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 | handouts | null | racist | Liability Immunity Mr. President, the American Rescue Plan was the Biden threshold initiative to bring to America what it desperately needed after this President was sworn in on January 20 of this year. Unfortunately, we didn't have a single Republican to support it--not one. Not a single Republican Senator or House Member would support the American Rescue Plan of President Joe Biden. What did the plan do? Well, it bought more vaccines. It invested dramatically in the distribution of these vaccines across America. It turned around and kept the President Trump promise of the cash payment of $1,400 for each individual. It extended unemployment benefits so that people could continue to keep food on the table and pay their rent and mortgage payments until they found good jobs. And it basically said to small businesses: We are not giving up on you. We are going to help you, whether it is the restaurant industry or other businesses. We want you to be back in business. We invested that money as a nation, and it was a critical time to do it. President Biden believed, and all the Democrats supported him in this belief, that we should move forward now or run the risk of falling behind in developing our economy. The American Rescue Plan was successful. It has given assistance across the board to families and businesses and delivered resources where they were needed the most. It really matched the crisis with an initiative that was significant in scope. But if my Republican colleagues had had their way, the American Rescue Plan would have looked a lot more like a giant corporate giveaway because all throughout 2020, they were clamoring for massive handouts to big businesses in the form of liability immunity. I am glad that my colleague from Texas is on the floor because it is an issue that he has been interested in and has spoken on the floor many times. All last year, we heard from the other side of the aisle that Congress needed to give sweeping Federal liability immunity to corporations when it came to their conduct during the pandemic. Well, we heard some dire warnings about the number of lawsuits that were going to be filed because of COVID-19. It was called a tsunami of lawsuits by the Republican leader of the Senate. One year ago today, on May 11, 2020, Senator McConnell spoke on the Senate floor and raised fears of ``a second job-killing epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.'' The next day, he came to the floor and kept the attack on, and he warned of ``a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits.'' That is from Senator McConnell on the floor of the Senate. Senate Republicans rallied behind a bill introduced by Senator Cornyn that would give corporations immunity from accountability both in court and from regulators for conduct that could be considered negligent under current law. I argued against these corporate immunity proposals. Granting corporations legal immunity gives them an incentive to cut costs and cut corners when it comes to the health and safety of workers and consumers. It gives a pass to unreasonable and irresponsible behavior and puts people at greater risk. I don't think that is the right approach. As I kept pointing out to my Republican colleagues, they couldn't show statistically why this was necessary. The data never justified their proposals. That tsunami of lawsuits never arrived. We are now over a year into this pandemic. Over 32 million Americans, sadly, have been infected, and nearly 600,000, tragically, have died. So how many lawsuits have been generated by all these terrible outcomes? Well, there is a law firm, Hunton Andrews Kurth, that has tracked all of the lawsuits filed in the United States over COVID-19. I checked the totals over the weekend. You may be asking: Well, how many medical malpractice cases have been filed in the United States over the last year related to COVID-19? The number: 20--20. And how many cases alleging personal injury from exposure to COVID-19 in a public place have been filed? The number is 60 in the entire United States. That is not a flood. That is not a tsunami. It is a trickle. In fact, the main litigation we have seen involving COVID has been one business suing another business. For example, there are 1,831 lawsuits involving insurance disputes, 640 lawsuits involving business closures and stay-at-home orders, and 772 lawsuits involving contract disputes. It was not what was predicted on the floor over and over again by Senators from the other side of the aisle. I am always troubled how the Republican immunity proposals try to block infected workers and families from suing corporations for negligence, but let corporations continue to file their own COVID-related lawsuits by the hundreds whenever they feel like it. How is that fair? I believe Americans deserve a chance to have a day in court when these families believe their loved ones have been harmed due to negligence or misconduct. For example, if a senior citizen dies because a nursing home refused to share what it knew about the virus's spread, I believe the families of those victims deserve a chance to go to court and seek justice. Those types of cases are traditionally governed by State law. States can and do adjust their State liability law to fit the circumstances. As it turns out, more than half the States have changed their liability laws, either through legislation or executive action, in response to COVID. In my view, some of the States went too far, to be honest with you, in shielding negligent behavior by corporations, but that was their call to make since this is a State law issue. I find it surprising that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want Congress to step in and impose sweeping Federal corporate immunity that would override the laws of all 50 States. There was no justification for doing so, and I am glad we didn't. It would have made us less safe. I hope the next time we hear calls for sweeping Federal liability immunityduring a national crisis, we remember this experience and how the dire predictions of tsunamis and floods of lawsuits never came to pass. Let's continue to address this virus with targeted relief much like the American Rescue Plan did. And as we emerge from the pandemic, let's invest in the areas that actually need support. That is why Democrats support President Biden again with the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, targeting investments that help the American economy. Like President Biden said last month, we have got to build our economy from the bottom up and the middle out and not from the top down. Giant corporations don't need another handout like immunity. They already have all the help they need. I hope we can work together to deliver real relief to the American people. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2426 | null | 2,900 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Liability Immunity Mr. President, the American Rescue Plan was the Biden threshold initiative to bring to America what it desperately needed after this President was sworn in on January 20 of this year. Unfortunately, we didn't have a single Republican to support it--not one. Not a single Republican Senator or House Member would support the American Rescue Plan of President Joe Biden. What did the plan do? Well, it bought more vaccines. It invested dramatically in the distribution of these vaccines across America. It turned around and kept the President Trump promise of the cash payment of $1,400 for each individual. It extended unemployment benefits so that people could continue to keep food on the table and pay their rent and mortgage payments until they found good jobs. And it basically said to small businesses: We are not giving up on you. We are going to help you, whether it is the restaurant industry or other businesses. We want you to be back in business. We invested that money as a nation, and it was a critical time to do it. President Biden believed, and all the Democrats supported him in this belief, that we should move forward now or run the risk of falling behind in developing our economy. The American Rescue Plan was successful. It has given assistance across the board to families and businesses and delivered resources where they were needed the most. It really matched the crisis with an initiative that was significant in scope. But if my Republican colleagues had had their way, the American Rescue Plan would have looked a lot more like a giant corporate giveaway because all throughout 2020, they were clamoring for massive handouts to big businesses in the form of liability immunity. I am glad that my colleague from Texas is on the floor because it is an issue that he has been interested in and has spoken on the floor many times. All last year, we heard from the other side of the aisle that Congress needed to give sweeping Federal liability immunity to corporations when it came to their conduct during the pandemic. Well, we heard some dire warnings about the number of lawsuits that were going to be filed because of COVID-19. It was called a tsunami of lawsuits by the Republican leader of the Senate. One year ago today, on May 11, 2020, Senator McConnell spoke on the Senate floor and raised fears of ``a second job-killing epidemic of frivolous lawsuits.'' The next day, he came to the floor and kept the attack on, and he warned of ``a tidal wave of medical malpractice lawsuits.'' That is from Senator McConnell on the floor of the Senate. Senate Republicans rallied behind a bill introduced by Senator Cornyn that would give corporations immunity from accountability both in court and from regulators for conduct that could be considered negligent under current law. I argued against these corporate immunity proposals. Granting corporations legal immunity gives them an incentive to cut costs and cut corners when it comes to the health and safety of workers and consumers. It gives a pass to unreasonable and irresponsible behavior and puts people at greater risk. I don't think that is the right approach. As I kept pointing out to my Republican colleagues, they couldn't show statistically why this was necessary. The data never justified their proposals. That tsunami of lawsuits never arrived. We are now over a year into this pandemic. Over 32 million Americans, sadly, have been infected, and nearly 600,000, tragically, have died. So how many lawsuits have been generated by all these terrible outcomes? Well, there is a law firm, Hunton Andrews Kurth, that has tracked all of the lawsuits filed in the United States over COVID-19. I checked the totals over the weekend. You may be asking: Well, how many medical malpractice cases have been filed in the United States over the last year related to COVID-19? The number: 20--20. And how many cases alleging personal injury from exposure to COVID-19 in a public place have been filed? The number is 60 in the entire United States. That is not a flood. That is not a tsunami. It is a trickle. In fact, the main litigation we have seen involving COVID has been one business suing another business. For example, there are 1,831 lawsuits involving insurance disputes, 640 lawsuits involving business closures and stay-at-home orders, and 772 lawsuits involving contract disputes. It was not what was predicted on the floor over and over again by Senators from the other side of the aisle. I am always troubled how the Republican immunity proposals try to block infected workers and families from suing corporations for negligence, but let corporations continue to file their own COVID-related lawsuits by the hundreds whenever they feel like it. How is that fair? I believe Americans deserve a chance to have a day in court when these families believe their loved ones have been harmed due to negligence or misconduct. For example, if a senior citizen dies because a nursing home refused to share what it knew about the virus's spread, I believe the families of those victims deserve a chance to go to court and seek justice. Those types of cases are traditionally governed by State law. States can and do adjust their State liability law to fit the circumstances. As it turns out, more than half the States have changed their liability laws, either through legislation or executive action, in response to COVID. In my view, some of the States went too far, to be honest with you, in shielding negligent behavior by corporations, but that was their call to make since this is a State law issue. I find it surprising that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want Congress to step in and impose sweeping Federal corporate immunity that would override the laws of all 50 States. There was no justification for doing so, and I am glad we didn't. It would have made us less safe. I hope the next time we hear calls for sweeping Federal liability immunityduring a national crisis, we remember this experience and how the dire predictions of tsunamis and floods of lawsuits never came to pass. Let's continue to address this virus with targeted relief much like the American Rescue Plan did. And as we emerge from the pandemic, let's invest in the areas that actually need support. That is why Democrats support President Biden again with the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan, targeting investments that help the American economy. Like President Biden said last month, we have got to build our economy from the bottom up and the middle out and not from the top down. Giant corporations don't need another handout like immunity. They already have all the help they need. I hope we can work together to deliver real relief to the American people. I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2426 | null | 2,901 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a prominent conservative leader, Reta Hamilton, for her long-standing commitment to serving and strengthening the Republican Party in Arkansas and nationwide. Mrs. Hamilton launched her political activism career in 1987. In the decades since, she has made numerous contributions to mobilize the conservative cause--and with great success. Nicknamed ``the Road Warrior'' since her early days, she has driven nearly every highway in Arkansas, supporting, encouraging, and building county committees and Republican Women clubs. She is a longtime Tusk Club member, which denotes her dedication to GOP candidates and ideas. Mrs. Hamilton's commitment and impact have been widely felt at the local level. She served as president of the Washington County Republican Women in 1989 and more than doubled its membership, for which she received a newly-created award from the Arkansas Federation of Republican Women as well as recognition from the National Federation of Republican Women. The Washington County Republican Committee honored her as Republican of the Year at its 1989 Lincoln Dinner, with Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt participating in the presentation. That year, she was also elected as AFRW third vice-president. Mrs. Hamilton eventually moved to Benton County and in 1994 was elected secretary of the Benton County Republican Party. She later served as a State committeewoman and was honored at the 1996 Lincoln Dinner as Republican of the Year in Rogers, AR. Mrs. Hamilton was elected one of six electors to serve both in the 2008 and 2012 electoral college. During her years of involvement in the Republican Party of Arkansas, she became second vice chair and was appointed to the Arkansas Governor's Appointments Committee, as well as a serving a record 14 continuous years on the Executive Committee of the Arkansas GOP. Mrs. Hamilton was appointed by the State chairman to serve over 10 years on the RPA Rules Committee. A pinnacle of her political career came in 2003, when she was elevated to the position of RPA State chairman. During this time, she was able to refocus the State party and set it on a course to majority leadership. Mrs. Hamilton was elected Arkansas Republican National Committeewoman in 2005 and served until term-limited in 2012. She also served on the RNC Rules Committee from 2010 through 2012. She was also elected by RPA delegates to serve on the RNC Rules Committee from 1996 to 2016. Mrs. Hamilton was an elected delegate to every Republican National Convention from 1992 through 2020, serving as a Trump delegate in 2016 and 2020. At the Reagan Rockefeller Dinner in 2016, the RPA awarded Mrs. Hamilton the ``Hi, I'm Frank White'' Award for making significant contributions to build the State party. Having been involved with the National Federation of Republican Women since 1983, Mrs. Hamilton was appointed to serve as a nonvoting member of the NFRW Board of Directors in 2000 and served until 2020 as a regent and capital regent. She has attended nearly every NFRW biennial convention since 1987. Mrs. Hamilton was honored with an appointment and election to fill the vacancy of national committeewoman from December 2020 to June 5, 2021. I am honored to call Reta Hamilton my friend, and I am incredibly proud of her efforts to elevate and expand the Republican Party in Arkansas. Her conservative influence on the Arkansas GOP and this Nation has made a difference. The direction of our State and growth of the Republican Party into the majority party demonstrates the power that passion and commitment to one's ideals can have. I hope her example will serve as a lesson to future generations of Arkansans and Republican leaders. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BOOZMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2443-2 | null | 2,902 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize my friend, Father Michael J. Graham, on his retirement as the 34th president of Xavier University in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, and to thank him for his more than 34 years of service at Xavier helping to cultivate young leaders and developing Musketeer students with the Jesuit values of becoming ``men and women for others.'' Father Graham started at Xavier in 1984 as an assistant history professor. After pursuing his master of divinity from the Weston School of Theology, he returned to Xavier in 1989. He was appointed vice president for university relations in 1994 and was inaugurated president of Xavier University on September 8, 2001. Father Graham is the longest serving president in Xavier University's history, and over the past 20 years, he has had an incredible impact on the university, the Cincinnati community, and the more than 30,000 students who havegraduated from Xavier University during his tenure. He has helped raise over $500 million to fund scholarships, advance the academic experience, support community projects, and advance the development of the university. In the community, Father Graham's passion to connect and collaborate with local and regional communities inspired him to establish the Community Building Institute as well as the Eigel Center for Community Engagement at Xavier. In 2017, Father Graham was asked to chair the Cincinnati Preschool Promise Board of Directors, a voter-approved initiative to ensure that quality preschool is available and affordable to all children living within the Cincinnati school district. It is one of many ways he has extended his and Xavier's reach into critical issues that impact the Cincinnati community. Since Father Graham began his presidency, U.S. News & World Report has consistently listed Xavier among the Nation's top 10 Midwest universities. Under his leadership, the university has expanded to offer master's programs in coaching education and athlete development, health economic and clinical outcomes research, customer analytics, and others. The impact of President Graham's academic and community-based vision for Xavier is far reaching. Father Mike will be missed, but his legacy will be felt for generations to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2444-3 | null | 2,903 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Campbell, of Mobile, AL, who will soon step down as regional manager at Lamar Advertising. Robert Campbell joined Lamar Advertising in 1972 as a posting manager in Mobile. Robert rose through the ranks of sales manager and general manager before being appointed regional manager in 1983. Throughout his tenure, Robert oversaw the integration of numerous meaningful acquisitions and hired and trained dozens in the company. He has served on the national legislative committee for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, OAAA, for over two decades, and in 2007 he was inducted into the OAAA Hall of Fame. Further, Robert is a longtime supporter of the University of Alabama and its football program. His enthusiasm for Alabama is unwavering, even though the corporate headquarters of his company is based in Baton Rouge. Robert is an effective legislative advocate, and I appreciate his hard work throughout the years. It is with great pleasure that I join his friends, family, and colleagues in recognizing his commitment. I congratulate him on his retirement, and I wish him all the best as he transitions into a new chapter of his life. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SHELBY | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2445-3 | null | 2,904 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13611 of May 16, 2012, with respect to Yemen is to continue in effect beyond May 16, 2021. The actions and policies of certain former members of the Government of Yemen and others continue to threaten Yemen's peace, security, and stability. These actions include obstructing the political process in Yemen and the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provided for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13611 with respect to Yemen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, May 11, 2021. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2446-4 | null | 2,905 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SENATE RESOLUTION 206--SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE WEEK OF APRIL 18 THROUGH APRIL 24, 2021, AS NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Shaheen, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 206 Whereas crime and victimization in the United States have significant, and sometimes life shattering, impacts on victims, survivors, and communities across the United States; Whereas research suggests that there are several million violent victimizations each year in the United States, yet less than half of all violent crimes are ever reported to police; Whereas crime victims and survivors need and deserve support and access to services to help them cope with the physical, psychological, financial, and other adverse effects of crime; Whereas Congress has recognized the importance of supporting crime victims and survivors through the passage of legislation concerning this important issue, including-- (1) the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.); (2) the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291 et seq.); (3) the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-236; 130 Stat. 966); (4) the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.); (5) the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.); (6) the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act (34 U.S.C. 21701 et seq.); (7) the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-299; 132 Stat. 4383); (8) the Scott Campbell, Stephanie Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims' Rights Act (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2261); and (9) the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405; 118 Stat. 2260); Whereas crime can touch the life of any individual, regardless of the age, race, national origin, religion, or gender of that individual; Whereas a just society acknowledges the impact of crime on individuals, families, schools, and communities by protecting the rights of crime victims and survivors; Whereas crime victims and survivors in the United States, and the families of those victims and survivors, need and deserve support and assistance to help cope with the often devastating consequences of crime; Whereas, since Congress adopted the first resolution designating Crime Victims Week in 1985, communities across the United States have joined Congress and the Department of Justice in commemorating National Crime Victims' Rights Week to celebrate a shared vision of a comprehensive and collaborative response that identifies and addresses the many needs of crime victims and survivors and the families of those victims and survivors; Whereas the Senate applauds the work of crime victims advocates to ensure that all crime victims and survivors, and the families of those victims and survivors, are-- (1) treated with dignity, fairness, and respect; (2) offered support and services, regardless of whether the victims and survivors report crimes committed against them; and (3) recognized as key participants within the criminal, juvenile, Federal, and Tribal justice systems in the United States when the victims and survivors report crimes; and Whereas the Senate recognizes and appreciate the continued importance of-- (1) promoting the rights of, and services for, crime victims and survivors; and (2) honoring crime victims and survivors, and the individuals who provide services for those victims and survivors: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports-- (A) the designation of the week of April 18 through April 24, 2021, as National Crime Victims' Rights Week; and (B) the theme of National Crime Victims' Rights Week 2021, ``Support Victims. Build Trust. Engage Communities.'', which emphasizes the importance of leveraging community support to help crime victims and survivors; (2) recognizes that crime victims and survivors, and the families of those victims and survivors, should be treated with dignity, fairness, and respect; (3) applauds the work carried out by thousands of victim assistance organizations and agencies that serve crime survivors at the local, State, Federal, and Tribal levels; (4) remains committed to funding programs authorized by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. 20101 et seq.) and the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291 et seq.), among other Federal programs, which help thousands of public, community-based, and Tribal victim and survivor assistance organizations and agencies that provide essential, and often life-saving, services to millions of crime victims throughout the United States; and (5) encourages the observance of the 40th anniversary of National Crime Victims' Rights Week with appropriate public awareness, education, and outreach activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-11-pt1-PgS2459 | null | 2,906 |
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-2021-05-12-pt1-PgH2212-2 | null | 2,907 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-1087. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter authorizing 14 officers to wear the insignia of the grade of rear admiral or real admiral (lower half), pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777a(b)(4); Public Law 111-383, Sec. 505(a)(1); (124 Stat. 4208); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1088. A letter from the Acting Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's 2020 Fair Lending Report, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5493(c)(2)(D); Public Law 111-203, Sec. 1013(c)(2)(D); (124 Stat. 1970); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1089. A letter from the President and CEO, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, transmitting a Report Regarding Standard Maximum Cash Advance Amount, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78fff-3(e)(3); Public Law 91-598, Sec. 9(e)(3) (as amended by Public Law 111-203, Sec. 929H(a)(2)); (124 Stat. 1857); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1090. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism that was declared in Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-1091. A letter from the Chairman and Chief Executive and Administrative Officer, Federal Labor Relations Authority, transmitting the Authority's 65th Semiannual Inspector General Report for the period October 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1092. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting a report on the activities in the time period since the eighth Emmett Till Act Report, and second Reauthorization Report, which was dated June 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 509 note; Public Law 110-344, Sec. 3(c)(2); (122 Stat. 3935); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1093. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Third Annual Report from the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, pursuant to Public Law 115-59, Sec. 2(c)(4), 131 Stat. 1152 (Sept. 2017) (codified at 42 USCA Sec 405, note); jointly to the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Ways and Means. EC-1094. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Attorney General's First Quarterly Report of Fiscal Year 2021 on the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 4332(b)(2); Public Law 103-353, Sec. 2(a) (as added by Public Law 110-389, Sec. 312(c)); (122 Stat. 4165); jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Veterans' Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgH2268-2 | null | 2,908 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. TAKANO: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 958. A bill to codify maternity care coordination programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-30). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. TAKANO: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 1448. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy, and to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide service dogs to veterans with mental illnesses who do not have mobility impairments; with an amendment (Rept. 117-31). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 1703. A bill to amend title 40, United States Code, to require the Administrator of General Services to enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Children's Museum to provide the National Children's Museum rental space without charge in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-32). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgH2268-3 | null | 2,909 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, later this morning, the four congressional leaders will meet with President Biden and Vice President Harris at the White House. Speaking for the Democrats, our hope is to come together and find common ground where we can work in a bipartisan way to overcome the many challenges of our time. We cannot be small-minded or passive. We must be big and bold to meet the changes in the world, the rapid changes that are occurring in the world. The world is rapidly changing and has been for some time. Just like the steam engine launched the Industrial Revolution and a century of tumultuous change and electricity changed things dramatically in the latter half of the 19th and early parts of the 20th century, the internet has launched the technological revolution. We are living through that period of massive change everywhere: in media, communications, transportation, how we learn and work and live. The world is not going back to the old way that it was, and America needs to adapt so our workers, families, and businesses can compete and prosper in the 21st century. There are so many different changes. Let me just point out one that our society has basically neglected, and that is about childcare. When I was a kid in the late fifties and early sixties, the typical American family had two spouses, only one of whom worked. I would get home from school every day, and there would be my mom for me, my brother, and sister, with milk and cookies, to make sure we drank our milk. She didn't care if we ate our cookies. And she asked us: Did you have homework? We went out to play, but she was keeping an eye on us. We would play in the street. That was one of the places I learned the most, just playing stickball and other stuff in the streets of Brooklyn. But, in any case, that is not true anymore. The typical American family is not the way it used to be. The vast majority are either single-parent families or two-parent families where both work. That means that childcare is much more needed to maximize both the happiness and productivity of our society in the 21st century. Parents sweat over childcare. They need to go to work, but who is going to watch the kids? Can they afford childcare? Is it good enough for the children, of course, whom they love? Our children are our most precious possession. And if we don't dramatically change childcare, we are going to fall far behind, far behind. I read somewhere that of the 37 OECD nations, we are 36th in childcare. Only Turkey is lower. In general, these things should not be partisan issues. Infrastructure and jobs, putting our economy on firm ground should be the work of both Democrats and Republicans. Another change, obviously, is climate. In the fifties and sixties, we didn't even imagine a world with climate change. In the last 20 years, ithas become apparent that we had better do something about it or we could have worse times than this COVID year, every year, 10 or 15 years from now. The dramatic changes that will discombobulate our society and risk our health and our economy, just as COVID did, will happen if we don't do anything. So fighting climate change and making sure America leads the world in emerging industries that deal with climate should be the work of both Democrats and Republicans. This Congress has proven that we can legislate in a bipartisan way, just most recently on the anti-Asian hate crimes bill and a bipartisan water infrastructure bill. I believe we will continue that trend by taking up and passing a bipartisan competition bill this work period. So as we head to the White House today, I hope our other leaders are thinking about how we can come together to solve our Nation's problems in a bold and lasting way. One hundred percent of Democrats' focus--and I think I can speak for Speaker Pelosi as well as myself and President Biden--is on delivering help to the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2463-7 | null | 2,910 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a one-party takeover of our political system--that is what Senate Democrats brought to the Rules Committee just yesterday, their side's top priority for multiple years now. The supposed rationales for the bill continue to change. A few years ago, when majorities of Democrats were mistakenly convinced that foreigners had hacked voting machines and tampered with tallies in 2016, this was marketed as an election security bill. But it keeps morphing to suit new headlines. Lately, it has been called a racial justice bill. Some Senators say it is really a response to some recent State-level legislation, even though their bill predates those bills by multiple years. A partisan power grab in search of a justification--that is what we have here. Voter turnout last November was the highest in decades. African-American turnout was twice as high in Mississippi as it was in Massachusetts. Democrats' hysterical attacks against the new election law in the State of Georgia have been dismantled even by typically left-leaning fact checkers. There is no crisis. Our Democratic friends just want the power to rewire our democracy on a partisan basis. S. 1 would take the Federal Election Commission--the bipartisan panel that regulates elections and private citizens' speech--and make it a partisan body run by the Democrats. It would let Washington Democrats act like a nationwide board of elections on steroids, neutering popular things like voter ID and forcing legalized ballot harvesting onto all 50 States. This bill would let bureaucrats snoop around more in free speech; attack citizens' privacy so dramatically that even the liberal ACLU is unhappy; and even send public funds--get this: public funds--directly to politicians. Republicans put forward amendments to fix those things. If Democrats had wanted real, bipartisan solutions, Republicans were there, right at the table, and ready, but Democrats voted us down. They wouldn't even let us redirect any of that public money to the opioid crisis. They wanted that cash for their own campaigns. This partisan power grab failed to advance out of committee for the same reason it must never ever become law as currently written. It will shatter public confidence in our democracy if the Democratic Party decides it can rig the rules | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2464-4 | null | 2,911 |
formal | steroids | null | transphobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a one-party takeover of our political system--that is what Senate Democrats brought to the Rules Committee just yesterday, their side's top priority for multiple years now. The supposed rationales for the bill continue to change. A few years ago, when majorities of Democrats were mistakenly convinced that foreigners had hacked voting machines and tampered with tallies in 2016, this was marketed as an election security bill. But it keeps morphing to suit new headlines. Lately, it has been called a racial justice bill. Some Senators say it is really a response to some recent State-level legislation, even though their bill predates those bills by multiple years. A partisan power grab in search of a justification--that is what we have here. Voter turnout last November was the highest in decades. African-American turnout was twice as high in Mississippi as it was in Massachusetts. Democrats' hysterical attacks against the new election law in the State of Georgia have been dismantled even by typically left-leaning fact checkers. There is no crisis. Our Democratic friends just want the power to rewire our democracy on a partisan basis. S. 1 would take the Federal Election Commission--the bipartisan panel that regulates elections and private citizens' speech--and make it a partisan body run by the Democrats. It would let Washington Democrats act like a nationwide board of elections on steroids, neutering popular things like voter ID and forcing legalized ballot harvesting onto all 50 States. This bill would let bureaucrats snoop around more in free speech; attack citizens' privacy so dramatically that even the liberal ACLU is unhappy; and even send public funds--get this: public funds--directly to politicians. Republicans put forward amendments to fix those things. If Democrats had wanted real, bipartisan solutions, Republicans were there, right at the table, and ready, but Democrats voted us down. They wouldn't even let us redirect any of that public money to the opioid crisis. They wanted that cash for their own campaigns. This partisan power grab failed to advance out of committee for the same reason it must never ever become law as currently written. It will shatter public confidence in our democracy if the Democratic Party decides it can rig the rules | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2464-4 | null | 2,912 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Now one final matter, Mr. President. This morning, I will be joining three other congressional leaders to meet with President Biden at the White House. There is certainly no shortage of important business to discuss. The President campaigned on a promise that his agenda would unite a divided nation. And he inherited a favorable situation. Vaccines were flooding America. Science had proven schools can reopen. Job openings were beginning to pile up. Republicans sought to continue the 2020 bipartisan streak on COVID relief, but our new President and our Democratic colleagues preferred a one-party approach. They used the end of the pandemic to pass what the President's own staff admitted--admitted--was ``the most progressive bill in American history.'' Not exactly shopping for consensus. Republicans were upfront with our concerns. We said these old liberal ideas would slow rehiring, slow down the reopening, and stoke inflation. Of course, just a few minutes ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published the most dramatic monthly inflation report in more than a decade. Many of the things American families buy have grown more expensive at a dizzying pace. Last week's incredibly disappointing jobs report showed what happens when Washington taxes working people to pay other people more to stay home. I am going to discuss these and other concerns with the President today, but I also hope we can begin to come together on pressing issues that should actually unite us. The last time Congress took comprehensive action on surface transportation infrastructure, 83 Senators signed on. By the way, that bill was produced by Senator Boxer, myself, and Senator Inhofe--a totally bipartisan effort across broad ideological lines. The last time we drilled down on water resources, the margin was 92 to 6. Infrastructure can and should be a bipartisan issue; the same for supporting working families; the same for supporting our national defense. If the President can remember that he promised to govern for all Americans, not just the far left, if my Democratic friends can remember they have just a 50-50 Senate and a closely divided House--not exactly a sweeping mandate for a socialist agenda--there is much we can deliver together for the country. I hope today marks the start of a new course correction from this White House and a more successful dialogue across party lines. That is what Americans need, and that is what they deserve. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2465-2 | null | 2,913 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on a different matter, yet again, air raid sirens have been sounding in Israel. Israeli civilians have been huddling in basements, shelters, and hospital stairwells. Hamas rocket attacks are lighting up the skies, hitting buildings, and terrorizing, injuring, and killing innocent people. Of course, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad receive significant support from Iran. Fortunately, a remarkable percentage of the incoming rockets have been intercepted in midair by Israel's Iron Dome system. Americans should take some pride of our own in defending our friends with these high-tech defenses, which we have helped Israel bring online and have advanced our own joint missile defense efforts at the same time. Missile defense is expensive but vital. It is yet another reason I am concerned with this administration's intention to underfund defense. Whatever complaints Palestinians have with Israel's Government, wanton violence against civilians is completely and totally inexcusable. This is barbaric terrorism, not a legitimate protest; nor is it legitimate for Israel's obsessive critics to suggest any equivalency whatsoever between these inexcusable attacks and Israel's measured and quite targeted response against terrorists. Yesterday here in Washington, street protesters screamed--listen to this--``Israel is a terrorist state.'' On the streets of Washington, they screamed: ``Israel is a terrorist state.'' Some Democratic Members of Congress echoed that rhetoric almost exactly. Look, the State of Israel has every right of self-defense. Its national security leaders have continued to display restraint and invest so much in precision and avoiding civilian casualties. That has been the approach of the Israeli Government. Israel must know that their friends and allies here in the United States stand with them as they seek to restore deterrence, that we support their right to peace and security, and that we will not relax our efforts to hold terrorists and terrorists' supporters to account. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2465 | null | 2,914 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on a different matter, yet again, air raid sirens have been sounding in Israel. Israeli civilians have been huddling in basements, shelters, and hospital stairwells. Hamas rocket attacks are lighting up the skies, hitting buildings, and terrorizing, injuring, and killing innocent people. Of course, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad receive significant support from Iran. Fortunately, a remarkable percentage of the incoming rockets have been intercepted in midair by Israel's Iron Dome system. Americans should take some pride of our own in defending our friends with these high-tech defenses, which we have helped Israel bring online and have advanced our own joint missile defense efforts at the same time. Missile defense is expensive but vital. It is yet another reason I am concerned with this administration's intention to underfund defense. Whatever complaints Palestinians have with Israel's Government, wanton violence against civilians is completely and totally inexcusable. This is barbaric terrorism, not a legitimate protest; nor is it legitimate for Israel's obsessive critics to suggest any equivalency whatsoever between these inexcusable attacks and Israel's measured and quite targeted response against terrorists. Yesterday here in Washington, street protesters screamed--listen to this--``Israel is a terrorist state.'' On the streets of Washington, they screamed: ``Israel is a terrorist state.'' Some Democratic Members of Congress echoed that rhetoric almost exactly. Look, the State of Israel has every right of self-defense. Its national security leaders have continued to display restraint and invest so much in precision and avoiding civilian casualties. That has been the approach of the Israeli Government. Israel must know that their friends and allies here in the United States stand with them as they seek to restore deterrence, that we support their right to peace and security, and that we will not relax our efforts to hold terrorists and terrorists' supporters to account. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2465 | null | 2,915 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on a different matter, yet again, air raid sirens have been sounding in Israel. Israeli civilians have been huddling in basements, shelters, and hospital stairwells. Hamas rocket attacks are lighting up the skies, hitting buildings, and terrorizing, injuring, and killing innocent people. Of course, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad receive significant support from Iran. Fortunately, a remarkable percentage of the incoming rockets have been intercepted in midair by Israel's Iron Dome system. Americans should take some pride of our own in defending our friends with these high-tech defenses, which we have helped Israel bring online and have advanced our own joint missile defense efforts at the same time. Missile defense is expensive but vital. It is yet another reason I am concerned with this administration's intention to underfund defense. Whatever complaints Palestinians have with Israel's Government, wanton violence against civilians is completely and totally inexcusable. This is barbaric terrorism, not a legitimate protest; nor is it legitimate for Israel's obsessive critics to suggest any equivalency whatsoever between these inexcusable attacks and Israel's measured and quite targeted response against terrorists. Yesterday here in Washington, street protesters screamed--listen to this--``Israel is a terrorist state.'' On the streets of Washington, they screamed: ``Israel is a terrorist state.'' Some Democratic Members of Congress echoed that rhetoric almost exactly. Look, the State of Israel has every right of self-defense. Its national security leaders have continued to display restraint and invest so much in precision and avoiding civilian casualties. That has been the approach of the Israeli Government. Israel must know that their friends and allies here in the United States stand with them as they seek to restore deterrence, that we support their right to peace and security, and that we will not relax our efforts to hold terrorists and terrorists' supporters to account. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2465 | null | 2,916 |
