must do to combat domestic terrorism. But we have been waiting 4 years too long to sign this bill into law. Too many Americans have died. Let's work to save ourselves from another 4 years of unthinkable tragedies. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-3 | null | 2,667 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I'm reintroducing a piece of legislation that I first introduced in 2017: the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. Back then, we knew there was an urgent need to address the crisis of hate and violent extremism in America. In the years since, that crisis has only gotten worse, and Congress has failed to take meaningful steps to address it. We can change that, and we can change it now. Earlier this week, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on gun violence in America. It happened just one day after a mass shooting in Boulder, CO claimed 10 lives and just 1 week after a shooting spree at 3 Atlanta-area spas claimed 8 lives. During the hearing, I mentioned how these tragedies--mass shootings, acts of terror, hate crimes--they occur with such frequency, that we can't keep track. Each life lost is added to our national tally of failure. A failure to save American lives. And behind each number is a person. We lost eight of them last week in the Atlanta area in a hateful act of violence. Each of them had a name and a story. Xiaojie Tan was a hard-working mother, wife, and business-owner. Soon Chung Park was a mother and grandmother who loved to stay active. Her family was sure she was going to live to 100. Hyun Jung Kim was a former elementary school teacher who had immigrated to the United States from SouthKorea. She dedicated her life to raising her two sons. Delaina Ashley Yaun was a newlywed and a mother of two, one of whom was an 8-month-old baby. She and her husband were getting a couple's massage at the time of the shooting. Young Ae Yue was a wife and mother of two sons who looked forward to sitting down for a traditional Korean dinner every Sunday night. Paul Andre Michels was a loving husband and a U.S. Army veteran. Daoyou Feng had recently started working at one the massage parlors that was attacked. She was described by a friend as ``kind and quiet.'' Sooncha Kim was a wife, mother, grandmother, and avid line dancer. She and her husband had been married for 50 years. All of their lives were cut short by a lone gunman with hate in his heart. How many more lives must we lose before we act? How many more vigils, funerals must we hold? How many more families must be devastated forever? While the motives behind these horrific attacks are still being investigated, it is impossible to ignore that six of the victims in the Atlanta attack were Asian-American women. It happened at a moment when violence against members of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community has been on the rise. Two of my colleagues in the Senate have shown tremendous courage in the wake of last week's attack in Atlanta. I am proud to have Senator Hirono as my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I am proud to serve alongside Senator Duckworth and represent our home State of Illinois. The two of them have, rightfully, criticized the Federal Government for failing to protect members of the AAPI community from acts of hate and violent extremism. And they have every reason to be angry. A year ago, they warned us. They-along with Vice President Harris, who was serving in the Senate at the time-introduced a resolution expressing alarm that people are, quote, ``living in fear and terror following the dramatic increase of threats and attacks against those of Asian descent.'' They called on us, the Members of this body, to have a ``singular focus'' on protecting the safety of AAPI people, along with every American. We failed to do that. Since the pandemic began last March, nearly 3,800 hate incidents targeting members of the AAPI community have been reported. Now these Americans are afraid to walk the streets of their own neighborhoods. It is one of many examples that highlight the dire need to transform the way we deal with domestic terrorism in this country. Even before the pandemic began, a tide of hatred had begun sweeping over America. In 2019, the FBI reported that hate crimes had increased to the highest level in more than a decade. Another report, from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, found that the number of hate-motivated aggravated assaults in America had increased by nearly 50 percent between 2013 and 2019. Since hate crimes are historically underreported, we know that the increase is probably much greater. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security warned that violent, White supremacy is now ``the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland.'' Violent extremism is a threat to all of us, whether it is a lone gunman in Atlanta or hordes of blood-thirsty extremists battering down the doors of this very chamber. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act will enhance the Federal Government's ability to prevent these acts of extremist violence. It will establish offices to combat domestic terrorism at the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security. Those offices would regularly assess the threat of violent extremism so law enforcement can focus their limited resources on the most significant ones. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act would also provide training and resources to assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing those threats. I want to thank Majority Leader Schumer for working expeditiously to bring this bill to the floor. I want to thank Senators Hirono and Duckworth for their leadership and for joining me in cosponsoring a version of this legislation that combines the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act with their COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. This combined bill, which we have named the ``Domestic Terrorism and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2021'', would both combat the broader threat of domestic terrorism and ensure that the Department of Justice is promptly addressing the particular threats facing the AAPI community. Over the past week, in response to the attacks in Atlanta and Boulder, CO, I have heard Senators on both sides of the aisle make speeches about taking action to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. Well, I can think of no better first step than voting in support of this legislation. To be clear, it is just one step. There is more we can and must do to combat domestic terrorism. But we have been waiting 4 years too long to sign this bill into law. Too many Americans have died. Let's work to save ourselves from another 4 years of unthinkable tragedies. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1805-3 | null | 2,668 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary work of Vermont's Meals on Wheels Programs. Each March, we celebrate March for Meals to draw attention to the incredible work of Meals on Wheel throughout the country, including in my home State of Vermont. All across our State, hundreds of volunteers regularly deliver freshly cooked, nutritious meals to thousands of older people in their homes, many of whom otherwise might not have enough to eat. These volunteers play a critically important role in helping ensure that older Vermonters have access to adequate nutrition. In and of itself, that is no small matter. In a typical year, Meals on Wheels volunteers do so much more than delivering meals. These volunteers provide critical social interaction for the people they visit, which goes a long way to combat the effects of isolation that many Vermonters face, especially in rural areas. Without this social interaction, seniors are more likely to have feelings of loneliness and depression, which puts them at higher risk for dementia, chronic disease, falls, and hospitalization. Their regular visits serve another purpose as well. The volunteers know each person they visit and recognize immediately if something does not seem right. It is no exaggeration to say that volunteers have literally saved Vermonters' lives by following up when no one answers the door, taking the time to discover that someone had fallen and been injured. During the COVID-19 pandemic, volunteers--both new and existing--stepped up to deliver over 1 million meals to over 7,500 Vermonters. This represents a 30-percent increase in the number of meals and almost a 20-percent increase in the number of people receiving meals through this vital Federal program. At a time when so many Vermonters struggled with the dual hardship of loneliness and hunger cause by the COVID-19 pandemic, Meals on Wheels served as a critical lifeline. In addition to the many Meals on Wheels volunteers throughout Vermont, I also want to recognize and thank the caring and dedicated professionals who run Vermont's Meals on Wheel Programs. From the chefs who prepare the nutritious meals with skill and care, to the program staff who ensure that everything runs smoothly, these Vermonters are the backbone of what makes Meals on Wheels the success that it is. In March, when so much of our State shut down due to the pandemic, these dedicated people immediately pivoted to expand Meals on Wheels and ensure that any older Vermonter who wanted a meal could get one. This was particularly important for all those who had previously relied on congregate meal programs, which were unsafe during the pandemic. Together, every single Meals on Wheels volunteer and staff person forms an indispensable link in our social safety net and has my sincere appreciation for their remarkable work. As more and more Vermonters are now vaccinated and the State begins a careful reopening, following the science and ensuring the safety of all our people, I look forward to a day when I andmy Vermont staff can once again visit the Meals on Wheels Program and meet the volunteers and recipients in person. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1811-3 | null | 2,669 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: S. 963. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. H.R. 1868. An act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1812-5 | null | 2,670 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: S. 963. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. H.R. 1868. An act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1812-5 | null | 2,671 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: S. 963. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism, and for other purposes. H.R. 1868. An act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1812-5 | null | 2,672 |
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-651. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2021'' (RIN2501-AD97) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-652. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Netting Eligibility for Financial Institutions'' (RIN7100- AF48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-653. A communication from the Wildlife Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulations Governing the Take of Migratory Birds; Delay of the Effective Date'' (RIN1018-BD76) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-654. 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; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions'' (FRL No. 10019-63-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-655. 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; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 10021-50-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-656. 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 Centre County (State College) Area'' (FRL No. 10021-28-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-657. 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; Wisconsin; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Rhinelander SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 10021-23-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-658. 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 Implementation Plans; Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Correcting Amendment'' (FRL No. 10019-97-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-659. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Test Methods and Performance Specifications for Air Emission Sources; Correction'' (FRL No. 10018-97-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-660. 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; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions'' (FRL No. 10019-63-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-661. A communication from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Annual Report to Congress on the Activities of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) for fiscal year 2019''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-662. A communication from the Senior Director of Government Affairs and Corporate Communications, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, transmitting, pursuant to law, other materials required to accompany Amtrak's Grant and Legislative Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1812-6 | null | 2,673 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-651. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2021'' (RIN2501-AD97) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-652. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Netting Eligibility for Financial Institutions'' (RIN7100- AF48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-653. A communication from the Wildlife Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulations Governing the Take of Migratory Birds; Delay of the Effective Date'' (RIN1018-BD76) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-654. 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; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions'' (FRL No. 10019-63-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-655. 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; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 10021-50-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-656. 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 Centre County (State College) Area'' (FRL No. 10021-28-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-657. 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; Wisconsin; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Rhinelander SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 10021-23-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-658. 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 Implementation Plans; Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Correcting Amendment'' (FRL No. 10019-97-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-659. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Test Methods and Performance Specifications for Air Emission Sources; Correction'' (FRL No. 10018-97-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-660. 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; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions'' (FRL No. 10019-63-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-661. A communication from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Annual Report to Congress on the Activities of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) for fiscal year 2019''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-662. A communication from the Senior Director of Government Affairs and Corporate Communications, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, transmitting, pursuant to law, other materials required to accompany Amtrak's Grant and Legislative Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1812-6 | null | 2,674 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-651. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2021'' (RIN2501-AD97) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-652. A communication from the Congressional Assistant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Netting Eligibility for Financial Institutions'' (RIN7100- AF48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-653. A communication from the Wildlife Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulations Governing the Take of Migratory Birds; Delay of the Effective Date'' (RIN1018-BD76) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-654. 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; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions'' (FRL No. 10019-63-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-655. 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; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 10021-50-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-656. 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 Centre County (State College) Area'' (FRL No. 10021-28-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-657. 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; Wisconsin; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Rhinelander SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 10021-23-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-658. 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 Implementation Plans; Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Correcting Amendment'' (FRL No. 10019-97-Region 9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-659. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Test Methods and Performance Specifications for Air Emission Sources; Correction'' (FRL No. 10018-97-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-660. 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; Arkansas; Arkansas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan Revisions'' (FRL No. 10019-63-Region 6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on March 23, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-661. A communication from the Secretary of the Army, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Annual Report to Congress on the Activities of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) for fiscal year 2019''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-662. A communication from the Senior Director of Government Affairs and Corporate Communications, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, transmitting, pursuant to law, other materials required to accompany Amtrak's Grant and Legislative Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1812-6 | null | 2,675 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. Sullivan) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 137 Whereas, in 2019, nearly \1/4\ of the global population was infected with the tuberculosis bacterium (referred to in this preamble as ``TB''); Whereas the World Health Organization (referred to in this preamble as the ``WHO'') estimates that 10,000,000 people developed TB in 2019, 8.2 percent of whom were also infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (referred to in this preamble as ``HIV''); Whereas, in 2019, TB killed an estimated 1,408,000 people, causing more deaths worldwide than any other single infectious agent; Whereas, globally in 2019, an estimated 1,200,000 children developed TB, and in 2017, 230,000 children died of TB; Whereas \2/3\ of new TB infections in 2019 occurred in 8 countries: India, Indonesia, China, the Philippines, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and South Africa; Whereas TB is a leading killer of people infected with HIV, and 208,000 people with HIV died of TB in 2019; Whereas vulnerable populations also at high risk for developing TB include individuals who are pregnant and newborns; Whereas, in 2018, TB was one of the 6 leading causes of death among adult women between the ages of 15 and 49 in low- income countries; Whereas, in some settings, women with TB can face stigma, discrimination, and ostracization by their families and communities; Whereas the global TB epidemic and the spread of drug- resistant TB present a persistent public health threat to the United States because the disease does not recognize borders; Whereas antibiotic-resistant pathogens are a growing problem worldwide, and drug-resistant TB can occur when the drugs used to treat TB are mismanaged or not made consistently accessible; Whereas studies have demonstrated direct person-to-person transmission of drug-resistant TB; Whereas multi-drug resistant TB (referred to in this preamble as ``MDR-TB'') is caused by bacteria with resistance to rifampin and isoniazid, the 2 most potent treatments for TB infection; Whereas, in 2019, according to the 2020 WHO Global Tuberculosis Report, an estimated 3.3 percent of all new TB cases and 18 percent of previously treated cases were MDR-TB or rifampin-resistant TB; Whereas, in 2019, an estimated 465,000 people around the world developed MDR-TB or rifampin-resistant TB, yet only approximately 38 percent of those individuals were identified and treated; Whereas extensively drug-resistant TB (referred to in this preamble as ``XDR-TB'') is a rare type of TB that is resistant to nearly all medicines, and therefore can be very difficult and expensive to treat, especially among patients with HIV; Whereas, in 2019, every WHO region reported XDR-TB cases; Whereas, in 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (referred to in this preamble as ``CDC'') estimated that the average cost of treating a single patient with MDR-TB in the United States was $178,000, and the average cost of treating a patient with XDR-TB was even higher at $553,000, compared with $20,000 to treat a patient with drug-susceptible TB; Whereas, between 2005 and 2007, according to an analysis by CDC, MDR-TB and XDR-TB cases in the United States collectively cost the health care system an estimated $53,000,000; Whereas CDC estimates that costs resulting from all forms of TB in the United States totaled more than $608,000,000 in 2019; Whereas, in a 2000 report, the Institute of Medicine found that a decrease in TB control funding and the spread of HIV and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (commonly referred to as ``AIDS'') caused a resurgence of TB in the late 1980s and early 1990s; Whereas a total of 8,916 TB cases were reported in the United States in 2019, representing all 50 States and the District of Columbia, and up to 13,000,000 people in the United States are