formal | activist judge | null | conservative | Abortion Mr. President, a few years ago, mainstream news articles trumpeted, supposedly, stunning news out of Scandinavia: Iceland was close to eliminating Down syndrome. Eureka. Fantastic. How is it possible? Have these Icelandic scientists discovered some amazing and miraculous new gene therapy? No, they hadn't because Iceland wasn't eliminating Down syndrome. Iceland was eliminating babies with Down syndrome using prenatal testing to identify genetic anomalies and then aborting the babies that had those anomalies. According to one Icelandic genetic counselor--and this is a direct quote. I am not making it up. You might think I am. We don't look at abortion as murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. Imagine, how ghoulish that is. That is what this counselor and some like him believe, that a baby is just a ``thing.'' But if they are honest with themselves, I think if they look into their hearts, they know the truth: Babies with Down syndrome aren't just ``things.'' They are living human beings of inestimable value who are loved by their Creator, even if they aren't protected by the law or valued by too many in society. Sadly, Iceland is no exception. In many parts of the world, a Down syndrome diagnosis is tantamount to a death sentence. And while in America, thankfully, we are more welcoming, sadly, we still terminate roughly two-thirds of babies diagnosed with this genetic condition. That needs to change. A civilized nation has a responsibility to protect our most vulnerable people, and that means we have an obligation, especially, to protect unborn babies with Down syndrome. My home State of Arkansas passed a law to do just that--to make it illegal for an abortionist to perform an abortion if they know it is motivated solely by a Down syndrome diagnosis. You would think this law would be uncontroversial. You would think a country that cares about ending discrimination against people with disabilities would leap at the chance to outlaw a particularly evil and final form of discrimination. After all, this Congress has taken many steps in recent years to protect those with disabilities. But, no, you would be wrong. That is not what happened. The abortion lobby kicked into high gear and got a liberal judge to block Arkansas' pro-life law from going into effect. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute denounced laws to protect babies with Down syndrome as ``dangerous and coercive.'' Now, this should not be surprising coming from the Guttmacher Institute. After all, it is named after a former leader of the American Eugenics Society, as so many abortion advocates can also trace their lineage to the dark, so-called science of eugenics of early last century. These modern-day eugenicists and a few liberal activist judges are putting babies with Down syndrome at grave risk every day. These babies can find no refuge under the laws of many of our States and our Nation. But, thankfully, that may be changing. The State of Arkansas is fighting to save its pro-life law in court, and tomorrow, I and Representative Ashley Hinson, along with many of my colleagues in Congress, will submit an amicus brief urging the court to protect these most innocent and vulnerable young babies. Time will only tell if the courts will hear these pleas. But while we will make the most persuasive legal arguments available on the law and the facts, I must add that the most effective advocates for justice will always remain those little babies with Down syndrome and the parents who brought them bravely into this world. They will be the first to tell you that a person with Down syndrome isn't a burden. It isn't just a ``thing,'' to quote the Icelandic eugenicists. These babies are persons. They are fearfully and wonderfully made. They are created equal in the eyes of and image of God, just like each and every one of us. So let us fervently pray that one day soon, our laws will reflect this very basic truth and protect these innocent children. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2468-2 | null | 2,917 |
formal | activist judges | null | conservative | Abortion Mr. President, a few years ago, mainstream news articles trumpeted, supposedly, stunning news out of Scandinavia: Iceland was close to eliminating Down syndrome. Eureka. Fantastic. How is it possible? Have these Icelandic scientists discovered some amazing and miraculous new gene therapy? No, they hadn't because Iceland wasn't eliminating Down syndrome. Iceland was eliminating babies with Down syndrome using prenatal testing to identify genetic anomalies and then aborting the babies that had those anomalies. According to one Icelandic genetic counselor--and this is a direct quote. I am not making it up. You might think I am. We don't look at abortion as murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. Imagine, how ghoulish that is. That is what this counselor and some like him believe, that a baby is just a ``thing.'' But if they are honest with themselves, I think if they look into their hearts, they know the truth: Babies with Down syndrome aren't just ``things.'' They are living human beings of inestimable value who are loved by their Creator, even if they aren't protected by the law or valued by too many in society. Sadly, Iceland is no exception. In many parts of the world, a Down syndrome diagnosis is tantamount to a death sentence. And while in America, thankfully, we are more welcoming, sadly, we still terminate roughly two-thirds of babies diagnosed with this genetic condition. That needs to change. A civilized nation has a responsibility to protect our most vulnerable people, and that means we have an obligation, especially, to protect unborn babies with Down syndrome. My home State of Arkansas passed a law to do just that--to make it illegal for an abortionist to perform an abortion if they know it is motivated solely by a Down syndrome diagnosis. You would think this law would be uncontroversial. You would think a country that cares about ending discrimination against people with disabilities would leap at the chance to outlaw a particularly evil and final form of discrimination. After all, this Congress has taken many steps in recent years to protect those with disabilities. But, no, you would be wrong. That is not what happened. The abortion lobby kicked into high gear and got a liberal judge to block Arkansas' pro-life law from going into effect. The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute denounced laws to protect babies with Down syndrome as ``dangerous and coercive.'' Now, this should not be surprising coming from the Guttmacher Institute. After all, it is named after a former leader of the American Eugenics Society, as so many abortion advocates can also trace their lineage to the dark, so-called science of eugenics of early last century. These modern-day eugenicists and a few liberal activist judges are putting babies with Down syndrome at grave risk every day. These babies can find no refuge under the laws of many of our States and our Nation. But, thankfully, that may be changing. The State of Arkansas is fighting to save its pro-life law in court, and tomorrow, I and Representative Ashley Hinson, along with many of my colleagues in Congress, will submit an amicus brief urging the court to protect these most innocent and vulnerable young babies. Time will only tell if the courts will hear these pleas. But while we will make the most persuasive legal arguments available on the law and the facts, I must add that the most effective advocates for justice will always remain those little babies with Down syndrome and the parents who brought them bravely into this world. They will be the first to tell you that a person with Down syndrome isn't a burden. It isn't just a ``thing,'' to quote the Icelandic eugenicists. These babies are persons. They are fearfully and wonderfully made. They are created equal in the eyes of and image of God, just like each and every one of us. So let us fervently pray that one day soon, our laws will reflect this very basic truth and protect these innocent children. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2468-2 | null | 2,918 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | National Police Week Madam President, on another matter, I have come to the floor I think Monday, Tuesday, and today because this is National Police Week, to honor our men and women in blue. It started way back in 1962. Our Nation has annually celebrated the lives and memory of the men and women of law enforcement who are killed in the line of duty. The origin of National Police Week goes back nearly 50 years to President John F. Kennedy's proclamation that each May 15 be designated as ``National Peace Officers Memorial Day.'' Over the years, this single day has grown into a weeklong opportunity to honor the sacrifices of our law enforcement professionals throughout America. Normally, tens of thousands of police officers, deputy sheriffs, State troopers, and others sworn to uphold the rule of law would have gathered here in our Nation's Capital. They would be participating in a host of events that both honor their fallen colleagues and celebrate their comradery. Unfortunately, the global virus pandemic continues to take its toll on nearly every aspect of life, with National Police Week events being no exception. It is very disappointing to lose the opportunity to celebrate, as we have every year before last year, our communities' heroes in this public way. Maybe next year it will be back to normal. Rather than gathering in-person along the National Mall, this year's events will include a virtual candlelight vigil. On Thursday, May 13, Americans will come together online to pay tribute to our fallen protectors. The name of each man and woman who gave their last measure of devotion during the previous year will be read aloud. I encourage everyone to join me in honoring their sacrifice during this event. Despite the impact of COVID-19 and the risk to their individual safety, men and women of law enforcement continue to steadfastly uphold their oath to serve and to protect. Pandemic or not, the National Law Enforcement Memorial remains a focal point of National Police Week. It is here where cops come to remember their departed friends and honor those families of the lost ones. At the time of its dedication in 1991, the names of 12,000 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty dating back to 1786 were engraved onto that memorial. Each year, the curved stone walls are updated with the names of the recently fallen. Today, over 22,000 heroes are permanently venerated within those solemn 3 acres. In our own Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers spoke of certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Those specifically mentioned were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. None of these rights are possible without every citizen's most basic level of security. While the United States has layers of safety built into our system of government, none is more critical to our foundational rights than local law enforcement. Maintaining a free, safe, and civil society is squarely dependent on someone who is willing to answer the call without regard to time or circumstance and who puts themselves in harm's way to ensure that the innocent are protected and the law is upheld. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2477 | null | 2,919 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | National Police Week Madam President, on another matter, I have come to the floor I think Monday, Tuesday, and today because this is National Police Week, to honor our men and women in blue. It started way back in 1962. Our Nation has annually celebrated the lives and memory of the men and women of law enforcement who are killed in the line of duty. The origin of National Police Week goes back nearly 50 years to President John F. Kennedy's proclamation that each May 15 be designated as ``National Peace Officers Memorial Day.'' Over the years, this single day has grown into a weeklong opportunity to honor the sacrifices of our law enforcement professionals throughout America. Normally, tens of thousands of police officers, deputy sheriffs, State troopers, and others sworn to uphold the rule of law would have gathered here in our Nation's Capital. They would be participating in a host of events that both honor their fallen colleagues and celebrate their comradery. Unfortunately, the global virus pandemic continues to take its toll on nearly every aspect of life, with National Police Week events being no exception. It is very disappointing to lose the opportunity to celebrate, as we have every year before last year, our communities' heroes in this public way. Maybe next year it will be back to normal. Rather than gathering in-person along the National Mall, this year's events will include a virtual candlelight vigil. On Thursday, May 13, Americans will come together online to pay tribute to our fallen protectors. The name of each man and woman who gave their last measure of devotion during the previous year will be read aloud. I encourage everyone to join me in honoring their sacrifice during this event. Despite the impact of COVID-19 and the risk to their individual safety, men and women of law enforcement continue to steadfastly uphold their oath to serve and to protect. Pandemic or not, the National Law Enforcement Memorial remains a focal point of National Police Week. It is here where cops come to remember their departed friends and honor those families of the lost ones. At the time of its dedication in 1991, the names of 12,000 local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty dating back to 1786 were engraved onto that memorial. Each year, the curved stone walls are updated with the names of the recently fallen. Today, over 22,000 heroes are permanently venerated within those solemn 3 acres. In our own Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers spoke of certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Those specifically mentioned were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. None of these rights are possible without every citizen's most basic level of security. While the United States has layers of safety built into our system of government, none is more critical to our foundational rights than local law enforcement. Maintaining a free, safe, and civil society is squarely dependent on someone who is willing to answer the call without regard to time or circumstance and who puts themselves in harm's way to ensure that the innocent are protected and the law is upheld. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2477 | null | 2,920 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Honoring Officer Brent William Perry Scrimshire Hot Springs Police Officer Corporal Brent Scrimshire had earned recognition as the Arkansas Southwest Region Officer of the Year in 2016. Sadly, he lost his life while conducting a traffic stop. We honor the service and sacrifice of these Arkansans and law enforcement officers all across the country who courageously gave their lives while upholding law and order. Their deaths are tragic and call us to acknowledge their tremendous heroism and selflessness. They also invite us to appreciate the reality that the stakes of this occupation are a lot higher than most others; they are life and death. The perilous nature of policing and law enforcement is something we simply can't underestimate or fail to respect. I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate resolution marking National Police Week because we must always remember the brave officers whose lives are cut short because of their service and sacrifice. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2478-5 | null | 2,921 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Tribute to Officer Tyler Franks We also pray for the recovery of those injured in the line of duty, like Prairie Grove Police Officer Tyler Franks, who was shot while responding to a domestic disturbance call last week. Thankfully his condition is improving, but we know he has a long road to recovery. By supporting policies to improve law enforcement training and resources, we can recognize the dedication and heroism so often displayed by these public servants and help make them more effective and safer at the same time. Over the past year, we have witnessed increased calls for defunding or abolishing police forces across the country. Instead of this misguided approach, we need to improve investments and resources for the men and women in blue. That is why it is important that Congress fund programs like the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program, which has proven vital to helping States and local law enforcement agencies purchase equipment and support much needed training for officers. We know there are more ways to ensure officers have the tools they need to enhance community safety and protect themselves so they can go home to the families they love and the support systems they rely on. That is why this week I will join Senators Inhofe, Brown, and Tillis to introduce the Law Enforcement Training for Mental Health Crisis Response Act. This legislation will help provide police with better strategies and procedures to respond to calls involving a mental health crisis. We also need to hold all those who perpetrate attacks against law enforcement accountable, so I urge my colleagues to pass the Protect and Serve Act. I am proud to support this legislation that will create Federal penalties for individuals who deliberately target local, State, or Federal law enforcement officers with violence. On behalf of all Arkansans, I thank all of our law enforcement officers for making sacrifices to keep us safe. I will continue advocating for improved tools, resources, and training for officers so they can prepare for unpredictable circumstances. Our safety and peace of mind come at a cost, and our police officers need our support and our gratitude for being the first ones to pay it. We honor them this week and every week for what they do and for what they represent. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2478-6 | null | 2,922 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Duckworth): S. 1581. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out a pilot program to enhance the mapping of urban flooding and associated property damage and the availability of that mapped data to homeowners, businesses, and localities to help understand and mitigate the risk of such flooding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2488-2 | null | 2,923 |
formal | urban | null | racist | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Duckworth): S. 1581. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out a pilot program to enhance the mapping of urban flooding and associated property damage and the availability of that mapped data to homeowners, businesses, and localities to help understand and mitigate the risk of such flooding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2488-2 | null | 2,924 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Duckworth): S. 1581. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out a pilot program to enhance the mapping of urban flooding and associated property damage and the availability of that mapped data to homeowners, businesses, and localities to help understand and mitigate the risk of such flooding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2488 | null | 2,925 |
formal | urban | null | racist | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Rubio, and Ms. Duckworth): S. 1581. A bill to require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out a pilot program to enhance the mapping of urban flooding and associated property damage and the availability of that mapped data to homeowners, businesses, and localities to help understand and mitigate the risk of such flooding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2488 | null | 2,926 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 208 Whereas, beginning in 1991, National Nurses Week is celebrated annually from May 6, also known as ``National Recognition Day for Nurses'', through May 12, the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing; Whereas National Nurses Week is a time of year to reflect on the important contributions that nurses make to provide safe, high-quality health care; Whereas nurses serve on the front lines, risking their lives treating the injured and sick during wartime, natural disasters, and public health emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas nurses are known to be patient advocates, acting to protect the lives of individuals under their care; Whereas nurses represent the largest single component of the health care profession, with an estimated population of more than 4,000,000 registered nurses in the United States; Whereas nurses are leading in the delivery of quality care in a transformed health care system that improves patient outcomes and safety; Whereas the Future of Nursing report of the Institute of Medicine has called for the nursing profession to meet the call for leadership in a team-based delivery model; Whereas, when nurse staffing levels increase, the risk of patient complications and lengthy hospital stays decreases, resulting in cost savings; Whereas nurses are experienced researchers, and the work of nurses encompasses a wide scope of scientific inquiry, including clinical research, health systems and outcomes research, and nursing education research; Whereas nurses provide care that is sensitive to the cultures and customs of individuals across the United States; Whereas nurses are well-positioned to provide leadership to eliminate health care disparities that exist in the United States; Whereas nurses are the cornerstone of the public health infrastructure, promoting healthy lifestyles and educating communities on disease prevention and health promotion; Whereas nurses help inform and educate, and work closely with, legislators to improve-- (1) the education, retention, recruitment, and practice of all nurses; and (2) the health and safety of the patients for whom the nurses care; Whereas there is a need-- (1) to strengthen nursing workforce development programs at all levels, including the number of doctorally prepared faculty members; and (2) to provide education to the nurse research scientists who can develop new nursing care models to improve the health status of the diverse population of the United States; Whereas nurses touch the lives of the people of the United States through every stage of life; and Whereas nursing has been voted the most honest and ethical profession in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week, as founded by the American Nurses Association; (2) recognizes the significant contributions of nurses to the health care system in the United States; and (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe National Nurses Week with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of nurses to the everyday lives of patients. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2491 | null | 2,927 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Peters, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Mr. Tester, Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 208 Whereas, beginning in 1991, National Nurses Week is celebrated annually from May 6, also known as ``National Recognition Day for Nurses'', through May 12, the birthday of Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing; Whereas National Nurses Week is a time of year to reflect on the important contributions that nurses make to provide safe, high-quality health care; Whereas nurses serve on the front lines, risking their lives treating the injured and sick during wartime, natural disasters, and public health emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas nurses are known to be patient advocates, acting to protect the lives of individuals under their care; Whereas nurses represent the largest single component of the health care profession, with an estimated population of more than 4,000,000 registered nurses in the United States; Whereas nurses are leading in the delivery of quality care in a transformed health care system that improves patient outcomes and safety; Whereas the Future of Nursing report of the Institute of Medicine has called for the nursing profession to meet the call for leadership in a team-based delivery model; Whereas, when nurse staffing levels increase, the risk of patient complications and lengthy hospital stays decreases, resulting in cost savings; Whereas nurses are experienced researchers, and the work of nurses encompasses a wide scope of scientific inquiry, including clinical research, health systems and outcomes research, and nursing education research; Whereas nurses provide care that is sensitive to the cultures and customs of individuals across the United States; Whereas nurses are well-positioned to provide leadership to eliminate health care disparities that exist in the United States; Whereas nurses are the cornerstone of the public health infrastructure, promoting healthy lifestyles and educating communities on disease prevention and health promotion; Whereas nurses help inform and educate, and work closely with, legislators to improve-- (1) the education, retention, recruitment, and practice of all nurses; and (2) the health and safety of the patients for whom the nurses care; Whereas there is a need-- (1) to strengthen nursing workforce development programs at all levels, including the number of doctorally prepared faculty members; and (2) to provide education to the nurse research scientists who can develop new nursing care models to improve the health status of the diverse population of the United States; Whereas nurses touch the lives of the people of the United States through every stage of life; and Whereas nursing has been voted the most honest and ethical profession in the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week, as founded by the American Nurses Association; (2) recognizes the significant contributions of nurses to the health care system in the United States; and (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe National Nurses Week with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate the importance of nurses to the everyday lives of patients. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-12-pt1-PgS2491 | null | 2,928 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2877) to amend the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop best practices for the establishment and use of behavioral intervention teams at schools, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar) | House | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgH2295 | null | 2,929 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on judges and on nominees, over the past several months, the Senate has moved quickly to confirm nominees to serve in President Biden's Cabinet and throughout his administration. The Senate also has a constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations, and the Senate will begin to fill judicial vacancies very soon. This morning, the Judiciary Committee is holding the first markup for a slate of President Biden's judicialnominations, including two circuit nominees and three district court nominees, who will all receive a vote in the committee next week. The Senate is now going to scale up our efforts to fill more than 80 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. It is no secret that, lacking a robust legislative agenda, the Republican majority, under President Trump, focused on judges, confirming around 200. President Obama, in his 8 years, appointed 320. So even though, on a 4-year-to-4-year basis, Trump did more, overall, Obama had a greater effect on the judiciary than Trump. Now, President Biden has the opportunity to fill more than 80 vacancies--likely more. Under this Democratic majority, the Senate will swiftly and routinely take up President Biden's appointments to the Federal bench. It will redress the imbalance that the Trump administration caused by choosing so many judges who were so far hard right, way out of the mainstream not just of the American people but even of the Republican Party. Under this Democratic majority, we are going to swiftly and routinely take up President Biden's appointments to the Federal bench to restore some balance. And, I must say, President Biden's judicial candidates provide a stark contrast to the quality, to the caliber of President Trump's nominations. President Biden's nominees are qualified, mainstream, and actually reflect the diversity of the country. Many have spent years as public defenders, an experience that is sorely lacking on the Federal bench. They also include the first Native American to be nominated to the Federal court, the second-ever Puerto Rican, and the second Black woman to sit on the Second Circuit in my home State of New York. I am very proud of that. That is a far cry from what we got under President Trump and then-Majority Leader McConnell. For 4 years, the Republican leader turned the Senate into a conveyor belt for inexperienced lawyers, many with deeply radical views on women's choice, voting rights, criminal justice, and civil rights. A few of them were so extreme on the issues of race and voting that Republican Senators joined with Democrats to reject those nominations. With President Biden, we are going to bring balance back to the Federal judiciary by confirming judges who are beholden to the law, not some far-right agenda | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2499-8 | null | 2,930 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will begin this morning where I began on Monday, talking about National Police Week. Yesterday, I got to welcome members of Kentucky's Fraternal Order of Police here to my office. I was glad for the chance to share my gratitude for their service and hear what was on their minds. Tragically, the past year's fallen officers, whom we will be memorializing this week, includes one of Kentucky's own. In early 2020, Detective James Kirk of the Stanton Police Department suddenly passed away from a heart attack in the wake of struggling with an armed subject. He was only 40 years old. By all accounts, during James's nearly 20 years of service, he became a model officer. He even served as police chief of a nearby department. His colleagues remembered his easygoing, friendly nature and his total professionalism. As our Nation honors this brave Kentuckian, we continue to hold his wife Brandy, their family, and the entire Stanton Police Department in our prayers. Later today, Detective Kirk will join the ranks of heroes enshrined on the National Law Enforcement Memorial. We are also honoring our colleagues here in the Capitol this week, the U.S. Capitol Police. On Peace Officers Memorial Day this Saturday, we will especially remember Officers Evans, Sicknick, and Liebengood, all taken too soon. Their sacrifices are a sharp reminder: Standing with law enforcement isn't something we can do only 1 week every year; we need to back the blue all year round. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2500-3 | null | 2,931 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. On one final matter, the attacks being directed at innocent Israeli citizens are coming from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad. Both these terrorist groups receive support from Iran. The regime in Tehran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the entire world. The regime supports Shia terrorists, Sunni terrorists, and secular terrorists. Many of the rockets now raining down on Israel cities are gifts from Iran, technologies of terror honed by Iran's proxies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Days ago, the U.S. Navy seized weapons on a vessel that appears to have been dispatched from Iran bound for Yemen to fuel the violent Houthi terrorists, in violation of the U.N. embargo. Just last night, the Houthis again fired missiles against Saudi Arabia. Public reporting suggests Iran's proxies, on top of assassinating Iraqi protesters, are stepping up attacks on the U.S. and coalition presence in Iraq as well. Iran is emboldened by our retreat from Afghanistan. They are eager to challenge an administration that appears desperate to return to a failed deal. What former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said this week about weakness inviting challenge from China and Russia applies to Iran as well. The answer is not accommodation; it is America's strength. But reportedly, this administration is considering preemptive concessions--a huge rollback of sanctions, squandering our leverage, just to leap back into a failed nuclear deal. I sincerely hope these reports prove to be wrong. It is difficult to believe an American President would consider removing terrorism- or missile-related sanctions at the very moment Iranian rockets are raining down on Israel, Iranian-backed militia are attacking American facilities in Iraq, and Iranian missiles are being trained on Saudi Arabia. I cannot understand why the administration is considering any sanctions relief to induce Tehran back into the Obama deal in the first place. It would be total malpractice to squander our leverage just to jump back into a flawed deal. That kind of preemptive capitulation would make negotiating a better deal much, much more difficult. Iran's own Foreign Minister has lamented that the terror masterminds of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps basically run the country. So what on Earth does our administration think the successors of Soleimani would do with another influx of cash? If the administration will stay smart, stay tough, and work toward a better deal that truly halts Iran's nuclear and missile programs, as well as a strategy to confront Iranian terrorism, then the President will find support and partnership from the Republican side. But if the administration chooses policies that leave America weaker and the world more dangerous, Republicans will stand up for the right course. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2501 | null | 2,932 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. On one final matter, the attacks being directed at innocent Israeli citizens are coming from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad. Both these terrorist groups receive support from Iran. The regime in Tehran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the entire world. The regime supports Shia terrorists, Sunni terrorists, and secular terrorists. Many of the rockets now raining down on Israel cities are gifts from Iran, technologies of terror honed by Iran's proxies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Days ago, the U.S. Navy seized weapons on a vessel that appears to have been dispatched from Iran bound for Yemen to fuel the violent Houthi terrorists, in violation of the U.N. embargo. Just last night, the Houthis again fired missiles against Saudi Arabia. Public reporting suggests Iran's proxies, on top of assassinating Iraqi protesters, are stepping up attacks on the U.S. and coalition presence in Iraq as well. Iran is emboldened by our retreat from Afghanistan. They are eager to challenge an administration that appears desperate to return to a failed deal. What former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said this week about weakness inviting challenge from China and Russia applies to Iran as well. The answer is not accommodation; it is America's strength. But reportedly, this administration is considering preemptive concessions--a huge rollback of sanctions, squandering our leverage, just to leap back into a failed nuclear deal. I sincerely hope these reports prove to be wrong. It is difficult to believe an American President would consider removing terrorism- or missile-related sanctions at the very moment Iranian rockets are raining down on Israel, Iranian-backed militia are attacking American facilities in Iraq, and Iranian missiles are being trained on Saudi Arabia. I cannot understand why the administration is considering any sanctions relief to induce Tehran back into the Obama deal in the first place. It would be total malpractice to squander our leverage just to jump back into a flawed deal. That kind of preemptive capitulation would make negotiating a better deal much, much more difficult. Iran's own Foreign Minister has lamented that the terror masterminds of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps basically run the country. So what on Earth does our administration think the successors of Soleimani would do with another influx of cash? If the administration will stay smart, stay tough, and work toward a better deal that truly halts Iran's nuclear and missile programs, as well as a strategy to confront Iranian terrorism, then the President will find support and partnership from the Republican side. But if the administration chooses policies that leave America weaker and the world more dangerous, Republicans will stand up for the right course. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2501 | null | 2,933 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. On one final matter, the attacks being directed at innocent Israeli citizens are coming from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad. Both these terrorist groups receive support from Iran. The regime in Tehran is the most active state sponsor of terrorism in the entire world. The regime supports Shia terrorists, Sunni terrorists, and secular terrorists. Many of the rockets now raining down on Israel cities are gifts from Iran, technologies of terror honed by Iran's proxies in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Days ago, the U.S. Navy seized weapons on a vessel that appears to have been dispatched from Iran bound for Yemen to fuel the violent Houthi terrorists, in violation of the U.N. embargo. Just last night, the Houthis again fired missiles against Saudi Arabia. Public reporting suggests Iran's proxies, on top of assassinating Iraqi protesters, are stepping up attacks on the U.S. and coalition presence in Iraq as well. Iran is emboldened by our retreat from Afghanistan. They are eager to challenge an administration that appears desperate to return to a failed deal. What former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said this week about weakness inviting challenge from China and Russia applies to Iran as well. The answer is not accommodation; it is America's strength. But reportedly, this administration is considering preemptive concessions--a huge rollback of sanctions, squandering our leverage, just to leap back into a failed nuclear deal. I sincerely hope these reports prove to be wrong. It is difficult to believe an American President would consider removing terrorism- or missile-related sanctions at the very moment Iranian rockets are raining down on Israel, Iranian-backed militia are attacking American facilities in Iraq, and Iranian missiles are being trained on Saudi Arabia. I cannot understand why the administration is considering any sanctions relief to induce Tehran back into the Obama deal in the first place. It would be total malpractice to squander our leverage just to jump back into a flawed deal. That kind of preemptive capitulation would make negotiating a better deal much, much more difficult. Iran's own Foreign Minister has lamented that the terror masterminds of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps basically run the country. So what on Earth does our administration think the successors of Soleimani would do with another influx of cash? If the administration will stay smart, stay tough, and work toward a better deal that truly halts Iran's nuclear and missile programs, as well as a strategy to confront Iranian terrorism, then the President will find support and partnership from the Republican side. But if the administration chooses policies that leave America weaker and the world more dangerous, Republicans will stand up for the right course. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2501 | null | 2,934 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the life and career of John Michael Elliott, who passed away suddenly on March 12, 2021. It is my honor to reflect on the legacy John built for his family and his community. For me and for my family, John M. Elliott was a faithful friend. Community, heritage, and history were all important to John. Born in Girardville, Schuylkill County, PA, on July 8, 1941. John later graduated magna cum laude from St. Vincent College, where he played varsity baseball. He received the American Jurisprudence Award from the Georgetown University Law Center and launched a successful 55-year legal career. John Elliott never forgot his Schuylkill County roots or Irish-American heritage. John was a skilled lawyer who became chairman and CEO of Elliott Greenleaf, the law firm he founded in 1990. To John, law was a profession as well as a means by which he could advance his greater purpose in life: to be of service to others. He was talented and tenacious. In 1979, he worked to right a past wrong and won a posthumous pardon for Irish immigrant and Schuylkill resident, Jack Kehoe. In 2002, he won an age-discrimination case that resulted in the largest single-plaintiff jury verdict in the history of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. John was generous with his legal talents and imparted his knowledge onto the next generation of lawyers as a lecturer for the American Law Institute, the American, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Bar Associations, the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. Outside of his law practice and lectures, John remained committed to service. He served as chairman of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, as a commissioner of the Delaware River Port Authority and as a member of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board. He was appointed by the U.S. Secretary of State to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe's Conferences on the Human Dimension in Paris and on Democratic Institutions in Oslo and was a Presidential appointee to the White House Coal Advisory Commission. He was a steadfast supporter of St. Patrick's College in Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland, for more than two decades. He was recognized twice for his efforts in 1995 when Cardinal Cahal B. Daly of Ireland dedicated the Salamanca Archives at the college in his honor and in 2001 when Cardinal Desmond Connell conferred upon him the Gold Medal of St. Patrick. John received many accolades during his lifetime. He was awarded an LL.D. by his alma mater, St. Vincent College, and The Legal Intelligencer's 2015 Lifetime Achievement Award. His greatest achievement and source of pride was his family. Those fortunate enough to receive John's oversized holiday card every year were treated to references to his children and their families and candid images of each one of his grandchildren. The passing of John M. Elliott is a terrible loss for his wife, Eileen; his brother Thomas and sister Margaret Mary; his children, Jack, Heather, Kirwan, Kyle, and Thomas; his 14 grandchildren; and the rest of his family and many friends as they mourn his loss. His death is also a loss for our Commonwealth. May he rest in peace. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2517-2 | null | 2,935 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At 12:06 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs: Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 49. An act to designate the National Pulse Memorial located at 1912 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, 32806, and for other purposes. H.R. 297. An act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the establishment of, and the potential land that could be included in, a unit of the National Forest System in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes. H.R. 433. An act to establish a grant program for family community organizations that provide support for individuals struggling with substance use disorder and their families. H.R. 478. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take certain land located in Pinal County, Arizona, into trust for the benefit of the Gila River Indian Community, and for other purposes. H.R. 586. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide best practices on student suicide awareness and prevention training and condition State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and tribal educational agencies receiving funds under section 520A of such Act to establish and implement a school-based student suicide awareness and prevention training policy. H.R. 721. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend projects relating to children and to provide access to school-based comprehensive mental health programs. H.R. 768. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the process for registrants to exercise due diligence upon discovering a suspicious order, and for other purposes. H.R. 810. An act to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes. H.R. 958. An act to codify maternity care coordination programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. H.R. 1205. An act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Center for Mental Health Services of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, to award grants to implement innovative approaches to securing prompt access to appropriate follow-on care for individuals who experience an acute mental health episode and present for care in an emergency department, and for other purposes. H.R. 1260. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a grant program supporting trauma center violence intervention and violence prevention programs, and for other purposes. H.R. 1324. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program to improve the identification, assessment, and treatment of patients in hospital emergency departments who are at risk of suicide, and for other purposes. H.R. 1448. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy, and to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide service dogs to veterans with mental illnesses who do not have mobility impairments. H.R. 1475. An act to address mental health issues for youth, particularly youth of color, and for other purposes. H.R. 1480. An act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to improve the detection, prevention, and treatment of mental health issues among public safety officers, and for other purposes. H.R. 1688. An act to amend the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act. H.R. 2208. An act to restore an opportunity for tribal economic development on terms that are equal and fair, and for other purposes. H.R. 2862. An act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national suicide prevention media campaign, and for other purposes. H.R. 2955. An act to authorize pilot program to expand and intensify surveillance of self-harm in partnership with State and local public health departments, to establish a grant program to provide self-harm and suicide prevention services in hospital emergency departments, and for other purposes. H.R. 2981. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the provision of high-quality service through the Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2517-5 | null | 2,936 |