estimated to be living with latent TB infection; Whereas 75 percent of States have reported an increase in the proportion of complex cases of TB in recent years due to factors such as homelessness, HIV infection, drug resistance, substance abuse, refugee status, and other factors; Whereas the rate of TB disease in African Americans is 8 times higher than the rate of disease in White, non-Hispanic Americans, and significant disparities exist among other minorities in the United States, including Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans and Alaska Natives, with approximately 88 percent of all reported TB cases in the United States in 2019 occurring in racial or ethnic minorities; Whereas smoking-- (1) greatly increases the risks of contracting TB and infection recurrence; and (2) impairs therapeutic efficacy; Whereas diabetes is a major risk factor for TB, and people with diabetes are more likely to develop and succumb to TB; Whereas bedaquiline is an antibiotic that boosts an MDR-TB patient's chance of survival from approximately 50 percent to as much as 80 percent, and through a public-private partnership, the United States Agency for International Development (referred to in this preamble as ``USAID'') provided approximately 105,000 treatments in 110 eligible countries from 2015 through 2019; Whereas Bacillus Calmette-Guerin, a TB vaccine that is known as ``BCG'', provides some protection to infants and young children against serious forms of childhood TB but has had little epidemiologic impact on controlling TB worldwide; Whereas there is a critical need for new drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines for controlling the global TB epidemic; Whereas, in September 2018, the United Nations held the first high-level meeting on TB in which 120 countries, including the United States, signed a political declaration committing to accelerating the TB response, including by increasing funding for TB control programs and research and development efforts, with the goal of reaching all affected people with TB prevention and care; Whereas the enactment of the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-293; 122 Stat. 2918), and the Comprehensive Tuberculosis Elimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-392; 122 Stat. 4195) led to a historic United States commitment to support the global eradication of TB, including a commitment to treat 4,500,000 TB patients and 90,000 MDR-TB patients between 2009 and 2013 and to provide additional treatment through coordinated multilateral efforts; Whereas USAID-- (1) provides technical assistance to 55 countries and implements bilateral programs in 23 high-burden TB countries that-- (A) build capacity; and (B) support the adoption of state-of-the-art TB-related technologies; (2) supports the development of new diagnostic and treatment tools; and (3) supports research to develop new vaccines and other new methods to combat TB; Whereas, in 2018, USAID launched-- (1) a new business model entitled ``Global Accelerator to End Tuberculosis'' to accelerate progress and build capacity with respect to TB prevention and treatment; and (2) a new mechanism to directly support local organizations in priority countries; Whereas TB incidence in the countries that receive bilateral TB funding from the United States through USAID has decreased by more than 29 percent since 2000; Whereas, according to the Copenhagen Consensus Center, TB prevention programs return $56 for each dollar invested, which is one of the highest returns on investment of any health intervention; Whereas CDC, in partnership with other entities of the United States and individual States and territories-- (1) directs the national TB elimination program; (2) coordinates TB surveillance, technical assistance, and prevention activities; and (3) helps to support the development of new diagnostic, treatment, and prevention tools to combat TB; Whereas the National Institutes of Health, through its many institutes and centers, plays the leading role in basic and clinical research on the identification, treatment, and prevention of TB; Whereas the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (referred to in this preamble as the ``Global Fund''), to which the United States is a top financial donor, provides more than 73 percent of all international financing for TB programs; Whereas, in 2019, Global Fund-supported programs detected and treated more than 5,700,000 cases of TB; Whereas the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and mitigation efforts put in place as a result of the pandemic have taken a devastating toll on countries with the highest burden of TB disease and on the global TB response, threatening to reverse up to 8 years of progress fighting the disease; Whereas, in 2020, in the 23 high-burden TB countries in which USAID implements bilateral programs, 1,000,000 fewer people with TB had access to diagnosis and treatment, a 23 percent decline from 2019; Whereas, between 2020 and 2025, global projections estimate that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will lead to an additional 6,300,000 cases of TB and an additional 1,400,000 TB deaths; and Whereas March 24, 2021, is World Tuberculosis Day, a day that commemorates the date in 1882 on which Dr. Robert Koch announced his discovery of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the bacterium that causes TB: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals of World Tuberculosis Day to raise awareness about tuberculosis; (2) commends the progress of tuberculosis elimination efforts by entities that include the United States Agency for International Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; and (3) reaffirms the commitment to strengthen the leadership role of the United States in, and the effectiveness of the global response to, the fight to end the tuberculosis epidemic. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1832 | null | 2,676 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. WARNOCK (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Casey, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Carper, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Brown, Mr. Padilla, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Coons, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Warren, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Ossoff) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 140 Whereas, on March 16, 2021, a shooter murdered 8 people and injured 1 in the Atlanta, Georgia region in 3 separate shootings that took place at Asian American-owned spas; Whereas the people of the United States mourn the 8 innocent lives lost--7 of whom were women, 6 of whom were women of Asian descent, and several of whom were immigrants; Whereas the victims included Xiaojie ``Emily'' Tan, Daoyou Feng, Delaina Ashley Yaun, Paul Andre Michels, Yong Ae Yue, Soon Chung ``Julie'' Park, Hyun Jung Grant, and Suncha Kim; Whereas 49-year-old Xiaojie ``Emily'' Tan, a hardworking mother and the owner of one of the spas, was a dedicated and caring business owner who is survived by her daughter and husband; Whereas 44-year-old Daoyou Feng was an employee who recently began working at one of the spas; Whereas 33-year-old Delaina Ashley Yaun, a newlywed and mother of 2, was at one of the spas to receive a couple's massage with her husband when her life was cut short; Whereas 54-year-old Paul Andre Michels was a caring husband and United States Army veteran who did maintenance work for one of the spas and is survived by his wife; Whereas 63-year-old Yong Ae Yue was a mother of 2 sons who was known for her kindness and generosity and her love of her pet Shih Tzu; Whereas 74-year-old Soon Chung ``Julie'' Park was a mother and grandmother who helped manage one of the spas and helped to prepare meals for the employees; Whereas 51-year-old Hyun Jung Grant was a former elementary school teacher and hardworking single mother who dedicated her life to raising her 2 sons; Whereas 69-year-old Suncha Kim was a wife, mother, and grandmother who enjoyed line dancing and had been married for more than 50 years; Whereas the Georgia shootings came in the midst of an alarming surge in anti-Asian hate crimes and incidents that have caused many Asian Americans across the United States to feel fearful and unsafe; Whereas the use of anti-Asian terminology and rhetoric to refer to COVID-19, such as the ``Chinese virus'', ``Wuhan virus'', and ``kung flu'' perpetuate anti-Asian stigma that has resulted in Asian Americans being harassed, assaulted, and scapegoated for the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas, in 2020, anti-Asian hate crimes increased by nearly 150 percent in major cities throughout the United States; Whereas, according to a recent report by Stop AAPI Hate, there were nearly 3,800 reported cases of anti-Asian discrimination related to COVID-19 between March 19, 2020 and February 28, 2021; Whereas 68 percent of reported incidents of anti-Asian hate targeted Asian-American women, a population that has been historically marginalized, sexualized, and fetishized; Whereas, on March 19, 2021, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with Asian-American leaders in Georgia and reaffirmed their strong commitment to condemning and combating racism, xenophobia, and violence targeting the Asian-American community; and Whereas the people of the United States will always remember the victims of these shootings and stand in solidarity with those affected by this senseless tragedy: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns the heinous and inexcusable acts of gun violence that led to the tragic loss of 8 lives in Georgia on March 16, 2021; (2) condemns any racism and sexism in the choice of the shooter to target Asian American-owned businesses and murder 6 women of Asian descent; (3) honors the memory of the victims, offers heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims, and recognizes that the healing process will be long and difficult for the Asian American and Pacific Islander community and all communities impacted by this tragedy; and (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States Federal Government to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and to prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1834 | null | 2,677 |
formal | single mother | null | racist | Mr. WARNOCK (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Casey, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Carper, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Brown, Mr. Padilla, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Coons, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Warren, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Ossoff) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 140 Whereas, on March 16, 2021, a shooter murdered 8 people and injured 1 in the Atlanta, Georgia region in 3 separate shootings that took place at Asian American-owned spas; Whereas the people of the United States mourn the 8 innocent lives lost--7 of whom were women, 6 of whom were women of Asian descent, and several of whom were immigrants; Whereas the victims included Xiaojie ``Emily'' Tan, Daoyou Feng, Delaina Ashley Yaun, Paul Andre Michels, Yong Ae Yue, Soon Chung ``Julie'' Park, Hyun Jung Grant, and Suncha Kim; Whereas 49-year-old Xiaojie ``Emily'' Tan, a hardworking mother and the owner of one of the spas, was a dedicated and caring business owner who is survived by her daughter and husband; Whereas 44-year-old Daoyou Feng was an employee who recently began working at one of the spas; Whereas 33-year-old Delaina Ashley Yaun, a newlywed and mother of 2, was at one of the spas to receive a couple's massage with her husband when her life was cut short; Whereas 54-year-old Paul Andre Michels was a caring husband and United States Army veteran who did maintenance work for one of the spas and is survived by his wife; Whereas 63-year-old Yong Ae Yue was a mother of 2 sons who was known for her kindness and generosity and her love of her pet Shih Tzu; Whereas 74-year-old Soon Chung ``Julie'' Park was a mother and grandmother who helped manage one of the spas and helped to prepare meals for the employees; Whereas 51-year-old Hyun Jung Grant was a former elementary school teacher and hardworking single mother who dedicated her life to raising her 2 sons; Whereas 69-year-old Suncha Kim was a wife, mother, and grandmother who enjoyed line dancing and had been married for more than 50 years; Whereas the Georgia shootings came in the midst of an alarming surge in anti-Asian hate crimes and incidents that have caused many Asian Americans across the United States to feel fearful and unsafe; Whereas the use of anti-Asian terminology and rhetoric to refer to COVID-19, such as the ``Chinese virus'', ``Wuhan virus'', and ``kung flu'' perpetuate anti-Asian stigma that has resulted in Asian Americans being harassed, assaulted, and scapegoated for the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas, in 2020, anti-Asian hate crimes increased by nearly 150 percent in major cities throughout the United States; Whereas, according to a recent report by Stop AAPI Hate, there were nearly 3,800 reported cases of anti-Asian discrimination related to COVID-19 between March 19, 2020 and February 28, 2021; Whereas 68 percent of reported incidents of anti-Asian hate targeted Asian-American women, a population that has been historically marginalized, sexualized, and fetishized; Whereas, on March 19, 2021, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with Asian-American leaders in Georgia and reaffirmed their strong commitment to condemning and combating racism, xenophobia, and violence targeting the Asian-American community; and Whereas the people of the United States will always remember the victims of these shootings and stand in solidarity with those affected by this senseless tragedy: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns the heinous and inexcusable acts of gun violence that led to the tragic loss of 8 lives in Georgia on March 16, 2021; (2) condemns any racism and sexism in the choice of the shooter to target Asian American-owned businesses and murder 6 women of Asian descent; (3) honors the memory of the victims, offers heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims, and recognizes that the healing process will be long and difficult for the Asian American and Pacific Islander community and all communities impacted by this tragedy; and (4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States Federal Government to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and to prevent tragedies like this from ever happening again. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1834 | null | 2,678 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Ms. Ernst) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 147 Whereas, in September 2020, the total public debt outstanding was more than $26,000,000,000,000, resulting in a total interest expense of more than $371,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2020; Whereas, in September 2019, the total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was about 100 percent; Whereas leaders of the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have testified that-- (1) the growth of the public debt is unsustainable; and (2) Congress must undertake extensive fiscal consolidation to combat that growth; Whereas the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001; Whereas, in fiscal year 2020, Federal tax receipts totaled $3,420,000,000,000, but Federal outlays totaled $6,652,000,000,000, leaving the Federal Government with a 1- year deficit of $3,132,000,000,000; Whereas, since the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001, Congress-- (1) has failed to maintain a fiscally responsible budget; and (2) has had to raise the debt ceiling repeatedly; Whereas the Medicare Board of Trustees projects that the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2026; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Disability Insurance and the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds will be depleted in 2026 and 2031, respectively; Whereas heavy indebtedness increases the exposure of the Federal Government to interest rate risks; Whereas the credit rating of the United States was reduced by Standard and Poor's from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011, and has remained at that level ever since; Whereas, without a targeted effort to balance the Federal budget, the credit rating of the United States will continue to fall; Whereas improvements in the business climate in populous countries, and aging populations around the world, will likely contribute to higher global interest rates; Whereas more than $7,000,000,000,000 of Federal debt is owned by individuals not located in the United States, including more than $1,000,000,000,000 of which is owned by individuals in China; Whereas China and the European Union are developing alternative payment systems to weaken the dominant position of the United States dollar as a reserve currency; Whereas rapidly increasing interest rates will squeeze all policy priorities of the United States, including defense policy and foreign policy priorities; Whereas the National Security Strategy of the United States, as of the date of adoption of this resolution, highlights the need to reduce the national debt through fiscal responsibility; Whereas, on April 12, 2018, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that ``any Nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power''; Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security''; Whereas, on November 15, 2017, former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities''; and Whereas, on September 22, 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is debt'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that the national debt is a threat to the national security of the United States; (2) realizes that persistent, structural deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (3) commits to addressing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1838 | null | 2,679 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Ms. Ernst) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 147 Whereas, in September 2020, the total public debt outstanding was more than $26,000,000,000,000, resulting in a total interest expense of more than $371,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2020; Whereas, in September 2019, the total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was about 100 percent; Whereas leaders of the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have testified that-- (1) the growth of the public debt is unsustainable; and (2) Congress must undertake extensive fiscal consolidation to combat that growth; Whereas the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001; Whereas, in fiscal year 2020, Federal tax receipts totaled $3,420,000,000,000, but Federal outlays totaled $6,652,000,000,000, leaving the Federal Government with a 1- year deficit of $3,132,000,000,000; Whereas, since the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001, Congress-- (1) has failed to maintain a fiscally responsible budget; and (2) has had to raise the debt ceiling repeatedly; Whereas the Medicare Board of Trustees projects that the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2026; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Disability Insurance and the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds will be depleted in 2026 and 2031, respectively; Whereas heavy indebtedness increases the exposure of the Federal Government to interest rate risks; Whereas the credit rating of the United States was reduced by Standard and Poor's from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011, and has remained at that level ever since; Whereas, without a targeted effort to balance the Federal budget, the credit rating of the United States will continue to fall; Whereas improvements in the business climate in populous countries, and aging populations around the world, will likely contribute to higher global interest rates; Whereas more than $7,000,000,000,000 of Federal debt is owned by individuals not located in the United States, including more than $1,000,000,000,000 of which is owned by individuals in China; Whereas China and the European Union are developing alternative payment systems to weaken the dominant position of the United States dollar as a reserve currency; Whereas rapidly increasing interest rates will squeeze all policy priorities of the United States, including defense policy and foreign policy priorities; Whereas the National Security Strategy of the United States, as of the date of adoption of this resolution, highlights the need to reduce the national debt through fiscal responsibility; Whereas, on April 12, 2018, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that ``any Nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power''; Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security''; Whereas, on November 15, 2017, former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities''; and Whereas, on September 22, 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is debt'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that the national debt is a threat to the national security of the United States; (2) realizes that persistent, structural deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (3) commits to addressing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1838 | null | 2,680 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Scott of Florida, and Ms. Ernst) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance: S. Res. 147 Whereas, in September 2020, the total public debt outstanding was more than $26,000,000,000,000, resulting in a total interest expense of more than $371,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2020; Whereas, in September 2019, the total public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was about 100 percent; Whereas leaders of the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have testified that-- (1) the growth of the public debt is unsustainable; and (2) Congress must undertake extensive fiscal consolidation to combat that growth; Whereas the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001; Whereas, in fiscal year 2020, Federal tax receipts totaled $3,420,000,000,000, but Federal outlays totaled $6,652,000,000,000, leaving the Federal Government with a 1- year deficit of $3,132,000,000,000; Whereas, since the last Federal budget surplus occurred in 2001, Congress-- (1) has failed to maintain a fiscally responsible budget; and (2) has had to raise the debt ceiling repeatedly; Whereas the Medicare Board of Trustees projects that the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2026; Whereas the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project that the Disability Insurance and the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds will be depleted in 2026 and 2031, respectively; Whereas heavy indebtedness increases the exposure of the Federal Government to interest rate risks; Whereas the credit rating of the United States was reduced by Standard and Poor's from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011, and has remained at that level ever since; Whereas, without a targeted effort to balance the Federal budget, the credit rating of the United States will continue to fall; Whereas improvements in the business climate in populous countries, and aging populations around the world, will likely contribute to higher global interest rates; Whereas more than $7,000,000,000,000 of Federal debt is owned by individuals not located in the United States, including more than $1,000,000,000,000 of which is owned by individuals in China; Whereas China and the European Union are developing alternative payment systems to weaken the dominant position of the United States dollar as a reserve currency; Whereas rapidly increasing interest rates will squeeze all policy priorities of the United States, including defense policy and foreign policy priorities; Whereas the National Security Strategy of the United States, as of the date of adoption of this resolution, highlights the need to reduce the national debt through fiscal responsibility; Whereas, on April 12, 2018, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that ``any Nation that can't keep its fiscal house in order eventually cannot maintain its military power''; Whereas, on March 6, 2018, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned: ``Our continued plunge into debt is unsustainable and represents a dire future threat to our economy and to our national security''; Whereas, on November 15, 2017, former Secretaries of Defense Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, and Chuck Hagel warned: ``Increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities''; and Whereas, on September 22, 2011, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen warned: ``I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is debt'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes that the national debt is a threat to the national security of the United States; (2) realizes that persistent, structural deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous; and (3) commits to addressing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1838 | null | 2,681 |