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-1043. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule for Petition #IN-11359, Poly(oxy-1,2- ethanediyl), a, a'-{[[4-[(3-sulfophenyl)azo]phenyl]imino]di- 2,1-ethanediyl}bis[w-hydroxy-, monosodium salt (CAS Reg. No. N/A) for an Exemption Amendment Under 40 CFR 180.920'' (FRL No. 10022-79-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 11, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-1044. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Housing and Partnerships), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Umatilla Chemical Depot (UMCD) Ammunition Disposal Area (ADA) Cleanup Schedule''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1045. 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; Large Municipal Waste Combustors Negative Declaration Withdrawal for Designated Facilities and Pollutants'' (FRL No. 10023-60-Region 5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 11, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1046. 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; South Dakota; Revisions to Air Rules of South Dakota'' (FRL No. 10023-50-Region 8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 11, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1047. A communication from the Chief, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN1014-AA48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-1048. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1049. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1050. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the third annual report of the Department of Justice's Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties; to the Committees on Finance; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and the Judiciary. EC-1051. A communication from the Associate General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to four (4) vacancies in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1052. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-52, ``District Government Family Bereavement Leave Temporary Amendment Act of 2021''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1053. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-62, ``Coronavirus Support Temporary Amendment Act of 2021''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1054. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-78, ``New Convention Center Hotel Omnibus Financing and Development Temporary Amendment Act of 2021''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1055. A communication from the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the ninth annual report relative to the Department of Justice's activities regarding pre-1980 racially motivated homicides, as required by the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007 and third annual report to Congress pursuant to the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1056. A communication from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to Congress; First Quarter of fiscal year 2021''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-1057. A communication from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, four (4) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Transportation, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1058. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Application Limit for NCE FM New Stations in Upcoming 2021 Filing Window'' ((FCC 21-43) (MB Docket No. 20-343)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1059. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Service Contracts'' (RIN3072- AC84) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 29, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1060. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Part 95 IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 557'' (RIN2120-AA63) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1061. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule; Withdrawal; Revocation, Amendment, and Establishment of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes Due to the Decommissioning of the Greene County, Mississippi'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0815)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1062. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of V-67, V-190, and V-429; Establishment of T-312; and Revocation of V-125 and V-335 in the Vicinity of Marion, Illinois'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0944)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1063. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Part 95; IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 558'' (RIN2120-AA63) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1064. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Kearney, Nebraska'' (MB Docket No. 21- 55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1065. A communication from the Senior Attorney, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementing Certain Provisions of the TICKETS Act and Revisions to Denied Boarding Compensation and Domestic Baggage Liability Limits'' (RIN2105-AE81) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1066. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment and Cancellation of VOR Federal Airways V-49 and V-541 in the Vicinity of Decatur, Alabama'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0941)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1067. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment, Amendment, and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northeast United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-1146)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1068. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to the Separate Terminal Airspace Areas from Norton Sound Low, Woody Island Low, Control 1234L, and Control 1487L Offshore Airspace Areas; Alaska'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0823)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1069. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment, Establishment, and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Henderson, West Virginia'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA- 2020-0923)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1070. A communication from the Program Analyst, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Elimination of Termination Dates in Sections 76.64(I) and 76.65(f) of the Commission's Rules'' (DA 21-496) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1071. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Savannah, Georgia'' (MB Docket No. 21-57) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1072. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Cape Girardeau, Missouri'' (MB Docket No. 21-50) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1073. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Augusta, Georgia'' (MB Docket No. 21- 49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1074. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Lubbock, Texas'' (MB Docket No. 21-61) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 10, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2518-3 | null | 2,937 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 49. An act to designate the National Pulse Memorial located at 1912 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida, 32806, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 297. An act to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the establishment of, and the potential land that could be included in, a unit of the National Forest System in the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 433. An act to establish a grant program for family community organizations that provide support for individuals struggling with substance use disorder and their families; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 586. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide best practices on student suicide awareness and prevention training and condition State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and tribal educational agencies receiving funds under section 520A of such Act to establish and implement a school-based student suicide awareness and prevention training policy; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 721. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend projects relating to children and to provide access to school-based comprehensive mental health programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 768. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the process for registrants to exercise due diligence upon discovering a suspicious order, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 810. An act to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Chief Standing Bear National Historic Trail, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 958. An act to codify maternity care coordination programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 1205. An act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Center for Mental Health Services of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, to award grants to implement innovative approaches to securing prompt access to appropriate follow-on care for individuals who experience an acute mental health episode and present for care in an emergency department, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health , Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 1260. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a grant program supporting trauma center violence intervention and violence prevention programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 1324. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program to improve the identification, assessment, and treatment of patients in hospital emergency departments who are at risk of suicide, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 1448. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on dog training therapy, and to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide service dogs to veterans with mental illnesses who do not have mobility impairments; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 1475. An act to address mental health issues for youth, particularly youth of color, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 1480. An act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to improve the detection, prevention, and treatment of mental health issues among public safety officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 1688. An act to amend the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. H.R. 2208. An act to restore an opportunity for tribal economic development on terms that are equal and fair, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. H.R. 2862. An act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a national suicide prevention media campaign, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 2955. An act to authorize a pilot program to expand and intensify surveillance of self-harm in partnership with State and local public health departments, to establish a grant program to provide self-harm and suicide prevention services in hospital emergency departments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 2981. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure the provision of high-quality service through the Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2518 | null | 2,938 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-13. A joint memorial adopted by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico requesting the United States Congress to forward fund the Bureau of Indian Education Higher Education Grant Program; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Senate Joint Memorial 1 Whereas, the Bureau of Indian Affairs operates the Higher Education Grant Program as authorized by the Snyder Act and provides higher education scholarships; and Whereas, numerous Indian Tribes administer the Higher Education Grant Program through Public Law 93-638 Self- Determination contracts or through Public Law 100-472 Self- Governance compacts; and Whereas, the Federal Government routinely operates under continuing resolutions, which results in delayed funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs; consequently, payment of college scholarships and institutional disbursements are delayed; and Whereas, this is problematic for Indian college students who depend on these scholarship payments to pay for tuition, books and room and board; all too often, Indian students arrive on campus with little or no money; and Whereas, there is precedent for Forward Funding of Federal Indian Education Programs in that Bureau of Indian Education Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade schools and tribally controlled colleges and universities have been Forward Funded; and Whereas, Forward Funding is a budget authority that is made available for obligation in the last quarter of the Fiscal Year for the financing of ongoing activities during the next Fiscal Year; and Whereas, Forward Funding achieves two outcomes: it provides funding for two years in advance and makes funds available on July 1 of each year, and it shields the Grant Program from government shutdowns, which allows Tribes to disburse grant funds ahead of the Academic Year: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico, That the New Mexico Legislature request the United States Congress to take affirmative steps to Forward Fund the Higher Education Grant Program of the Bureau of Indian Education; and be it further Resolved, that copies of this memorial be transmitted to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, the New Mexico Congressional Delegation, the Tribal Leadership of all twenty-three Indian Nations, Tribes and Pueblos in New Mexico and the Secretary of Indian Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2520 | null | 2,939 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 2021, AS ``NATIONAL POLICE WEEK'' Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Markey, Mr. Scott of Florida, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Sullivan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Risch, Mr. Coons, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. King, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Casey, Mr. Moran, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Thune, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Warnock, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Braun, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Burr, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Young, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Brown, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Daines, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Lee, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Schatz,Mr. Lankford, Mr. Booker, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Portman, Mr. Romney, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Paul, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Graham, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Cruz) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 215 Whereas Federal, State, local, and Tribal police officers, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officers across the United States are charged with-- (1) protecting and serving their communities and the public; (2) pursuing justice for all individuals; and (3) performing the duties of a law enforcement officer with fidelity to the constitutional and civil rights of the public the officers serve; Whereas law enforcement officers swear an oath to uphold the public trust even though, through the performance of the duties of a law enforcement officer, the officers may become targets for senseless acts of violence; Whereas, through a pandemic and at the cost of their own lives, law enforcement officers have continued to bravely meet the call of duty to ensure the security of their neighborhoods and communities; Whereas the resolve to service is clearly demonstrated by law enforcement officers across the United States who have tragically fallen ill as a result of, or passed away due to complications from, COVID-19 contracted in the line of duty; Whereas, in 1962, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed Public Law 87-726 (36 U.S.C. 136) (referred to in this preamble as the ``Joint Resolution''), which authorizes the President to proclaim May 15 of every year as Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of the Federal, State, and local officers who have been killed, disabled, or otherwise injured in the line of duty; Whereas the Joint Resolution also authorizes the President to designate the week in which Peace Officers Memorial Day falls as National Police Week; Whereas the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, dedicated on October 15, 1991, is the national monument to honor those law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty; Whereas Peace Officers Memorial Day, 2021, honors the 306 law enforcement officers, who served with valor, dignity, and integrity, killed in the line of duty in 2020, including-- (1) Raymond C. Abear; (2) Daniel R. Abramovitz; (3) Olufela A. Adebiyi; (4) Agustin Aguilar, Jr.; (5) Louis H. Aguirre; (6) Tab T. Ali; (7) L. Dale Allen; (8) Jared M. Allison; (9) Keith S. Allison; (10) Michael H. Ambrosino; (11) Cornelius B. Anderson; (12) Alexander A. Arango; (13) Levi K. Arnold, Sr.; (14) Jane A. Ash; (15) George B. Baker; (16) Richard M. Barry; (17) Kejuane A. Bates; (18) Shannon S. Bennett; (19) Kendle G. Blackburn; (20) James H. Blair; (21) Tamarris L. Bohannon; (22) Thomas E. Booz; (23) Raymond A. Boseman; (24) Lebouath A. Boua; (25) Jairo A. Bravo; (26) Brad A. Briscoe; (27) Mark C. Brown; (28) Lemuel D. Bruce, Jr.; (29) Joseph J. Bullock; (30) Jose A. Buso; (31) Jorge Cabrera; (32) Irving G. Callender; (33) Craig L. Capolino; (34) Robert A. Cardona; (35) Christopher D. Carney; (36) Gregory S. Carnicle; (37) Carlo J. Cayabyab; (38) Dudley J. Champ; (39) Angela D. Chavers; (40) Ismael Z. Chavez; (41) Andrew D. Clark; (42) Michael W. Clegg; (43) Coy D. Coffman, Jr.; (44) Harry M. Cohen; (45) James D. Coleman; (46) Donafay Collins; (47) Kevin D. Collins; (48) Michael A. Conners; (49) James M. Cornacchia; (50) Efren Coronel; (51) Charlie J. Cortez; (52) Kaitlin M. Cowley; (53) Larry D. Crom; (54) Christopher D. Cronin; (55) Christopher M. Cunningham, Sr.; (56) Jennifer M. Czarnecki; (57) James L. Dancy; (58) William J. Darnell; (59) Norman O. Daye, Jr.; (60) Angel M. de la Fuente; (61) Roel de la Fuente; (62) Timothy P. de la Fuente; (63) Lyle G. Denny; (64) Thomas W. Devlin; (65) Anthony H. Dia; (66) Jose A. Diaz-Ayala; (67) Marco DiFranco; (68) William E. Doubraski; (69) Paul P. Dunn; (70) Stephen C. Dutton; (71) Mark R. Eckenrode; (72) Christopher L. Elder; (73) Stanley C. Elrod; (74) Kurtis J. Enget; (75) Terrence A. Engle; (76) Tiffany Victoria B. Enriquez; (77) Christopher E. Ewing; (78) Kenneth D. Foley; (79) Maurice C. Ford; (80) Randall C. French; (81) Frank L. Gagliano; (82) Tracy A. Gaines; (83) Herbert J. Garcia; (84) Jose A. Garcia Vazquez; (85) William R. Garner; (86) Edelmiro Garza, Jr.; (87) Steven M. Gaudet, Jr.; (88) Maria Gibbs; (89) Andrew J. Gillette; (90) Raul A. Gomez; (91) Marco A. Gonzales; (92) Jonathon K. Goodman, Sr.; (93) Michael H. Grannis; (94) Kaia L. Grant; (95) Gail S. Green-Gilliam; (96) Rickie Groves; (97) Lawrence A. Guarnieri; (98) Claude W. Guillory; (99) Damon C. Gutzwiller; (100) Parnell L. Guyton; (101) Mark A. Hall, Sr.; (102) Robert J. Hall; (103) Jacob W. Hancher; (104) Kenneth W. Harbin; (105) Ryan P. Hendrix; (106) Michael L. Henry, Jr.; (107) Marylou P. Hernandez-Armer; (108) Tyler A. Herndon; (109) L. Mario Herrera; (110) Avery D. Hillman; (111) Curt Holland; (112) Charles E. Holt III; (113) Cody N. Holte; (114) Jeffrey C. Hopkins; (115) Glenn D. Hutto, Jr.; (116) Kenny B. Ingram; (117) Thomas M. Inman; (118) Anthony T. Jackson, Sr.; (119) Domingo Jasso III; (120) Benjamin M. Jenkins; (121) Aubrey T. Johnson, Jr.; (122) Cassie M. Johnson; (123) Craig V. Johnson; (124) Eric T. Johnson; (125) Te'Juan F. Johnson; (126) Waldis V. Johnson; (127) Antoine P. Jones; (128) Jerry W. Jones; (129) Lynn D. Jones; (130) Jason W. Judd; (131) William C. Jumper, Jr.; (132) Kaulike S. G. Kalama; (133) Ethan R. Kaskin; (134) Julian L. Keen, Jr.; (135) David W. Kellywood; (136) Craig L. King; (137) James T. Kirk; (138) Jason M. Knox; (139) Christopher S. Korzilius; (140) Philip Kraverotis; (141) John J. Kuhar, Jr.; (142) Jeremy C. LaDue; (143) Joseph W. Lange; (144) Shirley J. Lanning; (145) Ernest Leal, Jr.; (146) Breann R. Leath; (147) Destin S. Legieza; (148) Justin C. Lenz; (149) Kenneth R. Lester; (150) Erik L. Lloyd; (151) Marshall L. London, Jr.; (152) Anthony J. Lucanto; (153) Nathan J. Lyday; (154) Harold F. MacGilvray, Jr.; (155) Brian L. Magee; (156) Jose P. Marquez; (157) Clifford W. Martin, Sr.; (158) Glenn T. F. Martinez; (159) Lionel Q. Martinez, Jr.; (160) Miguel A. Martinez Ortiz; (161) Wyatt C. Maser; (162) Alan D. McCollum; (163) Bronc J. McCoy; (164) Richard McCoy; (165) Christopher B. McDonnell; (166) Anthony C. McGrew: (167) Adam S. McMillan; (168) Brian K. McNair; (169) Kenneth R. Meisel; (170) Jon M. Melvin; (171) Juan Menchaca, Jr.; (172) Maria L. Mendez; (173) Daniel L. Mendoza III; (174) Frank R. Milillo, Sr.; (175) Steven A. Minor; (176) Bobby R. Montgomery; (177) Angelanette Moore; (178) Titus T. Moore; (179) Jose C. Mora, Jr.; (180) Gabe Morales; (181) Johan Mordan; (182) William T. Morris; (183) Berisford A. Morse; (184) Michael S. Mosher; (185) Dale E. Multer; (186) Eric K Murray; (187) Alfonso H. Murrieta; (188) Benny N. Napoleon; (189) Mikkos L. Newman; (190) Ronald Newman; (191) Charles E. Norton; (192) Jose M. Novoa; (193) Daniel G. Oaks; (194) Richard W. O'Brien, Jr.; (195) James R. O'Connor IV; (196) Thomas A. Ogungbire; (197) Dennis R. Oliver, Jr.; (198) Nicholas D. O'Rear; (199) Andy Ornelas; (200) S. Renee Padgett; (201) Leroy G. Palmer; (202) Omar E. Palmer; (203) Donald E. Parker; (204) Jonathan D. Parnell; (205) Betty A. Pascarella; (206) AlTerek S. Patterson; (207) Luis O. Pena, Jr.; (208) Corey Pendergrass; (209) Nelson Perdomo; (210) Ricardo Perez-Ortiz; (211) Alexander R. Pettiway, Jr.; (212) Jason K. Phan; (213) Sypraseuth Phouangphrachanh; (214) Dylan S. Pickle; (215) Kietrell M. Pitts; (216) Jack V. Polimeni; (217) Harold L. Preston; (218) Dale T. Provins, Jr.; (219) Nancy Puca; (220) Charles O. Pugh II; (221) Justin R. Putnam; (222) Allan F. Ray; (223) Stephen L. Raymond; (224) Aldemar Rengifo, Jr.; (225) Nicholas L. Reyna; (226) John A. Rhoden; (227) M. Wayne Rhodes; (228) Donna M. Richardson-Below; (229) Richard Rios; (230) Sheila J. Rivera; (231) George B. Robare; (232) Charles E. Roberts III; (233) Oscar W. Rocha; (234) Rodrick L. Rodgers; (235) Mayra M. Rodriguez-Burgado; (236) Robert W. Rogers; (237) Mark J. Romutis; (238) Enrique J. Rositas, Jr.; (239) LaKiya L. Rouse; (240) Caleb D. Rule; (241) Alex Ruperto; (242) Nolan J. Sanders; (243) Jose A. Santana; (244) Lucas G. Saucedo, Jr.; (245) Dean M. Savard; (246) Jeffrey A. Scalf; (247) Justin R. Schaffer; (248) David L. Schmidt; (249) Raymond J. Scholwinski; (250) Francesco S. Scorpo; (251) Brent W. P. Scrimshire; (252) Robert W. Sealock; (253) Bryant Searcy; (254) Jeffery W. Sewell; (255) Jonathan P. Shoop; (256) Jason N. Shuping; (257) James M. Skernivitz; (258) Christopher A. Smith; (259) Jeremy D. Smith; (260) Patrick D. Snook; (261) John D. Songy; (262) Joseph Spinosa; (263) Steven Splan; (264) Caleb H. Starr; (265) Philip E. Street; (266) Donald K. Sumner; (267) Robert C. Sunukjian; (268) Jarid D. Taylor; (269) Kenterrous D. Taylor; (270) Oscar J. Temores; (271) Marcus Thomas; (272) Virgil L. Thomas; (273) Katherine M. Thyne; (274) Kevin P. Trahan; (275) Richard C. Treadwell; (276) Marvin W. Trejo; (277) Johnny R. Tunches; (278) Herschel R. Turner, Jr.; (279) Eric J. Twisdale; (280) Brendan P. Unitt; (281) Randy M. Vallot; (282) Gary L. Walker; (283) James Walker, Jr.; (284) Travis C. Wallace; (285) Christopher R. Walsh; (286) Daniel G. Walters; (287) Lowery Ware, Sr.; (288) Marshall L. Waters, Jr.; (289) Allan J. Weber; (290) Lee R. Weber; (291) James W. Weston, Jr.; (292) Anthony L. White; (293) Sheldon G. Whiteman; (294) Richard E. Whitten; (295) Kelvin D. Wilcher; (296) Charlie Williams, Jr.; (297) Keith D. Williams, Sr.; (298) Sharon M. Williams; (299) Stephen P. Williams; (300) Dwight E. Willis; (301) Jackson R. Winkeler; (302) Richard A. Wright; (303) Ching K. Yan; (304) Sheena D. Yarbrough-Powell; (305) Terrell D. Young; and (306) Joseph M. Youse; and Whereas, since the beginning of 2021, 119 law enforcement officers from across the United States have made the ultimate sacrifice: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of May 9 through May 15, 2021, as ``National Police Week''; (2) expresses strong support for law enforcement officers across the United States in the efforts that those officers undertake to build safer and more secure communities; (3) recognizes the need to ensure that law enforcement officers have the equipment, training, and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of the officers and the public they serve; (4) recognizes the law enforcement community for the continual selfless acts of sacrifice and bravery carried out by the members of that community; (5) recognizes that, even through a pandemic and at the cost of their own lives, law enforcement officers continue to show up and serve their neighborhoods and communities; (6) acknowledges that police officers and other law enforcement personnel, especially those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, should be remembered and honored; (7) expresses condolences to the loved ones of each law enforcement officer who has made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty; and (8) encourages the people of the United States to observe National Police Week with appropriate ceremonies and activities that promote awareness of the vital role that law enforcement officers perform in service to the United States and the communities in which those officers serve. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-05-13-pt1-PgS2527-2 | null | 2,940 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. TAKANO: Committee on Veterans' Affairs. H.R. 2167. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for extensions of the time limitations for use of entitlement under Department of Veterans Affairs educational assistance programs by reason of school closures due to emergency and other situations, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-34). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state on the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-05-14-pt1-PgH2355 | null | 2,941 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. WARREN. Madam President, almost exactly a year ago today, I stood here and called for Congress to take action to protect renters before the expiration of the eviction moratorium enacted during the early weeks of the pandemic. Today, like a year ago, we are only hours away from a fully preventable housing crisis. The CDC's eviction moratorium expires tonight at midnight, putting millions of families still recovering from the economic fallout of COVID-19 at risk for losing their homes, from losing the bedrock of their safety and stability. Right now, more than 11 million renters report being behind on rent. That is one out of every seven renters. And people of color, who have been hit hardest by this pandemic, are disproportionately at risk. Nearly one-quarter of Black renters report being behind on rental payments. Last year, Congress worked together to account for that staggering reality. We provided more than $45 billion in emergency rental assistance. That money is now finally getting into the hands of landlords around the country. It is helping families who lost jobs get caught up on the missed payments. But the money is getting out too slowly. Some States and local governments opened their assistance programs only last month. Some hadn't spent a single dollar by the beginning of June. Now that is starting to change. In June, States delivered more than $1.5 billion in emergency rental assistance. That money went to help nearly 300,000 households, but there are still billions of dollars to distribute and millions of families in need. We have the tools, and we have the funding. What we need is the time. Look, I agree that the eviction moratorium is not a long-term solution, but let me be very clear: it is the right short-term action. It is how we keep families safely in their homes while States deliver emergency aid. It is how we keep families who are starting to recover from the worst economic crisis of their lifetimes get back on their feet. Millions of jobs have been lost, businesses are still shuttered, and childcare for too many families is still a patchwork of uncertainty. The recovery underway in this country is historic, and it will continue, but it has not yet reached every family. But the need is not just economic. We are still in the throes of a public health emergency that is trending in the wrong direction. Cases of COVID-19 are rising. Hospitalizations and deaths are rising. The Delta variant is more contagious, threatening to spread faster among the half of the country that remains unvaccinated. Needlessly evicting families would risk escalating our public health crisis. The CDC understood that reality when it issued an eviction moratorium in September. The Agency was clear, and I want to quote the language they used: ``Housing stability helps protect health.'' That's right. Research shows that moratoriums aid in reducing infections and deaths due to COVID-19. And research also shows that when eviction moratoriums expire, there is an associated increase in COVID-19 and mortality. Yesterday, Congresswoman Cori Bush sent Members of Congress a letter. Congresswoman Bush has lived through eviction. She has been unhoused. And I want to quote her letter. She said: I know firsthand the trauma and devastation that comes with the violence of being evicted, and we have a responsibility to do everything we can to prevent this trauma from being inflicted on our neighbors and communities. Cori Bush is exactly right. My office has heard from so many people in Massachusetts who are terrified about the possibility of losing their homes. I know that each of my colleagues here must be hearing these stories. In every State in this country there are families sitting around their kitchen table right now trying to figure out how to survive a devastating, disruptive, and unnecessary eviction. Congress has a choice to make. It is a privilege for us to represent people, and we have a duty to exercise our power on their behalf. Every Senator in this Chamber should be grateful that they have the power right now to keep families safe. My colleagues understood the stakes in March of 2020, when Congress passed the CARES Act eviction moratorium into law. They understood the stakes when we provided historic funding for emergency rental assistance. I urge them to join me now in continuing this lifesaving protection as States distribute assistance to keep renters housed; to keep landlords paid; and, most of all, to keep families safe. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. WARREN | Senate | CREC-2021-07-31-pt1-PgS5228-2 | null | 2,942 |
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-1597. A communication from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``American Rescue Plan Act Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Plan'' (RIN1810-AB64) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1598. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fraud and Abuse; Removal of Safe Harbor Protection for Rebates Involving Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Creation of New Safe Harbor Protection for Certain Point- of-Sale Reductions in Price on Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Certain Pharmacy Benefit Manager Service Fees; Additional Delated Effective Date'' (RIN0936-AA08) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1599. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of General Counsel, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation'' ((RIN1801-AA21) (34 CFR Parts 36 and 668)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1600. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2020 Report to Congress State Pilot Grant Program for Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1601. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Public Health Data System Modernization Strategy and Implementation Plan''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1602. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2020 Report to Congress Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1603. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing Benefits'' (29 CFR Part 4044) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1604. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``American Rescue Plan Act Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Plan'' (RIN1810-AB64) received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1605. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1606. A communication from the Regulation Coordinator, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Flexibility for Head Start Designation Renewals in Certain Emergencies'' (RIN0970-AC85) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1607. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Calculation of the Endowment Factor to Allocations to Historically Black Colleges and Universities under Section 314(a)(2)(A) of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021'' (RIN1840-AD63) received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1608. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``American Rescue Plan Act Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools Program'' (RIN1810-AB63) received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1609. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Requirements; American Rescue Plan Act Homeless Children and Youth Program'' (RIN1801-AA24) received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1610. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Requirements for Foreign and Domestic Establishment Registration and Listing for Human Drugs, Including Drugs That Are Regulated Under a Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs; Correcting Amendments'' (RIN0910-AA49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1611. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medical Devices; Technical Amendments'' (Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0246) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1612. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1613. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing Benefits'' (29 CFR Part 4044) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1614. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Guanidinoacetic Acid'' (Docket No. FDA-2019-F-5401) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1615. A communication from the Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2021-05, Small Entity Compliance Guide'' (FAC 2021- 05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1616. A communication from the Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation; Federal Acquisition Circular 2021-05, Introduction'' (FAC 2021-05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1617. A communication from the Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Eightieth Financial Statement for the period of October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1618. A communication from the Acting Director of Equal Employment Opportunity, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's 2020 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1619. A communication from the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and a Management Report for the period from October 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1620. A communication from the Chief Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the District of Columbia Family Court Act; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1621. A communication from the Deputy Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, transmitting, pursuant to law, two (2) reports relative to vacancies in the Federal Labor Relations Authority, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1622. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1623. A communication from the Senior Legislative Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bureau's fiscal year 2020 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1624. A communication from the Agency Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's fiscal year 2020 annual report relative to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1625. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and a Management Report for the period from October 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1626. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 20, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1627. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-111, ``District's Opportunity to Purchase Amendment Act of 2021''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1628. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-1629. A communication from the Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Use of Bureau-Operated Schools by Third Parties Under Lease Agreements and Fundraising Activity by Bureau-Operated School Personnel'' (RIN1076-AF55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-1630. A communication from the Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments; Annual Adjustments'' (RIN1076-AF52) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-1631. A communication from the Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention; Minimum Standards of Character'' (RIN1076-AF53) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-1632. A communication from the Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Columbia River In Lieu Fishing Sites'' (RIN1076-AF61) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-1633. A communication from the Assistant Director for Legislative Affairs, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. EC-1634. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 20, 2021; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. EC-1635. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. EC-1636. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mailing Address Changes Related to USPTO Deposit Accounts and Patent Maintenance Fees'' (RIN0651-AD52) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1637. A communication from the Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of adjustments to certain timing provisions of the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1638. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Changes to Representation of Others before the United States Patent and Trademark Office'' (RIN0651-AC91) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1639. A communication from the Chief Financial Officer of the National Tropical Botanical Garden, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to an audit of the Garden for the period from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1640. A communication from the Chief of the Regulatory Coordination Division, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Strengthening the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Classification Program , Implementation of Vacatur'' (RIN1615-AC13) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-07-31-pt1-PgS5230-5 | null | 2,943 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is hard to keep up with Donald Trump, particularly his Big Lie. Like the coronavirus, it is constantly mutating. A couple days ago, I read that one of the most vocal competitors of that Big Lie, Mike Lindell, the MyPillow Guy, has pulled all his advertising from FOX News. Why? Because FOX refused to sell him airtime for a commercial repeating the dangerous, discredited lie that the Presidential election was stolen. It is hard to imagine what level of conspiracy craziness it takes for even FOX Network to say that goes too far, but we have reached that point when it comes to the MyPillow Guy. I don't know how Mr. MyPillow is going to peddle his products now. Maybe he will stand on the street corner handing out flyers next to one of those blow-up, scarecrow balloons that gyrates wildly in the wind. At this point, it is hard to rule anything out. But there is another development on the Big Lie that is far darker and more disturbing. According to recent published reports, former President Donald Trump is now denouncing the brave police officers who testified last week before the select committee in the House about the mob insurrection on January 6 in this Chamber, in this Capitol. He is disparaging them with a word which I will not repeat. His attacks on these officers is reprehensible and inexcusable and totally predictable. These officers and hundreds more battled a murderous mob sent to the Capitol by President Donald Trump to overturn an election. He sent that mob to attack this Capitol and American democracy because he couldn't bear the shame of losing. He wanted to overturn the election and cling to power like a tin-pot dictator. The police officers he now denounces still bear the wounds from the insurrection he ordered. Some other Trump supporters have attacked at least one of the police officers who testified as a ``crisis actor.'' This morning's New York Times has an article by Maureen Dowd, which I would like to quote from. She is speaking of Laura Ingraham, one of the political pundits on FOX Network. It says: Laura Ingraham even gave awards--``Best Exaggerated Performance,'' ``Best Political Performance'' . . . `'for the Performance in an Action Role''--to the police who recounted their terrifying battles with the mob. ``They came across as political actors,'' Ingraham said. ``That doesn't help anything. We want the police to be just police.'' Even as Ingraham was describing as ``actors'' those cops who faced danger, Erin Smith was trying to get the death of her husband, a veteran Washington patrolman--the second officer to take his life after the insurrection--reclassified from a suicide to a death in the line of duty. After he was hit in the head with a metal pole during the rampage, he fell into a dark depression, his wife told The Times. On the way to his shift, he pulled his car off the George Washington Parkway and killed himself with his service weapon. More than casting the police who told their stories as drama queens and fabulists, four House Republicans, representing the ``dregs of Congress''-- In Maureen Dowd's words-- turned up at a Washington jail on Thursday to shine a light on the plight of insurrection suspects. One of them, Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona, hailed them as ``political prisoners.'' Since when do Republicans care more about criminals in jail than the cops who put them there? Since when do they coddle domestic terrorists? Since Donald Trump. There was a point decades ago where, in desperation to stop the ravings of a Senator from Wisconsin, a man named Joseph Welch said to the Senator: Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame? That is what Joseph Welch famously asked Senator Joseph McCarthy when McCarthy tried to turn his vicious smear campaign against members of the U.S. Army after his lies had already broken the lives of so many Americans. Now an angry, embittered ex-President is turning his vicious smear tactics against a different group of democracy's defenders. It is pointless to ask if the former President feels shame or decency or empathy. We learned long ago that he is incapable of such feelings. So I ask my Republican colleagues: What do you say? At long last, will youtell the former President ``enough''? ``no more''? ``you have gone too far''? ``this must stop''? You were all here on January 6, as I was. You know those Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police risked their lives to defend you and me. Will you now defend them when they are being smeared so scandalously We are here on a Sunday, working to pass a historic bipartisan plan to build the backbone of a strong 21st century economy that benefits all Americans. Can't we also have a bipartisan backbone to defend the men and women who defended the Capitol on January 6? A few minutes ago, I walked into the building. They were there. You know they are going to be there to protect you, the men and women of the Capitol Police. Theirs is a dangerous job now, more dangerous because of January 6. We salute them for their bravery, and those who have questioned that bravery have really gone too far. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5234-3 | null | 2,944 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. SINEMA. Mr. President, it is my honor and privilege this evening to join with my fellow 9 Senators of the G-10 who have been working together for months now, along with an additional 12 colleagues, who together--the 22 of us Senators--have worked long and hard with each other and with the White House to introduce this evening the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We know that this has been a long and sometimes difficult process, but we are proud this evening to announce this legislation, and we look forward, very much, to working with our colleagues in a collaborative and open way over the coming days to workthrough this historic investment in infrastructure in our country and to come to agreement in the U.S. Senate to move forward with this historic piece of legislation. Now, I know that many of my colleagues will talk about some of the virtues of the legislation and the great things that it will do for the States that we all are proud to represent, the States that all of us Senators represent across this country. But what I would like to direct my brief remarks to this evening are not the details of this legislative text--though they are significant, and I think they are very meaningful and will have an impact on the daily lives of Americans. What I would like to speak about is the very process. I know it has been difficult, and I know it has been long, and what I am proud to say is that is what our forefathers intended when they created a system of government that required Republicans and Democrats to come together in a coequal branch of government and work with each other and with the administration to find legislation and solutions that meet the needs of our country, individuals, and families, companies, communities. It is difficult; it is time consuming; and it is exactly what our country insisted and demands of us every single day: to take the time to work with each other to find common ground, to compromise, and to be willing to work with each other--to give a little, to get a little--in order to achieve what is right and what is best for the American people. I think the process we are embarking on this evening, as we soon will join together with our colleagues of both political parties, representing every State across the country, is an important one, and it sends a message to the individuals across this country and, indeed, to individuals across this world that the U.S. Government can work. It is difficult; it is time consuming; it can be hard; but this very process of finding bipartisan compromise and working together to overcome obstacles to achieve the objectives that the American people are depending upon us to do is the very heart and the very core of why each of us serves in this government, and I, for one--in addition to being tired, I, for one, am incredibly proud of this process. It is why I ran for office, and I believe it is why we have all run for office: to work together to overcome differences, to find solutions, and to make a difference in the lives of the American people. As we will see in the coming days, as we hear from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, offering amendments and adjustments to this legislation, and, ultimately, I believe, passing this legislation out of the Senate, with a strong bipartisan record, we will continue to once again demonstrate to our country and to the world that we can, indeed, do our jobs; that we can legislate; that we can work together; and that we can put aside our own political differences for the greater good of our country. I thank the Presiding Officer. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. SINEMA | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5235-3 | null | 2,945 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on another topic, the most frustrating aspect of America's COVID response isn't that we are being asked to wear masks again--I have my mask here--in COVID hotspots; the most maddening part of this pandemic is that Americans could have put this virus in their rearview mirror long ago. We could have saved thousands of lives. Over 600,000 Americans are dead from COVID-19. We could have prevented a great deal of the economic pain this pandemic has inflicted on America's families and businesses. We are here now, battling a new surge and a more dangerous strain of coronavirus, in large part, because the people with big megaphones chose, cynically and cowardly and cruelly, to spread doubt and denial about this virus and the vaccines that prevent it. Their lies cost lives. Fortunately, this past week seems to mark a turning point for America. Leaders in both the public and private sectors are stepping up for the common good and requiring their workers to get vaccinated or to get tested regularly to show they are not sick and not a danger to others. If you want the job, get the jab. It is time. President Biden also announced that all Federal workers must get vaccinated or tested. I commend his decision. That is leadership, and it will save lives. And to some who come to the floor of the Senate and to other places to say that the government should operate more like a business, take note: Some of the most innovative employers--Google, Netflix, Disney--have also announced that their workers will have to be vaccinated, and there will be more. Recently, several of our Republican colleagues took to the floor of the Senate. They even invited over their fan club from the House. They lined up right behind the speakers over on the Republican side of the aisle. And they are very strong in their feelings that the Speaker of the House should not require Members to wear masks. Well, there is a reason for it, and the suggestion that the CDC has flip-flopped or that Dr. Fauci has flip-flopped belies the reality that the virus has flip-flopped. We are now dealing with something known as a Delta variant. There is an urgent message for all Americans who have not been vaccinated: While you have been avoiding vaccination or waiting for just the right moment, the enemy--the COVID-19 virus--has not been idle. The Delta variant has arrived in a big and deadly way. Here is what Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the Director of the CDC, said: The Delta variant is more aggressive . . . more [transferable] than previously circulating strains. It is one of the most infectious respiratory [viruses] we know of . . . in my 20-year career. Now, in case you dismiss Dr. Walensky as some nonsense-talking Democratic Socialist and you prefer the expertise of Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham on FOX, I hope you will not ignore the grim reality in the actual numbers: Over 90 percent of those infected, hospitalized, and dying from the coronavirus Delta variant are unvaccinated--over 90 percent. People infected by the coronavirus Delta variant may carry 1,000 times--1,000 times--as much virus and for a longer period of time as those who were infected with the original coronavirus. Those infected were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized than those infected by the original coronavirus. Vaccines still are effective against the Delta variant and coronavirus. But don't believe, if you are unvaccinated, that you are safe around vaccinated people. Early new data shows that fully vaccinated people may be able to spread the Delta variant to others as readily as unvaccinated people. In fact, it gets down to the very basics: Until America decides to make vaccination part of our survival, we will continue, sadly, to witness infections; hospitalizations; and deaths and, God forbid, more variants. Leaders in both public and private sectors are stepping up. We should too. People should be tested regularly, if they insist on not being vaccinated, to show that they are not sick and not a danger to others. The COVID vaccines are safe, free, readily available, and almost miraculously effective, and they are the way out of this pandemic. One more point about COVID protection: Many on the right are spitting mad and filled with feigned confusion about the CDC's new guidance urging people in COVID hotspots to wear masks indoors even if you are vaccinated. They say: How can we trust an Agency that keeps changing its rules? Because the virus is changing and the guidance is changing accordingly. The virus has mutated and gained strength because tens of millions of Americans have refused to wear masks or get vaccinated. Deliberate distortion and outraged speeches aren't going to stop the virus. If you want to take off the mask for good--and I sure do--if you want your kids to go to school without being burdened by a mask--and I certainly do--we need to tell the truth. Listen to the experts. Get the vaccine. Getting this virus behind us for good is the only way we can reopen America's economy. In the longer term, the way to remain the world's preeminent economy is to invest in the fundamentals of strong, sustainable growth and shared prosperity. It is good that the Senate is debating this plan. I hope that it passes this week as soon as possible, as well as our budget resolution. But in the meantime, we cannot ignore that the Nation is still in the throes of a pandemic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a courtroom. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5235 | null | 2,946 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I concur with the comments of my colleague from Arizona. She put it well. This is a really important bill because it takes our aging and outdated infrastructure in this country and modernizes it, and that is good for everybody. It is good for the truckdriver who can leave home, knowing he is going to be safer on our roads and bridges. It is good for the mom who commutes to work and is sick of waiting in rush-hour traffic on the way to work and on the way back because she would rather spend more time with her kids. It is good for the factory worker in Ohio who makes things that need to be transported. We make tanks in Ohio; we make cars in Ohio; we make washing machines. They go all over the world. Our ports--our land ports and our seaports--are inefficient and backed up. It is good for our consumers who are waiting for products from all over the world because our ports are backed up. Our infrastructure is way behind, and we will talk a lot more about that over the next couple of days with some very specific data as to how we have fallen behind, how we are not competitive anymore, how China has surpassed us in terms of infrastructure. As a percent of their economy, they spend about four times more than we do. Why? Because they get it. This helps make the economy more efficient, more productive, and, therefore, it actually returns an investment to the American people. We are also going to hear about how it is not going to increase inflation like some of the other spending that is being talked about around here, partly because it is long-term spending for capital assets. It is spending that is going to add to the supply side, meaning it is actually going to be counterinflationary and create more jobs. We hear all about that, but one thing that I do want to make sure that we hear about tonight is the fact that this process of starting from the center out has worked. People have talked about infrastructure in this city forever. President Trump had a $1.5 trillion infrastructure package. Ours is $550 billion, by the way. Five percent of his was paid for. Ours is paid for. We made a commitment early on that we were going to do two things: One, we were going to focus on core infrastructure. So, when President Biden introduced a $2.65 trillion bill and called it infrastructure, we said: Well, there is some good stuff in there, but let's pull out the good stuff, the core infrastructure because a lot of it had nothing to do with infrastructure. And, second, we said: You know what? We are not going to do it by raising taxes. We are not going to hurt the American worker more and make America less competitive in this; we are going to do just the opposite. We kept to those two principles, and I am so proud of that; that tonight we can say the amendment, the substitute amendment, is going to be offered, and it is going to keep to that commitment of $555 billion--no new taxes, core infrastructure only--and it is great for the American people. I want to thank a few people who got us here who are going to be able, over the next few days, to tell us in great detail of the role they played because it was significant on every one of their parts. First, of course, Senator Sinema; she has been the one who has kept us on track, and that has been very important, but also to my colleagues who are here tonight on the floor, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Mitt Romney, Senator Bill Cassidy--my Republican colleagues whom we have worked with over the last 4 months--and each has made huge contributions to this. I want to thank the White House for their work with us because they said early on: OK. We want to do this, too, in a bipartisan way. We said: OK. If you are serious, we do too. And, sure enough, we negotiated. It was tough, and we had a lot of differences, but we were able to get to this point tonight. Just as important is the group on the other side of the aisle who made this work, and I see my colleague Senator Manchin here. I see Senator Warner here. It looks like he really wants to speak. I see Senator Shaheen here, who is about to speak, and I see Senator Tester wandering around here somewhere. These are the folks on the other side of the so-called G-10 who made it happen. And then a much bigger group. So to my colleagues who also helped in the 22 working groups we had in putting this together and did such a great job, Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, Jerry Moran, Chris Coons, Maggie Hassan, John Hickenlooper, Mark Kelly, Angus King, Jacky Rosen--11 Democrats and 11 Republicans. And then, to my friends who took us over the top the other night on the first vote we had on this, I appreciate them because they were not involved as much on the details, but they know this is the right thing for the country, and many of them did help to get us where we are: Kevin Cramer, Mike Crapo, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, Chuck Grassley, John Hoeven, Jim Risch. Folks, we wouldn't be here without every one of them, and we thank all of the folks who have put so much time and effort into this. And, mostly, we got to thank our staffs because none of us would be here standing tonight, doing this, if we didn't have staff who had been working their hearts out, staying here until 12midnight, ensuring that every single thing in this bill has been looked over carefully to make sure that we got it right. And we are getting it right tonight for the American people, for our economy, and for the future of our great country. I yield to my colleague from Virginia. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5236 | null | 2,947 |
formal | inner city | null | racist | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this evening by expressing my appreciation to Senators Portman and Sinema for their extraordinary leadership of our group, our bipartisan group, of 10 Senators, who have labored so hard to bring before the Senate the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This legislation represents the most significant investment in our infrastructure since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. Think about that. For generations, for decades, we have talked about the need to rebuild our roads and our bridges, our airports, our seaports, our waterways, our water treatment systems, and, today, to expand high-speed internet access to Americans throughout our country no matter where they live--whether they are in the northern regions of Maine or an inner city neighborhood--and that is exactly what this legislation would do. I want to just quickly give an example from my own State of Maine. Maine has 315 bridges and nearly 1,500 miles of roads that are rated as being in poor condition. Now the State of Maine will have the funding that will enable it to make major investments in the repair and replacement of this critical infrastructure. I am particularly pleased that the legislation includes $65 billion to expand access to broadband. And I want to thank my colleague Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who worked so closely with me. We were partners in this endeavor, and this is going to make such a difference to students who are doing online courses, to seniors who want access to telemedicine, to individuals who are able to work from home, but none of that is possible without access to high-speed internet services. I am very pleased to be part of this group, and I am also delighted to demonstrate to the American people that we can work across the aisle in a bipartisan way to achieve real results that matter to the people of this country. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5237-2 | null | 2,948 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure to be on the floor, even though it is a little bit late on a Sunday evening, but to be here with colleagues that we have spent probably more time with one another than we have with our families, our spouses, our roommates, and what have you. But we have been working to build a product not only that we are proud to stand behind but a product that I believe the American public will be proud of the work that we have put into this--work not just of this group but, again, the broader group of 22. And also we recognize the very solid work that comes from our committees. We recognize all that was built at the committee level to help kick-start in so many different--in so many different--areas, but also to build the base of much of this infrastructure bill that we have in front of us today. My friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Manchin, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--when we started to sit down and focus on what we were going to do with infrastructure, the necessity for a power piece was important. It was critical to what we were building. And so the committee went to work, put together, I think, a good product that moved out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, and that served as really the base for the title that is part of this measure, building on the energy act that we moved out of this body last year. So the work that has gone into it has been a collaborative process throughout the way--very much an iterative process, as I might add, as well. But I think we recognize that the good, solid work that has been put into this to date is just really the beginning of bringing in more of the efforts and input from our colleagues from this body from around the country. You know, when you think about infrastructure, infrastructure connects us. Infrastructure brings us together. And so whether you are from a rural State, like mine, or from an urban State, like the occupant of the Chair, when we are able to move safely and efficiently, when we are able to communicate affordably and quickly and efficiently, when we are able to ensure that our systems are all working together, this is what makes us the strong, competitive Nation that we are. So there is extraordinary policy in this product, but the process that has gotten us here this evening is one that, while hard and arduous, as the Senator from Arizona has noted, this is what we come here to do. We have come here to do the hard work, to do the necessary work. And tonight we are at that place where we can begin to take up the infrastructure product that we have been working on for months now and what the country is waiting for deserves. With that, I turn to my friend and colleague from West Virginia. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. MURKOWSKI | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5237-4 | null | 2,949 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President it is an honor to be here. They say that making law is like making sausage. But I have seen sausage made, and it is a prettier process, and it is a lot easier. But this has been a lot more rewarding. I have enjoyed the time we have had together. My good friend from West Virginia talked about how much money we are spending here, how big this is. But let me note something, underscore something: This is paid for. This is not going to raise taxes on people. This is, instead, taking some money that was already appropriated, not used for COVID relief. We are going to bring that back and use it to help build infrastructure. This is a bill which is paid for, and it gives the American people something that they desperately need, and that is an upgrade in our infrastructure. Now, of course, you know it was several months ago that this group came together. We call ourselves affectionately the G-10. Senator Portman and Senator Sinema have shown enormous patience and persistence and resolve getting this across the finish line. I want to thank also particularly Senator Capito for laying out the foundation for what we proposed at the very beginning, which we built upon and has led to the final piece of legislation. As has been said, neither side got everything we wanted. There are a bunch of things in this bill I don't like, I would take out. There are things in this bill I know my Democratic friends don't like and would take out. But the nature of getting work done in Washington is to be able to come up with something that has enough good for both that we actually get it done. And the American people have been waiting one President after another after another, saying let's improve our infrastructure, and it just doesn't get done. This time, we have. Now, I know that Republicans had a choice here. We could let the Democrats just do something on their own. With reconciliation, they could have spent trillions of dollars without any of our help. But the President and the leaders of the Democratic Party here and our friends said: No, let's work together and see if we can do something collectively. Now, I know Members of both parties have mischaracterized our efforts as somehow linked to paving the way to the Democrats' $3.5 trillion wish list. If you don't think our Democratic friends are going to push for that monstrosity with or without this bill, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. They are going to push for that anyway. This is a separate piece of legislation. I love this one. I hate that one. These are two very different things, and there is going to be an effort, obviously, to stop that bill from going forward. This is not perfect. It is paid for. I want to note as well that if the Democrats would have written the bill entirely on their own, Utah would probably have ended up on the short end of the stick. But because of our involvement in this effort, some of our rural States like mine have been able to have a seat at the table, and that means limiting the spending on bad policy that only benefits the rich coastal cities in the East and the far West. So I am proud of this bill because it benefits Americans across the country. For decades, elected officials have talked about addressing our Nation's infrastructure. This infrastructure bill turns that talk into reality without raising taxes on hard-working Americans or adding to our debt. I am proud of my colleagues. It has been fun working with them. It was challenging from time to time, I am sure, to have to listen to me, they would tell you, but I am proud of what we did together, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Now, I would respectfully request that we yield just a minute more to Senator Portman. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROMNEY | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5239-2 | null | 2,950 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President it is an honor to be here. They say that making law is like making sausage. But I have seen sausage made, and it is a prettier process, and it is a lot easier. But this has been a lot more rewarding. I have enjoyed the time we have had together. My good friend from West Virginia talked about how much money we are spending here, how big this is. But let me note something, underscore something: This is paid for. This is not going to raise taxes on people. This is, instead, taking some money that was already appropriated, not used for COVID relief. We are going to bring that back and use it to help build infrastructure. This is a bill which is paid for, and it gives the American people something that they desperately need, and that is an upgrade in our infrastructure. Now, of course, you know it was several months ago that this group came together. We call ourselves affectionately the G-10. Senator Portman and Senator Sinema have shown enormous patience and persistence and resolve getting this across the finish line. I want to thank also particularly Senator Capito for laying out the foundation for what we proposed at the very beginning, which we built upon and has led to the final piece of legislation. As has been said, neither side got everything we wanted. There are a bunch of things in this bill I don't like, I would take out. There are things in this bill I know my Democratic friends don't like and would take out. But the nature of getting work done in Washington is to be able to come up with something that has enough good for both that we actually get it done. And the American people have been waiting one President after another after another, saying let's improve our infrastructure, and it just doesn't get done. This time, we have. Now, I know that Republicans had a choice here. We could let the Democrats just do something on their own. With reconciliation, they could have spent trillions of dollars without any of our help. But the President and the leaders of the Democratic Party here and our friends said: No, let's work together and see if we can do something collectively. Now, I know Members of both parties have mischaracterized our efforts as somehow linked to paving the way to the Democrats' $3.5 trillion wish list. If you don't think our Democratic friends are going to push for that monstrosity with or without this bill, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. They are going to push for that anyway. This is a separate piece of legislation. I love this one. I hate that one. These are two very different things, and there is going to be an effort, obviously, to stop that bill from going forward. This is not perfect. It is paid for. I want to note as well that if the Democrats would have written the bill entirely on their own, Utah would probably have ended up on the short end of the stick. But because of our involvement in this effort, some of our rural States like mine have been able to have a seat at the table, and that means limiting the spending on bad policy that only benefits the rich coastal cities in the East and the far West. So I am proud of this bill because it benefits Americans across the country. For decades, elected officials have talked about addressing our Nation's infrastructure. This infrastructure bill turns that talk into reality without raising taxes on hard-working Americans or adding to our debt. I am proud of my colleagues. It has been fun working with them. It was challenging from time to time, I am sure, to have to listen to me, they would tell you, but I am proud of what we did together, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Now, I would respectfully request that we yield just a minute more to Senator Portman. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROMNEY | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5239-2 | null | 2,951 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,952 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,953 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,954 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,955 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,956 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,957 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard. The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard-working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days. Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good. I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight. Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan. Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family. Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree. Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite. The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8. Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so. We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere. We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people. Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause. Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority. The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs. Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later. But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy. We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this. So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs. Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority. So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending. It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another. He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard. I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System. So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth. In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence. Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan. Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues? Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it. The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth. Why is that? Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused ona lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all. So why, then, do we do that? I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel. Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes. In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money. In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost--when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money. When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy. So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here. This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in. One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American. There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it. Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent. But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans. I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now? By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive? Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America. It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal. So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be somethingthat States and localities could play a part in? Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary. When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates. This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly. In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money. It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work. It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively. All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent--our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent. It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad. They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029. One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth. They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out. The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different. They say it is not. This is real stuff. So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control. Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that. So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it. To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more. In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything. There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion? Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation. I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will bespending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary. Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection. Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is. Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent. I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here. I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent. They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us. So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products. So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy. The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect. Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for. Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me. Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay-fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation. Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way. So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects. I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally. You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment. There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people--good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it. But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate. So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority. There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilizeforce or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them. Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it. But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives. Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body. What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances. I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2? We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion. And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this. Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill. Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar-for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point. If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here. The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument. We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.'' People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.'' For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days? Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level. Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account. So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence. Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5240-4 | null | 2,958 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the majority leader, for allowing me to finish my remarks this evening. When we look at legislation like this, I hope we can pay attention to a few details--a few details--that focus on more than just our roads, bridges, wastewater projects, and other infrastructure matters. Are they important? I hope we will ask specifically: Are they appropriately Federal? Could they be just as easily handled as some other level of government? I hope that we will also ask: If they are appropriate for the Federal Government, are we spending appropriately there? And, are we doing it at the right time? Are we placing the dollars that we are going to spend on the right things? I also hope that we will pay careful attention to something that my friend and my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, said. She pointed out throughout this process it was difficult and time consuming. I liked how she put it. She said: It is supposed to be that way. Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which it would necessarily be difficult and time consuming to get there. She is absolutely right. It is not supposed to be easy to pass legislation because legislation, especially like this, impacts a lot of people--a lot of people who are not here. There are only 100 of us who have the privilege of serving in this body, and we have 330 million people in this country who will be affected by it, and they will be affected by it for a long time to come. That is why it is supposed to be difficult and time consuming. There, again, I point back to the fact that it took this committee--this committee--or this group; they are not a committee--this group of 10 or so Senators 4 painstaking months to come up with this. And it is to their credit that they were able to get it done even in that amount of time. Again, I don't agree with the conclusion that they reached. I can't vote for this bill as it is written. But that really is remarkable that they were able to do it in that period of time. The fact that they, as a small group, were able to do that in 4 months means that this body has no business passing this legislation in a matter of just a few days. Quite arguably, we should need more time than that, not less, to digest it. But for the sake of discussion, and for the sake of respecting what appears to be a widely held view in this body that we ought to act on this, we at least need a few weeks. We shouldn't be doing this in just a few days. I also hope that we will keep in mind that every one of us in this body holds an election certificate, whether we participated in the drafting of this bill or not, and every one of us should have the opportunity to offer up amendments and to vote on those amendments to make improvements to the bill, whether we support it in its current form or not, whether we intend to vote for the finished package or not, every one of us deserves an opportunity to offer as many amendments as we may choose. And if we want them voted on, they should be voted on. We shouldn't be afraid of it. Often it is through the amendment process that we discover the nooks and crannies, we discover the unintended consequences that we allow the public to have visibility and to what has been a process that most people don't have access to. So I hope that we will do that and that we will be respectful to each other's views in doing that. Bad things happen when legislation--especially legislation spending as much money as this one does or anything close to it--is drafted in secret. Look, there is no problem--I don't have a problem at all with the fact they have been meeting. Members have every prerogative to decide what they want to propose behind closed doors. That is how the deliberative process works that results in legislation. But once it is here, as it is now, we need to take into account the fact that this hasn't been through committee; this hasn't been aired in its current form. We have got to give it the adequate airing that it needs and that the American people deserve. So I hope, I expect that in the coming days, what I hope will actually be the coming weeks, we will have the opportunity to review this in full, to share it with our constituents, to have it analyzed, to have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office--we have no business spending this kind of money without a CBO score--and then Members need to be able to offer amendments on it. We live in difficult times, and we live in times where there is a lot of rancor and there is a lot of disagreement. I am glad that there has been a good feeling here tonight with people who have been able to come together. Sometimes we can't pass legislation simply because it is bipartisan. We can't be expected to pass it just because some Democrats and some Republicans happen to agree with it. That is actually not all that uncommon. From watching the news, sometimes you get the impression we can't stand each other and that there is such deep-rooted animus across party lines, that we can't talk to each other, we don't like each other, and that the problem with Congress is that we can't get anything done because there is partisan gridlock that stops everything. Well, I would offer a different perspective to that. The fact that legislation like this occurs, bipartisanship; the fact that you don't get to be almost $30 trillion in debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. Every single time we add an enormous sum to our national debt, there is bipartisanship behind it. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't mean that it is taking into account the needs of poor and middle-class Americans, who increasingly, of late, are being robbed blind by those who, for short-term political gain and praising the media, will make things more expensive for the poor and middle class, enabling a small handful of wealthy and well-connected interests to benefit from it. The fact that it is bipartisan shouldn't obscure the problems with it. I hope we will have an opportunity to address those problems and that we will give this legislation the due consideration it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5246-2 | null | 2,959 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the majority leader, for allowing me to finish my remarks this evening. When we look at legislation like this, I hope we can pay attention to a few details--a few details--that focus on more than just our roads, bridges, wastewater projects, and other infrastructure matters. Are they important? I hope we will ask specifically: Are they appropriately Federal? Could they be just as easily handled as some other level of government? I hope that we will also ask: If they are appropriate for the Federal Government, are we spending appropriately there? And, are we doing it at the right time? Are we placing the dollars that we are going to spend on the right things? I also hope that we will pay careful attention to something that my friend and my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, said. She pointed out throughout this process it was difficult and time consuming. I liked how she put it. She said: It is supposed to be that way. Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which it would necessarily be difficult and time consuming to get there. She is absolutely right. It is not supposed to be easy to pass legislation because legislation, especially like this, impacts a lot of people--a lot of people who are not here. There are only 100 of us who have the privilege of serving in this body, and we have 330 million people in this country who will be affected by it, and they will be affected by it for a long time to come. That is why it is supposed to be difficult and time consuming. There, again, I point back to the fact that it took this committee--this committee--or this group; they are not a committee--this group of 10 or so Senators 4 painstaking months to come up with this. And it is to their credit that they were able to get it done even in that amount of time. Again, I don't agree with the conclusion that they reached. I can't vote for this bill as it is written. But that really is remarkable that they were able to do it in that period of time. The fact that they, as a small group, were able to do that in 4 months means that this body has no business passing this legislation in a matter of just a few days. Quite arguably, we should need more time than that, not less, to digest it. But for the sake of discussion, and for the sake of respecting what appears to be a widely held view in this body that we ought to act on this, we at least need a few weeks. We shouldn't be doing this in just a few days. I also hope that we will keep in mind that every one of us in this body holds an election certificate, whether we participated in the drafting of this bill or not, and every one of us should have the opportunity to offer up amendments and to vote on those amendments to make improvements to the bill, whether we support it in its current form or not, whether we intend to vote for the finished package or not, every one of us deserves an opportunity to offer as many amendments as we may choose. And if we want them voted on, they should be voted on. We shouldn't be afraid of it. Often it is through the amendment process that we discover the nooks and crannies, we discover the unintended consequences that we allow the public to have visibility and to what has been a process that most people don't have access to. So I hope that we will do that and that we will be respectful to each other's views in doing that. Bad things happen when legislation--especially legislation spending as much money as this one does or anything close to it--is drafted in secret. Look, there is no problem--I don't have a problem at all with the fact they have been meeting. Members have every prerogative to decide what they want to propose behind closed doors. That is how the deliberative process works that results in legislation. But once it is here, as it is now, we need to take into account the fact that this hasn't been through committee; this hasn't been aired in its current form. We have got to give it the adequate airing that it needs and that the American people deserve. So I hope, I expect that in the coming days, what I hope will actually be the coming weeks, we will have the opportunity to review this in full, to share it with our constituents, to have it analyzed, to have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office--we have no business spending this kind of money without a CBO score--and then Members need to be able to offer amendments on it. We live in difficult times, and we live in times where there is a lot of rancor and there is a lot of disagreement. I am glad that there has been a good feeling here tonight with people who have been able to come together. Sometimes we can't pass legislation simply because it is bipartisan. We can't be expected to pass it just because some Democrats and some Republicans happen to agree with it. That is actually not all that uncommon. From watching the news, sometimes you get the impression we can't stand each other and that there is such deep-rooted animus across party lines, that we can't talk to each other, we don't like each other, and that the problem with Congress is that we can't get anything done because there is partisan gridlock that stops everything. Well, I would offer a different perspective to that. The fact that legislation like this occurs, bipartisanship; the fact that you don't get to be almost $30 trillion in debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. Every single time we add an enormous sum to our national debt, there is bipartisanship behind it. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't mean that it is taking into account the needs of poor and middle-class Americans, who increasingly, of late, are being robbed blind by those who, for short-term political gain and praising the media, will make things more expensive for the poor and middle class, enabling a small handful of wealthy and well-connected interests to benefit from it. The fact that it is bipartisan shouldn't obscure the problems with it. I hope we will have an opportunity to address those problems and that we will give this legislation the due consideration it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5246-2 | null | 2,960 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the majority leader, for allowing me to finish my remarks this evening. When we look at legislation like this, I hope we can pay attention to a few details--a few details--that focus on more than just our roads, bridges, wastewater projects, and other infrastructure matters. Are they important? I hope we will ask specifically: Are they appropriately Federal? Could they be just as easily handled as some other level of government? I hope that we will also ask: If they are appropriate for the Federal Government, are we spending appropriately there? And, are we doing it at the right time? Are we placing the dollars that we are going to spend on the right things? I also hope that we will pay careful attention to something that my friend and my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, said. She pointed out throughout this process it was difficult and time consuming. I liked how she put it. She said: It is supposed to be that way. Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which it would necessarily be difficult and time consuming to get there. She is absolutely right. It is not supposed to be easy to pass legislation because legislation, especially like this, impacts a lot of people--a lot of people who are not here. There are only 100 of us who have the privilege of serving in this body, and we have 330 million people in this country who will be affected by it, and they will be affected by it for a long time to come. That is why it is supposed to be difficult and time consuming. There, again, I point back to the fact that it took this committee--this committee--or this group; they are not a committee--this group of 10 or so Senators 4 painstaking months to come up with this. And it is to their credit that they were able to get it done even in that amount of time. Again, I don't agree with the conclusion that they reached. I can't vote for this bill as it is written. But that really is remarkable that they were able to do it in that period of time. The fact that they, as a small group, were able to do that in 4 months means that this body has no business passing this legislation in a matter of just a few days. Quite arguably, we should need more time than that, not less, to digest it. But for the sake of discussion, and for the sake of respecting what appears to be a widely held view in this body that we ought to act on this, we at least need a few weeks. We shouldn't be doing this in just a few days. I also hope that we will keep in mind that every one of us in this body holds an election certificate, whether we participated in the drafting of this bill or not, and every one of us should have the opportunity to offer up amendments and to vote on those amendments to make improvements to the bill, whether we support it in its current form or not, whether we intend to vote for the finished package or not, every one of us deserves an opportunity to offer as many amendments as we may choose. And if we want them voted on, they should be voted on. We shouldn't be afraid of it. Often it is through the amendment process that we discover the nooks and crannies, we discover the unintended consequences that we allow the public to have visibility and to what has been a process that most people don't have access to. So I hope that we will do that and that we will be respectful to each other's views in doing that. Bad things happen when legislation--especially legislation spending as much money as this one does or anything close to it--is drafted in secret. Look, there is no problem--I don't have a problem at all with the fact they have been meeting. Members have every prerogative to decide what they want to propose behind closed doors. That is how the deliberative process works that results in legislation. But once it is here, as it is now, we need to take into account the fact that this hasn't been through committee; this hasn't been aired in its current form. We have got to give it the adequate airing that it needs and that the American people deserve. So I hope, I expect that in the coming days, what I hope will actually be the coming weeks, we will have the opportunity to review this in full, to share it with our constituents, to have it analyzed, to have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office--we have no business spending this kind of money without a CBO score--and then Members need to be able to offer amendments on it. We live in difficult times, and we live in times where there is a lot of rancor and there is a lot of disagreement. I am glad that there has been a good feeling here tonight with people who have been able to come together. Sometimes we can't pass legislation simply because it is bipartisan. We can't be expected to pass it just because some Democrats and some Republicans happen to agree with it. That is actually not all that uncommon. From watching the news, sometimes you get the impression we can't stand each other and that there is such deep-rooted animus across party lines, that we can't talk to each other, we don't like each other, and that the problem with Congress is that we can't get anything done because there is partisan gridlock that stops everything. Well, I would offer a different perspective to that. The fact that legislation like this occurs, bipartisanship; the fact that you don't get to be almost $30 trillion in debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. Every single time we add an enormous sum to our national debt, there is bipartisanship behind it. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't mean that it is taking into account the needs of poor and middle-class Americans, who increasingly, of late, are being robbed blind by those who, for short-term political gain and praising the media, will make things more expensive for the poor and middle class, enabling a small handful of wealthy and well-connected interests to benefit from it. The fact that it is bipartisan shouldn't obscure the problems with it. I hope we will have an opportunity to address those problems and that we will give this legislation the due consideration it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5246-2 | null | 2,961 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the majority leader, for allowing me to finish my remarks this evening. When we look at legislation like this, I hope we can pay attention to a few details--a few details--that focus on more than just our roads, bridges, wastewater projects, and other infrastructure matters. Are they important? I hope we will ask specifically: Are they appropriately Federal? Could they be just as easily handled as some other level of government? I hope that we will also ask: If they are appropriate for the Federal Government, are we spending appropriately there? And, are we doing it at the right time? Are we placing the dollars that we are going to spend on the right things? I also hope that we will pay careful attention to something that my friend and my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, said. She pointed out throughout this process it was difficult and time consuming. I liked how she put it. She said: It is supposed to be that way. Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which it would necessarily be difficult and time consuming to get there. She is absolutely right. It is not supposed to be easy to pass legislation because legislation, especially like this, impacts a lot of people--a lot of people who are not here. There are only 100 of us who have the privilege of serving in this body, and we have 330 million people in this country who will be affected by it, and they will be affected by it for a long time to come. That is why it is supposed to be difficult and time consuming. There, again, I point back to the fact that it took this committee--this committee--or this group; they are not a committee--this group of 10 or so Senators 4 painstaking months to come up with this. And it is to their credit that they were able to get it done even in that amount of time. Again, I don't agree with the conclusion that they reached. I can't vote for this bill as it is written. But that really is remarkable that they were able to do it in that period of time. The fact that they, as a small group, were able to do that in 4 months means that this body has no business passing this legislation in a matter of just a few days. Quite arguably, we should need more time than that, not less, to digest it. But for the sake of discussion, and for the sake of respecting what appears to be a widely held view in this body that we ought to act on this, we at least need a few weeks. We shouldn't be doing this in just a few days. I also hope that we will keep in mind that every one of us in this body holds an election certificate, whether we participated in the drafting of this bill or not, and every one of us should have the opportunity to offer up amendments and to vote on those amendments to make improvements to the bill, whether we support it in its current form or not, whether we intend to vote for the finished package or not, every one of us deserves an opportunity to offer as many amendments as we may choose. And if we want them voted on, they should be voted on. We shouldn't be afraid of it. Often it is through the amendment process that we discover the nooks and crannies, we discover the unintended consequences that we allow the public to have visibility and to what has been a process that most people don't have access to. So I hope that we will do that and that we will be respectful to each other's views in doing that. Bad things happen when legislation--especially legislation spending as much money as this one does or anything close to it--is drafted in secret. Look, there is no problem--I don't have a problem at all with the fact they have been meeting. Members have every prerogative to decide what they want to propose behind closed doors. That is how the deliberative process works that results in legislation. But once it is here, as it is now, we need to take into account the fact that this hasn't been through committee; this hasn't been aired in its current form. We have got to give it the adequate airing that it needs and that the American people deserve. So I hope, I expect that in the coming days, what I hope will actually be the coming weeks, we will have the opportunity to review this in full, to share it with our constituents, to have it analyzed, to have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office--we have no business spending this kind of money without a CBO score--and then Members need to be able to offer amendments on it. We live in difficult times, and we live in times where there is a lot of rancor and there is a lot of disagreement. I am glad that there has been a good feeling here tonight with people who have been able to come together. Sometimes we can't pass legislation simply because it is bipartisan. We can't be expected to pass it just because some Democrats and some Republicans happen to agree with it. That is actually not all that uncommon. From watching the news, sometimes you get the impression we can't stand each other and that there is such deep-rooted animus across party lines, that we can't talk to each other, we don't like each other, and that the problem with Congress is that we can't get anything done because there is partisan gridlock that stops everything. Well, I would offer a different perspective to that. The fact that legislation like this occurs, bipartisanship; the fact that you don't get to be almost $30 trillion in debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. Every single time we add an enormous sum to our national debt, there is bipartisanship behind it. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't mean that it is taking into account the needs of poor and middle-class Americans, who increasingly, of late, are being robbed blind by those who, for short-term political gain and praising the media, will make things more expensive for the poor and middle class, enabling a small handful of wealthy and well-connected interests to benefit from it. The fact that it is bipartisan shouldn't obscure the problems with it. I hope we will have an opportunity to address those problems and that we will give this legislation the due consideration it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-08-01-pt1-PgS5246-2 | null | 2,962 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, at the 109th Wyoming State Fair, Senator Lummis and I will have the pleasure of introducing Keith and Linda Hamilton as 2021 inductees to the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Growing up as the fourth generation on the Hamilton Ranch, Keith's agricultural involvement holds deep roots in working to advance agricultural leadership and conserve natural resources important to the western lifestyle. In 1975, Keith joined the Wyoming Farm Bureau and began taking on leadership positions in 1981 as the Big Horn County Farm Bureau vice president. In 1988, Keith joined the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation board of directors and represented Big Horn, Fremont, Hot Springs, Park, and Washakie Counties as the northwest district director until 2010. In addition to serving the agricultural community through the Wyoming Farm Bureau, Keith has been very active in serving on public lands boards, wildlife working groups, and livestock organizations. Keith has given his time to the Big Horn Basin Sage Grouse Working Group, the Big Horn County Predator Management Board, and is the past chairman of the Wyoming State Grazing Board. Through his work, the wildlife of Wyoming is left more abundant for future generations. As Mark Anderson, current chairman of the Wyoming State Grazing Board observed, ``Keith is currently our valued representative on the Wyoming Board of Directors to the National Public Lands Council and he is the type of person I would like to have as a neighbor.'' The Hamilton Ranch and Keith would not be as successful as it is today were it not for his wife, Linda. Linda has a servant's heart and has dedicated her time and efforts to many events and organizations within the Hyattville community. She served as a founding member of Wyoming Agriculture in the Classroom as well as on their board of directors. She has also served on the board of directors for Northwest College alumni, the Hyattville Methodist Church, and the Wyoming Association of Conservation District. Linda held the important role as a spokesperson for conservation districts in both State government and the legislature. Linda leads with a selfless volunteerism, a community-based spirit, and an outstanding work ethic. In addition to their involvement in civic activities, Keith and Linda Hamilton's love and dedication for agriculture show both in their dedication to organizations, as well as in the improvement of operations on their ranch. The Hamilton Ranch was recognized as the 1998 Environmental Stewardship Award winner, as well as a Wyoming Centennial Ranch in 2015. Both of these reflect the nature of Keith and Linda as leaders in agriculture. The Hamiltons were one of four operations to initially enroll in the Wyoming Stewardship Program in 1982. This program opened the door for the Hamiltons to work closely with agencies such as Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service on improving ranch operations. The Hamilton Ranch continues their involvement with these agencies today, leading the way for agricultural innovation and collaboration in Wyoming. Keith and Linda are longtime members of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, and past members of the Mountain States Lamb Co-op. With the Hamilton family's unwavering commitment to our State, it is with great honor to induct them into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Keith and Linda Hamilton represent the best of Wyoming courage, optimism, and the Western Code. They have represented Wyoming's interests with dedication and distinction for many years. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in congratulating Keith and Linda Hamilton as 2021 inductees into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-08-02-pt1-PgS5559 | null | 2,963 |
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-1641. A communication from the Director for the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Center's fiscal year 2020 annual report, other relative reports, and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the reports; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-1642. A joint communication from the Acting Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense Joint Executive Committee Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Report'' ; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-1643. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``VA Homeless Providers and Grant and Per Diem Program'' (RIN2900-AP54) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-1644. 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; WA; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference'' (FRL No. 8742-02-R10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1645. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Finding of Failure to Submit a State Implementation Plan to Meet the 1987 24-Hour PM10 Standard; Moderate Area Requirements; West Pinal County; Arizona'' (FRL No . 8715-02-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1646. 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; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions from the Application of Deadeners and Adhesives'' (FRL No. 8717-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-1647. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Transition Period Penalty Relief for New Schedules K-2 and K-3 for Forms 1065, 1120-S and 8865'' (Notice 2021-39) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1648. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS)'' (Rev. Proc. 2021-30) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1649. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special elections for taxpayers with Farming Loss NOLs'' (Rev. Proc. 2021-14) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1650. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Premium Assistance for COBRA Benefits'' (Notice 2021-31) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1651. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Beginning of Construction for Sections 45 and 48; Extension of Continuity Safe Harbor to Address Delays Related to COVID-19 and Clarification of the Continuity Requirement'' (Notice 2021-41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1652. A communication from the Deputy Inspector General for Audit Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Review of Medicare Administrative Contractor Information Security Program Evaluations for Fiscal Year 2020''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1653. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removal of Obsolete Regulation Regarding Rewards for Information Relating to Violations of Tax Laws Administered by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau'' (RIN1513-AC56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1654. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1655. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Secretary for Health and Human Services, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1656. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1657. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1658. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``United States and Area Median Gross Income Figures (Evergreen)'' (Rev. Proc. 2021-19) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1659. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``COVID-19 Relief Under Section 42'' (Notice 2021-12) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1660. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Additional Relief with Respect to Employment Tax Deadlines Applicable to Employers Affected by the Ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) Disease 2019 Pandemic'' (Notice 2021-11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1661. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Section 911 Housing Cost Amounts 2021 Update'' (Notice 2021-18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1662. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Personal Protective Equipment Treated as Deductible or Reimbursable Medical Care Expense'' (Announcement 2021-7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1663. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Empowerment Zones'' (Rev. Proc. 2021- 18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1664. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Providing elections under section 172 set forth in the CARES Act'' (Rev. Proc. 2020-24) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1665. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of Nonresident Alien Deposit Interest Regulations'' (Rev. Proc. 2021-15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1666. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Empowerment Zones'' (Rev. Proc. 2021-16) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1667. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Limitation on Deduction for Dividends Received from Certain Foreign Corporations and Amounts Eligible for Section 954 Look-Through Exception'' (RIN1545- BP35) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-1668. A communication from the Director of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Deduction for Foreign-Derived Intangible Income and Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income'' (RIN1545- BO55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Finance | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-02-pt1-PgS5561-3 | null | 2,964 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2166. Mr. WARNOCK submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 30005, add at the end the following: (c) Commuter or Destination-based Bus Rapid Transit Projects.--Section 5309 of title 49, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a) (as amended by subsection (a))-- (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as paragraphs (3) through (7); (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: ``(2) Commuter or destination-based bus rapid transit project.--The term `commuter or destination-based bus rapid transit project' means a small start project utilizing buses-- ``(A) in which the project represents a substantial investment in a defined corridor, as demonstrated by features that emulate the services provided by commuter rail or other rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, including-- ``(i) defined stations; ``(ii) traffic signal or access to managed lanes for public transportation vehicles; ``(iii) short headway services for a substantial part of weekdays; and ``(iv) any other features the Secretary may determine support a long-term corridor investment; and ``(B) in which-- ``(i) the majority of the project does not operate in a separated right-of-way dedicated for public transportation use during peak periods; and ``(ii) a substantial portion of the project operates in a highway right-of-way.''; (2) in subsection (h), by adding at the end the following: ``(8) Commuter or destination-based bus rapid transit project ratings.--In issuing policy guidance under subsection (g)(5), the Secretary may establish alternative evaluation criteria for commuter or destination-based bus rapid transit projects for-- ``(A) economic development effects associated with those projects; or ``(B) policies and land use patterns that support public transportation.''; and (3) in subsection (m), by adding at the end the following: ``(3) Cost of carrying out planning and activities required under the national environmental policy act of 1969.-- ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the cost of carrying out the planning and activities required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), including planning and activities carried out prior to a project entering into the project development phase, shall be counted toward the net capital project cost for purposes of paragraph (1). ``(B) Guidance.--The Secretary shall provide guidance to applicants on the costs of planning and activities required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) that are eligible to be counted under subparagraph (A).''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-02-pt1-PgS5588-2 | null | 2,965 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2173. Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 493, strike lines 8 through 22 and insert the following: (b) Eligibility.--Section 602(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following: ``(1) Letter of interest.-- ``(A) In general.--A project shall be eligible to receive credit assistance under the TIFIA program if-- ``(i) the entity proposing to carry out the project submits a letter of interest prior to submission of a formal application for the project; and ``(ii) the project meets the criteria described in this subsection. ``(B) Certain projects.--In the case of a project that outlines a proposed financial plan to repay the loan primarily with State or local tax revenue, the review of the letter of interest shall be limited to a legal compliance check to ensure the project meets the criteria described in this subsection, except to the extent that the Secretary determines that the complexity of the project requires further review.''; and (2) in paragraph (2)-- (A) in subparagraph (A)(iv)-- (i) by striking ``a rating'' and inserting ``an investment- grade rating''; and (ii) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting ``$150,000,000''; and (B) in subparagraph (B)-- (i) by striking ``the senior debt'' and inserting ``senior debt''; and (ii) by striking ``credit instrument is for an amount less than $75,000,000'' and inserting ``total amount of other senior debt and the Federal credit instrument is less than $150,000,000''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-02-pt1-PgS5599-2 | null | 2,966 |
formal | urban | null | racist | SA 2239. Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Ms. Cantwell) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 40803(a), strike ``$3,369,200,000'' and insert ``$9,882,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(9), strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert ``$40,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(9)(A), strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert ``$20,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(9)(B), strike ``$10,000,000'' and insert ``$20,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(11), strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert ``$1,500,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(11)(B)(i), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$300,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(11)(B)(ii), strike ``$400,000,000'' and insert ``$1,200,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(12), strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert ``$1,500,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(13), strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert ``$1,500,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(13)(A), strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert ``$750,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(13)(B), strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert ``$750,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(14), strike ``$500,000,000'' and insert ``$1,500,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(14)(A), strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert ``$750,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(14)(B), strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert ``$750,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(16), strike ``$200,000,000'' and insert ``$500,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(16)(A), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$250,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(16)(B), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$250,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(17), strike ``$8,000,000'' and insert ``$20,000,000''. In section 40803(c)(17)(B), strike ``and'' at the end. In section 40803(c)(18), strike the period at the end and insert a semicolon. At the end of section 40803(c), add the following: (19) $500,000,000 to be distributed under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) to build capacity for wildfire prevention, mitigation, control, and suppression on non-Federal land; (20) $1,500,000,000 for entering into contracts with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination Act (25 U.S.C. 5321 et seq.) for the purpose of implementing forestry projects that further Tribal priorities; and (21) $50,000,000 for wood innovation relating to hazardous fuels under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.). In section 40804(a), strike ``$2,130,000,000'' and insert ``$12,320,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(1), strike ``$300,000,000'' and insert ``$1,000,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(1)(B)(i), strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert ``$200,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(1)(B)(ii), strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert ``$700,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(4), strike ``$400,000,000'' and insert ``$1,000,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(6), strike ``$200,000,000'' and insert ``$500,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(6)(A), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$250,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(6)(B), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$250,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(7), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$500,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(8), strike ``$200,000,000'' and insert ``$500,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(8)(A), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$250,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(8)(B), strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$250,000,000''. In section 40804(b)(9)(B), strike ``and''. In section 40804(b)(10), strike the period at the end and insert a semicolon. At the end of section 40804(b), add the following: (11) $40,000,000 for the Secretary of Agriculture to create a national community capacity for land stewardship program to support collaborative conservation efforts on public land; (12) $200,000,000 for grants for the acquisition of community wood energy systems under the Community Wood Energy and Wood Innovation Program established under section 9013 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2003 (7 U.S.C. 8113); (13) $100,000,000 for the State and private forest landscape-scale restoration program established under section 13A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2109a); (14) $500,000,000 for forest health protection activities under section 8 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2104); (15) $250,000,000 for activities under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) that focus on the working forest landscapes priority described in section 2(c)(1) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 2101(c)(1)); (16) $500,000,000 for the community forest and open space conservation program established under section 7A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d); (17) $100,000,000 for urban and community forestry assistance under section 9 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2105); (18) $1,000,000,000 for vegetation and watershed management; (19) $5,000,000,000 for capital improvements and maintenance; and (20) $200,000,000 for the Joint Chiefs program. In section 40804(e)(1), strike ``$45,000,000'' and insert ``$225,000,000''. In section 40804(e)(1), strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert ``$175,000,000''. In section 40804(e)(2)(A), strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert ``$100,000,000''. In section 40804(e)(2)(B), strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert ``$25,000,000''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-02-pt1-PgS5632 | null | 2,967 |
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-1825. A letter from the President of the United States, transmitting Notification of Designation of Funding as an Emergency Requirement, pursuant to Public Law 117-31, Sec. 606 (H. Doc. No. 117--53); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. EC-1826. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter stating additional time will be needed to complete the report on end-strength levels for medical personnel for each component of the Armed Forces as of the end of the next fiscal year, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 115a(e)(1); Public Law 116-92, Sec. 1701(b)(2); (133 Stat. 1795); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1827. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report, pursuant to Public Law 106-569; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1828. A letter from the Associate General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, transmitting six notifications of a designation of acting officer, a nomination, and an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1829. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a notification of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1830. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, transmitting the 2020 Management Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1831. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1832. A letter from the Acting Director, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's FY 2020 No FEAR Act report, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107-174, 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1833. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No.: 200227-0066; RTID 0648-XA783] received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1834. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands [Docket No.: 210217-0022] (RTID: 0648-XA821) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1835. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020- 2021 Closure of Commercial Run-Around Gillnet for King Mackerel [Docket No.: 160426363-7275-02; RTID 0648-XA837] received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1836. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020- 2021 Commercial Closure for Spanish Mackerel in the Atlantic Southern Zone [Docket No.: 140819687-5583-02] (RTID: 0648- XA842) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1837. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Final 2020 and 2021 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish [Docket No.: 200227-0066] (RIN: 0648-XH080) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1838. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reclassifying Sculpin Species in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 200702-0176] (RIN: 0648-BJ49) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1839. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Silky Shark, Fish Aggregating Devices, and Observer Safety in the Eastern Pacific Ocean [Docket No.: 200728-0201] (RIN: 0648-BJ23) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1840. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Temporarily Increasing the Commercial Trip Limit for South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper and Recreational Bag Limit for Atlantic King Mackerel [Docket No.: 200911-0240] (RIN: 0648-BJ96) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1841. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's interim final rule -- International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2021 [Docket No.: 210112-0008] (RIN: 0648-BK08) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1842. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Regulatory Amendment 27; Correction [Docket No.: 201112-0303] (RIN: 0648-BK19) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1843. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Extension of Emergency Measures To Address Fishery Observer Coverage During the Coronavirus Pandemic [Docket No.: 210324-0064] (RIN: 0648- BK33) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1844. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's FY 2020 report on Activities Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 522(a); Public Law 89-554, Sec. 4(c) (as amended by Public Law 94-273, Sec. 19); (80 Stat. 615); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1845. A letter from the President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, transmitting the Council's Single Audit Financial Report Under Uniform Guidance, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. Secs. 10101(b)(1) and 150909; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1846. A letter from the Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit, transmitting an opinion on Page v. Democratic National Committee, et al., No. 20-2781, (June 21, 2021) from the United States Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1847. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Beginning of Construction for Sections 45 and 48; Extension of Continuity Safe Harbor to Address Delays Related to COVID-19 and Clarification of the Continuity Requirement [Notice 2021-41] received July 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 Ways and Means. EC-1848. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Transition Period Penalty Relief for New Schedules K-2 and K-3 for Forms 1065, 1120-S and 8865 [Notice 2021-39] received July 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 Ways and Means. EC-1849. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Special elections for taxpayers with Farming Loss NOLs (Rev. Proc. 2021-14) received July 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 Ways and Means. EC-1850. A letter from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Administration's Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and Oversight and Reform. EC-1851. A letter from the Principal Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the report titled, ``Part D Plans Generally Include Drugs Commonly Used by Dual Eligibles: 2021'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-101 note; Public Law 111-148, Sec. 3313(a)(2); (124 Stat. 477); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgH4309-8 | null | 2,968 |
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-1825. A letter from the President of the United States, transmitting Notification of Designation of Funding as an Emergency Requirement, pursuant to Public Law 117-31, Sec. 606 (H. Doc. No. 117--53); to the Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed. EC-1826. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter stating additional time will be needed to complete the report on end-strength levels for medical personnel for each component of the Armed Forces as of the end of the next fiscal year, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 115a(e)(1); Public Law 116-92, Sec. 1701(b)(2); (133 Stat. 1795); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1827. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's semiannual Monetary Policy Report, pursuant to Public Law 106-569; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-1828. A letter from the Associate General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, transmitting six notifications of a designation of acting officer, a nomination, and an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1829. A letter from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a notification of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1830. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, transmitting the 2020 Management Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1831. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105- 277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1832. A letter from the Acting Director, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's FY 2020 No FEAR Act report, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107-174, 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-1833. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No.: 200227-0066; RTID 0648-XA783] received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1834. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands [Docket No.: 210217-0022] (RTID: 0648-XA821) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1835. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020- 2021 Closure of Commercial Run-Around Gillnet for King Mackerel [Docket No.: 160426363-7275-02; RTID 0648-XA837] received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1836. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020- 2021 Commercial Closure for Spanish Mackerel in the Atlantic Southern Zone [Docket No.: 140819687-5583-02] (RTID: 0648- XA842) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1837. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Final 2020 and 2021 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish [Docket No.: 200227-0066] (RIN: 0648-XH080) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1838. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reclassifying Sculpin Species in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 200702-0176] (RIN: 0648-BJ49) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1839. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Silky Shark, Fish Aggregating Devices, and Observer Safety in the Eastern Pacific Ocean [Docket No.: 200728-0201] (RIN: 0648-BJ23) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1840. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Temporarily Increasing the Commercial Trip Limit for South Atlantic Vermilion Snapper and Recreational Bag Limit for Atlantic King Mackerel [Docket No.: 200911-0240] (RIN: 0648-BJ96) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1841. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's interim final rule -- International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2021 [Docket No.: 210112-0008] (RIN: 0648-BK08) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1842. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Regulatory Amendment 27; Correction [Docket No.: 201112-0303] (RIN: 0648-BK19) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1843. A letter from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Extension of Emergency Measures To Address Fishery Observer Coverage During the Coronavirus Pandemic [Docket No.: 210324-0064] (RIN: 0648- BK33) received July 20, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-1844. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's FY 2020 report on Activities Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 522(a); Public Law 89-554, Sec. 4(c) (as amended by Public Law 94-273, Sec. 19); (80 Stat. 615); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1845. A letter from the President, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, transmitting the Council's Single Audit Financial Report Under Uniform Guidance, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. Secs. 10101(b)(1) and 150909; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1846. A letter from the Clerk of the Court, United States Court of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit, transmitting an opinion on Page v. Democratic National Committee, et al., No. 20-2781, (June 21, 2021) from the United States Court of appeals for the Seventh Circuit; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1847. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Beginning of Construction for Sections 45 and 48; Extension of Continuity Safe Harbor to Address Delays Related to COVID-19 and Clarification of the Continuity Requirement [Notice 2021-41] received July 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 Ways and Means. EC-1848. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Transition Period Penalty Relief for New Schedules K-2 and K-3 for Forms 1065, 1120-S and 8865 [Notice 2021-39] received July 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 Ways and Means. EC-1849. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Special elections for taxpayers with Farming Loss NOLs (Rev. Proc. 2021-14) received July 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 Ways and Means. EC-1850. A letter from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Administration's Fiscal Year 2022 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1115(b); Public Law 111-352, Sec. 3; (124 Stat. 3867); jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and Oversight and Reform. EC-1851. A letter from the Principal Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the report titled, ``Part D Plans Generally Include Drugs Commonly Used by Dual Eligibles: 2021'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-101 note; Public Law 111-148, Sec. 3313(a)(2); (124 Stat. 477); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgH4309-8 | null | 2,969 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Mr. President, as you know, as we all know, January 6 unleashed many horrors, but it also revealed many heroes. A day that many of us remember for its violence, anger, and destruction was not without its share of bravery, sacrifice, and selflessness. I am, of course, talking about the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police. In a few moments, my colleagues Senators Klobuchar and Blunt will ask the Senate to award them the Congressional Gold Medal. It is the highest expression of gratitude that Congress can bestow. I cannot imagine more worthy recipients than the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this temple of democracy. I want to thank Senator Klobuchar, the chair of the Rules Committee, andSenator Blunt, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for working so hard on this. And I want to commend the House and Speaker Pelosi and the House Members who voted for it as well. Now I must mention that I am still stunned by what happened in the House, where 21 Members of the House Republican caucus voted against this legislation. The Senate is different. I expect this to pass unanimously. That is why we are here doing it today. But those folks in the House were some of the same folks who likened the January 6 attack to ``a normal tourist visit,'' who deny the events that day were an insurrection. The same folks who screamed the loudest about the dangers of defunding the police refused to defend the police--the very police that shielded them--from the vicious mob on January 6. For the life of me, I don't know how they sleep at night. That is one of the many reasons this gold medal is so important. The gold medal is about setting the record straight and recognizing the true heroism on display that fateful day. My colleagues, we have a moral obligation to never forget what our first responders faced down. A mob of White supremacists and domestic terrorists stormed the barriers with vicious force, using flag poles as spears and fences as battering rams. Capitol Police officers were swarmed, beaten, crushed between the doorways, and tasered repeatedly. One hundred forty officers were assaulted that day. Fifteen required hospitalization. Seven people have lost their lives in connection with this attack. Just this week, sadly--I read this story and I ached--two more police officers took their own lives, heaping tragedy upon tragedy. These past 6 months have been the hardest in the history of the Capitol Police Force. And yet they still keep watch. They still stand guard. They do their jobs every single day with professionalism, excellence, and grace. Awarding the Congressional Gold Medal is a way to commemorate their sacrifice and make sure that the truth of January 6 is recognized and remembered forever. To our Capitol and Metropolitan Police, thank you, thank you, thank you for all that you do. This recognition is the very least you deserve. Once again, I want to give real praise to my colleague from Minnesota as I yield to her. She has done an amazing job as head of the Rules Committee in many different ways and this is one of many. And I want to thank Senator Blunt who always works in a spirit of bipartisanship. We are in quite a bipartisan week here, and that is a good thing. Senator Klobuchar. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5685 | null | 2,970 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Mr. President, as you know, as we all know, January 6 unleashed many horrors, but it also revealed many heroes. A day that many of us remember for its violence, anger, and destruction was not without its share of bravery, sacrifice, and selflessness. I am, of course, talking about the Capitol Police and the Metropolitan Police. In a few moments, my colleagues Senators Klobuchar and Blunt will ask the Senate to award them the Congressional Gold Medal. It is the highest expression of gratitude that Congress can bestow. I cannot imagine more worthy recipients than the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend this temple of democracy. I want to thank Senator Klobuchar, the chair of the Rules Committee, andSenator Blunt, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for working so hard on this. And I want to commend the House and Speaker Pelosi and the House Members who voted for it as well. Now I must mention that I am still stunned by what happened in the House, where 21 Members of the House Republican caucus voted against this legislation. The Senate is different. I expect this to pass unanimously. That is why we are here doing it today. But those folks in the House were some of the same folks who likened the January 6 attack to ``a normal tourist visit,'' who deny the events that day were an insurrection. The same folks who screamed the loudest about the dangers of defunding the police refused to defend the police--the very police that shielded them--from the vicious mob on January 6. For the life of me, I don't know how they sleep at night. That is one of the many reasons this gold medal is so important. The gold medal is about setting the record straight and recognizing the true heroism on display that fateful day. My colleagues, we have a moral obligation to never forget what our first responders faced down. A mob of White supremacists and domestic terrorists stormed the barriers with vicious force, using flag poles as spears and fences as battering rams. Capitol Police officers were swarmed, beaten, crushed between the doorways, and tasered repeatedly. One hundred forty officers were assaulted that day. Fifteen required hospitalization. Seven people have lost their lives in connection with this attack. Just this week, sadly--I read this story and I ached--two more police officers took their own lives, heaping tragedy upon tragedy. These past 6 months have been the hardest in the history of the Capitol Police Force. And yet they still keep watch. They still stand guard. They do their jobs every single day with professionalism, excellence, and grace. Awarding the Congressional Gold Medal is a way to commemorate their sacrifice and make sure that the truth of January 6 is recognized and remembered forever. To our Capitol and Metropolitan Police, thank you, thank you, thank you for all that you do. This recognition is the very least you deserve. Once again, I want to give real praise to my colleague from Minnesota as I yield to her. She has done an amazing job as head of the Rules Committee in many different ways and this is one of many. And I want to thank Senator Blunt who always works in a spirit of bipartisanship. We are in quite a bipartisan week here, and that is a good thing. Senator Klobuchar. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5685 | null | 2,971 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-1669. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-1670. A communication from the Executive Secretary, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), transmitting, pursuant to law, five (5) reports relative to vacancies in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1671. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1672. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a Memorandum of Justification under section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) for assistance related to the situation in Afghanistan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1673. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the determination by the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources to direct a drawdown under Section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) related to the situation in Afghanistan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1674. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021- 0081--2021-0091); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-1675. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Selenomethionine Hydroxy Analogue'' (Docket No. FDA-2020-F- 1289) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-1676. A communication from the Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the cost of response and recovery efforts for FEMA-3560-EM in the State of Florida having exceeded the $5,000,000 limit for a single emergency declaration; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1677. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1678. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1679. A communication from the Associate General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to two (2) vacancies in the Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-1680. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-1681. A communication from the Executive Director, National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Museum's 2020 annual report and financial audit; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5712 | null | 2,972 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2314. Mr. PADILLA (for himself, Mr. Booker, and Mr. Markey) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 126, strike line 17 and all that follows through page 127, line 3, and insert the following: a national ambient air quality standard; ``(11) if the project is on a marine highway corridor, connector, or crossing designated by the Secretary under section 55601(c) of title 46 (including an inland waterway corridor, connector, or crossing) that-- ``(A) is functionally connected to the Federal-aid highway system; and ``(B) the Secretary determines is likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard; or ``(12) the project or program of projects involves the deployment of hyperlocal air quality mobile monitoring systems primarily to monitor transportation-related emissions.''; On page 130, strike lines 12 and 13 and insert the following ``(ii) an urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or fewer. ``(n) Definition of Hyperlocal Air Quality Mobile Monitoring System.--In this section, the term `hyperlocal air quality mobile monitoring system' means a method of monitoring and mapping ambient air quality and greenhouse gases and detecting the presence of pollutants using mobile vehicles that-- ``(1) yields frequently repeated, ongoing measurements of pollutants and greenhouse gases at a block-level of resolution; and ``(2) identifies hotspots of persistent elevated levels of pollutants and greenhouse gases.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5735-3 | null | 2,973 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2316. Mr. PADILLA submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 638, strike line 25 and all that follows through page 639, line 1, and insert the following: scribed in subsection (b)(2); ``(H) a project or series of projects to reduce transportation emissions (including associated infrastructure improvements to support infill development and transit- oriented development and to increase nonmotorized trips), subject to the conditions that-- ``(i) the project or series of projects shall directly improve the efficiency of existing surface transportation infrastructure, as determined by the Secretary; and ``(ii) the Federal share of the project or series of projects shall be used to fund only the elements of the project or series that provide public benefits; and ``(I) any other surface transportation in- | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5736 | null | 2,974 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2330. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 11519, strike subsection (b) and insert the following: (b) Improving the Emergency Relief Program.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall-- (1) establish categorical exclusions from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and necessary exemptions from the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for emergency relief projects that are not located in metropolitan statistical areas (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget); (2) revise the emergency relief manual of the Federal Highway Administration-- (A) to include and reflect the definition of the term ``resilience'' (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code); (B) to identify procedures that States may use to incorporate resilience into emergency relief projects; and (C) to encourage the use of Complete Streets design principles and consideration of access for moderate- and low- income families impacted by a declared disaster; (3) develop best practices for improving the use of resilience in-- (A) the emergency relief program under section 125 of title 23, United States Code; and (B) emergency relief efforts; (4) provide to division offices of the Federal Highway Administration and State departments of transportation information on the best practices developed under paragraph (3); and (5) develop and implement a process to track-- (A) the consideration of resilience as part of the emergency relief program under section 125 of title 23, United States Code; and (B) the costs of emergency relief projects. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5739-2 | null | 2,975 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2339. Mr. SCOTT of Florida submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 1297, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following: ``(e) Availability of Amounts.--Amounts made available by or appropriated under this section shall remain available until expended. ``(f) Reductions in Transit Funding.-- ``(1) Required reductions.-- ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Secretary determines during a fiscal year that, as compared to the previous fiscal year, a State or local governmental authority that receives funding under this chapter from the Secretary has reduced spending on public safety or law enforcement activities, the Secretary shall reduce the amount of the unobligated funding received by the State or local governmental authority from amounts made available under subsection (a) by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the State or local governmental authority reduced the spending on public safety and law enforcement activities. ``(B) Rollover.--If there are insufficient unobligated amounts described in subparagraph (A) to make the full reduction required under that paragraph during a fiscal year, the Secretary shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, reduce the amounts received by the State or local governmental authority from amounts made available under subsection (a) during the succeeding fiscal year in an amount necessary to make the full reduction required under that subparagraph for the previous fiscal year. ``(2) Use of withheld funds.--Amounts not made available to a State or local governmental authority as a result of a reduction under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in the Treasury and used for Federal budget deficit reduction or, if there is no Federal budget deficit, for reducing the Federal debt in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5742-3 | null | 2,976 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2365. Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Portman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In subtitle B of title I of division D, strike ``consultation'' each place it appears and insert ``coordination''. In section 219A(d)(1) of the Federal Power Act (as added by section 40123 of subtitle B of title I of division D), strike ``consultation'' and insert ``coordination''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5750 | null | 2,977 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2368. Ms. WARREN (for herself, Mr. Markey, and Mrs. Gillibrand) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 203, strike line 17 and insert the following: the project is located on a Federal-aid highway. ``(t) Projects in Flood-prone Areas.--For projects and actions that, in whole or in part, encroach within the limits of a flood-prone area, the Secretary shall ensure that such projects and actions are-- ``(1) designed and constructed in a way that takes into account, and mitigates where appropriate, flood risk by using hydrologic, hydraulic, and hydrodynamic data, methods, and analysis that integrate current and projected changes in flooding based on scientific forecasts over the anticipated service life of the asset and future forecasted land use changes; and ``(2) designed using analysis that considers the capital costs, risks, and other economic, engineering, social and environmental concerns of constructing a project in a flood- prone area.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5752 | null | 2,978 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2434. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr.Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 507, lines 4 and 5, strike ``and the Federal System Funding Alternative Advisory Board established under section 13002(g)(1)''. On page 507, lines 11 and 12, strike ``and the national pilot program under section 13002''. On page 508, lines 1 and 2, strike ``to the national pilot program under section 13002 or''. Strike section 13002. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5775-2 | null | 2,979 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2453. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: In section 40121(b)(1) of subtitle B of title I of division D, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), insert ``to develop and organize, based on the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Advisory Council and the Cyberspace Solarium Commission, a pilot Critical Infrastructure Command Center or Joint Collaboration Environment to facilitate and enable public-private partnerships to carry out relevant functions, including'' after ``carry out a program''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5783-3 | null | 2,980 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2454. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Padilla) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 30005 in division C, add the following: (c) Federal Share Adjustments.-- (1) In general.--In addition to amounts made available under section 5338 of title 49, United States Code, there are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2022 such sums as are necessary to increase the Federal share, at the request of a project sponsor, of a new fixed guideway capital project, a core capacity improvement project, or a small start project (as those terms are defined in section 5309(a) of that title) that-- (A) is not open to revenue service; and (B) has received an allocation of funding in any of fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021. (2) Criteria.--In allocating amounts made available under paragraph (1) to projects described in that subsection, the Secretary of Transportation shall take into consideration the extent to which a project sponsor demonstrates a need for a higher Federal share, including the extent to which-- (A) the project sponsor made a local financial commitment that exceeded 20 percent of the cost of the project; and (B) the project sponsor has experienced, as a result of the public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020, with respect to COVID-19, a loss of revenue that would otherwise be used by the project sponsor to provide the non-Federal share for the project. (3) Adjustment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the project sponsor of a project described in subsection (a) meets 1 or both of the criteria described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation shall increase the Federal share of the project by not more than 30 percent, up to a maximum of Federal share of 80 percent. (4) Amount.--Amounts made available under this section shall be provided to a project described in subsection (a) notwithstanding the limitation of any calculation of the maximum amount of Federal financial assistance that may be provided to that project. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5783-4 | null | 2,981 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2455. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2699, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following: Sec. 804. (a) FAA Outreach to Community and Elected Officials When Proposing New or Modified Flight Procedures.-- In order to avoid having to subsequently modify products and services developed as a part of the NextGen Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Process--FAA Order JO7100.41A, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall comply with the requirements of this section. (b) Notification to Officials.--The Administrator shall notify the public of any proposed new PBN flight procedure or flight procedure change affecting airspace at altitudes below 18,000 feet. This notification shall be made not later than 30 days after the date of the entry of the procedure into the FAA Performance Based Navigation IFP Gateway to the elected governing body of each of the cities and counties within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure, to any Member of Congress whose district is within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure, and to any Aviation Roundtable whose jurisdictional area is within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure. (c) Notification Contents.--Notification shall be made with sufficient specificity for an official to determine if such new or modified flight procedure being processed is likely to affect constituents of such official and shall include-- (1) name of flight procedure; (2) name of the proponent of the flight procedure; (3) whether the flight procedure is a new or modified procedure and, if modified, the changes being proposed; (4) name of existing procedure if the procedure substantially replaces an existing procedure; (5) approximate flight path including latitude and longitude of the proposed procedure overlaid on a satellite map such as Google Earth or similar; (6) approximate altitudes of proposed flight path; and (7) contact person to provide additional information. (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Aviation roundtable.--The term ``Aviation Roundtable'' means an organization designed to address community concerns over a sustained period of time regarding aircraft operations often associated with a nearby airport. (2) FAA order jo7100.41a.--The term ``FAA Order JO7100.41A'' means FAA Order JO7100.41A and any other successor versions of such Order. (3) Flight procedure.--The term ``flight procedure'' means a preplanned Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure published for pilot use, in graphic or textual format, that provides obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the en route structure (departure) or from the en route structure to the terminal area (arrival). (4) IFP.--The term ``IFP'' means instrument flight procedure. (5) Instrument flight procedures gateway.--The term ``Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway'' means a centralized instrument flight procedures data portal providing, among others, current IFPs under Development or Amendments with Tentative Publication Date and Status. (6) Elected governing body.--The term ``elected governing body'' means a municipal body having legislative and administrative powers, such as passing ordinances and appropriating funds, such as a City Council, Town Council, County Board of Supervisors, or similar. (7) PBN.--The term ``PBN'' means performance based navigation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5783-5 | null | 2,982 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 2455. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2699, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following: Sec. 804. (a) FAA Outreach to Community and Elected Officials When Proposing New or Modified Flight Procedures.-- In order to avoid having to subsequently modify products and services developed as a part of the NextGen Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Process--FAA Order JO7100.41A, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall comply with the requirements of this section. (b) Notification to Officials.--The Administrator shall notify the public of any proposed new PBN flight procedure or flight procedure change affecting airspace at altitudes below 18,000 feet. This notification shall be made not later than 30 days after the date of the entry of the procedure into the FAA Performance Based Navigation IFP Gateway to the elected governing body of each of the cities and counties within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure, to any Member of Congress whose district is within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure, and to any Aviation Roundtable whose jurisdictional area is within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure. (c) Notification Contents.--Notification shall be made with sufficient specificity for an official to determine if such new or modified flight procedure being processed is likely to affect constituents of such official and shall include-- (1) name of flight procedure; (2) name of the proponent of the flight procedure; (3) whether the flight procedure is a new or modified procedure and, if modified, the changes being proposed; (4) name of existing procedure if the procedure substantially replaces an existing procedure; (5) approximate flight path including latitude and longitude of the proposed procedure overlaid on a satellite map such as Google Earth or similar; (6) approximate altitudes of proposed flight path; and (7) contact person to provide additional information. (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Aviation roundtable.--The term ``Aviation Roundtable'' means an organization designed to address community concerns over a sustained period of time regarding aircraft operations often associated with a nearby airport. (2) FAA order jo7100.41a.--The term ``FAA Order JO7100.41A'' means FAA Order JO7100.41A and any other successor versions of such Order. (3) Flight procedure.--The term ``flight procedure'' means a preplanned Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure published for pilot use, in graphic or textual format, that provides obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the en route structure (departure) or from the en route structure to the terminal area (arrival). (4) IFP.--The term ``IFP'' means instrument flight procedure. (5) Instrument flight procedures gateway.--The term ``Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway'' means a centralized instrument flight procedures data portal providing, among others, current IFPs under Development or Amendments with Tentative Publication Date and Status. (6) Elected governing body.--The term ``elected governing body'' means a municipal body having legislative and administrative powers, such as passing ordinances and appropriating funds, such as a City Council, Town Council, County Board of Supervisors, or similar. (7) PBN.--The term ``PBN'' means performance based navigation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5783-5 | null | 2,983 |
formal | Google | null | racist | SA 2455. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2699, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following: Sec. 804. (a) FAA Outreach to Community and Elected Officials When Proposing New or Modified Flight Procedures.-- In order to avoid having to subsequently modify products and services developed as a part of the NextGen Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Implementation Process--FAA Order JO7100.41A, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall comply with the requirements of this section. (b) Notification to Officials.--The Administrator shall notify the public of any proposed new PBN flight procedure or flight procedure change affecting airspace at altitudes below 18,000 feet. This notification shall be made not later than 30 days after the date of the entry of the procedure into the FAA Performance Based Navigation IFP Gateway to the elected governing body of each of the cities and counties within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure, to any Member of Congress whose district is within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure, and to any Aviation Roundtable whose jurisdictional area is within 5 miles of such a proposed new or modified flight procedure. (c) Notification Contents.--Notification shall be made with sufficient specificity for an official to determine if such new or modified flight procedure being processed is likely to affect constituents of such official and shall include-- (1) name of flight procedure; (2) name of the proponent of the flight procedure; (3) whether the flight procedure is a new or modified procedure and, if modified, the changes being proposed; (4) name of existing procedure if the procedure substantially replaces an existing procedure; (5) approximate flight path including latitude and longitude of the proposed procedure overlaid on a satellite map such as Google Earth or similar; (6) approximate altitudes of proposed flight path; and (7) contact person to provide additional information. (d) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply: (1) Aviation roundtable.--The term ``Aviation Roundtable'' means an organization designed to address community concerns over a sustained period of time regarding aircraft operations often associated with a nearby airport. (2) FAA order jo7100.41a.--The term ``FAA Order JO7100.41A'' means FAA Order JO7100.41A and any other successor versions of such Order. (3) Flight procedure.--The term ``flight procedure'' means a preplanned Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure published for pilot use, in graphic or textual format, that provides obstruction clearance from the terminal area to the en route structure (departure) or from the en route structure to the terminal area (arrival). (4) IFP.--The term ``IFP'' means instrument flight procedure. (5) Instrument flight procedures gateway.--The term ``Instrument Flight Procedures Gateway'' means a centralized instrument flight procedures data portal providing, among others, current IFPs under Development or Amendments with Tentative Publication Date and Status. (6) Elected governing body.--The term ``elected governing body'' means a municipal body having legislative and administrative powers, such as passing ordinances and appropriating funds, such as a City Council, Town Council, County Board of Supervisors, or similar. (7) PBN.--The term ``PBN'' means performance based navigation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-03-pt1-PgS5783-5 | null | 2,984 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to recognize a North Dakota hero who will celebrate his 100th birthday on August 20. Arnold Postovit of Tioga is one of our State's most treasured residents who has experienced many great moments in our State's and Nation's history. Raised during the Great Depression on a farm near the town of Plaza, Arnold remembers days where the grasshoppers were so thick they blocked the sun. In an oral interview in 1999, this World War II veteran shared details about his military service. Arnold graduated from Plaza High School and spent a semester at the University of North Dakota before deciding he wanted to be a pilot. This led him and a few friends to the Army recruiting center in Bismarck in the summer of 1940. With no openings in Army Air Corps units, he enlisted in the infantry and never left the 7th Infantry, 3rd Division. He trained with a mortar unit in Washington State, going on manuevers and practicing boat landings on Puget Sound. In January 1941, he was transferred to Fort Lewis and was on leave in Tacoma on December 7, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. In early 1942, he trained near San Diego for several months, which included desert maneuvers. Traveling by train to Virginia, it was in November 1942 when his battalion boarded the USS Thomas Jefferson and landed in North Africa 3 weeks later. There, he was was among those who conducted night patrols around Casablanca. Following more training, Arnold and his division sailed the Mediterranean Sea toward Tunis to prepare for the invasion of Sicily in July 1943. His landing craft infantry came under heavy German machinegun fire as they came ashore. He also saw action in Palermo and Messina, Italy, where he remembers heavy fighting and the cold weather at Christmastime. ``We were young and tough,'' Arnold recalled in 1999. ``There was a lot of rain and we got sick from being wet and from the dysentery that would break out.'' His life would change after his unit landed behind German lines in Anzio, Italy, in January 1944. Hitler sent some of his best battle-hardened troops to push back this surprise attack by the Allied Forces. On February 6, German troops captured Arnold and a dozen other soldiers. He was transferred to a nearby POW camp that held many other American and British soldiers. A few weeks later, trucks took him and other POWs on a 4-day trip to northern Germany to the Stalag 2B camp. After a few months, he and 16 other soldiers were taken by train to a working farm, where he did general farm work for nearly a year. In the spring of 1945, as Soviet troops invaded Germany from the east, Arnold and a thousand other soldiers were marched west across Germany. They came close to the North Sea and kept warm in nearby barns during the cold nights. After marching 600 miles, Arnold and some other soldiers saw an opportunity to escape to a nearby small town near the Elbe River on April 12. They hid in abandoned buildings and the next morning flagged down a small American plane that was flying over. They were told to stay where they were because American troops would be marching through later that day. When they connected with the Americans, the first thing the soldiers did was throw those thin and sick prisoners of war cans of C-rations to eat. Eventually, they were flown to Le Harve, France, and went to nearby Camp Lucky Strike, where released prisoners of war were taken to regain their health. Arnold was among other North Dakota soldiers who then sailed with thousands of others to Newport News, VA, on a converted transport ship. Following his Army discharge, Arnold returned home to farm with his father, who by then lived near White Earth, ND. He planted the crops andhis father took care of the livestock. Married 6 years later, he and his wife Marjorie raised a family of five children. Although it was difficult to adjust after his wartime and POW experiences, Arnold made the best of his opportunities and cherished being an American. ``After you lose your freedom, then you understand what freedom means,'' he said. ``Americans are free, even if we sometimes think we aren't.'' In May 2009, Arnold participated with other North Dakota World War II veterans in an Honor Flight that took them to the World War II Memorial and other sites in Washington, DC. Arnold Postovit is one of 60,000 North Dakotans who served in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II. Of those, nearly 2,000 gave their lives for our freedom in this largest and deadliest conflict in world history. With only some 500 World War II veterans still alive today in North Dakota, the heroism of every single one of them is appreciated more than ever. Throughout his life, Arnold has embodied the best of the Greatest Generation. He has lived a meaningful life, sharing his story as a World War II soldier so the rest of us can better understand and appreciate the selfless service and sacrifice each and every veteran has made. On behalf of all North Dakotans, I wish Arnold Postovit a very happy 100th birthday on August 20 and many more years of health and vitality. As he celebrates with his family and many friends in Tioga on August 22, I honor him as one of North Dakota's most exemplary citizens. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRAMER | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5823 | null | 2,985 |
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-1682. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; IFQ Program; Modify Temporary Transfer Provisions'' (RIN0648-BK41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1683. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures for the Summer Flounder Fishery; Fishing Year 2021'' (RIN0648-BK32) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1684. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Approval of 2021 and 2022 Sector Operations Plans and Allocation of 2021 Northeast Multispecies Annual Catch Entitlements'' (RIN0648-BK26) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1685. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2021 Harvest Specifications for Pacific Whiting, and 2021 Pacific Whiting Tribal Allocation'' (RIN0648-BK25) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1686. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Removing the Processing Restrictions on Incidentally Caught Squid and Sculpin Species in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fisheries'' (RIN0648-BK18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1687. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Correcting Amendment to 50 CFR Part 660 for West Coast Sablefish Primary Fishery Season Dates'' (RIN0648-BK15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1688. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring; Framework Adjustment 8'' (RIN0648-BK11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1689. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Golden Tilefish Fishery; Extension of Emergency Action'' (RIN0648-BJ98) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1690. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2021 Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BJ97) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1691. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Island Fisheries; Mariana Archipelago Bottomfish Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures'' (RIN0648-BJ82) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1692. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 29; 2021-22 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures; Correction'' (RIN0648-BJ74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1693. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Salmon Bycatch Minimization'' (RIN0648-BJ50) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1694. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Salmon Bycatch Minimization'' (RIN0648-BJ50) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1695. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Rebuilding Coho Salmon Stocks'' (RIN0648-BJ05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1696. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Proposed 2021 and 2022 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish'' (RIN0648-XY116) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1697. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Children's Folding Chairs and Stools'' ((16 CFR Parts 1112, 1130, and 1232) (Docket No. CPSC-2015-0029)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1698. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Infant Sleep Products'' ((16 CFR Parts 1112, 1130, and 1236) (Docket No. CPSC-2017- 0020)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1699. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads; Amendment'' ((16 CFR Part 1632) (Docket No. CPSC-2020-0024)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1700. A communication from the Program Analyst, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In the Matter of Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' ((FCC 21-82) (GN Docket No. 13-111)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1701. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Redding, California'' ((DA 21-848) (Docket No. 21-177)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1702. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Missoula, Montana'' ((DA 21-846) (Docket No. 21-176)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1703. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Quincy, IL'' ((DA 21-844) (Docket No. 21-219)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1704. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Television Broadcasting Services; Butte, Montana'' ((DA 21-847) (Docket No. 21-185)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1705. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework Adjustment 33 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan'' (RIN0648-BK51) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1706. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan'' (RIN0648-BK42) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1707. A communication from the Director of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary Designation; Final Regulations'' (RIN0648-BG01) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1708. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard for the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture'' ((16 CFR Part 1640) (Docket No. CPSC-2021-0007)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1709. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification; Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies'' ((16 CFR Parts 1107 and 1112) (Docket No. CPSC-2021-0013)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1710. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's sixteenth annual report on ethanol market concentration; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1711. A communication from the Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``911 Fee Diversion, New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Report and Order'' ((FCC 21-80) (Docket Nos. PS20-291 and PS09-14)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1712. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist , National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting , pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands'' (RIN0648-XA821) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1713. A communication from the Acting Associate Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs'' ((RIN3060-AK95) (WC Docket No. 18-89)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1714. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Nashville, TN; Correction'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0701)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1715. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Great Falls, MT'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1126)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1716. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Dillon, MT'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0210)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1717. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Anaktuvuk Pass, AK'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0225)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1718. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31374)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1719. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31373)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1720. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31375)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1721. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31376)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1722. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21609'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0333)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1723. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters; Amendment 39- 21610'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2019-0293)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1724. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus (Type Certificate Previously Held by Eurocopter France) and Eurocopter France Helicopters; Amendment 39-21642'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2006-24733)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1725. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines AG Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21629'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0509)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1726. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21605'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0184)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1727. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes; Amendment 39-21604'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-0790)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1728. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Helicopters; Amendment 39- 21609'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0265)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1729. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. (Type Certificates Previously held by Agusta S.p.A. and AgustaWestland S.p.A.) Helicopters; Amendment 39-21606'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0304)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1730. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21569'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020- 0850)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1731. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21627'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0512)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1732. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21633'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0191)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1733. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH, Formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH) Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-21594'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1174)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 27, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1734. A communication from the Program Analyst, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing Standards for Hearing Aid-Compatible Handsets'' ((WT Docket No. 20-3) (FCC 21-28)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1735. A communication from the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules; Implementing Section 2 of the Preventing Illegal Radio Abuse Through Enforcement Act (PIRATE Act)'' (DA 20-1490) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1736. A communication from the Senior Attorney Advisor, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Updating the Commission's Rule for Over-the- Air Reception Devices'' ((WT Docket No. 19-71) (FCC 21-10)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1737. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rules Governing the Use of Distributed Transmission System Technologies, Authorizing Permissive Use of the 'Next Generation' Broadcast Television Standard'' ((MB Docket No. 20-74) (GN Docket No. 16-142) (FCC 21-21)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1738. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program'' ((FCC 21-20) (Docket Nos. WC19-195 and WC11-10)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1739. A communication from the Biologist, Office of Protected Resources, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designating Critical Habitat for the Central America, Mexico, and Western North Pacific Distinct Population Segments of Humpback Whales'' (RIN0648-BI06) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1740. A communication from the Biologist, Office of Protected Resources, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico'' (RIN0648-BB38) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 26, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1741. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Bakersfield, CA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0045)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1742. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Great Falls, MT'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0209)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1743. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional; Amendment 39-21553'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0365)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1744. A communication from the Legal Tech, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone, PNSY Entrance Structure Heavy Lift Project--Piscataqua River, Portsmouth NH'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021-0225)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1745. A communication from the Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' ((FCC 21-77) (Docket Nos. PS15-91 and PS15-94)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1746. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of the Ulupalakua Viticultural Area'' (RIN1513-AC65) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1747. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of the Goose Gap Viticultural Area'' (RIN1513-AC63) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1748. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of The Burn of Columbia Valley Viticultural Area'' (RIN1513-AC60) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1749. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of the White Bluffs Viticultural Area'' (RIN1513-AC57) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1750. A communication from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Viticultural Area'' (RIN1513-AC70) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1751. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Vessel Monitoring Systems; Requirements for Type- Approval of Cellular Transceiver Units'' (RIN0648-BJ15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1752. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reclassifying Sculpin Species in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-BJ49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1753. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands; Final 2020 and 2021 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish'' (RIN0648-XH080) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1754. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020-2021 Commercial Closure for Spanish Mackerel in the Atlantic Southern Zone'' (RIN0648-XA842) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1755. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region; 2020-2021 Closure of Commercial Run-Around Gillnet for King Mackerel'' (RIN0648-XA837) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1756. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall Using Hook-and-Line or Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XA783) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1757. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Pot Catcher/Processors in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XA770) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1758. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Greater Than or Equal to 60 Feet Length Overall Using Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XA771) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 21, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1759. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Cod in the central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XA516) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1760. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Reapportionment of the 2020 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Halibut Prohibited Species Catch Limits for the Trawl Deep- Water and Shallow Water Fishery Categories'' (RIN0648-XA314) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1761. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Emergency Measures to Address Fishery Observer Coverage During the Coronavirus Pandemic'' (RIN0648- BK33) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1762. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Correcting Amendment for Red Porgy to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Snapper-Grouper FMP)'' (RIN0648-BK19) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1763. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2021'' (RIN0648-BK08) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1764. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Framework Adjustment To Modify the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Risk Policy'' (RIN0648-BK05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1765. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Temporarily Increasing the Commercial Trip Limit for South Atlantic Vermillion Snapper and Recreational Bag Limit for Atlantic King Mackerel'' (RIN0648-BJ96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1766. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revised Management Measures for the 2020 Guided Sport Pacific Halibut Fisheries in International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Areas 2A, 2C, and 3A'' (RIN0648-BJ89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1767. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 29; 2021-2022 Biennial Specifications and Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BJ74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1768. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Fishing Regulations for FADs, Silky Shark, Observer Safety'' (RIN0648-BJ23) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1769. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; Regulatory Amendment 33'' (RIN0648-BJ55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1770. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program Amendment 111'' (RIN0648-BJ73) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1771. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Framework Adjustment 32 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan'' (RIN0648-BJ51) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1772. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries 2020 Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BJ48) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1773. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plan'' (RIN0648-BJ39) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1774. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Modifying Seasonal Allocations of Pollock and Pacific Cod for Trawl Catcher Vessels in the Central and Western Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-BJ35) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1775. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment'' (RIN0648-BH67) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1776. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regional Fishery Management Council Membership; Financial Disclosure and Recusal'' (RIN0648-BH73) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1777. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Joint Omnibus Electronic Vessel Trip Reporting Framework Adjustment'' (RIN0648-BI15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1778. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Greater Amberjack Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BJ08) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1779. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions to Catch Sharing Plan and Domestic Management Measures in Alaska'' (RIN0648-BJ34) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1780. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States; Emergency Action To Temporarily Remove Seasonal Processing Limitations for Pacific Whiting Motherships and Catcher-Processors'' (RIN0648-BJ83) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-1781. A communication from the Fisheries Regulations Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Increase in Sector Carryover of 2019 Annual Catch Entitlements and Carryover of Unused Leased-In Days-at-Sea by Common Pool Vessels'' (RIN0648-BK16) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 22, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5824-5 | null | 2,986 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 2564. Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wicker, and Ms. Duckworth) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; as follows: On page 2486, line 14, strike ``Provided'' and all that follows through ``proviso:'' on line 21 and insert the following: ``Provided further, That of the amount provided under this heading in this Act, $2,500,000,000 shall be for construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects: Provided further, That section 102(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2212(a)) and section 109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Public Law 116-260; 134 Stat. 2624) shall not apply to the extent that such projects are carried out using funds provided in the preceding proviso: Provided further, That in using such funds referred to in the preceding proviso, the Secretary shall give priority to projects included in the Capital Investment Strategy of the Corps of Engineers:''. On page 2487, lines 9 through 11, strike ``or section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2309a),'' and insert ``section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2309a), or section 165(a) of division AA of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116- 260),''. On page 2489, line 3, insert ``Provided further, That the amounts provided in the preceding proviso do not limit the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, from allotting additional funds from the amounts provided under this title in this Act for additional shore protection projects:'' after ``2024:''. On page 2489, line 9, insert ``Provided further, That in selecting projects under the previous proviso, the Secretary of the Army shall prioritize projects with overriding life- safety benefits: Provided further, That of the funds in the proviso preceding the preceding proviso, the Secretary of the Army shall, to the maximum extent practicable, prioritize projects in the work plan that directly benefit economically disadvantaged communities, and may take into consideration prioritizing projects that benefit areas in which the percentage of people that live in poverty or identify as belonging to a minority group is greater than the average such percentage in the United States, based on data from the Bureau of the Census:'' after ``purpose:''. On page 2496, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: general provisions--corps of engineers Sec. 300. For projects that are carried out with funds under this heading, the Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall consider other factors in addition to the benefit-cost ratio when determining the economic benefits of projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5881-4 | null | 2,987 |
formal | identify as | null | transphobic | SA 2564. Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Wicker, and Ms. Duckworth) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2137 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cassidy, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Collins, Mr. Tester, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Romney)) to the bill H.R. 3684, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes; as follows: On page 2486, line 14, strike ``Provided'' and all that follows through ``proviso:'' on line 21 and insert the following: ``Provided further, That of the amount provided under this heading in this Act, $2,500,000,000 shall be for construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects: Provided further, That section 102(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2212(a)) and section 109 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (Public Law 116-260; 134 Stat. 2624) shall not apply to the extent that such projects are carried out using funds provided in the preceding proviso: Provided further, That in using such funds referred to in the preceding proviso, the Secretary shall give priority to projects included in the Capital Investment Strategy of the Corps of Engineers:''. On page 2487, lines 9 through 11, strike ``or section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2309a),'' and insert ``section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2309a), or section 165(a) of division AA of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116- 260),''. On page 2489, line 3, insert ``Provided further, That the amounts provided in the preceding proviso do not limit the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, from allotting additional funds from the amounts provided under this title in this Act for additional shore protection projects:'' after ``2024:''. On page 2489, line 9, insert ``Provided further, That in selecting projects under the previous proviso, the Secretary of the Army shall prioritize projects with overriding life- safety benefits: Provided further, That of the funds in the proviso preceding the preceding proviso, the Secretary of the Army shall, to the maximum extent practicable, prioritize projects in the work plan that directly benefit economically disadvantaged communities, and may take into consideration prioritizing projects that benefit areas in which the percentage of people that live in poverty or identify as belonging to a minority group is greater than the average such percentage in the United States, based on data from the Bureau of the Census:'' after ``purpose:''. On page 2496, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: general provisions--corps of engineers Sec. 300. For projects that are carried out with funds under this heading, the Secretary of the Army and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall consider other factors in addition to the benefit-cost ratio when determining the economic benefits of projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5881-4 | null | 2,988 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to say a few words tonight, and I want to commend him and the Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, for allowing us to have this series of amendments. The Senate has worked its will and will continue to work its will tomorrow. As was said, there have been 22 amendments on the floor. About half of them are Democratic amendments, and about half of them are Republican amendments. I will say, also, there has just been a lot of discussion that has ensued because of this amendment process. So a lot of people have had the opportunity to discuss their issues to try to improve the bill in certain ways, and, frankly, a lot of these amendments were accepted; they were voted on positively--well, one just recently with regard to a safety issue that was just discussed--and improve the bill. So that is the way this place ought to work, and I think it is consistent with what we tried to do in this process from the beginning, where we saw an opportunity to pull out core infrastructure from a much larger package and deal with it without raising taxes but by focusing on bipartisan solutions, and that is exactly what the underlying bill does. The next step in that, then, was to say: Let's try to have an open amendment process too. And sure enough, we have. I had some colleagues of mine come up to me tonight and say: You know, it is nice to see the Senate working its will again, because these are colleagues who were around in previous decades where, you know, they saw this more often. So, again, I want to thank my colleagues for going through this process. It requires some patience. It requires some consensus. Some amendments had to be altered in some ways to be sure that both sides were comfortable having votes on them. But at the end of the day, we are able to say that people's voices are being heard. This will continue tomorrow. I just saw a list of about 10 amendments, and I know there are others as well that people would like to offer tomorrow, and I am all for it, as is Senator Sinema. Senator Sinema and I are very pleased that Members have the opportunity to express themselves. I also want to talk a little about what this bill does and why it is so important for our country. For the past 2 days, we have been working through this amendment process, and sometimes we lose sight of the bigger picture here. The bigger picture is that we as a country have an infrastructure system that is badly in need of repair. We are consistently rated as a country with an infrastructure system that, frankly, hasn't kept up with the rest of the world. There is a group called the World Economic Forum, and they give a report card every couple years, and America ends up, you know, 13th or 14th in the world in terms of infrastructure. That is not where we want to be. By the way, on a broader gauge of competitiveness, we are right up at the top in terms of our trade system, our tax system, our economic system generally, but with regard to infrastructure, we are not. As some of you have heard me say before, this is about competitiveness too. Think about this: China spends three or four times more as a percentage of their GDP than we do on infrastructure. The reality, as I have looked at those numbers, is that it is even higher than that, but let's say three or four times higher. Why? Because they get it. They are trying to outcompete us in every way, including having better ports, better rail, better airports, and the ability to both buy and sell their products overseas, and we here in America want to be at the top of that list. That is why it is very important, from my point of view, that we focus on the economic impact here. If we get this bill passed, it will make our economy more efficient; therefore, more productive; therefore, the economy will grow; therefore, more tax revenue will come into the coffers. There has been a lot of discussion about the pay-fors in this legislation. We will know more as the CBO report tells us very specifically how it is paid for. But the bottom line is, much of what happens in this bill, which is spending for capital assets, this long-term spending--it is not going to be spent next year. It may be spent in 5 years or 10 years. It may be a bridge in Georgia. It may be a port in Alabama. Those take years and years and years. The funding we are providing, the $550 billion in this bill, will be spent over that period of time. It will add to those hard assets. It is, as a result of that, on the supply side of the economy, creating jobs, creating hard assets, like the bridges and like the ports, and as a result of that, it is actually counterinflationary. I know there has been concern on the floor, including raised today in one of the amendments, about the fact that more spending leads to more inflation. Not this kind of spending. The kind of spending that would lead to it is more what is called the demand side of the equation--you know, as an example, the stimulus checks or even the unemployment insurance benefits. That led to more demand in the economy. Yes, that did drive up our inflation over the past several months and continues to. This is not that. This is spending over the long haul. It will create these capital assets that will make our economy more efficient and should be counterinflationary. We have a number of economists who have spoken to this: Doug Holtz-Eakin some of you know; also Michael Strain, who is at the American Enterprise Institute. The Penn Wharton study on this is very interesting. They say, actually, that our legislation, as they analyze it, will end up growing theeconomy, creating more jobs, and actually reducing the deficit, meaning more money will come into the coffers than we are spending here that is not paid for with CBO-certified official scores because of the economic impact of this. So this is very important for all of our constituents. It is also important for our broader economy, to make sure America stays at the forefront and that we can be competitive for our kids and our grandkids. Let's take the State of Ohio as an example since I happen to be from Ohio and why it is going to help my State. Ohio is a big infrastructure State. We have a lot of roads and a lot of bridges. Ohio's roadway network has a lot of congestion also. It is estimated that the congestion in Ohio costs motorists an estimated $4.7 billion each year in lost time and wasted fuel. That is according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, which scored Ohio's roads at a D in their 2021 infrastructure report card--a D. Now, the Nation as a whole is only a C-minus under their analysis. Ohio is a D. So we are a little worse than the Nation as a whole. As a whole, again, we are falling behind but Ohio particularly. We are second in the Nation for the number of bridges. We have got a lot of little rivers and railroad tracks in Ohio, so we have got a lot of bridges. We have 44,736 bridges in Ohio. By the way, they have looked at these bridges. Their analysis is that nearly half of them are not in good condition. Our farmers, who are working to plant crops in their fields, want to be able to then get those crops to market. They want to get them to the elevators. They want to be able to export them. They care about infrastructure. The moms and dads across Ohio who commute to work every day would heck of a lot rather spend their time with their kids than sitting in a car in a traffic jam on, you know, I-71 or 75 or I-270 or I-70. We have got a lot of great roads in Ohio, but, frankly, they can't keep up with the demand, so we have got a lot of traffic jams during rushing hour. Those are some of the people who care a lot about infrastructure. Our manufacturers in Ohio--we make everything in Ohio. We make cars. We make washing machines. We make tanks. We are proud of what we make in Ohio and what we export all around the world. We have got to be sure to get those products to market, too, so infrastructure is really important. Today, I talked to a company in Ohio that has trucks all over Ohio and the country, for that matter. It is the Cintas Corporation. They are the uniform company, but they do a lot more than uniforms. They are excited about this bill because it is going to help them be more efficient in their delivery of their services. That is the same with our truckers. I talked to a trucking company person yesterday who was interested in how this would affect the truckstops and wanted to know about, you know, electric vehicle charging stations and so on. But the bottom line was, this person said this is going to help because our truckers want to have a safe road and a safe bridge. They want to be able to meet their requirements and not get stuck in traffic jams and be able to make more money on the road, frankly. So this is something that helps our constituents across the board. But it goes well beyond just our roads. This is also about water infrastructure in this legislation. Communities across our State deserve water infrastructure that is going to deliver them clean, safe drinking water. We have got a lot of old water systems in Ohio that need help and need it badly. We also have a lot of wastewater systems in Ohio that are in trouble. Some of you may know this, but there are new EPA rules that have come out over the past couple decades about wastewater systems and particularly combined sewer overflow systems, where when you have a lot of rain, in many of our systems in Ohio, there is a combination of the sewer system and the wastewater system, and that is not safe. Yet fixing it is really expensive. Those communities--mostly midsize cities in Ohio but some larger cities as well--have all said to me: Can you help us a little more on water infrastructure? With the revolving loan program we have in here, the ability for them to get low-interest Federal loans to be able to expand their water infrastructure system--they will be able to do that in this legislation, as well as receive grants from the Federal Government to help them ensure that we do have water systems that work. Folks in rural parts of our State--Ohio is an Appalachian State. We have about 32 counties considered part of Appalachia. And guess what. In most of those counties, we have virtually no internet. I mean, sometimes there is real slow internet you can get but virtually no internet. This is why, for some of our kids in those counties in Ohio--these are rural counties that don't have access to Wi-Fi of a speed that is appropriate for school, much less work. These kids are falling behind, and particularly, of course, during the pandemic, when they had to rely on online learning. And the stories are out there, and you know them, and the mom that comes up to me when I am out and about in Ohio and says: You know what; I had to take my kid to the parking lot of the library, which is a 45-minute drive for me across rural Ohio roads, to be able to do her homework. That makes no sense. We want the digital divide to be closed. We want the ability for those kids in rural Ohio to have access to the internet, just as kids can get access to it in suburban or more urban settings. But even in the suburban and urban settings, we want to help be sure those kids have the hookup to their home to get that internet and to be able to afford that internet. So this legislation is unprecedented in many ways in terms of infrastructure--more roads, more bridges, more ports, more water systems--but it is also historic, unprecedented in terms of the expansion of broadband, finally. Again, this is about catching up. There are countries around the world that actually have better broadband than we do that are not even developed countries. They are poorer countries. You would think they might be a little behind, but they are sort of leapfrogging us in terms of technology because they realize how important having that internet build-out is. The other issue is for telehealth. There are more and more people relying on telehealth. Part of this comes out of the pandemic, when people kind of had to do that. They didn't want to go into a doctor's office or hospital for fear of the COVID pandemic. And, frankly, right now with the variants--and the delta variant in particular--there are some people who are still now, unfortunately, not comfortable going into a healthcare setting, but they need to have an appointment. They need to have someone to check them out, and they need, perhaps, with regard to behavioral health, to have the ability to have a consult. They can do that online now, and the Federal government has been reimbursing that for the first time, because before, under Medicare and Medicaid, that was very difficult. So this is going to be a part of our system. It is a good thing, sort of a rare silver lining in a terrible dark cloud of the pandemic that we learned how to use telehealth better. So what if you don't have access to internet? So what if you are a veteran in southeast Ohio and you have to drive 2\1/2\ hours to a VA clinic, and instead you would like to do telehealth because it makes a lot more sense for your situation, particularly during the pandemic, but you don't have internet? So, definitely, that is not fair. So telehealth is another reason for us to expand internet access. Finally, just for our economic benefit in these communities, we want more startups. We want more companies to be able to be successful. Without the internet--let's face it--it is going to be very, very difficult. These are all part of this legislation as well. The hard core infrastructure you think of--like roads and bridges, yes; water infrastructure, yes; ports, rail, freight--but also the digital infrastructure that ties our country together--that is part of this legislation as well. Again, it is why economists who look at this say this is actually going to help make our economy work better, make it more efficient. We will be more productive as a country, and we will have more economic growth and then more revenue will come in. That is why this is so popular. I mean, when you think about it, what can everybody agree on in America today? Not much. We are a country that is more divided, and that saddens me. It concerns me, particularly as we face challenges, some of which, like the pandemic, are here domestically, and some of which are global challenges brought on by some of our adversaries, like Russia or China or North Korea or Iran. But we are divided as a country. One thing that brings us together is our military. I think most people acknowledge and respect the role that our military plays. And another is infrastructure. It is an issue where traditionally Republicans and Democrats were able to come together and say: We may disagree on taxes and healthcare and all sorts of other things, but on this issue of strong infrastructure, we can come together. Again, I think it makes sense economically, and, also, it is popular. People know when they are driving over potholes or getting stuck in traffic jams or not being able to get a product because the ports are backed up, which they are right now. Our ports are inefficient and people literally can't get products. They can't get cars or they can't get an electronic device. That is all part of this. So this is something that ought to bring us together, and it does bring us together. The polling out there shows this, by the way. There are two polls in the last few months that both said that 87 percent of the American people want us to work on this infrastructure project on a bipartisan process and get it done. Those numbers were unbelievable, and it was exactly 87 percent in both polls, interestingly, even though one was CBS and one was CNBC. But forget the polls for a minute and just go home and talk to people. They do want to make sure that we are not raising taxes to do this. They don't want to see us helping the economy long-term with infrastructure but hurting the economy short-term with higher taxes. And I agree. And we don't do that here. That is what is particularly great about this approach. It is that we said that we are going to pull out core infrastructure only and we are not going to raise taxes. So we have the funds in here to be able to help with regard to our highways, our bridges, our ports, our waterways, our broadband expansion. But we also have the ability for us to do that in a way that makes sense for all Americans. In Ohio, it is going to help us do something else that is important, and that is to help with regard to some of our big infrastructure projects. I will talk about one tonight briefly--the Brent Spence Bridge. This is in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH. It is a critical bridge because it is where I-75 and I-71 come together, and therefore it is a bottleneck. Twice as many cars drive on that bridge every day as it was built for. Twice as many cars drive on that bridge every day--and trucks--as it was built for. It is the reason that there is a traffic jam there during rush hour. But it is also the reason that it is unsafe, because over time the shoulders have been removed to create another lane. So if there is an accident on that bridge, there is nowhere to go. We had an accident 2 months ago with two trucks that collided, and we had to close it down, actually, for several weeks, and it was a mess. And talk about the effect on the economy. Think about this. There are roughly 3 million people in the metropolitan area there, with Dayton and Cincinnati on one side, and the other side has about 1 million people in Covington, KY. And you have traffic going all the way north and south from Canada to Mexico, and all of a sudden you don't have a bridge available because of the safety concerns that led to the accident. So we need a solution with regard to that bridge, and we have been talking about it for years. For 25 years, I have been involved in the effort to try to find the funding to replace this bridge because it needs it. Finally, we will have the ability to do that. We will have the ability to help, with Kentucky and with Ohio and with the Federal Government working together with the local community, to complete this Brent Spence Bridge corridor project. Why? Because we are putting an unprecedented amount of money into not just bridges but bridges like this one--bridges that are major commercial bridges; bridges that are functionally obsolete, which ours have been for years; bridges that desperately need the help. We also have a big aviation industry in Ohio. We support a lot of jobs through aviation, our second biggest industry after agriculture in Ohio. There is $25 billion for new spending for airports in here. That is going to help airports build on the momentum that we need right now in Ohio to be able to expand our aerospace industry. On the shores of Lake Erie, on the north coast of Ohio, we will also have help. Lake Erie supports fishing and tourism industries that total over $10 billion. It provides drinking water for 10 million people. It is the top tourist attraction in our State, but as anyone who visits the lake will tell you, they have some serious long-term health challenges with the lake. We have invasive species. We have a problem with toxic algal blooms. We have pollution. We have rising levels of the lake. This bill helps with regard to all of that. With regard to rising levels of the lake, there are communities on the lake that will tell you their water systems don't work because the lake water has risen to the point where the outtake valve which is next to the intake valve is now actually underwater, so the system doesn't work well. In fact, the system is incredibly expensive to replace. So this will help with regard to that. As cochair of the Senate Great Lakes Caucus, I am very pleased to see this investment because it will support the infrastructure and infrastructure investments in communities all along Lake Erie and every one of our Great Lakes. Finally and crucially, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act before us helps more than 300,000 Ohio households that lack access to this high-speed internet. That is incredibly important. Our legislation does everything that I have talked about in terms of infrastructure, and that is important. Again, we have the studies out there that I talked about, including one from Penn, from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. They talked about how the economic growth from this study will actually make our economy better and create more jobs, and they say that, actually, over time, it reduces the deficit, based on looking at our study and, specifically, our proposals. So all that is true. The final thing I guess I want to say is that it goes beyond infrastructure. It goes to how to get Washington back to a point where Washington is solving problems for the American people. And this bill is not perfect for anybody--no Republican, no Democrat. Why? It is a bipartisan compromise. You know, again, we started off with a product that President Biden introduced that was $2.65 trillion--a huge package called ``infrastructure,'' but most of it was not for infrastructure. It had huge tax increases in it--the highest tax increase, it would have been, in American history. It would have made our country less competitive, in my view. We said: OK, let's find a group of Democrats and Republicans, and let's agree to pull out the core parts of this, the core infrastructure, and find a way to pay for it without raising taxes. That is what we did, and we worked hard to create a product that was fair for everybody. But that means finding that consensus, and that is not easy. You know, we all had to make concessions, but, at the end of the day, we got a product--$550 billion over the next 5 years, which will be spread out, spent over many, many years, that will put America back on top in terms of infrastructure. It will put us in a position where, for our kids and our grandkids, they are going to have a more productive and a more efficient economy--one that produces more, one that has the ability for America to say to the world: Look at us again. We are back. We are back. We now have an infrastructure system with our ports and our roads and our bridges, with our water infrastructure, and with our broadband that can be, once again, a model for the rest of the world and help move us forward and ensure that every American has the opportunity to succeed. So this bipartisan process in and of itself, I think, is an accomplishment of this legislation. The underlying bill is what is most important, I suppose, butjust being able to show that Republicans and Democrats can come together in this town and get something done that is positive for our country, that in and of itself is an accomplishment. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5884-4 | null | 2,989 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to say a few words tonight, and I want to commend him and the Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, for allowing us to have this series of amendments. The Senate has worked its will and will continue to work its will tomorrow. As was said, there have been 22 amendments on the floor. About half of them are Democratic amendments, and about half of them are Republican amendments. I will say, also, there has just been a lot of discussion that has ensued because of this amendment process. So a lot of people have had the opportunity to discuss their issues to try to improve the bill in certain ways, and, frankly, a lot of these amendments were accepted; they were voted on positively--well, one just recently with regard to a safety issue that was just discussed--and improve the bill. So that is the way this place ought to work, and I think it is consistent with what we tried to do in this process from the beginning, where we saw an opportunity to pull out core infrastructure from a much larger package and deal with it without raising taxes but by focusing on bipartisan solutions, and that is exactly what the underlying bill does. The next step in that, then, was to say: Let's try to have an open amendment process too. And sure enough, we have. I had some colleagues of mine come up to me tonight and say: You know, it is nice to see the Senate working its will again, because these are colleagues who were around in previous decades where, you know, they saw this more often. So, again, I want to thank my colleagues for going through this process. It requires some patience. It requires some consensus. Some amendments had to be altered in some ways to be sure that both sides were comfortable having votes on them. But at the end of the day, we are able to say that people's voices are being heard. This will continue tomorrow. I just saw a list of about 10 amendments, and I know there are others as well that people would like to offer tomorrow, and I am all for it, as is Senator Sinema. Senator Sinema and I are very pleased that Members have the opportunity to express themselves. I also want to talk a little about what this bill does and why it is so important for our country. For the past 2 days, we have been working through this amendment process, and sometimes we lose sight of the bigger picture here. The bigger picture is that we as a country have an infrastructure system that is badly in need of repair. We are consistently rated as a country with an infrastructure system that, frankly, hasn't kept up with the rest of the world. There is a group called the World Economic Forum, and they give a report card every couple years, and America ends up, you know, 13th or 14th in the world in terms of infrastructure. That is not where we want to be. By the way, on a broader gauge of competitiveness, we are right up at the top in terms of our trade system, our tax system, our economic system generally, but with regard to infrastructure, we are not. As some of you have heard me say before, this is about competitiveness too. Think about this: China spends three or four times more as a percentage of their GDP than we do on infrastructure. The reality, as I have looked at those numbers, is that it is even higher than that, but let's say three or four times higher. Why? Because they get it. They are trying to outcompete us in every way, including having better ports, better rail, better airports, and the ability to both buy and sell their products overseas, and we here in America want to be at the top of that list. That is why it is very important, from my point of view, that we focus on the economic impact here. If we get this bill passed, it will make our economy more efficient; therefore, more productive; therefore, the economy will grow; therefore, more tax revenue will come into the coffers. There has been a lot of discussion about the pay-fors in this legislation. We will know more as the CBO report tells us very specifically how it is paid for. But the bottom line is, much of what happens in this bill, which is spending for capital assets, this long-term spending--it is not going to be spent next year. It may be spent in 5 years or 10 years. It may be a bridge in Georgia. It may be a port in Alabama. Those take years and years and years. The funding we are providing, the $550 billion in this bill, will be spent over that period of time. It will add to those hard assets. It is, as a result of that, on the supply side of the economy, creating jobs, creating hard assets, like the bridges and like the ports, and as a result of that, it is actually counterinflationary. I know there has been concern on the floor, including raised today in one of the amendments, about the fact that more spending leads to more inflation. Not this kind of spending. The kind of spending that would lead to it is more what is called the demand side of the equation--you know, as an example, the stimulus checks or even the unemployment insurance benefits. That led to more demand in the economy. Yes, that did drive up our inflation over the past several months and continues to. This is not that. This is spending over the long haul. It will create these capital assets that will make our economy more efficient and should be counterinflationary. We have a number of economists who have spoken to this: Doug Holtz-Eakin some of you know; also Michael Strain, who is at the American Enterprise Institute. The Penn Wharton study on this is very interesting. They say, actually, that our legislation, as they analyze it, will end up growing theeconomy, creating more jobs, and actually reducing the deficit, meaning more money will come into the coffers than we are spending here that is not paid for with CBO-certified official scores because of the economic impact of this. So this is very important for all of our constituents. It is also important for our broader economy, to make sure America stays at the forefront and that we can be competitive for our kids and our grandkids. Let's take the State of Ohio as an example since I happen to be from Ohio and why it is going to help my State. Ohio is a big infrastructure State. We have a lot of roads and a lot of bridges. Ohio's roadway network has a lot of congestion also. It is estimated that the congestion in Ohio costs motorists an estimated $4.7 billion each year in lost time and wasted fuel. That is according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, which scored Ohio's roads at a D in their 2021 infrastructure report card--a D. Now, the Nation as a whole is only a C-minus under their analysis. Ohio is a D. So we are a little worse than the Nation as a whole. As a whole, again, we are falling behind but Ohio particularly. We are second in the Nation for the number of bridges. We have got a lot of little rivers and railroad tracks in Ohio, so we have got a lot of bridges. We have 44,736 bridges in Ohio. By the way, they have looked at these bridges. Their analysis is that nearly half of them are not in good condition. Our farmers, who are working to plant crops in their fields, want to be able to then get those crops to market. They want to get them to the elevators. They want to be able to export them. They care about infrastructure. The moms and dads across Ohio who commute to work every day would heck of a lot rather spend their time with their kids than sitting in a car in a traffic jam on, you know, I-71 or 75 or I-270 or I-70. We have got a lot of great roads in Ohio, but, frankly, they can't keep up with the demand, so we have got a lot of traffic jams during rushing hour. Those are some of the people who care a lot about infrastructure. Our manufacturers in Ohio--we make everything in Ohio. We make cars. We make washing machines. We make tanks. We are proud of what we make in Ohio and what we export all around the world. We have got to be sure to get those products to market, too, so infrastructure is really important. Today, I talked to a company in Ohio that has trucks all over Ohio and the country, for that matter. It is the Cintas Corporation. They are the uniform company, but they do a lot more than uniforms. They are excited about this bill because it is going to help them be more efficient in their delivery of their services. That is the same with our truckers. I talked to a trucking company person yesterday who was interested in how this would affect the truckstops and wanted to know about, you know, electric vehicle charging stations and so on. But the bottom line was, this person said this is going to help because our truckers want to have a safe road and a safe bridge. They want to be able to meet their requirements and not get stuck in traffic jams and be able to make more money on the road, frankly. So this is something that helps our constituents across the board. But it goes well beyond just our roads. This is also about water infrastructure in this legislation. Communities across our State deserve water infrastructure that is going to deliver them clean, safe drinking water. We have got a lot of old water systems in Ohio that need help and need it badly. We also have a lot of wastewater systems in Ohio that are in trouble. Some of you may know this, but there are new EPA rules that have come out over the past couple decades about wastewater systems and particularly combined sewer overflow systems, where when you have a lot of rain, in many of our systems in Ohio, there is a combination of the sewer system and the wastewater system, and that is not safe. Yet fixing it is really expensive. Those communities--mostly midsize cities in Ohio but some larger cities as well--have all said to me: Can you help us a little more on water infrastructure? With the revolving loan program we have in here, the ability for them to get low-interest Federal loans to be able to expand their water infrastructure system--they will be able to do that in this legislation, as well as receive grants from the Federal Government to help them ensure that we do have water systems that work. Folks in rural parts of our State--Ohio is an Appalachian State. We have about 32 counties considered part of Appalachia. And guess what. In most of those counties, we have virtually no internet. I mean, sometimes there is real slow internet you can get but virtually no internet. This is why, for some of our kids in those counties in Ohio--these are rural counties that don't have access to Wi-Fi of a speed that is appropriate for school, much less work. These kids are falling behind, and particularly, of course, during the pandemic, when they had to rely on online learning. And the stories are out there, and you know them, and the mom that comes up to me when I am out and about in Ohio and says: You know what; I had to take my kid to the parking lot of the library, which is a 45-minute drive for me across rural Ohio roads, to be able to do her homework. That makes no sense. We want the digital divide to be closed. We want the ability for those kids in rural Ohio to have access to the internet, just as kids can get access to it in suburban or more urban settings. But even in the suburban and urban settings, we want to help be sure those kids have the hookup to their home to get that internet and to be able to afford that internet. So this legislation is unprecedented in many ways in terms of infrastructure--more roads, more bridges, more ports, more water systems--but it is also historic, unprecedented in terms of the expansion of broadband, finally. Again, this is about catching up. There are countries around the world that actually have better broadband than we do that are not even developed countries. They are poorer countries. You would think they might be a little behind, but they are sort of leapfrogging us in terms of technology because they realize how important having that internet build-out is. The other issue is for telehealth. There are more and more people relying on telehealth. Part of this comes out of the pandemic, when people kind of had to do that. They didn't want to go into a doctor's office or hospital for fear of the COVID pandemic. And, frankly, right now with the variants--and the delta variant in particular--there are some people who are still now, unfortunately, not comfortable going into a healthcare setting, but they need to have an appointment. They need to have someone to check them out, and they need, perhaps, with regard to behavioral health, to have the ability to have a consult. They can do that online now, and the Federal government has been reimbursing that for the first time, because before, under Medicare and Medicaid, that was very difficult. So this is going to be a part of our system. It is a good thing, sort of a rare silver lining in a terrible dark cloud of the pandemic that we learned how to use telehealth better. So what if you don't have access to internet? So what if you are a veteran in southeast Ohio and you have to drive 2\1/2\ hours to a VA clinic, and instead you would like to do telehealth because it makes a lot more sense for your situation, particularly during the pandemic, but you don't have internet? So, definitely, that is not fair. So telehealth is another reason for us to expand internet access. Finally, just for our economic benefit in these communities, we want more startups. We want more companies to be able to be successful. Without the internet--let's face it--it is going to be very, very difficult. These are all part of this legislation as well. The hard core infrastructure you think of--like roads and bridges, yes; water infrastructure, yes; ports, rail, freight--but also the digital infrastructure that ties our country together--that is part of this legislation as well. Again, it is why economists who look at this say this is actually going to help make our economy work better, make it more efficient. We will be more productive as a country, and we will have more economic growth and then more revenue will come in. That is why this is so popular. I mean, when you think about it, what can everybody agree on in America today? Not much. We are a country that is more divided, and that saddens me. It concerns me, particularly as we face challenges, some of which, like the pandemic, are here domestically, and some of which are global challenges brought on by some of our adversaries, like Russia or China or North Korea or Iran. But we are divided as a country. One thing that brings us together is our military. I think most people acknowledge and respect the role that our military plays. And another is infrastructure. It is an issue where traditionally Republicans and Democrats were able to come together and say: We may disagree on taxes and healthcare and all sorts of other things, but on this issue of strong infrastructure, we can come together. Again, I think it makes sense economically, and, also, it is popular. People know when they are driving over potholes or getting stuck in traffic jams or not being able to get a product because the ports are backed up, which they are right now. Our ports are inefficient and people literally can't get products. They can't get cars or they can't get an electronic device. That is all part of this. So this is something that ought to bring us together, and it does bring us together. The polling out there shows this, by the way. There are two polls in the last few months that both said that 87 percent of the American people want us to work on this infrastructure project on a bipartisan process and get it done. Those numbers were unbelievable, and it was exactly 87 percent in both polls, interestingly, even though one was CBS and one was CNBC. But forget the polls for a minute and just go home and talk to people. They do want to make sure that we are not raising taxes to do this. They don't want to see us helping the economy long-term with infrastructure but hurting the economy short-term with higher taxes. And I agree. And we don't do that here. That is what is particularly great about this approach. It is that we said that we are going to pull out core infrastructure only and we are not going to raise taxes. So we have the funds in here to be able to help with regard to our highways, our bridges, our ports, our waterways, our broadband expansion. But we also have the ability for us to do that in a way that makes sense for all Americans. In Ohio, it is going to help us do something else that is important, and that is to help with regard to some of our big infrastructure projects. I will talk about one tonight briefly--the Brent Spence Bridge. This is in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH. It is a critical bridge because it is where I-75 and I-71 come together, and therefore it is a bottleneck. Twice as many cars drive on that bridge every day as it was built for. Twice as many cars drive on that bridge every day--and trucks--as it was built for. It is the reason that there is a traffic jam there during rush hour. But it is also the reason that it is unsafe, because over time the shoulders have been removed to create another lane. So if there is an accident on that bridge, there is nowhere to go. We had an accident 2 months ago with two trucks that collided, and we had to close it down, actually, for several weeks, and it was a mess. And talk about the effect on the economy. Think about this. There are roughly 3 million people in the metropolitan area there, with Dayton and Cincinnati on one side, and the other side has about 1 million people in Covington, KY. And you have traffic going all the way north and south from Canada to Mexico, and all of a sudden you don't have a bridge available because of the safety concerns that led to the accident. So we need a solution with regard to that bridge, and we have been talking about it for years. For 25 years, I have been involved in the effort to try to find the funding to replace this bridge because it needs it. Finally, we will have the ability to do that. We will have the ability to help, with Kentucky and with Ohio and with the Federal Government working together with the local community, to complete this Brent Spence Bridge corridor project. Why? Because we are putting an unprecedented amount of money into not just bridges but bridges like this one--bridges that are major commercial bridges; bridges that are functionally obsolete, which ours have been for years; bridges that desperately need the help. We also have a big aviation industry in Ohio. We support a lot of jobs through aviation, our second biggest industry after agriculture in Ohio. There is $25 billion for new spending for airports in here. That is going to help airports build on the momentum that we need right now in Ohio to be able to expand our aerospace industry. On the shores of Lake Erie, on the north coast of Ohio, we will also have help. Lake Erie supports fishing and tourism industries that total over $10 billion. It provides drinking water for 10 million people. It is the top tourist attraction in our State, but as anyone who visits the lake will tell you, they have some serious long-term health challenges with the lake. We have invasive species. We have a problem with toxic algal blooms. We have pollution. We have rising levels of the lake. This bill helps with regard to all of that. With regard to rising levels of the lake, there are communities on the lake that will tell you their water systems don't work because the lake water has risen to the point where the outtake valve which is next to the intake valve is now actually underwater, so the system doesn't work well. In fact, the system is incredibly expensive to replace. So this will help with regard to that. As cochair of the Senate Great Lakes Caucus, I am very pleased to see this investment because it will support the infrastructure and infrastructure investments in communities all along Lake Erie and every one of our Great Lakes. Finally and crucially, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act before us helps more than 300,000 Ohio households that lack access to this high-speed internet. That is incredibly important. Our legislation does everything that I have talked about in terms of infrastructure, and that is important. Again, we have the studies out there that I talked about, including one from Penn, from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. They talked about how the economic growth from this study will actually make our economy better and create more jobs, and they say that, actually, over time, it reduces the deficit, based on looking at our study and, specifically, our proposals. So all that is true. The final thing I guess I want to say is that it goes beyond infrastructure. It goes to how to get Washington back to a point where Washington is solving problems for the American people. And this bill is not perfect for anybody--no Republican, no Democrat. Why? It is a bipartisan compromise. You know, again, we started off with a product that President Biden introduced that was $2.65 trillion--a huge package called ``infrastructure,'' but most of it was not for infrastructure. It had huge tax increases in it--the highest tax increase, it would have been, in American history. It would have made our country less competitive, in my view. We said: OK, let's find a group of Democrats and Republicans, and let's agree to pull out the core parts of this, the core infrastructure, and find a way to pay for it without raising taxes. That is what we did, and we worked hard to create a product that was fair for everybody. But that means finding that consensus, and that is not easy. You know, we all had to make concessions, but, at the end of the day, we got a product--$550 billion over the next 5 years, which will be spread out, spent over many, many years, that will put America back on top in terms of infrastructure. It will put us in a position where, for our kids and our grandkids, they are going to have a more productive and a more efficient economy--one that produces more, one that has the ability for America to say to the world: Look at us again. We are back. We are back. We now have an infrastructure system with our ports and our roads and our bridges, with our water infrastructure, and with our broadband that can be, once again, a model for the rest of the world and help move us forward and ensure that every American has the opportunity to succeed. So this bipartisan process in and of itself, I think, is an accomplishment of this legislation. The underlying bill is what is most important, I suppose, butjust being able to show that Republicans and Democrats can come together in this town and get something done that is positive for our country, that in and of itself is an accomplishment. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5884-4 | null | 2,990 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing me to say a few words tonight, and I want to commend him and the Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell, for allowing us to have this series of amendments. The Senate has worked its will and will continue to work its will tomorrow. As was said, there have been 22 amendments on the floor. About half of them are Democratic amendments, and about half of them are Republican amendments. I will say, also, there has just been a lot of discussion that has ensued because of this amendment process. So a lot of people have had the opportunity to discuss their issues to try to improve the bill in certain ways, and, frankly, a lot of these amendments were accepted; they were voted on positively--well, one just recently with regard to a safety issue that was just discussed--and improve the bill. So that is the way this place ought to work, and I think it is consistent with what we tried to do in this process from the beginning, where we saw an opportunity to pull out core infrastructure from a much larger package and deal with it without raising taxes but by focusing on bipartisan solutions, and that is exactly what the underlying bill does. The next step in that, then, was to say: Let's try to have an open amendment process too. And sure enough, we have. I had some colleagues of mine come up to me tonight and say: You know, it is nice to see the Senate working its will again, because these are colleagues who were around in previous decades where, you know, they saw this more often. So, again, I want to thank my colleagues for going through this process. It requires some patience. It requires some consensus. Some amendments had to be altered in some ways to be sure that both sides were comfortable having votes on them. But at the end of the day, we are able to say that people's voices are being heard. This will continue tomorrow. I just saw a list of about 10 amendments, and I know there are others as well that people would like to offer tomorrow, and I am all for it, as is Senator Sinema. Senator Sinema and I are very pleased that Members have the opportunity to express themselves. I also want to talk a little about what this bill does and why it is so important for our country. For the past 2 days, we have been working through this amendment process, and sometimes we lose sight of the bigger picture here. The bigger picture is that we as a country have an infrastructure system that is badly in need of repair. We are consistently rated as a country with an infrastructure system that, frankly, hasn't kept up with the rest of the world. There is a group called the World Economic Forum, and they give a report card every couple years, and America ends up, you know, 13th or 14th in the world in terms of infrastructure. That is not where we want to be. By the way, on a broader gauge of competitiveness, we are right up at the top in terms of our trade system, our tax system, our economic system generally, but with regard to infrastructure, we are not. As some of you have heard me say before, this is about competitiveness too. Think about this: China spends three or four times more as a percentage of their GDP than we do on infrastructure. The reality, as I have looked at those numbers, is that it is even higher than that, but let's say three or four times higher. Why? Because they get it. They are trying to outcompete us in every way, including having better ports, better rail, better airports, and the ability to both buy and sell their products overseas, and we here in America want to be at the top of that list. That is why it is very important, from my point of view, that we focus on the economic impact here. If we get this bill passed, it will make our economy more efficient; therefore, more productive; therefore, the economy will grow; therefore, more tax revenue will come into the coffers. There has been a lot of discussion about the pay-fors in this legislation. We will know more as the CBO report tells us very specifically how it is paid for. But the bottom line is, much of what happens in this bill, which is spending for capital assets, this long-term spending--it is not going to be spent next year. It may be spent in 5 years or 10 years. It may be a bridge in Georgia. It may be a port in Alabama. Those take years and years and years. The funding we are providing, the $550 billion in this bill, will be spent over that period of time. It will add to those hard assets. It is, as a result of that, on the supply side of the economy, creating jobs, creating hard assets, like the bridges and like the ports, and as a result of that, it is actually counterinflationary. I know there has been concern on the floor, including raised today in one of the amendments, about the fact that more spending leads to more inflation. Not this kind of spending. The kind of spending that would lead to it is more what is called the demand side of the equation--you know, as an example, the stimulus checks or even the unemployment insurance benefits. That led to more demand in the economy. Yes, that did drive up our inflation over the past several months and continues to. This is not that. This is spending over the long haul. It will create these capital assets that will make our economy more efficient and should be counterinflationary. We have a number of economists who have spoken to this: Doug Holtz-Eakin some of you know; also Michael Strain, who is at the American Enterprise Institute. The Penn Wharton study on this is very interesting. They say, actually, that our legislation, as they analyze it, will end up growing theeconomy, creating more jobs, and actually reducing the deficit, meaning more money will come into the coffers than we are spending here that is not paid for with CBO-certified official scores because of the economic impact of this. So this is very important for all of our constituents. It is also important for our broader economy, to make sure America stays at the forefront and that we can be competitive for our kids and our grandkids. Let's take the State of Ohio as an example since I happen to be from Ohio and why it is going to help my State. Ohio is a big infrastructure State. We have a lot of roads and a lot of bridges. Ohio's roadway network has a lot of congestion also. It is estimated that the congestion in Ohio costs motorists an estimated $4.7 billion each year in lost time and wasted fuel. That is according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, which scored Ohio's roads at a D in their 2021 infrastructure report card--a D. Now, the Nation as a whole is only a C-minus under their analysis. Ohio is a D. So we are a little worse than the Nation as a whole. As a whole, again, we are falling behind but Ohio particularly. We are second in the Nation for the number of bridges. We have got a lot of little rivers and railroad tracks in Ohio, so we have got a lot of bridges. We have 44,736 bridges in Ohio. By the way, they have looked at these bridges. Their analysis is that nearly half of them are not in good condition. Our farmers, who are working to plant crops in their fields, want to be able to then get those crops to market. They want to get them to the elevators. They want to be able to export them. They care about infrastructure. The moms and dads across Ohio who commute to work every day would heck of a lot rather spend their time with their kids than sitting in a car in a traffic jam on, you know, I-71 or 75 or I-270 or I-70. We have got a lot of great roads in Ohio, but, frankly, they can't keep up with the demand, so we have got a lot of traffic jams during rushing hour. Those are some of the people who care a lot about infrastructure. Our manufacturers in Ohio--we make everything in Ohio. We make cars. We make washing machines. We make tanks. We are proud of what we make in Ohio and what we export all around the world. We have got to be sure to get those products to market, too, so infrastructure is really important. Today, I talked to a company in Ohio that has trucks all over Ohio and the country, for that matter. It is the Cintas Corporation. They are the uniform company, but they do a lot more than uniforms. They are excited about this bill because it is going to help them be more efficient in their delivery of their services. That is the same with our truckers. I talked to a trucking company person yesterday who was interested in how this would affect the truckstops and wanted to know about, you know, electric vehicle charging stations and so on. But the bottom line was, this person said this is going to help because our truckers want to have a safe road and a safe bridge. They want to be able to meet their requirements and not get stuck in traffic jams and be able to make more money on the road, frankly. So this is something that helps our constituents across the board. But it goes well beyond just our roads. This is also about water infrastructure in this legislation. Communities across our State deserve water infrastructure that is going to deliver them clean, safe drinking water. We have got a lot of old water systems in Ohio that need help and need it badly. We also have a lot of wastewater systems in Ohio that are in trouble. Some of you may know this, but there are new EPA rules that have come out over the past couple decades about wastewater systems and particularly combined sewer overflow systems, where when you have a lot of rain, in many of our systems in Ohio, there is a combination of the sewer system and the wastewater system, and that is not safe. Yet fixing it is really expensive. Those communities--mostly midsize cities in Ohio but some larger cities as well--have all said to me: Can you help us a little more on water infrastructure? With the revolving loan program we have in here, the ability for them to get low-interest Federal loans to be able to expand their water infrastructure system--they will be able to do that in this legislation, as well as receive grants from the Federal Government to help them ensure that we do have water systems that work. Folks in rural parts of our State--Ohio is an Appalachian State. We have about 32 counties considered part of Appalachia. And guess what. In most of those counties, we have virtually no internet. I mean, sometimes there is real slow internet you can get but virtually no internet. This is why, for some of our kids in those counties in Ohio--these are rural counties that don't have access to Wi-Fi of a speed that is appropriate for school, much less work. These kids are falling behind, and particularly, of course, during the pandemic, when they had to rely on online learning. And the stories are out there, and you know them, and the mom that comes up to me when I am out and about in Ohio and says: You know what; I had to take my kid to the parking lot of the library, which is a 45-minute drive for me across rural Ohio roads, to be able to do her homework. That makes no sense. We want the digital divide to be closed. We want the ability for those kids in rural Ohio to have access to the internet, just as kids can get access to it in suburban or more urban settings. But even in the suburban and urban settings, we want to help be sure those kids have the hookup to their home to get that internet and to be able to afford that internet. So this legislation is unprecedented in many ways in terms of infrastructure--more roads, more bridges, more ports, more water systems--but it is also historic, unprecedented in terms of the expansion of broadband, finally. Again, this is about catching up. There are countries around the world that actually have better broadband than we do that are not even developed countries. They are poorer countries. You would think they might be a little behind, but they are sort of leapfrogging us in terms of technology because they realize how important having that internet build-out is. The other issue is for telehealth. There are more and more people relying on telehealth. Part of this comes out of the pandemic, when people kind of had to do that. They didn't want to go into a doctor's office or hospital for fear of the COVID pandemic. And, frankly, right now with the variants--and the delta variant in particular--there are some people who are still now, unfortunately, not comfortable going into a healthcare setting, but they need to have an appointment. They need to have someone to check them out, and they need, perhaps, with regard to behavioral health, to have the ability to have a consult. They can do that online now, and the Federal government has been reimbursing that for the first time, because before, under Medicare and Medicaid, that was very difficult. So this is going to be a part of our system. It is a good thing, sort of a rare silver lining in a terrible dark cloud of the pandemic that we learned how to use telehealth better. So what if you don't have access to internet? So what if you are a veteran in southeast Ohio and you have to drive 2\1/2\ hours to a VA clinic, and instead you would like to do telehealth because it makes a lot more sense for your situation, particularly during the pandemic, but you don't have internet? So, definitely, that is not fair. So telehealth is another reason for us to expand internet access. Finally, just for our economic benefit in these communities, we want more startups. We want more companies to be able to be successful. Without the internet--let's face it--it is going to be very, very difficult. These are all part of this legislation as well. The hard core infrastructure you think of--like roads and bridges, yes; water infrastructure, yes; ports, rail, freight--but also the digital infrastructure that ties our country together--that is part of this legislation as well. Again, it is why economists who look at this say this is actually going to help make our economy work better, make it more efficient. We will be more productive as a country, and we will have more economic growth and then more revenue will come in. That is why this is so popular. I mean, when you think about it, what can everybody agree on in America today? Not much. We are a country that is more divided, and that saddens me. It concerns me, particularly as we face challenges, some of which, like the pandemic, are here domestically, and some of which are global challenges brought on by some of our adversaries, like Russia or China or North Korea or Iran. But we are divided as a country. One thing that brings us together is our military. I think most people acknowledge and respect the role that our military plays. And another is infrastructure. It is an issue where traditionally Republicans and Democrats were able to come together and say: We may disagree on taxes and healthcare and all sorts of other things, but on this issue of strong infrastructure, we can come together. Again, I think it makes sense economically, and, also, it is popular. People know when they are driving over potholes or getting stuck in traffic jams or not being able to get a product because the ports are backed up, which they are right now. Our ports are inefficient and people literally can't get products. They can't get cars or they can't get an electronic device. That is all part of this. So this is something that ought to bring us together, and it does bring us together. The polling out there shows this, by the way. There are two polls in the last few months that both said that 87 percent of the American people want us to work on this infrastructure project on a bipartisan process and get it done. Those numbers were unbelievable, and it was exactly 87 percent in both polls, interestingly, even though one was CBS and one was CNBC. But forget the polls for a minute and just go home and talk to people. They do want to make sure that we are not raising taxes to do this. They don't want to see us helping the economy long-term with infrastructure but hurting the economy short-term with higher taxes. And I agree. And we don't do that here. That is what is particularly great about this approach. It is that we said that we are going to pull out core infrastructure only and we are not going to raise taxes. So we have the funds in here to be able to help with regard to our highways, our bridges, our ports, our waterways, our broadband expansion. But we also have the ability for us to do that in a way that makes sense for all Americans. In Ohio, it is going to help us do something else that is important, and that is to help with regard to some of our big infrastructure projects. I will talk about one tonight briefly--the Brent Spence Bridge. This is in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH. It is a critical bridge because it is where I-75 and I-71 come together, and therefore it is a bottleneck. Twice as many cars drive on that bridge every day as it was built for. Twice as many cars drive on that bridge every day--and trucks--as it was built for. It is the reason that there is a traffic jam there during rush hour. But it is also the reason that it is unsafe, because over time the shoulders have been removed to create another lane. So if there is an accident on that bridge, there is nowhere to go. We had an accident 2 months ago with two trucks that collided, and we had to close it down, actually, for several weeks, and it was a mess. And talk about the effect on the economy. Think about this. There are roughly 3 million people in the metropolitan area there, with Dayton and Cincinnati on one side, and the other side has about 1 million people in Covington, KY. And you have traffic going all the way north and south from Canada to Mexico, and all of a sudden you don't have a bridge available because of the safety concerns that led to the accident. So we need a solution with regard to that bridge, and we have been talking about it for years. For 25 years, I have been involved in the effort to try to find the funding to replace this bridge because it needs it. Finally, we will have the ability to do that. We will have the ability to help, with Kentucky and with Ohio and with the Federal Government working together with the local community, to complete this Brent Spence Bridge corridor project. Why? Because we are putting an unprecedented amount of money into not just bridges but bridges like this one--bridges that are major commercial bridges; bridges that are functionally obsolete, which ours have been for years; bridges that desperately need the help. We also have a big aviation industry in Ohio. We support a lot of jobs through aviation, our second biggest industry after agriculture in Ohio. There is $25 billion for new spending for airports in here. That is going to help airports build on the momentum that we need right now in Ohio to be able to expand our aerospace industry. On the shores of Lake Erie, on the north coast of Ohio, we will also have help. Lake Erie supports fishing and tourism industries that total over $10 billion. It provides drinking water for 10 million people. It is the top tourist attraction in our State, but as anyone who visits the lake will tell you, they have some serious long-term health challenges with the lake. We have invasive species. We have a problem with toxic algal blooms. We have pollution. We have rising levels of the lake. This bill helps with regard to all of that. With regard to rising levels of the lake, there are communities on the lake that will tell you their water systems don't work because the lake water has risen to the point where the outtake valve which is next to the intake valve is now actually underwater, so the system doesn't work well. In fact, the system is incredibly expensive to replace. So this will help with regard to that. As cochair of the Senate Great Lakes Caucus, I am very pleased to see this investment because it will support the infrastructure and infrastructure investments in communities all along Lake Erie and every one of our Great Lakes. Finally and crucially, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act before us helps more than 300,000 Ohio households that lack access to this high-speed internet. That is incredibly important. Our legislation does everything that I have talked about in terms of infrastructure, and that is important. Again, we have the studies out there that I talked about, including one from Penn, from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. They talked about how the economic growth from this study will actually make our economy better and create more jobs, and they say that, actually, over time, it reduces the deficit, based on looking at our study and, specifically, our proposals. So all that is true. The final thing I guess I want to say is that it goes beyond infrastructure. It goes to how to get Washington back to a point where Washington is solving problems for the American people. And this bill is not perfect for anybody--no Republican, no Democrat. Why? It is a bipartisan compromise. You know, again, we started off with a product that President Biden introduced that was $2.65 trillion--a huge package called ``infrastructure,'' but most of it was not for infrastructure. It had huge tax increases in it--the highest tax increase, it would have been, in American history. It would have made our country less competitive, in my view. We said: OK, let's find a group of Democrats and Republicans, and let's agree to pull out the core parts of this, the core infrastructure, and find a way to pay for it without raising taxes. That is what we did, and we worked hard to create a product that was fair for everybody. But that means finding that consensus, and that is not easy. You know, we all had to make concessions, but, at the end of the day, we got a product--$550 billion over the next 5 years, which will be spread out, spent over many, many years, that will put America back on top in terms of infrastructure. It will put us in a position where, for our kids and our grandkids, they are going to have a more productive and a more efficient economy--one that produces more, one that has the ability for America to say to the world: Look at us again. We are back. We are back. We now have an infrastructure system with our ports and our roads and our bridges, with our water infrastructure, and with our broadband that can be, once again, a model for the rest of the world and help move us forward and ensure that every American has the opportunity to succeed. So this bipartisan process in and of itself, I think, is an accomplishment of this legislation. The underlying bill is what is most important, I suppose, butjust being able to show that Republicans and Democrats can come together in this town and get something done that is positive for our country, that in and of itself is an accomplishment. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-04-pt1-PgS5884-4 | null | 2,991 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. One final matter, evictions. Earlier this week, the Biden administration announced that the CDC will adopt an eviction moratorium to provide critical protections for another 60 days as our country continues its path towards full recovery. I applaud everyone who made it happen, from the President to the CDC, to Speaker Pelosi, to Senator Brown, as well as several of my Democratic colleagues in the House, including a brave band of New Yorkers, including Congress Member Ocasio-Cortez and Congressman Jones. Above all, Representative Cori Bush gets huge credit--one person who changed things for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, and everyone who stood with her as well. As I explained yesterday, while this moratorium is an important safeguard to protect millions of American families in danger of evictions, it is not the only piece of the puzzle. Once the moratorium comes to an end--whenever that is--there is still a fundamental challenge of making up for a year of lost rent and lost mortgage payments. Congress considered this problem very early this year. I pushed for, and we passed, along with Senator Brown and so many others, substantial rental and mortgage assistance in the American Rescue Plan. Unfortunately, State governments have been really uneven about distributing that crucial assistance. A few States--the State of Illinois, the State of Texas--have done a pretty good job, but many have not. Unfortunately, one of those that has done a very poor job distributing this money is my home State of New York. Simply put: State governments, especially New York, must do a better job of distributing the $47 billion Congress appropriated for emergency rental assistance. The money is there, but far too little has gone out the door. In New York specifically, Congress sent more than $2 billion to help renters in New York; and, inexplicably, some reports indicate less than 0.5 percent of New York's allocation had been received by tenants and landlords as of a week ago. Today, I am sending a letter with colleagues in the New York delegation to the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, calling on that office to hurry up to fix the inexcusable delays in rental assistance and immediately begin disbursing these funds. We need to understand why New Yorkers are having such trouble navigating the process to get the money they need. There have been reports of frustrating crashes and glitches on the online application process, confusing instructions, and very little support to help the applicants, even though the money has been there for several months. The clock is ticking to fix this mess. The State moratorium expires in less than a month, and the CDC's moratorium will give only one more month of protection after that. New York State needs to act quickly, and we expect a response by August 9 as to how we canget a handle on these delays and, most importantly, get the money to New Yorkers faster so they can pay the rent. By the way, many landlords, particularly small landlords, depend on this as well. If you worked hard--let's say you are a bus driver and you own a three-family house. When the tenants in your house don't pay you, you don't have any cushion and you have to pay the mortgage. So this bill will help with that as well, this proposal. Right now, there are 6\1/2\ million Americans who are behind in their rent. According to the New York Times, over 400,000 renters in New York City alone owe a collective debt of $2 billion. Congress did its job by making sure that we have money in place to help these Americans avoid evictions. Now the States need to step it up to make sure that this money gets into the hands of renters as soon as possible. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5892-2 | null | 2,992 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate proudly and unanimously passed a resolution awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the U.S. Capitol Police along with other law enforcement personnel who helped defend this institution on January 6. Today, President Biden will sign this resolution into law, and the brave men and women who served that day will receive the highest honor that Congress can bestow. With the home of our representative democracy literally under attack, the officers of the Capitol Police, their colleagues from the DC Metropolitan Police, and others made huge, huge sacrifices to keep all of us safe. On January 6, Congress got a firsthand reminder of a reality that many American citizens face every day; that the brave men and women of law enforcement really are the thin blue line standing between peace and chaos. I am so proud we are adding our own colleagues in blue to the list of extraordinary Americans that Congress has honored with its gold medal. So thank you and congratulations. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5893-2 | null | 2,993 |
formal | thin blue line | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate proudly and unanimously passed a resolution awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the U.S. Capitol Police along with other law enforcement personnel who helped defend this institution on January 6. Today, President Biden will sign this resolution into law, and the brave men and women who served that day will receive the highest honor that Congress can bestow. With the home of our representative democracy literally under attack, the officers of the Capitol Police, their colleagues from the DC Metropolitan Police, and others made huge, huge sacrifices to keep all of us safe. On January 6, Congress got a firsthand reminder of a reality that many American citizens face every day; that the brave men and women of law enforcement really are the thin blue line standing between peace and chaos. I am so proud we are adding our own colleagues in blue to the list of extraordinary Americans that Congress has honored with its gold medal. So thank you and congratulations. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5893-2 | null | 2,994 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in just a few days our colleagues will start ramming through yet another--another--reckless taxing-and-spending spree: trillions more in inflationary spending when families just want good jobs and stable prices. But there is something funny happening. Even as Democrats crow about how all this spending is so good and so needed, they are petrified to vote for the credit limit increase that would make it possible. The Democrats are about to tell Republicans to go take a hike and start teeing up trillions more dollars in borrowing and spending, of course, without a single Republican vote. Ah, but at the same time, they are extolling the virtues of their latest socialist shopping list, they are afraid to up the limit on their credit card. They want Republicans to give them political cover for the partisan debt bomb that they will go right on to detonate with zero input from us. My colleagues are so mixed up on this, it is almost comical. The sums that we borrowed and spent through 2020--through last year, through the last administration, through the actual economic emergency--were largely covered by the previous debt suspension that just expired, but Democrats want a new debt limit increase for the new borrowing and the new spending that they willfully piled up since they took power: about $2 trillion back in March, trillions more sometime soon. So they want to unleash another reckless taxing-and-spending spree with zero Republican input--oh, oh--but when the bill comes, they say it is time to split the check. When the bill comes, it is time to split the check. Initiating another budget reconciliation process in a 50-50 Senate is as willfully partisan, as ``go it alone'' as it gets, especially in a Senate that keeps proving we can do bipartisan work. So, look, if our colleagues want to ram through yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree without our input, if they want all this spending and debt to be their signature legacy, they should leap at the chance to own every bit of it. So let me make something perfectly clear: If they don't need or want our input, they won't get our help. They won't get our help with the debt limit increase that these reckless plans will require. I could not be more clear. They have the ability. They control the White House; they control the House; they control the Senate. They can raise the debt ceiling, and if it is raised, they will do it | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5893-4 | null | 2,995 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, when you have served in the Senate as long as I have, you get to hire and work with a lot of talented people, and when you find rock stars, you try to hang onto them. As a result, when a key staff member moves on, it often means reflecting on an extended Senate career of many years, including shared memories of old war stories going back ages. Andrew Ferguson is a different case. It was only 2 years ago that I hired Andrew to be my chief counsel. He has only been in the Senate about 3 years. By the standards of this place, he is a spring chicken. But it has only taken Andrew this short time to leave a stunningly outsized imprint on my work, on our conference, on the judiciary, and on everyone who has gotten to work alongside of him as well. So, a few days before Andrew concludes his Senate service, I am both happy for the opportunity to share how this happened and really, really sorry that I have to do it. The chief counsel in my leadership office handles a portfolio that is almost comically large: judicial confirmations, law enforcement and crime, immigration and border security, some constitutional questions that intersect with the separation of powers, others that intersect with national security, sometimes arcane Senate history. It takes a lawyer's lawyer with expertise in our laws and Constitution and someone who can feel out the politics, the personalities, and the shades of gray that drive a political body. One look at Andrew's resume told me that qualification No. 1 was, clearly, no problem--UVA Law; clerked on the DC Circuit; clerked for Justice Thomas; experience in the private sector--a lawyer anybody would be glad to hire. Oh, but what about the second qualification? Like I said, Andrew wasn't a long-serving Senate hand. He arrived at Judiciary in time to help Chairman Grassley notch a win for the country and the sanity of the Senate with the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh. He had only just been promoted to Chairman Graham's top nominations counsel when I poached him. Well, Andrew stepped into this complex role, and, boy, did he flourish. He became a go-to leader for committees and offices across the Republican side, a key Senate liaison to both the executive and judicial branches. He added to his lawyerly chops and grew into a strategic adviser of the first-rate. Our Republican conference is a big tent with a range of visions, but Senators from across the conference have come not just to trust Andrew's judgment, but they seek it out. Andrew's impact has been truly dramatic. I do not believe any other Senate staffer played a more crucial role in the last two Supreme Court confirmations combined. He was our side's field general in confirming Justice Barrett. Our majority spent 4 years rebuilding the kind of Federal judiciary that our constitutional order requires. Andrew played an indispensable part. The last couple of years have brought all sorts of unusual national challenges. The 2 years that Andrew has spent with us feel more like 10. We faced scenarios that would have sounded like wild law school hypotheticals. Who would have guessed we would be fighting to protect Americans' religious freedom while the government battled an airborne virus? But our chief counsel invariably brought us up to speed on whatever the day would bring with a good head, a big heart, and great humor. And if the topic was new to him, a big stack of library books were on his desk. It might sound like Andrew was just very dedicated to his job. That is not totally unusual. But that doesn't fully capture it. See, I have come to believe he is simply this intense about absolutely everything. Andrew takes work very seriously, but he also takes his faith seriously, and he takes family seriously. He treasures the upbringing that his parents, Roy and Susan, provided for him and his two brothers. He takes his interests seriously, his hobbies. There is an intense, infectious enthusiasm for all of it, a kind of good-natured aggression. Now, as his colleagues will attest, all this intensity can yield, actually, entertaining results. If, for example, you took a stroll by Andrew's desk, you would often hear him shouting--shouting--excitedly at a colleague, but you would generally genuinely have no clue whether he is strongly disagreeing with the person or just agreeing with them with great gusto. He could be discussing the law, but it might also be Roman history or the Protestant Reformation or the merits of some TV comedy or his weekend plans involving the lawful exercise of his Second Amendment rights. Whatever the subject, you would get maximum enthusiasm, maximum force of nature, and everybody in earshot usually learns some new fact and shares a big laugh. Different people enjoy this line of work for different reasons, but for Andrew, I think politics and policy matter so much because ideas and principles matter so much. That is why one of the most darkly funny and cynical people on our team has also been one of the most earnest and idealistic. Everything is worth thinking through. Everything is worth taking seriously because principles matter, the rule of law matters, and our country matters. That is why we come to work every day. A lot of people first come to Washington with a warrior mentality, but the rhythms of this city sometimes lull folks into a somewhat calmer mixture. But, believe me, as I suspect the entire Senate can attest by now, we need not worry that Andrew Ferguson will be lulled into a calmer anything. So, my friend, you may be leaving the trenches for now, but we both know there is no chance you will be able to stay away forever. You are going to miss the good fight, and I can say with personal certainty that the fight is going to miss you as well. Thank you for the law lectures. Thank you for the laughs. Thank you for an outstanding job for our country. Job well done. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5894 | null | 2,996 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a related note, Alexander Lukashenko may be the last dictator in Europe. But Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban is working hard to become the next dictator in Europe. In his 15 years as Prime Minister, Orban has undermined Hungary's democratic institutions and the civil society groups that support them. He has dusted off the autocrat's handbook and used many of its familiar tricks, including using public funds to reward his cronies, spying on and jailing dissidents and independent journalists, and turning media organizations into his personal mouthpieces. He spews ultranationalist bigotry dressed up as traditional values and rails against what he calls an immigrant invasion. Critics on both sides of the Atlantic cite him as a cautionary example of how democracies can die. Some European leaders have called for Hungary's expulsion from the E.U. because of Hungary's growing hostility to the bedrock values of democracy under Orban. Despite this, every night this week, Tucker Carlson has broadcast his prime-time FOX show from Budapest, Hungary. He is not there to interview the brave supporters of Hungarian democracy who are trying to save their country from Orban and autocracy. No, Tucker Carlson is in Hungary to praise Orban and hold up his strongman stunts as an example for America to follow. It is reported that he will also address a conference linked to Mr. Orban's anti-democratic nationalist movement. Tucker Carlson has gone from spouting his dangerous anti-vax quackery and spreading the Big Lie at home, to travelling abroad to fawn over an autocrat and herald him as a leader worth emulating in this country. Ronald Reagan would be horrified. We all should be. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5925-2 | null | 2,997 |
formal | thug | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in early 2011, I had one of the more unusual experiences of my Senate career. I traveled back in time, from a free and democratic Lithuania to a closed and totalitarian Belarus. The trip was less than 3 hours, but it took me back to a dark past. You see, Belarus is the last dictatorship in Europe. But like many dictatorships, it claims to be a democracy. In December 2010, it held what was billed as a Presidential election. The victor in that rigged contest was a heavy by the name of Alexander Lukashenko. His first act, after seizing the Presidency, was to jail all of those who were bold enough to run against him. Months later, I drove from Vilnius to Minsk to meet with the family members of those jailed candidates, who had been arrested by Belarus security services still called the KGB. Mind you, the original KGB was dissolved more than three decades ago. That tells you all you need to know about how much the Belarusian Government has evolved since the fall of the Soviet Union. My meeting with those family members was sobering, and it is an encounter I will never forget. Fortunately, over time, we were able to see the release of all these brave Belarusians, but not because Alexander Lukashenko had a sudden change of heart. He is still the same authoritarian thug he has always been. The world was reminded of that a year ago, when another sham election was held in Belarus. True to form, Lukashenko was reelected in that rigged contest. And once again, he began jailing those who had opposed him. When one leading candidate, social media personality Sergei Tikhanovsky, was arbitrarily jailed, his wife Svetlana Tikhanovskaya stepped in to run in his place. She likely won the ensuing election, although we will never know for certain. The stolen electoral process that unfolded scared her into fleeing for safety in neighboring Lithuania. Last month, Ms. Tikhanovskaya traveled to Washington, DC, to seek support for the Belarussian peoples' fight for freedom from tyranny. I was proud to meet with her, along with Senators Shaheen and Sullivan. And I was glad to see President Biden met with her as well. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya is a brave patriot carrying the torch of democracy for all the people of Belarus. I thought of her, and other Belarussian patriots, as I watched the Olympics this week. In Tokyo, another brave Belarussian woman, sprinter Krystsina Tisimansouskaya, dared to publicly criticize Belarussian Olympic officials, a group from Lukashenko's ruling party. For her audacity, Lukashenko ordered the 24-year-old sprinter to return to Belarus immediately, right before she was scheduled to run in the women's 200-meter race on Monday. If she had obliged, there is a very good chance she would be locked up in a Belarusian jail at this very moment, along with so many other political prisoners. But Krystsina Tisimansouskaya said no. At the Tokyo airport, before she could be forced onto a plane home, she sought protection from Japanese police. She also appealed to the International Olympic Committee for help. Her appeals worked. The Polish Government granted her a humanitarian visa. And Slovenia and the Czech Republic said she was welcome in their countries, too. Ten years since my trip to Belarus, I am still moved by the courage of so many Belarusians like Ms. Tisimansouskaya, Ms. Tikhanovskaya, and the thousands upon thousands who have peacefully protested for a better future. These heroic leaders are still trapped in a dark past thanks to the same ruthless dictator who continues to cling onto power. They are willing to risk so much for a chance at freedom. They are unafraid to stand up to despots and defend democracy. And they are an inspiration to a world that needs it. I want them to know we see them, and America stands with them in their efforts to create a better and truly democratic Belarus. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5925 | null | 2,998 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filing a lawsuit against the Biden administration's continued cancelation of oil and gas leases on Federal lands and its impact on State and private mineral owners. In addition to being a foolish idea, I believe President Biden's moratorium is illegal. It increases Federal and State budget shortfalls, hampers State and private mineral owners' rights, and makes the United States less energy independent and more reliant on foreign producers. My State of North Dakota is uniquely harmed by this action, given what is commonly referred to as the split estate issue. For roughly 100 years, the Federal Government has retained Federal mineral rights on land near where State and/or private entities also hold surface and mineral rights. About 30 percent of the spacing units in North Dakota have interspersed federal mineral interests and therefore must go through the leasing process of the Bureau of Land Management--BLM--regardless of its size. Accordingly, since the moratorium, it is estimated our State has lost $4.77 billion in tax revenues and $1.2 billion in private royalties. We are grateful the Louisiana Federal District Court Order agreed the Biden administration's actions are illegal, but unfortunately, we are being given no reason to think the near of this harmful policy is near. On a recent call between the leadership of the BLM Montana/Dakotas office and constituents from the region, BLM officials stated that they are canceling quarterly lease sales at least through the end of calendar year 2021. Citing the administration's plans to appeal the district court ruling, State Director John Mehloff said, ``We'll probably, at earliest, would be able to hold an oil and gas lease sale late first quarter of 2022.'' That is disappointing, to say the least. Thankfully, North Dakota is taking action to protect our producers and America's energy security. I support the State's efforts in court and hope they are successful. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRAMER | Senate | CREC-2021-08-05-pt1-PgS5926-3 | null | 2,999 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.