formal | thugs | null | racist | Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to call attention to a courageous Russian hero who is in danger even as I speak. He is a man who has consistently stood up to Vladimir Putin and his cronies and has, on numerous occasions, placed his own life in jeopardy to bring the truth to light. The lawless thugs in the Kremlin often avoid saying his name in public, but here on the Senate floor, I am proud to stand in solidarity with Alexei Navalny. It was just last August that Alexei Navalny, Russia's foremost opposition leader, was poisoned with a deadly nerve agent. Millions of us remember seeing the video of his being stricken on an airplane and hearing his painful cries, the crew members unsure how to soothe his pain. Thanks to the quick diplomatic work of our friends in Germany, Mr. Navalny was evacuated to Berlin, where he received expert medical attention and, against all odds, recovered from this poisoning. An ordinary man would have stayed safe and very far away from the Kremlin, but Alexei Navalny is no ordinary man. He is a Russian patriot who envisions a different kind of Russia, one where citizens have a say in government, where freedom blooms, and where the President does not siphon away funds intended for hospitals in order to build secret palaces or to enrich members of his kleptocracy. So, 3 months ago, Mr. Navalny returned to Russia, knowing full well the dangers he would face. Immediately upon his arrival, he was arrested at the airport for a parole violation, which resulted from his hospitalization, which resulted from his poisoning. He now sits in one of the most notorious penal colonies in Russia, known for its psychological torture. He has been deemed a flight risk and is awakened eight times a night under the guise of monitoring his whereabouts. His lawyers were recently prevented from seeing him. Reports are that he is suffering from severe back pain and other healthconcerns and has received inadequate medical care. This is a familiar sounding story, but one thing is clear: The Russian dictatorship is terrified of Alexei Navalny. He is a threat to them because he has exposed their unbridled corruption and urged voters to demand that the government respect their rights. Because of that, Alexei Navalny's life is in danger at this very moment. The tens of thousands of demonstrators who turned out across Russia to support this jailed opposition leader send an unmistakable message to the Kremlin: You cannot suppress the voice of the people indefinitely. Freedom-loving Americans and freedom-loving people around the world are, today, crying out for justice for Alexei Navalny. He endures the suffering of many before him--in Russia, people like Sergei Magnitsky and Boris Nemtsov and, abroad, people like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi--whose legacies and movements did not rot while they were in prison but, instead, helped to bring down oppressive governments. At this point, I yield to the Senator from Colorado for a brief intervention before I close with a thought or two. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WICKER | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1840-2 | null | 2,682 |
formal | Janet Yellen | null | antisemitic | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, before we hear from Senator Booker and Senator Bennet and Senator Warnock on one of the best things this Senate has done in my career, that being the extension of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, I just want to say a few words about someone we just voted on at the Department of the Treasury who is so, so important, Adewale Adeyemo, who will be Janet Yellen's--one exemplary Treasury Secretary--Chief of Staff. He is a terrific public servant. Senator Cortez Masto, the Presiding Officer, and I were talking a few minutes ago about the importance of the Treasury Department in so many things from the child tax credit, to the pension bill, to so many things that we do that matter--getting the $1,400 checks out and making sure our tax system is fair. Senator Bennet and I serve together with Senator Cortez Masto and others on the Committee on Finance. What that means and what we are trying to do on that committee is to take away the 50-percent-off coupon from corporations that shut down production in Reno or in Boulder or in Cleveland or in Newark and move overseas. They get, essentially, a 50-percent-off coupon on their taxes. We need to close those loopholes. We need a Treasury Secretary, and we need Adewale Adeyemo, who will make a huge difference in our work there. So I thank Senator Schumer and those on both sides of the aisle for finally confirming him today and getting him to work. I yield to Senator Bennet, who, I think, is going to start or, maybe, Senator Booker. Less than 2 weeks ago, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law. He ushered in some of the most transformative economic policies to come out of Washington in generations. By expanding access to and eligibility for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, the American Rescue Plan is going to lift 10 million kids above or closer to the poverty line and put money in the pockets of 17 million American workers across the country. I want to start out by noting that both the income--low-income and middle-income families and workers potentially qualify for these credits, and they will be issued periodically via check and direct deposit. American workers should know this was a profound change that will benefit you. American workers also have to know that they won't have to wait until next year. You won't have to start to see advanced payments of these credits 6, 7, 10 months down--you will see them as early as July. And because of the changes that we made, if you didn't previously qualify because you didn't have a high enough income, you could be eligible now. I am so proud to be here today alongside Senator Brown, Senator Bennet, Senator Warnock, the Presiding Officer, who are in large part responsible for this powerful lifeline to the American people and, critically, for our children. Senator Bennet, Senator Brown, Senator Warnock, thank you. You are champions who have been fighting in and out of the Senate and understand not just the economic urgency but the moral urgency to address poverty. And that is really what we are all here to talk about--the urgency of the crisis of poverty and specifically child poverty. In America, this is unacceptable. In the wealthiest Nation on the planet Earth, the question of poverty is not one of inevitability; it is one of policy choice. It is not if we can do something; it is will we do something. Tonight, I am going home to Newark, driving very soon, where I have lived over the past 20 years. I am proud to call Newark home. I am proud to be a part of a community of people who take care of each other. I am proud to be part of a community that is rich with dignity, rich with activism and intellect and engagement. But we are also a community, like so many others in America, that still struggles. According to the last census, the median income for the census track that I live in was about $14,000 per household, and that was before the dual public health and economic crises of the COVID pandemic. And in my community, like many others, urban and rural, across America, adults aren't the only ones struggling; our kids are too. In fact, the poorest age group in America is our children, with one in six American kids living in poverty. It is nothing less than a moral obscenity that the richest Nation in the world should have the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. For adults, poverty has a technical definition. It is a federally defined guideline--an amount of annual income that you fall under that also takes into account how many people are in your household. For kids, poverty is defined by what they experience every single day, by what happens to them. It is growing up being more likely to deal with food insecurity, not knowing where your next meal will come from or when it will come. It is facing housing insecurity. A quarter of kids living in poverty will have gone through an eviction before they turn 15 years old. Kids in poverty have worse health outcomes, worse educational outcomes, and are more likely to become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system. And kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults. Study after study has shown how children who live in poverty have higher levels of stress hormones. The stress of poverty literally affects their brains. It inhibits brain development. It is violence against the brain of a child. One child poverty expert described the stress hormones that are constantly released in kids growing up in poverty as similar to the feeling that an adult would get after a car crash--every single day. This is violence. We know that when a child experiences poverty, there are lifelong psychological and physiological effects they carry with them. Study after study after study has borne this out.For kids, poverty is literally dangerous for their development, dangerous for their health, and they could have permanent and lasting damage to their brains. The cruelty of this crisis is that no parent would ever choose that for their child. Poor parents do not choose for their kids to experience the daily trauma of poverty. They do not choose to condemn their kids to a life of worse education outcomes, worse health outcomes. What we must understand is that child poverty is not a choice that low-income parents make. It is a failure of our country to take collective responsibility for the well-being of American children. This is a moral sin. It is not a sin to be poor but a sin to tolerate such poverty in our communities. Almost 2 weeks ago, Congress and President Biden made the choice to do something about this American sin, this unacceptable reality, this moral obscenity--the violence happening to so many children. They did something about it; we did something about it in the American Rescue Plan. And now we are calling on our--really, we are on our way for a year to cut child poverty in half; for Black children more than in half, 52 percent; for Hispanic children, by 45 percent; for Native American children, by 62 percent. That is millions of kids across the country who will not face the violence of poverty. In New Jersey, that is 89,000 kids and their families who are not just going to be lifted out of poverty but will be given the opportunities and the freedoms that come with being able to build a life and a future beyond without the trauma that comes with poverty. That is why we are together here this afternoon--because lifting kids out of poverty is not just about ending a crisis but about beginning a new American tradition of giving every child what every child should have in America as a birthright. It is about creating freedom and liberty from the oppression of poverty. We have the power to do this. We have the tools to do it, and we know it makes good economic sense to get kids and adults out of poverty. I love what James Baldwin wrote. He said: ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how . . . expensive it is to be poor.'' Well, that is also true for our country. Whether we realize it or not, child poverty is expensive for all of us, costing our country $1.1 trillion every year. But investing in ending poverty benefits us all. Every dollar spent on combating child poverty saves this Nation $7 down the road; $1 invested saves us $7 later. Other countries, our peers, have made thes kinds of investments in children and families and have reaped rewards that we are denying ourselves. Expanding the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and making them permanent are proven, data-driven, evidence-based, result-apparent ways to respond to some of the most morally and economically urgent challenges of the United States of America. These are the kinds of investments in our people that will change life trajectories and have a ripple effect for generations yet to come. If you give the child--a child firmer ground on which to grow, they will blossom and reap a harvest beyond our imagination. But if you punish them in the trauma, in the violence of poverty, you decimate not just their destinies but all of our destinies. I am so grateful to have champions that are here today alongside me in this effort, and, together, I know this is a crisis we are going to meet, and this crisis we can overcome. I am proud of the work we have done. Now we should make those changes to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit permanent. I am proud to pass the microphone and the moment on to a great champion of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, one of the original authors of the legislation that was pulled from for our recovery plan, and that is the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1841 | null | 2,683 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, before we hear from Senator Booker and Senator Bennet and Senator Warnock on one of the best things this Senate has done in my career, that being the extension of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, I just want to say a few words about someone we just voted on at the Department of the Treasury who is so, so important, Adewale Adeyemo, who will be Janet Yellen's--one exemplary Treasury Secretary--Chief of Staff. He is a terrific public servant. Senator Cortez Masto, the Presiding Officer, and I were talking a few minutes ago about the importance of the Treasury Department in so many things from the child tax credit, to the pension bill, to so many things that we do that matter--getting the $1,400 checks out and making sure our tax system is fair. Senator Bennet and I serve together with Senator Cortez Masto and others on the Committee on Finance. What that means and what we are trying to do on that committee is to take away the 50-percent-off coupon from corporations that shut down production in Reno or in Boulder or in Cleveland or in Newark and move overseas. They get, essentially, a 50-percent-off coupon on their taxes. We need to close those loopholes. We need a Treasury Secretary, and we need Adewale Adeyemo, who will make a huge difference in our work there. So I thank Senator Schumer and those on both sides of the aisle for finally confirming him today and getting him to work. I yield to Senator Bennet, who, I think, is going to start or, maybe, Senator Booker. Less than 2 weeks ago, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law. He ushered in some of the most transformative economic policies to come out of Washington in generations. By expanding access to and eligibility for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, the American Rescue Plan is going to lift 10 million kids above or closer to the poverty line and put money in the pockets of 17 million American workers across the country. I want to start out by noting that both the income--low-income and middle-income families and workers potentially qualify for these credits, and they will be issued periodically via check and direct deposit. American workers should know this was a profound change that will benefit you. American workers also have to know that they won't have to wait until next year. You won't have to start to see advanced payments of these credits 6, 7, 10 months down--you will see them as early as July. And because of the changes that we made, if you didn't previously qualify because you didn't have a high enough income, you could be eligible now. I am so proud to be here today alongside Senator Brown, Senator Bennet, Senator Warnock, the Presiding Officer, who are in large part responsible for this powerful lifeline to the American people and, critically, for our children. Senator Bennet, Senator Brown, Senator Warnock, thank you. You are champions who have been fighting in and out of the Senate and understand not just the economic urgency but the moral urgency to address poverty. And that is really what we are all here to talk about--the urgency of the crisis of poverty and specifically child poverty. In America, this is unacceptable. In the wealthiest Nation on the planet Earth, the question of poverty is not one of inevitability; it is one of policy choice. It is not if we can do something; it is will we do something. Tonight, I am going home to Newark, driving very soon, where I have lived over the past 20 years. I am proud to call Newark home. I am proud to be a part of a community of people who take care of each other. I am proud to be part of a community that is rich with dignity, rich with activism and intellect and engagement. But we are also a community, like so many others in America, that still struggles. According to the last census, the median income for the census track that I live in was about $14,000 per household, and that was before the dual public health and economic crises of the COVID pandemic. And in my community, like many others, urban and rural, across America, adults aren't the only ones struggling; our kids are too. In fact, the poorest age group in America is our children, with one in six American kids living in poverty. It is nothing less than a moral obscenity that the richest Nation in the world should have the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. For adults, poverty has a technical definition. It is a federally defined guideline--an amount of annual income that you fall under that also takes into account how many people are in your household. For kids, poverty is defined by what they experience every single day, by what happens to them. It is growing up being more likely to deal with food insecurity, not knowing where your next meal will come from or when it will come. It is facing housing insecurity. A quarter of kids living in poverty will have gone through an eviction before they turn 15 years old. Kids in poverty have worse health outcomes, worse educational outcomes, and are more likely to become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system. And kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults. Study after study has shown how children who live in poverty have higher levels of stress hormones. The stress of poverty literally affects their brains. It inhibits brain development. It is violence against the brain of a child. One child poverty expert described the stress hormones that are constantly released in kids growing up in poverty as similar to the feeling that an adult would get after a car crash--every single day. This is violence. We know that when a child experiences poverty, there are lifelong psychological and physiological effects they carry with them. Study after study after study has borne this out.For kids, poverty is literally dangerous for their development, dangerous for their health, and they could have permanent and lasting damage to their brains. The cruelty of this crisis is that no parent would ever choose that for their child. Poor parents do not choose for their kids to experience the daily trauma of poverty. They do not choose to condemn their kids to a life of worse education outcomes, worse health outcomes. What we must understand is that child poverty is not a choice that low-income parents make. It is a failure of our country to take collective responsibility for the well-being of American children. This is a moral sin. It is not a sin to be poor but a sin to tolerate such poverty in our communities. Almost 2 weeks ago, Congress and President Biden made the choice to do something about this American sin, this unacceptable reality, this moral obscenity--the violence happening to so many children. They did something about it; we did something about it in the American Rescue Plan. And now we are calling on our--really, we are on our way for a year to cut child poverty in half; for Black children more than in half, 52 percent; for Hispanic children, by 45 percent; for Native American children, by 62 percent. That is millions of kids across the country who will not face the violence of poverty. In New Jersey, that is 89,000 kids and their families who are not just going to be lifted out of poverty but will be given the opportunities and the freedoms that come with being able to build a life and a future beyond without the trauma that comes with poverty. That is why we are together here this afternoon--because lifting kids out of poverty is not just about ending a crisis but about beginning a new American tradition of giving every child what every child should have in America as a birthright. It is about creating freedom and liberty from the oppression of poverty. We have the power to do this. We have the tools to do it, and we know it makes good economic sense to get kids and adults out of poverty. I love what James Baldwin wrote. He said: ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how . . . expensive it is to be poor.'' Well, that is also true for our country. Whether we realize it or not, child poverty is expensive for all of us, costing our country $1.1 trillion every year. But investing in ending poverty benefits us all. Every dollar spent on combating child poverty saves this Nation $7 down the road; $1 invested saves us $7 later. Other countries, our peers, have made thes kinds of investments in children and families and have reaped rewards that we are denying ourselves. Expanding the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and making them permanent are proven, data-driven, evidence-based, result-apparent ways to respond to some of the most morally and economically urgent challenges of the United States of America. These are the kinds of investments in our people that will change life trajectories and have a ripple effect for generations yet to come. If you give the child--a child firmer ground on which to grow, they will blossom and reap a harvest beyond our imagination. But if you punish them in the trauma, in the violence of poverty, you decimate not just their destinies but all of our destinies. I am so grateful to have champions that are here today alongside me in this effort, and, together, I know this is a crisis we are going to meet, and this crisis we can overcome. I am proud of the work we have done. Now we should make those changes to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit permanent. I am proud to pass the microphone and the moment on to a great champion of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, one of the original authors of the legislation that was pulled from for our recovery plan, and that is the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1841 | null | 2,684 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, before we hear from Senator Booker and Senator Bennet and Senator Warnock on one of the best things this Senate has done in my career, that being the extension of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, I just want to say a few words about someone we just voted on at the Department of the Treasury who is so, so important, Adewale Adeyemo, who will be Janet Yellen's--one exemplary Treasury Secretary--Chief of Staff. He is a terrific public servant. Senator Cortez Masto, the Presiding Officer, and I were talking a few minutes ago about the importance of the Treasury Department in so many things from the child tax credit, to the pension bill, to so many things that we do that matter--getting the $1,400 checks out and making sure our tax system is fair. Senator Bennet and I serve together with Senator Cortez Masto and others on the Committee on Finance. What that means and what we are trying to do on that committee is to take away the 50-percent-off coupon from corporations that shut down production in Reno or in Boulder or in Cleveland or in Newark and move overseas. They get, essentially, a 50-percent-off coupon on their taxes. We need to close those loopholes. We need a Treasury Secretary, and we need Adewale Adeyemo, who will make a huge difference in our work there. So I thank Senator Schumer and those on both sides of the aisle for finally confirming him today and getting him to work. I yield to Senator Bennet, who, I think, is going to start or, maybe, Senator Booker. Less than 2 weeks ago, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law. He ushered in some of the most transformative economic policies to come out of Washington in generations. By expanding access to and eligibility for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, the American Rescue Plan is going to lift 10 million kids above or closer to the poverty line and put money in the pockets of 17 million American workers across the country. I want to start out by noting that both the income--low-income and middle-income families and workers potentially qualify for these credits, and they will be issued periodically via check and direct deposit. American workers should know this was a profound change that will benefit you. American workers also have to know that they won't have to wait until next year. You won't have to start to see advanced payments of these credits 6, 7, 10 months down--you will see them as early as July. And because of the changes that we made, if you didn't previously qualify because you didn't have a high enough income, you could be eligible now. I am so proud to be here today alongside Senator Brown, Senator Bennet, Senator Warnock, the Presiding Officer, who are in large part responsible for this powerful lifeline to the American people and, critically, for our children. Senator Bennet, Senator Brown, Senator Warnock, thank you. You are champions who have been fighting in and out of the Senate and understand not just the economic urgency but the moral urgency to address poverty. And that is really what we are all here to talk about--the urgency of the crisis of poverty and specifically child poverty. In America, this is unacceptable. In the wealthiest Nation on the planet Earth, the question of poverty is not one of inevitability; it is one of policy choice. It is not if we can do something; it is will we do something. Tonight, I am going home to Newark, driving very soon, where I have lived over the past 20 years. I am proud to call Newark home. I am proud to be a part of a community of people who take care of each other. I am proud to be part of a community that is rich with dignity, rich with activism and intellect and engagement. But we are also a community, like so many others in America, that still struggles. According to the last census, the median income for the census track that I live in was about $14,000 per household, and that was before the dual public health and economic crises of the COVID pandemic. And in my community, like many others, urban and rural, across America, adults aren't the only ones struggling; our kids are too. In fact, the poorest age group in America is our children, with one in six American kids living in poverty. It is nothing less than a moral obscenity that the richest Nation in the world should have the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. For adults, poverty has a technical definition. It is a federally defined guideline--an amount of annual income that you fall under that also takes into account how many people are in your household. For kids, poverty is defined by what they experience every single day, by what happens to them. It is growing up being more likely to deal with food insecurity, not knowing where your next meal will come from or when it will come. It is facing housing insecurity. A quarter of kids living in poverty will have gone through an eviction before they turn 15 years old. Kids in poverty have worse health outcomes, worse educational outcomes, and are more likely to become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system. And kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults. Study after study has shown how children who live in poverty have higher levels of stress hormones. The stress of poverty literally affects their brains. It inhibits brain development. It is violence against the brain of a child. One child poverty expert described the stress hormones that are constantly released in kids growing up in poverty as similar to the feeling that an adult would get after a car crash--every single day. This is violence. We know that when a child experiences poverty, there are lifelong psychological and physiological effects they carry with them. Study after study after study has borne this out.For kids, poverty is literally dangerous for their development, dangerous for their health, and they could have permanent and lasting damage to their brains. The cruelty of this crisis is that no parent would ever choose that for their child. Poor parents do not choose for their kids to experience the daily trauma of poverty. They do not choose to condemn their kids to a life of worse education outcomes, worse health outcomes. What we must understand is that child poverty is not a choice that low-income parents make. It is a failure of our country to take collective responsibility for the well-being of American children. This is a moral sin. It is not a sin to be poor but a sin to tolerate such poverty in our communities. Almost 2 weeks ago, Congress and President Biden made the choice to do something about this American sin, this unacceptable reality, this moral obscenity--the violence happening to so many children. They did something about it; we did something about it in the American Rescue Plan. And now we are calling on our--really, we are on our way for a year to cut child poverty in half; for Black children more than in half, 52 percent; for Hispanic children, by 45 percent; for Native American children, by 62 percent. That is millions of kids across the country who will not face the violence of poverty. In New Jersey, that is 89,000 kids and their families who are not just going to be lifted out of poverty but will be given the opportunities and the freedoms that come with being able to build a life and a future beyond without the trauma that comes with poverty. That is why we are together here this afternoon--because lifting kids out of poverty is not just about ending a crisis but about beginning a new American tradition of giving every child what every child should have in America as a birthright. It is about creating freedom and liberty from the oppression of poverty. We have the power to do this. We have the tools to do it, and we know it makes good economic sense to get kids and adults out of poverty. I love what James Baldwin wrote. He said: ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how . . . expensive it is to be poor.'' Well, that is also true for our country. Whether we realize it or not, child poverty is expensive for all of us, costing our country $1.1 trillion every year. But investing in ending poverty benefits us all. Every dollar spent on combating child poverty saves this Nation $7 down the road; $1 invested saves us $7 later. Other countries, our peers, have made thes kinds of investments in children and families and have reaped rewards that we are denying ourselves. Expanding the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and making them permanent are proven, data-driven, evidence-based, result-apparent ways to respond to some of the most morally and economically urgent challenges of the United States of America. These are the kinds of investments in our people that will change life trajectories and have a ripple effect for generations yet to come. If you give the child--a child firmer ground on which to grow, they will blossom and reap a harvest beyond our imagination. But if you punish them in the trauma, in the violence of poverty, you decimate not just their destinies but all of our destinies. I am so grateful to have champions that are here today alongside me in this effort, and, together, I know this is a crisis we are going to meet, and this crisis we can overcome. I am proud of the work we have done. Now we should make those changes to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit permanent. I am proud to pass the microphone and the moment on to a great champion of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, one of the original authors of the legislation that was pulled from for our recovery plan, and that is the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1841 | null | 2,685 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, before we hear from Senator Booker and Senator Bennet and Senator Warnock on one of the best things this Senate has done in my career, that being the extension of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, I just want to say a few words about someone we just voted on at the Department of the Treasury who is so, so important, Adewale Adeyemo, who will be Janet Yellen's--one exemplary Treasury Secretary--Chief of Staff. He is a terrific public servant. Senator Cortez Masto, the Presiding Officer, and I were talking a few minutes ago about the importance of the Treasury Department in so many things from the child tax credit, to the pension bill, to so many things that we do that matter--getting the $1,400 checks out and making sure our tax system is fair. Senator Bennet and I serve together with Senator Cortez Masto and others on the Committee on Finance. What that means and what we are trying to do on that committee is to take away the 50-percent-off coupon from corporations that shut down production in Reno or in Boulder or in Cleveland or in Newark and move overseas. They get, essentially, a 50-percent-off coupon on their taxes. We need to close those loopholes. We need a Treasury Secretary, and we need Adewale Adeyemo, who will make a huge difference in our work there. So I thank Senator Schumer and those on both sides of the aisle for finally confirming him today and getting him to work. I yield to Senator Bennet, who, I think, is going to start or, maybe, Senator Booker. Less than 2 weeks ago, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law. He ushered in some of the most transformative economic policies to come out of Washington in generations. By expanding access to and eligibility for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, the American Rescue Plan is going to lift 10 million kids above or closer to the poverty line and put money in the pockets of 17 million American workers across the country. I want to start out by noting that both the income--low-income and middle-income families and workers potentially qualify for these credits, and they will be issued periodically via check and direct deposit. American workers should know this was a profound change that will benefit you. American workers also have to know that they won't have to wait until next year. You won't have to start to see advanced payments of these credits 6, 7, 10 months down--you will see them as early as July. And because of the changes that we made, if you didn't previously qualify because you didn't have a high enough income, you could be eligible now. I am so proud to be here today alongside Senator Brown, Senator Bennet, Senator Warnock, the Presiding Officer, who are in large part responsible for this powerful lifeline to the American people and, critically, for our children. Senator Bennet, Senator Brown, Senator Warnock, thank you. You are champions who have been fighting in and out of the Senate and understand not just the economic urgency but the moral urgency to address poverty. And that is really what we are all here to talk about--the urgency of the crisis of poverty and specifically child poverty. In America, this is unacceptable. In the wealthiest Nation on the planet Earth, the question of poverty is not one of inevitability; it is one of policy choice. It is not if we can do something; it is will we do something. Tonight, I am going home to Newark, driving very soon, where I have lived over the past 20 years. I am proud to call Newark home. I am proud to be a part of a community of people who take care of each other. I am proud to be part of a community that is rich with dignity, rich with activism and intellect and engagement. But we are also a community, like so many others in America, that still struggles. According to the last census, the median income for the census track that I live in was about $14,000 per household, and that was before the dual public health and economic crises of the COVID pandemic. And in my community, like many others, urban and rural, across America, adults aren't the only ones struggling; our kids are too. In fact, the poorest age group in America is our children, with one in six American kids living in poverty. It is nothing less than a moral obscenity that the richest Nation in the world should have the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. For adults, poverty has a technical definition. It is a federally defined guideline--an amount of annual income that you fall under that also takes into account how many people are in your household. For kids, poverty is defined by what they experience every single day, by what happens to them. It is growing up being more likely to deal with food insecurity, not knowing where your next meal will come from or when it will come. It is facing housing insecurity. A quarter of kids living in poverty will have gone through an eviction before they turn 15 years old. Kids in poverty have worse health outcomes, worse educational outcomes, and are more likely to become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system. And kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults. Study after study has shown how children who live in poverty have higher levels of stress hormones. The stress of poverty literally affects their brains. It inhibits brain development. It is violence against the brain of a child. One child poverty expert described the stress hormones that are constantly released in kids growing up in poverty as similar to the feeling that an adult would get after a car crash--every single day. This is violence. We know that when a child experiences poverty, there are lifelong psychological and physiological effects they carry with them. Study after study after study has borne this out.For kids, poverty is literally dangerous for their development, dangerous for their health, and they could have permanent and lasting damage to their brains. The cruelty of this crisis is that no parent would ever choose that for their child. Poor parents do not choose for their kids to experience the daily trauma of poverty. They do not choose to condemn their kids to a life of worse education outcomes, worse health outcomes. What we must understand is that child poverty is not a choice that low-income parents make. It is a failure of our country to take collective responsibility for the well-being of American children. This is a moral sin. It is not a sin to be poor but a sin to tolerate such poverty in our communities. Almost 2 weeks ago, Congress and President Biden made the choice to do something about this American sin, this unacceptable reality, this moral obscenity--the violence happening to so many children. They did something about it; we did something about it in the American Rescue Plan. And now we are calling on our--really, we are on our way for a year to cut child poverty in half; for Black children more than in half, 52 percent; for Hispanic children, by 45 percent; for Native American children, by 62 percent. That is millions of kids across the country who will not face the violence of poverty. In New Jersey, that is 89,000 kids and their families who are not just going to be lifted out of poverty but will be given the opportunities and the freedoms that come with being able to build a life and a future beyond without the trauma that comes with poverty. That is why we are together here this afternoon--because lifting kids out of poverty is not just about ending a crisis but about beginning a new American tradition of giving every child what every child should have in America as a birthright. It is about creating freedom and liberty from the oppression of poverty. We have the power to do this. We have the tools to do it, and we know it makes good economic sense to get kids and adults out of poverty. I love what James Baldwin wrote. He said: ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how . . . expensive it is to be poor.'' Well, that is also true for our country. Whether we realize it or not, child poverty is expensive for all of us, costing our country $1.1 trillion every year. But investing in ending poverty benefits us all. Every dollar spent on combating child poverty saves this Nation $7 down the road; $1 invested saves us $7 later. Other countries, our peers, have made thes kinds of investments in children and families and have reaped rewards that we are denying ourselves. Expanding the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and making them permanent are proven, data-driven, evidence-based, result-apparent ways to respond to some of the most morally and economically urgent challenges of the United States of America. These are the kinds of investments in our people that will change life trajectories and have a ripple effect for generations yet to come. If you give the child--a child firmer ground on which to grow, they will blossom and reap a harvest beyond our imagination. But if you punish them in the trauma, in the violence of poverty, you decimate not just their destinies but all of our destinies. I am so grateful to have champions that are here today alongside me in this effort, and, together, I know this is a crisis we are going to meet, and this crisis we can overcome. I am proud of the work we have done. Now we should make those changes to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit permanent. I am proud to pass the microphone and the moment on to a great champion of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, one of the original authors of the legislation that was pulled from for our recovery plan, and that is the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1841 | null | 2,686 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, before we hear from Senator Booker and Senator Bennet and Senator Warnock on one of the best things this Senate has done in my career, that being the extension of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, I just want to say a few words about someone we just voted on at the Department of the Treasury who is so, so important, Adewale Adeyemo, who will be Janet Yellen's--one exemplary Treasury Secretary--Chief of Staff. He is a terrific public servant. Senator Cortez Masto, the Presiding Officer, and I were talking a few minutes ago about the importance of the Treasury Department in so many things from the child tax credit, to the pension bill, to so many things that we do that matter--getting the $1,400 checks out and making sure our tax system is fair. Senator Bennet and I serve together with Senator Cortez Masto and others on the Committee on Finance. What that means and what we are trying to do on that committee is to take away the 50-percent-off coupon from corporations that shut down production in Reno or in Boulder or in Cleveland or in Newark and move overseas. They get, essentially, a 50-percent-off coupon on their taxes. We need to close those loopholes. We need a Treasury Secretary, and we need Adewale Adeyemo, who will make a huge difference in our work there. So I thank Senator Schumer and those on both sides of the aisle for finally confirming him today and getting him to work. I yield to Senator Bennet, who, I think, is going to start or, maybe, Senator Booker. Less than 2 weeks ago, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law. He ushered in some of the most transformative economic policies to come out of Washington in generations. By expanding access to and eligibility for the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, the American Rescue Plan is going to lift 10 million kids above or closer to the poverty line and put money in the pockets of 17 million American workers across the country. I want to start out by noting that both the income--low-income and middle-income families and workers potentially qualify for these credits, and they will be issued periodically via check and direct deposit. American workers should know this was a profound change that will benefit you. American workers also have to know that they won't have to wait until next year. You won't have to start to see advanced payments of these credits 6, 7, 10 months down--you will see them as early as July. And because of the changes that we made, if you didn't previously qualify because you didn't have a high enough income, you could be eligible now. I am so proud to be here today alongside Senator Brown, Senator Bennet, Senator Warnock, the Presiding Officer, who are in large part responsible for this powerful lifeline to the American people and, critically, for our children. Senator Bennet, Senator Brown, Senator Warnock, thank you. You are champions who have been fighting in and out of the Senate and understand not just the economic urgency but the moral urgency to address poverty. And that is really what we are all here to talk about--the urgency of the crisis of poverty and specifically child poverty. In America, this is unacceptable. In the wealthiest Nation on the planet Earth, the question of poverty is not one of inevitability; it is one of policy choice. It is not if we can do something; it is will we do something. Tonight, I am going home to Newark, driving very soon, where I have lived over the past 20 years. I am proud to call Newark home. I am proud to be a part of a community of people who take care of each other. I am proud to be part of a community that is rich with dignity, rich with activism and intellect and engagement. But we are also a community, like so many others in America, that still struggles. According to the last census, the median income for the census track that I live in was about $14,000 per household, and that was before the dual public health and economic crises of the COVID pandemic. And in my community, like many others, urban and rural, across America, adults aren't the only ones struggling; our kids are too. In fact, the poorest age group in America is our children, with one in six American kids living in poverty. It is nothing less than a moral obscenity that the richest Nation in the world should have the highest rates of child poverty in the developed world. For adults, poverty has a technical definition. It is a federally defined guideline--an amount of annual income that you fall under that also takes into account how many people are in your household. For kids, poverty is defined by what they experience every single day, by what happens to them. It is growing up being more likely to deal with food insecurity, not knowing where your next meal will come from or when it will come. It is facing housing insecurity. A quarter of kids living in poverty will have gone through an eviction before they turn 15 years old. Kids in poverty have worse health outcomes, worse educational outcomes, and are more likely to become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system. And kids who grow up in poverty are more likely to be poor as adults. Study after study has shown how children who live in poverty have higher levels of stress hormones. The stress of poverty literally affects their brains. It inhibits brain development. It is violence against the brain of a child. One child poverty expert described the stress hormones that are constantly released in kids growing up in poverty as similar to the feeling that an adult would get after a car crash--every single day. This is violence. We know that when a child experiences poverty, there are lifelong psychological and physiological effects they carry with them. Study after study after study has borne this out.For kids, poverty is literally dangerous for their development, dangerous for their health, and they could have permanent and lasting damage to their brains. The cruelty of this crisis is that no parent would ever choose that for their child. Poor parents do not choose for their kids to experience the daily trauma of poverty. They do not choose to condemn their kids to a life of worse education outcomes, worse health outcomes. What we must understand is that child poverty is not a choice that low-income parents make. It is a failure of our country to take collective responsibility for the well-being of American children. This is a moral sin. It is not a sin to be poor but a sin to tolerate such poverty in our communities. Almost 2 weeks ago, Congress and President Biden made the choice to do something about this American sin, this unacceptable reality, this moral obscenity--the violence happening to so many children. They did something about it; we did something about it in the American Rescue Plan. And now we are calling on our--really, we are on our way for a year to cut child poverty in half; for Black children more than in half, 52 percent; for Hispanic children, by 45 percent; for Native American children, by 62 percent. That is millions of kids across the country who will not face the violence of poverty. In New Jersey, that is 89,000 kids and their families who are not just going to be lifted out of poverty but will be given the opportunities and the freedoms that come with being able to build a life and a future beyond without the trauma that comes with poverty. That is why we are together here this afternoon--because lifting kids out of poverty is not just about ending a crisis but about beginning a new American tradition of giving every child what every child should have in America as a birthright. It is about creating freedom and liberty from the oppression of poverty. We have the power to do this. We have the tools to do it, and we know it makes good economic sense to get kids and adults out of poverty. I love what James Baldwin wrote. He said: ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how . . . expensive it is to be poor.'' Well, that is also true for our country. Whether we realize it or not, child poverty is expensive for all of us, costing our country $1.1 trillion every year. But investing in ending poverty benefits us all. Every dollar spent on combating child poverty saves this Nation $7 down the road; $1 invested saves us $7 later. Other countries, our peers, have made thes kinds of investments in children and families and have reaped rewards that we are denying ourselves. Expanding the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and making them permanent are proven, data-driven, evidence-based, result-apparent ways to respond to some of the most morally and economically urgent challenges of the United States of America. These are the kinds of investments in our people that will change life trajectories and have a ripple effect for generations yet to come. If you give the child--a child firmer ground on which to grow, they will blossom and reap a harvest beyond our imagination. But if you punish them in the trauma, in the violence of poverty, you decimate not just their destinies but all of our destinies. I am so grateful to have champions that are here today alongside me in this effort, and, together, I know this is a crisis we are going to meet, and this crisis we can overcome. I am proud of the work we have done. Now we should make those changes to the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit permanent. I am proud to pass the microphone and the moment on to a great champion of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, one of the original authors of the legislation that was pulled from for our recovery plan, and that is the Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2021-03-25-pt1-PgS1841 | null | 2,687 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the passing of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), the whole number of the House is 429. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-04-08-pt1-PgH1716-6 | null | 2,688 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Honoring Officer William F. Evans Mr. President, today is also another day of mourning for the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police Force. I spent much of my life working in this building as a college student, law student, staff member, Congressman, and Senator. This building has a special place in my life and in the lives of many Americans. It is an enduring symbol of American freedom and democracy. It is recognized around the world. Sadly, it is also a target for mean-spirited attackers and troubled souls. We saw that on January 6, when a mob invaded these halls and this Chamber. We saw it on 9/11, when terrorists hijacked a plane with the intent of crashing it into this building. And, sadly, we saw it again on April 2 with the vehicular attack on the north entrance barricade to the Capitol, one of the most frequently used entrances. The men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police guard this Capitol 24/7, 365. They put their lives at risk to protect this building and those of us who work here and those who visit. They literally risk their lives for us. It is the clearest symbol of heroism that I can think of. On April 2, one of those heroes, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, made the ultimate sacrifice. He was killed in the line of duty defending the people in this building. Officer Evans was 41 years old--41. An 18-year veteran of the Capitol Police, he was a familiar, friendly face to many of us here at the Capitol, where he often worked at the north entrance. Officer Evans was a native of North Adams, MA, a father of two children, Logan and Abigail. His family said that he was ``the best father, son, brother, and friend that anyone could ever hope for.'' They went on to say: The absolute most important thing in life was his two children. . . . He was always so eager to show how proud he was of everything they did. Any opportunity to spend time with his children brightened both their lives and his. Their dad was their hero long before the tragic events of last week. The loss of Officer Evans is heartbreaking. I join in praying for his family and loved ones. We also send our prayers to Officer Ken Shaver, who was injured in the April 2 attack, and we wish him a speedy recovery. The U.S. Capitol Police have faced incredible hardship this year with the loss of three officers: Officer Evans, Officer Brian Sicknick, and Officer Howard Liebengood. And 80 officers were seriously injured in the insurrectionist mob attack on January 6. The debt that we owe Capitol Police officers like Officer Evans can never be repaid, and the same is true for Capitol Police Officers Brian Sicknick, Howard Liebengood, Jacob Chestnut, and Detective Michael Gibson, and others who have been injured or lost their lives through their service. Our gratitude for their sacrifice cannot be captured by words. This Tuesday, Officer Evans will lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, where those whom he died to protect can pass by and pay their respects. Every day it is incumbent for those of us who work in this building to remember this brave officer and to thank him and the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police, who have given so much to keep us safe. (Ms. HIRONO assumed the Chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1859-8 | null | 2,689 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Filibuster Madam President, on January 8, I think most Americans--most of the world, really--were still deeply shaken by what happened in this building on January 6, when the mob broke in. January 6 was an assault on American democracy. It was an armed insurrection not just against this building but against the Constitution and the Government of the United States of America The violent mob was sent to this Capitol by a defeated President who tried to cancel an American election. That mob overran and ransacked this Capitol, smashing windows and doors. They built a gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the Vice President to be hanged for following his duties under the Constitution, for refusing to join in the coup attempt. People died that day in this building and on these grounds. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered fatal injuries trying to hold back the insurrectionist mob sent by the President. Two more officers who fought to save the Capitol died by suicide in the days that followed. More than 140 police officers suffered serious injuries. Many of them are still recovering. But the insurrection at the Capitol, the attack on American democracy, wasn't what alarmed the dark-money special interests that came together for an all-hands-on-deck conference call just 2 days later, on January 8. The conference call was organized by a group with the innocuous name ``Stand Together''--the group that is run by the Koch brothers' organization, well known to anyone who follows American politics. Among the participants on this private conference call was an adviser to the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We know these things because a recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who has written a book on the Koch brothers and dark money in politics. What alarmed the dark-money special interests on that conference call was not the violent insurrection in this building 2 days earlier. According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they could not find a way to turn the American people against a piece of legislation, S. 1, a bill known as the For the People Act. The For the People Act is a democracy defense bill. It would limit the influence of dark money and special interests on our politics, and it would improve access to the ballot box for American voters. We know that access is under attack today. In Georgia and 30 other States, efforts are being made to suppress the American vote. The Koch brothers' group spends its money freely to insert political control. They sent the pollsters out before this conference call to test every attack they could think of against this bill. Nothing worked. Let me read you a passage from Ms. Mayer's article. It is a bit long. So bear with me. This is based on a recording of the call. ``Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a `spoiler.' When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive,'' McKenzie said, adding, ``The most worrisome part is conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public when they heard the neutral description. In fact, he warned, there is a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these efforts.'' As a result, Mayer wrote, ``McKenzie conceded the legislation's opponents would likely have to rely on Republican Senators, where the bill is now under debate, to use what they called `under the dome' strategies''--legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster--to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. S. 1, the For the People Act, is a bill to stop billionaires from buying elections. You can see why Charles Koch, who has grown accustomed to using his wealth to influence elections and dominate the national agenda, wouldn't like that kind of a bill. And you can see why he and others, members of the dark-money power elite, would be alarmed that all the spin-doctoring that money can buy can't turn people against the bill. It can't even turn conservatives against the bill. What is a poor billionaire to do? Well, they said it right there on the conference call. They can't debate the bill because they don't have a winning argument. Senator McConnell is just going to have to kill it ``under the dome.'' Senator McConnell is going to have to filibuster it. One of the myths that defenders of the filibuster like to use is that it encourages debate and compromise. In reality, today's phone-it-in, remote control filibuster is used to make sure debate never even starts. There is another myth the defenders of the filibuster would like us to believe. They say, and Senator McConnell has repeated it, the filibuster has nothing to do with race. History tells us the opposite is true. The filibuster has always been more a creation of James Crow than James Madison. Segregationists used filibusters to block anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1935, and 1938. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills to outlaw poll taxes in 1942, 1944, and 1946. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, and voting in 1957, 1960, and 1964. Every time segregationists used the filibuster to block civil rights measures, they spoke of the tactic as nearly a sacred principle passed down by our Founding Fathers. Now, with voting rights under the broadest attack in more than 50 years, with hundreds of bills being introduced in State legislatures to make it harder for many Americans--especially people of color--to vote, we are once again facing a threat of a filibuster in a voting rights protection bill in the Senate. History repeats itself. Largely under Senator McConnell's leadership, today's filibuster has been transformed into a weapon of mass obstruction. In 2009, during the Great Recession, America was in a financial free fall, our economy teetering on the edge of another depression, millions out of work, and homes and life savings at risk. Senator McConnell said: ``My No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.'' And the No. 1 weapon he used to make good on his threat: the filibuster. Now America has a new President. Senator McConnell wasn't able to filibuster President Biden's American Rescue Plan because we used reconciliation. All 50 Democratic Senators, plus the Vice President, were prepared to vote and break the tie. Not one single Republican Senator would vote for President Biden's rescue plan. Today, America is getting shots in the arm, and people are getting checks in their pockets because we passed that bill despite the intransigence of the other side of the aisle. We are beginning--just beginning--to break the back of this pandemic. There are still hotspots and worrisome reports, but we are beginning to break its back, and we are helping the millions of Americans who are hurting financially because of the pandemic shutdown. Now the Senate is ready to start work on the next chapter of our national economic recovery. President Biden's American Jobs Plan is a bold plan to invest in climate change, job creation, and create the good jobs and the industries of the future here in America--not overseas, not in China, but here in America. That is President Biden's goal. It would rebuild our roads, bridges, rails, ports, airports, and water systems. I learned during the break that,until 1986, the city of Chicago mandated in its plumbing code that the service line from the water main to the home be made of lead--lead. We know lead is dangerous to everyone, certainly to children, and yet we have 23 percent of the lead service lines in America in Chicago and the surrounding area. That is a public health hazard. Some may not think that is infrastructure, but if you can't deliver safe drinking water to America, what else is important? We need to rebuild our 5G broadband internet and expand it, renewable energy, and advanced research and technology. We need to create millions of jobs and to lay the foundation for American economic prosperity for decades to come. Last night, on 60 Minutes, Chairman Jerome Powell spoke and was interviewed. It was a most encouraging report. He really believes we are right on the cusp of moving this Nation forward--dramatic increase in economic growth in this country. Isn't it about time? Don't we want a President who will invest in America to make that happen? Senator McConnell has already said he opposes President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really filibuster this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America to lead the global economy of the 21st century? Will they really filibuster America's ability to compete and win against China in the competition for jobs and industries of the future? I hope not. We are all sent to the Senate with a job, to fix the problems, not paralyze Congress. Despite what the dark money special interests might want, we should aim higher than killing good solutions with the filibuster. Let's talk, let's meet, and let's reason things out. Let's negotiate, and let's pass laws that protect America's democracy and our economic prosperity. On January 6, hundreds of police officers risked their lives to protect democracy. Don't we owe them, for their courage and sacrifice, the respect of doing the work of democracy? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1860 | null | 2,690 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Filibuster Madam President, on January 8, I think most Americans--most of the world, really--were still deeply shaken by what happened in this building on January 6, when the mob broke in. January 6 was an assault on American democracy. It was an armed insurrection not just against this building but against the Constitution and the Government of the United States of America The violent mob was sent to this Capitol by a defeated President who tried to cancel an American election. That mob overran and ransacked this Capitol, smashing windows and doors. They built a gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the Vice President to be hanged for following his duties under the Constitution, for refusing to join in the coup attempt. People died that day in this building and on these grounds. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered fatal injuries trying to hold back the insurrectionist mob sent by the President. Two more officers who fought to save the Capitol died by suicide in the days that followed. More than 140 police officers suffered serious injuries. Many of them are still recovering. But the insurrection at the Capitol, the attack on American democracy, wasn't what alarmed the dark-money special interests that came together for an all-hands-on-deck conference call just 2 days later, on January 8. The conference call was organized by a group with the innocuous name ``Stand Together''--the group that is run by the Koch brothers' organization, well known to anyone who follows American politics. Among the participants on this private conference call was an adviser to the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We know these things because a recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who has written a book on the Koch brothers and dark money in politics. What alarmed the dark-money special interests on that conference call was not the violent insurrection in this building 2 days earlier. According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they could not find a way to turn the American people against a piece of legislation, S. 1, a bill known as the For the People Act. The For the People Act is a democracy defense bill. It would limit the influence of dark money and special interests on our politics, and it would improve access to the ballot box for American voters. We know that access is under attack today. In Georgia and 30 other States, efforts are being made to suppress the American vote. The Koch brothers' group spends its money freely to insert political control. They sent the pollsters out before this conference call to test every attack they could think of against this bill. Nothing worked. Let me read you a passage from Ms. Mayer's article. It is a bit long. So bear with me. This is based on a recording of the call. ``Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a `spoiler.' When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive,'' McKenzie said, adding, ``The most worrisome part is conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public when they heard the neutral description. In fact, he warned, there is a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these efforts.'' As a result, Mayer wrote, ``McKenzie conceded the legislation's opponents would likely have to rely on Republican Senators, where the bill is now under debate, to use what they called `under the dome' strategies''--legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster--to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. S. 1, the For the People Act, is a bill to stop billionaires from buying elections. You can see why Charles Koch, who has grown accustomed to using his wealth to influence elections and dominate the national agenda, wouldn't like that kind of a bill. And you can see why he and others, members of the dark-money power elite, would be alarmed that all the spin-doctoring that money can buy can't turn people against the bill. It can't even turn conservatives against the bill. What is a poor billionaire to do? Well, they said it right there on the conference call. They can't debate the bill because they don't have a winning argument. Senator McConnell is just going to have to kill it ``under the dome.'' Senator McConnell is going to have to filibuster it. One of the myths that defenders of the filibuster like to use is that it encourages debate and compromise. In reality, today's phone-it-in, remote control filibuster is used to make sure debate never even starts. There is another myth the defenders of the filibuster would like us to believe. They say, and Senator McConnell has repeated it, the filibuster has nothing to do with race. History tells us the opposite is true. The filibuster has always been more a creation of James Crow than James Madison. Segregationists used filibusters to block anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1935, and 1938. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills to outlaw poll taxes in 1942, 1944, and 1946. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, and voting in 1957, 1960, and 1964. Every time segregationists used the filibuster to block civil rights measures, they spoke of the tactic as nearly a sacred principle passed down by our Founding Fathers. Now, with voting rights under the broadest attack in more than 50 years, with hundreds of bills being introduced in State legislatures to make it harder for many Americans--especially people of color--to vote, we are once again facing a threat of a filibuster in a voting rights protection bill in the Senate. History repeats itself. Largely under Senator McConnell's leadership, today's filibuster has been transformed into a weapon of mass obstruction. In 2009, during the Great Recession, America was in a financial free fall, our economy teetering on the edge of another depression, millions out of work, and homes and life savings at risk. Senator McConnell said: ``My No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.'' And the No. 1 weapon he used to make good on his threat: the filibuster. Now America has a new President. Senator McConnell wasn't able to filibuster President Biden's American Rescue Plan because we used reconciliation. All 50 Democratic Senators, plus the Vice President, were prepared to vote and break the tie. Not one single Republican Senator would vote for President Biden's rescue plan. Today, America is getting shots in the arm, and people are getting checks in their pockets because we passed that bill despite the intransigence of the other side of the aisle. We are beginning--just beginning--to break the back of this pandemic. There are still hotspots and worrisome reports, but we are beginning to break its back, and we are helping the millions of Americans who are hurting financially because of the pandemic shutdown. Now the Senate is ready to start work on the next chapter of our national economic recovery. President Biden's American Jobs Plan is a bold plan to invest in climate change, job creation, and create the good jobs and the industries of the future here in America--not overseas, not in China, but here in America. That is President Biden's goal. It would rebuild our roads, bridges, rails, ports, airports, and water systems. I learned during the break that,until 1986, the city of Chicago mandated in its plumbing code that the service line from the water main to the home be made of lead--lead. We know lead is dangerous to everyone, certainly to children, and yet we have 23 percent of the lead service lines in America in Chicago and the surrounding area. That is a public health hazard. Some may not think that is infrastructure, but if you can't deliver safe drinking water to America, what else is important? We need to rebuild our 5G broadband internet and expand it, renewable energy, and advanced research and technology. We need to create millions of jobs and to lay the foundation for American economic prosperity for decades to come. Last night, on 60 Minutes, Chairman Jerome Powell spoke and was interviewed. It was a most encouraging report. He really believes we are right on the cusp of moving this Nation forward--dramatic increase in economic growth in this country. Isn't it about time? Don't we want a President who will invest in America to make that happen? Senator McConnell has already said he opposes President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really filibuster this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America to lead the global economy of the 21st century? Will they really filibuster America's ability to compete and win against China in the competition for jobs and industries of the future? I hope not. We are all sent to the Senate with a job, to fix the problems, not paralyze Congress. Despite what the dark money special interests might want, we should aim higher than killing good solutions with the filibuster. Let's talk, let's meet, and let's reason things out. Let's negotiate, and let's pass laws that protect America's democracy and our economic prosperity. On January 6, hundreds of police officers risked their lives to protect democracy. Don't we owe them, for their courage and sacrifice, the respect of doing the work of democracy? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1860 | null | 2,691 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Filibuster Madam President, on January 8, I think most Americans--most of the world, really--were still deeply shaken by what happened in this building on January 6, when the mob broke in. January 6 was an assault on American democracy. It was an armed insurrection not just against this building but against the Constitution and the Government of the United States of America The violent mob was sent to this Capitol by a defeated President who tried to cancel an American election. That mob overran and ransacked this Capitol, smashing windows and doors. They built a gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the Vice President to be hanged for following his duties under the Constitution, for refusing to join in the coup attempt. People died that day in this building and on these grounds. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered fatal injuries trying to hold back the insurrectionist mob sent by the President. Two more officers who fought to save the Capitol died by suicide in the days that followed. More than 140 police officers suffered serious injuries. Many of them are still recovering. But the insurrection at the Capitol, the attack on American democracy, wasn't what alarmed the dark-money special interests that came together for an all-hands-on-deck conference call just 2 days later, on January 8. The conference call was organized by a group with the innocuous name ``Stand Together''--the group that is run by the Koch brothers' organization, well known to anyone who follows American politics. Among the participants on this private conference call was an adviser to the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We know these things because a recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who has written a book on the Koch brothers and dark money in politics. What alarmed the dark-money special interests on that conference call was not the violent insurrection in this building 2 days earlier. According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they could not find a way to turn the American people against a piece of legislation, S. 1, a bill known as the For the People Act. The For the People Act is a democracy defense bill. It would limit the influence of dark money and special interests on our politics, and it would improve access to the ballot box for American voters. We know that access is under attack today. In Georgia and 30 other States, efforts are being made to suppress the American vote. The Koch brothers' group spends its money freely to insert political control. They sent the pollsters out before this conference call to test every attack they could think of against this bill. Nothing worked. Let me read you a passage from Ms. Mayer's article. It is a bit long. So bear with me. This is based on a recording of the call. ``Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a `spoiler.' When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive,'' McKenzie said, adding, ``The most worrisome part is conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public when they heard the neutral description. In fact, he warned, there is a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these efforts.'' As a result, Mayer wrote, ``McKenzie conceded the legislation's opponents would likely have to rely on Republican Senators, where the bill is now under debate, to use what they called `under the dome' strategies''--legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster--to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. S. 1, the For the People Act, is a bill to stop billionaires from buying elections. You can see why Charles Koch, who has grown accustomed to using his wealth to influence elections and dominate the national agenda, wouldn't like that kind of a bill. And you can see why he and others, members of the dark-money power elite, would be alarmed that all the spin-doctoring that money can buy can't turn people against the bill. It can't even turn conservatives against the bill. What is a poor billionaire to do? Well, they said it right there on the conference call. They can't debate the bill because they don't have a winning argument. Senator McConnell is just going to have to kill it ``under the dome.'' Senator McConnell is going to have to filibuster it. One of the myths that defenders of the filibuster like to use is that it encourages debate and compromise. In reality, today's phone-it-in, remote control filibuster is used to make sure debate never even starts. There is another myth the defenders of the filibuster would like us to believe. They say, and Senator McConnell has repeated it, the filibuster has nothing to do with race. History tells us the opposite is true. The filibuster has always been more a creation of James Crow than James Madison. Segregationists used filibusters to block anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1935, and 1938. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills to outlaw poll taxes in 1942, 1944, and 1946. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, and voting in 1957, 1960, and 1964. Every time segregationists used the filibuster to block civil rights measures, they spoke of the tactic as nearly a sacred principle passed down by our Founding Fathers. Now, with voting rights under the broadest attack in more than 50 years, with hundreds of bills being introduced in State legislatures to make it harder for many Americans--especially people of color--to vote, we are once again facing a threat of a filibuster in a voting rights protection bill in the Senate. History repeats itself. Largely under Senator McConnell's leadership, today's filibuster has been transformed into a weapon of mass obstruction. In 2009, during the Great Recession, America was in a financial free fall, our economy teetering on the edge of another depression, millions out of work, and homes and life savings at risk. Senator McConnell said: ``My No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.'' And the No. 1 weapon he used to make good on his threat: the filibuster. Now America has a new President. Senator McConnell wasn't able to filibuster President Biden's American Rescue Plan because we used reconciliation. All 50 Democratic Senators, plus the Vice President, were prepared to vote and break the tie. Not one single Republican Senator would vote for President Biden's rescue plan. Today, America is getting shots in the arm, and people are getting checks in their pockets because we passed that bill despite the intransigence of the other side of the aisle. We are beginning--just beginning--to break the back of this pandemic. There are still hotspots and worrisome reports, but we are beginning to break its back, and we are helping the millions of Americans who are hurting financially because of the pandemic shutdown. Now the Senate is ready to start work on the next chapter of our national economic recovery. President Biden's American Jobs Plan is a bold plan to invest in climate change, job creation, and create the good jobs and the industries of the future here in America--not overseas, not in China, but here in America. That is President Biden's goal. It would rebuild our roads, bridges, rails, ports, airports, and water systems. I learned during the break that,until 1986, the city of Chicago mandated in its plumbing code that the service line from the water main to the home be made of lead--lead. We know lead is dangerous to everyone, certainly to children, and yet we have 23 percent of the lead service lines in America in Chicago and the surrounding area. That is a public health hazard. Some may not think that is infrastructure, but if you can't deliver safe drinking water to America, what else is important? We need to rebuild our 5G broadband internet and expand it, renewable energy, and advanced research and technology. We need to create millions of jobs and to lay the foundation for American economic prosperity for decades to come. Last night, on 60 Minutes, Chairman Jerome Powell spoke and was interviewed. It was a most encouraging report. He really believes we are right on the cusp of moving this Nation forward--dramatic increase in economic growth in this country. Isn't it about time? Don't we want a President who will invest in America to make that happen? Senator McConnell has already said he opposes President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really filibuster this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America to lead the global economy of the 21st century? Will they really filibuster America's ability to compete and win against China in the competition for jobs and industries of the future? I hope not. We are all sent to the Senate with a job, to fix the problems, not paralyze Congress. Despite what the dark money special interests might want, we should aim higher than killing good solutions with the filibuster. Let's talk, let's meet, and let's reason things out. Let's negotiate, and let's pass laws that protect America's democracy and our economic prosperity. On January 6, hundreds of police officers risked their lives to protect democracy. Don't we owe them, for their courage and sacrifice, the respect of doing the work of democracy? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1860 | null | 2,692 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Filibuster Madam President, on January 8, I think most Americans--most of the world, really--were still deeply shaken by what happened in this building on January 6, when the mob broke in. January 6 was an assault on American democracy. It was an armed insurrection not just against this building but against the Constitution and the Government of the United States of America The violent mob was sent to this Capitol by a defeated President who tried to cancel an American election. That mob overran and ransacked this Capitol, smashing windows and doors. They built a gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the Vice President to be hanged for following his duties under the Constitution, for refusing to join in the coup attempt. People died that day in this building and on these grounds. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered fatal injuries trying to hold back the insurrectionist mob sent by the President. Two more officers who fought to save the Capitol died by suicide in the days that followed. More than 140 police officers suffered serious injuries. Many of them are still recovering. But the insurrection at the Capitol, the attack on American democracy, wasn't what alarmed the dark-money special interests that came together for an all-hands-on-deck conference call just 2 days later, on January 8. The conference call was organized by a group with the innocuous name ``Stand Together''--the group that is run by the Koch brothers' organization, well known to anyone who follows American politics. Among the participants on this private conference call was an adviser to the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We know these things because a recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who has written a book on the Koch brothers and dark money in politics. What alarmed the dark-money special interests on that conference call was not the violent insurrection in this building 2 days earlier. According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they could not find a way to turn the American people against a piece of legislation, S. 1, a bill known as the For the People Act. The For the People Act is a democracy defense bill. It would limit the influence of dark money and special interests on our politics, and it would improve access to the ballot box for American voters. We know that access is under attack today. In Georgia and 30 other States, efforts are being made to suppress the American vote. The Koch brothers' group spends its money freely to insert political control. They sent the pollsters out before this conference call to test every attack they could think of against this bill. Nothing worked. Let me read you a passage from Ms. Mayer's article. It is a bit long. So bear with me. This is based on a recording of the call. ``Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a `spoiler.' When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive,'' McKenzie said, adding, ``The most worrisome part is conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public when they heard the neutral description. In fact, he warned, there is a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these efforts.'' As a result, Mayer wrote, ``McKenzie conceded the legislation's opponents would likely have to rely on Republican Senators, where the bill is now under debate, to use what they called `under the dome' strategies''--legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster--to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. S. 1, the For the People Act, is a bill to stop billionaires from buying elections. You can see why Charles Koch, who has grown accustomed to using his wealth to influence elections and dominate the national agenda, wouldn't like that kind of a bill. And you can see why he and others, members of the dark-money power elite, would be alarmed that all the spin-doctoring that money can buy can't turn people against the bill. It can't even turn conservatives against the bill. What is a poor billionaire to do? Well, they said it right there on the conference call. They can't debate the bill because they don't have a winning argument. Senator McConnell is just going to have to kill it ``under the dome.'' Senator McConnell is going to have to filibuster it. One of the myths that defenders of the filibuster like to use is that it encourages debate and compromise. In reality, today's phone-it-in, remote control filibuster is used to make sure debate never even starts. There is another myth the defenders of the filibuster would like us to believe. They say, and Senator McConnell has repeated it, the filibuster has nothing to do with race. History tells us the opposite is true. The filibuster has always been more a creation of James Crow than James Madison. Segregationists used filibusters to block anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1935, and 1938. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills to outlaw poll taxes in 1942, 1944, and 1946. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, and voting in 1957, 1960, and 1964. Every time segregationists used the filibuster to block civil rights measures, they spoke of the tactic as nearly a sacred principle passed down by our Founding Fathers. Now, with voting rights under the broadest attack in more than 50 years, with hundreds of bills being introduced in State legislatures to make it harder for many Americans--especially people of color--to vote, we are once again facing a threat of a filibuster in a voting rights protection bill in the Senate. History repeats itself. Largely under Senator McConnell's leadership, today's filibuster has been transformed into a weapon of mass obstruction. In 2009, during the Great Recession, America was in a financial free fall, our economy teetering on the edge of another depression, millions out of work, and homes and life savings at risk. Senator McConnell said: ``My No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.'' And the No. 1 weapon he used to make good on his threat: the filibuster. Now America has a new President. Senator McConnell wasn't able to filibuster President Biden's American Rescue Plan because we used reconciliation. All 50 Democratic Senators, plus the Vice President, were prepared to vote and break the tie. Not one single Republican Senator would vote for President Biden's rescue plan. Today, America is getting shots in the arm, and people are getting checks in their pockets because we passed that bill despite the intransigence of the other side of the aisle. We are beginning--just beginning--to break the back of this pandemic. There are still hotspots and worrisome reports, but we are beginning to break its back, and we are helping the millions of Americans who are hurting financially because of the pandemic shutdown. Now the Senate is ready to start work on the next chapter of our national economic recovery. President Biden's American Jobs Plan is a bold plan to invest in climate change, job creation, and create the good jobs and the industries of the future here in America--not overseas, not in China, but here in America. That is President Biden's goal. It would rebuild our roads, bridges, rails, ports, airports, and water systems. I learned during the break that,until 1986, the city of Chicago mandated in its plumbing code that the service line from the water main to the home be made of lead--lead. We know lead is dangerous to everyone, certainly to children, and yet we have 23 percent of the lead service lines in America in Chicago and the surrounding area. That is a public health hazard. Some may not think that is infrastructure, but if you can't deliver safe drinking water to America, what else is important? We need to rebuild our 5G broadband internet and expand it, renewable energy, and advanced research and technology. We need to create millions of jobs and to lay the foundation for American economic prosperity for decades to come. Last night, on 60 Minutes, Chairman Jerome Powell spoke and was interviewed. It was a most encouraging report. He really believes we are right on the cusp of moving this Nation forward--dramatic increase in economic growth in this country. Isn't it about time? Don't we want a President who will invest in America to make that happen? Senator McConnell has already said he opposes President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really filibuster this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America to lead the global economy of the 21st century? Will they really filibuster America's ability to compete and win against China in the competition for jobs and industries of the future? I hope not. We are all sent to the Senate with a job, to fix the problems, not paralyze Congress. Despite what the dark money special interests might want, we should aim higher than killing good solutions with the filibuster. Let's talk, let's meet, and let's reason things out. Let's negotiate, and let's pass laws that protect America's democracy and our economic prosperity. On January 6, hundreds of police officers risked their lives to protect democracy. Don't we owe them, for their courage and sacrifice, the respect of doing the work of democracy? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1860 | null | 2,693 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Filibuster Madam President, on January 8, I think most Americans--most of the world, really--were still deeply shaken by what happened in this building on January 6, when the mob broke in. January 6 was an assault on American democracy. It was an armed insurrection not just against this building but against the Constitution and the Government of the United States of America The violent mob was sent to this Capitol by a defeated President who tried to cancel an American election. That mob overran and ransacked this Capitol, smashing windows and doors. They built a gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the Vice President to be hanged for following his duties under the Constitution, for refusing to join in the coup attempt. People died that day in this building and on these grounds. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered fatal injuries trying to hold back the insurrectionist mob sent by the President. Two more officers who fought to save the Capitol died by suicide in the days that followed. More than 140 police officers suffered serious injuries. Many of them are still recovering. But the insurrection at the Capitol, the attack on American democracy, wasn't what alarmed the dark-money special interests that came together for an all-hands-on-deck conference call just 2 days later, on January 8. The conference call was organized by a group with the innocuous name ``Stand Together''--the group that is run by the Koch brothers' organization, well known to anyone who follows American politics. Among the participants on this private conference call was an adviser to the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We know these things because a recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who has written a book on the Koch brothers and dark money in politics. What alarmed the dark-money special interests on that conference call was not the violent insurrection in this building 2 days earlier. According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they could not find a way to turn the American people against a piece of legislation, S. 1, a bill known as the For the People Act. The For the People Act is a democracy defense bill. It would limit the influence of dark money and special interests on our politics, and it would improve access to the ballot box for American voters. We know that access is under attack today. In Georgia and 30 other States, efforts are being made to suppress the American vote. The Koch brothers' group spends its money freely to insert political control. They sent the pollsters out before this conference call to test every attack they could think of against this bill. Nothing worked. Let me read you a passage from Ms. Mayer's article. It is a bit long. So bear with me. This is based on a recording of the call. ``Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a `spoiler.' When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive,'' McKenzie said, adding, ``The most worrisome part is conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public when they heard the neutral description. In fact, he warned, there is a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these efforts.'' As a result, Mayer wrote, ``McKenzie conceded the legislation's opponents would likely have to rely on Republican Senators, where the bill is now under debate, to use what they called `under the dome' strategies''--legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster--to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. S. 1, the For the People Act, is a bill to stop billionaires from buying elections. You can see why Charles Koch, who has grown accustomed to using his wealth to influence elections and dominate the national agenda, wouldn't like that kind of a bill. And you can see why he and others, members of the dark-money power elite, would be alarmed that all the spin-doctoring that money can buy can't turn people against the bill. It can't even turn conservatives against the bill. What is a poor billionaire to do? Well, they said it right there on the conference call. They can't debate the bill because they don't have a winning argument. Senator McConnell is just going to have to kill it ``under the dome.'' Senator McConnell is going to have to filibuster it. One of the myths that defenders of the filibuster like to use is that it encourages debate and compromise. In reality, today's phone-it-in, remote control filibuster is used to make sure debate never even starts. There is another myth the defenders of the filibuster would like us to believe. They say, and Senator McConnell has repeated it, the filibuster has nothing to do with race. History tells us the opposite is true. The filibuster has always been more a creation of James Crow than James Madison. Segregationists used filibusters to block anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1935, and 1938. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills to outlaw poll taxes in 1942, 1944, and 1946. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, and voting in 1957, 1960, and 1964. Every time segregationists used the filibuster to block civil rights measures, they spoke of the tactic as nearly a sacred principle passed down by our Founding Fathers. Now, with voting rights under the broadest attack in more than 50 years, with hundreds of bills being introduced in State legislatures to make it harder for many Americans--especially people of color--to vote, we are once again facing a threat of a filibuster in a voting rights protection bill in the Senate. History repeats itself. Largely under Senator McConnell's leadership, today's filibuster has been transformed into a weapon of mass obstruction. In 2009, during the Great Recession, America was in a financial free fall, our economy teetering on the edge of another depression, millions out of work, and homes and life savings at risk. Senator McConnell said: ``My No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.'' And the No. 1 weapon he used to make good on his threat: the filibuster. Now America has a new President. Senator McConnell wasn't able to filibuster President Biden's American Rescue Plan because we used reconciliation. All 50 Democratic Senators, plus the Vice President, were prepared to vote and break the tie. Not one single Republican Senator would vote for President Biden's rescue plan. Today, America is getting shots in the arm, and people are getting checks in their pockets because we passed that bill despite the intransigence of the other side of the aisle. We are beginning--just beginning--to break the back of this pandemic. There are still hotspots and worrisome reports, but we are beginning to break its back, and we are helping the millions of Americans who are hurting financially because of the pandemic shutdown. Now the Senate is ready to start work on the next chapter of our national economic recovery. President Biden's American Jobs Plan is a bold plan to invest in climate change, job creation, and create the good jobs and the industries of the future here in America--not overseas, not in China, but here in America. That is President Biden's goal. It would rebuild our roads, bridges, rails, ports, airports, and water systems. I learned during the break that,until 1986, the city of Chicago mandated in its plumbing code that the service line from the water main to the home be made of lead--lead. We know lead is dangerous to everyone, certainly to children, and yet we have 23 percent of the lead service lines in America in Chicago and the surrounding area. That is a public health hazard. Some may not think that is infrastructure, but if you can't deliver safe drinking water to America, what else is important? We need to rebuild our 5G broadband internet and expand it, renewable energy, and advanced research and technology. We need to create millions of jobs and to lay the foundation for American economic prosperity for decades to come. Last night, on 60 Minutes, Chairman Jerome Powell spoke and was interviewed. It was a most encouraging report. He really believes we are right on the cusp of moving this Nation forward--dramatic increase in economic growth in this country. Isn't it about time? Don't we want a President who will invest in America to make that happen? Senator McConnell has already said he opposes President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really filibuster this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America to lead the global economy of the 21st century? Will they really filibuster America's ability to compete and win against China in the competition for jobs and industries of the future? I hope not. We are all sent to the Senate with a job, to fix the problems, not paralyze Congress. Despite what the dark money special interests might want, we should aim higher than killing good solutions with the filibuster. Let's talk, let's meet, and let's reason things out. Let's negotiate, and let's pass laws that protect America's democracy and our economic prosperity. On January 6, hundreds of police officers risked their lives to protect democracy. Don't we owe them, for their courage and sacrifice, the respect of doing the work of democracy? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1860 | null | 2,694 |
formal | special interests | null | antisemitic | Filibuster Madam President, on January 8, I think most Americans--most of the world, really--were still deeply shaken by what happened in this building on January 6, when the mob broke in. January 6 was an assault on American democracy. It was an armed insurrection not just against this building but against the Constitution and the Government of the United States of America The violent mob was sent to this Capitol by a defeated President who tried to cancel an American election. That mob overran and ransacked this Capitol, smashing windows and doors. They built a gallows on the Capitol grounds and called for the Vice President to be hanged for following his duties under the Constitution, for refusing to join in the coup attempt. People died that day in this building and on these grounds. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered fatal injuries trying to hold back the insurrectionist mob sent by the President. Two more officers who fought to save the Capitol died by suicide in the days that followed. More than 140 police officers suffered serious injuries. Many of them are still recovering. But the insurrection at the Capitol, the attack on American democracy, wasn't what alarmed the dark-money special interests that came together for an all-hands-on-deck conference call just 2 days later, on January 8. The conference call was organized by a group with the innocuous name ``Stand Together''--the group that is run by the Koch brothers' organization, well known to anyone who follows American politics. Among the participants on this private conference call was an adviser to the minority leader, Senator McConnell. We know these things because a recording of the conference call found its way to Jane Mayer, an investigative reporter for The New Yorker magazine, who has written a book on the Koch brothers and dark money in politics. What alarmed the dark-money special interests on that conference call was not the violent insurrection in this building 2 days earlier. According to Ms. Mayer's reporting, the reason the special interests were frightened was because they could not find a way to turn the American people against a piece of legislation, S. 1, a bill known as the For the People Act. The For the People Act is a democracy defense bill. It would limit the influence of dark money and special interests on our politics, and it would improve access to the ballot box for American voters. We know that access is under attack today. In Georgia and 30 other States, efforts are being made to suppress the American vote. The Koch brothers' group spends its money freely to insert political control. They sent the pollsters out before this conference call to test every attack they could think of against this bill. Nothing worked. Let me read you a passage from Ms. Mayer's article. It is a bit long. So bear with me. This is based on a recording of the call. ``Kyle McKenzie, the research director for the Koch-run advocacy group Stand Together, told fellow conservatives and Republican congressional staffers on the call that he had a `spoiler.' When presented with a very neutral description of the bill, people were generally supportive,'' McKenzie said, adding, ``The most worrisome part is conservatives were actually as supportive as the general public when they heard the neutral description. In fact, he warned, there is a large, very large, chunk of conservatives who are supportive of these efforts.'' As a result, Mayer wrote, ``McKenzie conceded the legislation's opponents would likely have to rely on Republican Senators, where the bill is now under debate, to use what they called `under the dome' strategies''--legislative maneuvers such as the filibuster--to stop the bill, because turning public opinion against it would be incredibly difficult. S. 1, the For the People Act, is a bill to stop billionaires from buying elections. You can see why Charles Koch, who has grown accustomed to using his wealth to influence elections and dominate the national agenda, wouldn't like that kind of a bill. And you can see why he and others, members of the dark-money power elite, would be alarmed that all the spin-doctoring that money can buy can't turn people against the bill. It can't even turn conservatives against the bill. What is a poor billionaire to do? Well, they said it right there on the conference call. They can't debate the bill because they don't have a winning argument. Senator McConnell is just going to have to kill it ``under the dome.'' Senator McConnell is going to have to filibuster it. One of the myths that defenders of the filibuster like to use is that it encourages debate and compromise. In reality, today's phone-it-in, remote control filibuster is used to make sure debate never even starts. There is another myth the defenders of the filibuster would like us to believe. They say, and Senator McConnell has repeated it, the filibuster has nothing to do with race. History tells us the opposite is true. The filibuster has always been more a creation of James Crow than James Madison. Segregationists used filibusters to block anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1935, and 1938. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills to outlaw poll taxes in 1942, 1944, and 1946. Segregationist Senators filibustered bills outlawing discrimination in employment, housing, and voting in 1957, 1960, and 1964. Every time segregationists used the filibuster to block civil rights measures, they spoke of the tactic as nearly a sacred principle passed down by our Founding Fathers. Now, with voting rights under the broadest attack in more than 50 years, with hundreds of bills being introduced in State legislatures to make it harder for many Americans--especially people of color--to vote, we are once again facing a threat of a filibuster in a voting rights protection bill in the Senate. History repeats itself. Largely under Senator McConnell's leadership, today's filibuster has been transformed into a weapon of mass obstruction. In 2009, during the Great Recession, America was in a financial free fall, our economy teetering on the edge of another depression, millions out of work, and homes and life savings at risk. Senator McConnell said: ``My No. 1 priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.'' And the No. 1 weapon he used to make good on his threat: the filibuster. Now America has a new President. Senator McConnell wasn't able to filibuster President Biden's American Rescue Plan because we used reconciliation. All 50 Democratic Senators, plus the Vice President, were prepared to vote and break the tie. Not one single Republican Senator would vote for President Biden's rescue plan. Today, America is getting shots in the arm, and people are getting checks in their pockets because we passed that bill despite the intransigence of the other side of the aisle. We are beginning--just beginning--to break the back of this pandemic. There are still hotspots and worrisome reports, but we are beginning to break its back, and we are helping the millions of Americans who are hurting financially because of the pandemic shutdown. Now the Senate is ready to start work on the next chapter of our national economic recovery. President Biden's American Jobs Plan is a bold plan to invest in climate change, job creation, and create the good jobs and the industries of the future here in America--not overseas, not in China, but here in America. That is President Biden's goal. It would rebuild our roads, bridges, rails, ports, airports, and water systems. I learned during the break that,until 1986, the city of Chicago mandated in its plumbing code that the service line from the water main to the home be made of lead--lead. We know lead is dangerous to everyone, certainly to children, and yet we have 23 percent of the lead service lines in America in Chicago and the surrounding area. That is a public health hazard. Some may not think that is infrastructure, but if you can't deliver safe drinking water to America, what else is important? We need to rebuild our 5G broadband internet and expand it, renewable energy, and advanced research and technology. We need to create millions of jobs and to lay the foundation for American economic prosperity for decades to come. Last night, on 60 Minutes, Chairman Jerome Powell spoke and was interviewed. It was a most encouraging report. He really believes we are right on the cusp of moving this Nation forward--dramatic increase in economic growth in this country. Isn't it about time? Don't we want a President who will invest in America to make that happen? Senator McConnell has already said he opposes President Biden's American Jobs Plan. Will our colleagues on the other side of the aisle really filibuster this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America to lead the global economy of the 21st century? Will they really filibuster America's ability to compete and win against China in the competition for jobs and industries of the future? I hope not. We are all sent to the Senate with a job, to fix the problems, not paralyze Congress. Despite what the dark money special interests might want, we should aim higher than killing good solutions with the filibuster. Let's talk, let's meet, and let's reason things out. Let's negotiate, and let's pass laws that protect America's democracy and our economic prosperity. On January 6, hundreds of police officers risked their lives to protect democracy. Don't we owe them, for their courage and sacrifice, the respect of doing the work of democracy? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1860 | null | 2,695 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Biden Administration Madam President, now, on a completely different matter, the Senate returns today from its State work period. We got to meet with constituents in our home States and hear firsthand about their most pressing concerns. Unfortunately, back here in Washington, Democrats continue to roll out new reasons for the American people to worry. The week before last, the Biden administration unveiled their latest misleadingly titled legislation. This time, under the supposed veil of ``infrastructure,'' the White House has lumped together a motley assortment of the left's priciest priorities. This plan would impose one of the biggest tax hikes in a generation when workers need an economic recovery. It would gut right-to-work protections for blue-collar workers. It would throw hundreds of billions at the far left's green fads. They even want to include a special State and local tax provision designed to overwhelmingly benefit wealthy residents of blue States. Less than 6 percent of this proposal goes to roads and bridges. It is not remotely targeted toward what Americans think they are getting when politicians campaign on infrastructure. But instead of coming up with a better bill, Democrats have decided it is the English language that has to change. They are embarking on an Orwellian campaign to convince everybody that any government policy whatsoever can be labeled ``infrastructure.'' Liberals just have to believe in it hard enough. These Trojan horse tactics have become a pattern. Many of our Democratic colleagues are trying to rewrite 50 States' election laws from here in Washington and mount a partisan takeover of the Federal Election Commission but call the whole mess a ``voting rights bill.'' The White House's claims about State election regulations keep getting disproven by fact checkers. But even so, some of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in our country have bowed down to the fake narratives and decided to amplify the misstatements themselves. So, look, I am as strong a supporter of the First Amendment and free speech as anyone in this body. I have been for many years. If people want to participate in debates through political speech, that is certainly their constitutional right, even if they fall for disinformation. But it is one thing to act like free speakers within a debate; it is very different to try to short-circuit the debate, to shut down the debate through economic bullying of American citizens. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1861-3 | null | 2,696 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Biden Administration Madam President, now, on a completely different matter, the Senate returns today from its State work period. We got to meet with constituents in our home States and hear firsthand about their most pressing concerns. Unfortunately, back here in Washington, Democrats continue to roll out new reasons for the American people to worry. The week before last, the Biden administration unveiled their latest misleadingly titled legislation. This time, under the supposed veil of ``infrastructure,'' the White House has lumped together a motley assortment of the left's priciest priorities. This plan would impose one of the biggest tax hikes in a generation when workers need an economic recovery. It would gut right-to-work protections for blue-collar workers. It would throw hundreds of billions at the far left's green fads. They even want to include a special State and local tax provision designed to overwhelmingly benefit wealthy residents of blue States. Less than 6 percent of this proposal goes to roads and bridges. It is not remotely targeted toward what Americans think they are getting when politicians campaign on infrastructure. But instead of coming up with a better bill, Democrats have decided it is the English language that has to change. They are embarking on an Orwellian campaign to convince everybody that any government policy whatsoever can be labeled ``infrastructure.'' Liberals just have to believe in it hard enough. These Trojan horse tactics have become a pattern. Many of our Democratic colleagues are trying to rewrite 50 States' election laws from here in Washington and mount a partisan takeover of the Federal Election Commission but call the whole mess a ``voting rights bill.'' The White House's claims about State election regulations keep getting disproven by fact checkers. But even so, some of the wealthiest and most powerful institutions in our country have bowed down to the fake narratives and decided to amplify the misstatements themselves. So, look, I am as strong a supporter of the First Amendment and free speech as anyone in this body. I have been for many years. If people want to participate in debates through political speech, that is certainly their constitutional right, even if they fall for disinformation. But it is one thing to act like free speakers within a debate; it is very different to try to short-circuit the debate, to shut down the debate through economic bullying of American citizens. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1861-3 | null | 2,697 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Section 230 of the Communications Act I recently spoke on the Senate floor about the important issue of free speech. Today, I would like to speak on the power of Big Tech to censor free speech. It has been 25 years since section 230 of the Communications Act was signed into law. This law grants wide-sweeping immunity to interactive computer services that host third-party content. The goal of section 230 at the time was laudable. The internet was in its infancy, and content being posted to message boards by third parties was leading to litigation that threatened the spread of free speech and expression. Section 230 was enacted to encourage free speech, while giving companies the ability to remove illegal and obscene materials. Section 230 and the legal shield it offers helped to enable the internet to grow into what we know this very day. However, interactive computer services are no longer struggling companies but some of the largest corporations in the world today. Would you believe that when section 230 was signed into law, the words ``Google,'' ``Facebook,'' ``Twitter,'' and ``YouTube'' did not even exist as words or companies? Today, they are giant, dominant tech companies. Many argue that these private companies have their own terms of service and are able to enforce them as they wish and also that they are not covered under the First Amendment. Yet, these platforms are now the new public square, where it is important that all voices and viewpoints are able to be heard. With the immunities that these companies have and the importance of dialogue on their platforms, arguably they are in effect state actors, and therefore First Amendment protections should apply to user-generated content. The size and power of these companies also contribute to their ability to censor speech and undermine the First Amendment. Google controls 87 percent of search, Facebook has 2.8 billion monthly active users, 500 million tweets are sent on Twitter each day, and over 1 billion hours of videos are watched on YouTube every day. When a campaign has monopoly power, it no longer is constrained by normal market forces. If these platforms had competitors, consumers could choose alternatives when they disagree with the terms of service or moderation policies. However, right now, the only choice consumers have is to take it or leave it. Section 230 appears to compound this problem. Big Tech has no competitors and is immune from liability. These companies are unaccountable to their customers, the courts, and the government. If not for their monopoly power and section 230 immunity, these companies might not be involved in the actions and the censorship we see today. These platforms are where people communicate online, and there are no real alternatives. This innovation has democratized our political system. I think that is good. Yet, there are people who don't like that every person is able to get their views out, and they want to interfere with and censor those views. We cannot stand for this cancel culture and the interference with free speech. Entrepreneurs want to challenge these big tech companies. Unfortunately, the system is rigged against the little-guy startup. These companies can remove your website from the internet, delete your app from the app store, and permanently ban you from their platforms. These companies can also remove competitors or those they disagree with, largely with no recourse. Millions of small business owners use tech platforms to operate their business. It has been a big boost to our economy over the last 25 years. Many business owners have been censored, banned, and demonetized. This can be done without warning, no explanation whatsoever, and many times without any meaningful due process. Our antitrust regulators need to take a harder look at the actions of Big Tech. I recently introduced legislation with Senator Klobuchar to increase resources for FTC and DOJ antitrust enforcement. This legislation would provide an immediate boost to these Agencies' effective competition responsibilities. Right now, there are essentially five companies within just the United States that determine what can and cannot be viewed by the American public. It is becoming increasingly clear that these companies are more beholden to cancel culture and not to the free speech principles that this country was founded upon. When I talk about what these Agencies--the FTC and the DOJ--ought to be doing, I am not excluding anything that this Congress ought to be doing beyond what these Agencies have a responsibility to do. So I go back to a famous quote by Justice Brandeis: If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. It is time that we examine the need for section 230 immunity--that is beyond what we expect the DOJ and FTC to do--examine the need for section 230 immunity and to what extent these tech companies are abusing their monopoly power. It is time that these companies stop arbitrarily deciding what speech is acceptable for our country and the 335 million Americans I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1865-5 | null | 2,698 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Border Security Unfortunately, just as we are seeing progress on the pandemic, we are seeing another crisis on our border. In February, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 100,000 migrants along our southern border--the highest total since 2006. Last month, things continued to trend in the wrong direction. CBP encountered more than 172,000 migrants along our border, which is the highest in two decades. Put simply, our immigration system cannot accommodate this many migrants coming at one time. We lack the personnel, the facilities, the resources, and the policies to efficiently process these migrants to make sure those with valid claims, say, for asylum are protected and to provide quality care to all of those in our custody in the meantime. That is true for adults and family units but especially for the alarming number of unaccompanied children. In the summer of 2014, we saw a similar spike of children arriving at our border, which President Obama called a ``humanitarian crisis.'' It absolutely was. Between October 2013 and September 2014, more than 68,500 unaccompanied children entered the United States. We are only halfway through fiscal year 2021 and are already reaching that total, with more than 48,500 migrant children having crossed our border just in the last 6 months. Nearly 19,000 of these children came last month alone, the highest monthly total on record. Putting that in perspective, almost 19,000 children in 1 month is roughly enough to fill every seat in the AT&T Center in San Antonio, where the San Antonio Spurs play. There are grave, cascading consequences to this flow of humanity coming across our border. It obviously impacts these children as well as the communities and organizations that care for them. And, of course, the criminal organizations that smuggle people into the country, along with illicit drugs, are getting richer in the process. Over the last several weeks, I have spent time in these communities that are managing this crisis to learn more about the challenges they face. Last month, my friend Henry Cuellar, a Congressman from Laredo, TX, and I visited the Carrizo Springs Influx Care Facility, which is one of the shelters that house young boys aged 13 through 17. We heard from the men and womenwho run the shelter, as well as stakeholders in Laredo, elected officials, and other NGO representatives. We heard from them about the mounting challenges of this crisis. I visited three additional facilities in Midland, Dallas, and Houston during this last work period, and I saw the incredible ways that these communities and the nongovernmental associations are caring for migrant children. Let me just say, we all recognize our obligation to treat these children and these migrants humanely while they are here in our country, but we also need to make sure that our laws are equally enforced on a fair basis and that people who come this way don't jump ahead of people who have been waiting patiently in line to come into the United States through legal means. Just before the State work period started, Senator Cruz and I hosted 17 of our fellow Republican colleagues in the Senate down at the Rio Grande Valley. I was pleased when I heard from my friend Henry Cuellar that he had hosted Joe Manchin, the Senator from West Virginia, and John Hickenlooper, the Senator from Colorado. I am glad that Members of both parties are coming down to learn for themselves and to listen to the experts I depend on to give me good information. We saw the facility in Donna and learned about the challenges created by such a high volume of unaccompanied children. For folks who don't live in a border State or haven't spent much time in our border communities, it is important to see the situation firsthand and to learn from those experts whom I mentioned a moment ago. I have worked with folks in the Rio Grande Valley throughout my time in the Senate to ensure that these communities are safe, prosperous, and vibrant places to live. These men and women have valuable insight for all of us into the policies that have led to this crisis and the ones we need to put in place to turn things around. I appreciate these experts who spent time sharing their feedback with all of us who have been interested enough to travel to the border and the colleagues who visited there. I am glad our colleagues were able to see and learn more about the unique challenges facing these communities and our Nation when it comes to uncontrolled, overwhelming masses of humanity. To read news stories about the thousands of children who are brought to the United States alone is heartbreaking. To see their faces, though, and learn more about the devastating circumstances in which they were brought here is also nothing short of heartbreaking. At the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center in Dallas, which is now serving as a shelter for 2,300 young boys, I heard from one young boy who arrived in the United States after a 3-month trek from Central America on foot. He told us that he spent time hiding in jungles along the way and that food was scarce through much of their journey. As you could imagine, he was happy to be at a safe shelter receiving three square meals a day. He was understandably soft-spoken about his long and treacherous journey, and I am sure he experienced hardships that you and I could hardly imagine--certainly circumstances we would never want our children or grandchildren to experience. Last week, some truly disturbing allegations came out about abuse in one of the temporary facilities in San Antonio. As I said, these children have arrived in our country after a perilous journey. Many arrive sick, malnourished, and having endured abuse, including assault, along the way. The fact that any of these forms of abuse could continue while under the care of the U.S. Government is despicable. I have called on the inspector general of Health and Human Services to fully investigate these allegations of sexual assault in this facility at the Freeman Coliseum. I hope the administration will support our efforts to get to the bottom of what happened and ensure that no child is ever subjected to any level of mistreatment while in our care. The real kicker in all of this is that as all of this is unfolding, the coyotes, the smugglers, and the cartels that bring these children to our border are getting richer and richer and richer. Border Patrol said it is common for families to pay thousands of dollars to the coyotes to bring children to America. With nearly 19,000 caught last month alone, it is easy to see how profitable this business is. Let's say the cartels charge $5,000 a head--a low estimate based on some of the figures I have seen. That would mean these criminals brought in nearly $100 million in revenue in March alone just from smuggling children. These cartels'--these transnational criminal organizations--tactics include dropping children as young as 3 years old over the top of a 14-foot segment of the border wall or allowing a 6-month-old child to be thrown from a raft into the Rio Grande River to divert Border Patrol while they attempt a rescue so they can get on their way. This has to stop. We can get into an argument about who is to blame, but that doesn't change the more important matter about who has the power to stop it. First, President Biden needs to acknowledge the scope of this crisis and commit to addressing it along with us in the Congress. All we have gotten from the White House so far are statements telling migrants now is not the time to come, as if they would let everyone know when the time to come is appropriate. Two weeks ago, President Biden tasked Vice President Harris to lead efforts to address this crisis, and I thought this was a sign that the administration was finally ready to take some informed action. But the Vice President has not made a single trip to the border yet, and there is not even one on the horizon. Then she seemed to walk back--that, no, her assignment wasn't at the border; it was to engage in diplomacy with countries in Central America. Simple statements urging people not to come are meaningless when all of the policies represent a flashing green light. That is especially true when Central Americans hear messages from their family and friends who have made it to America that the door is wide open and they will be let in. The administration must take action and implement policies that discourage parents from sending their children on this perilous and dangerous journey in the hands of human smugglers and criminals into the United States. We have a big role to play too. Immigration reform has been one of my greatest frustrations throughout my time here. Previous attempts to make lasting changes led to bills that were so big that they crumbled under their own weight. I hope we can all agree that this is not the time to repeat that history. We need to take action to address the crisis at hand now, without extraneous matters that could be and should be changes made down the line. I am working with some of my Democratic colleagues to achieve this end, and I am eager to share more details soon. Republicans and Democrats must work together to address this crisis and to bring order out of chaos and to protect the innocent children who are being harmed. Legal immigration has been one of the cornerstones of our great country throughout our history. Legal immigration is generous, it is safe, it is orderly, and it is fair. Illegal immigration and the horrors that it brings along with it, some of which we learned about on our recent trips to the border, are not humane. They dishonor the willingness of the people who want to come to the country legally, who wait patiently in line, by jumping ahead of them in line. But, as I said, the cartels and human smugglers know our laws and our vulnerabilities better than we do, and they are exploiting it each and every day. We have to bring it to an end. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-04-12-pt1-PgS1866-2 | null | 2,699 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.