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 | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The President notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates he had approved and signed bills and joint resolutions of the Senate of the following titles: June 30, 2021: S.J. Res. 13. A joint resolution providing for congressional disaproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to ``Update of Commission's Conciliation Procedures''. S.J. Res. 14. A joint resolution providing for congressional disaproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector. Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review''. S.J. Res. 15. A joint resolution providing for congressional disaproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency relating to ``National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders''. July 6, 2021: S. 409. An Act to provide for the availability of amounts for customer education intiatives and non-awards expeneses of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Whistleblower Program, and for other purposes. S. 1340. An Act to amend title 28, United States Code, to redefine the eastern and middle judicial districts of North Carolina. July 29, 2021: S. 957. An Act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that certain medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs have physical locations for the disposal of controlled substances medications. S. 1910. An Act to authorize major medical facility projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2021. September 24, 2021: S. 272. An Act to amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, to requre the budget justifications and appropriations requests of agencies be made publicly available. S. 325. An Act to amend the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children Act to extend the deadline for a report by the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff commision on Native Children, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-01-pt1-PgH5589-3 | null | 3,200 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3684) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-01-pt1-PgH5589 | null | 3,201 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this week, the Senate will consider Lauren King's nomination for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Ms. King is an incredibly qualified jurist with experience as a lawyer and a judge. If confirmed, she will make history--the first Native American Federal judge to serve in Washington's Western District, which is home to more than 25 federally recognized Tribes. Ms. King received her undergraduate degree from the University of Washington, her law degree from the University of Virginia, and for more than 12 years, she has been a litigator in private practice. She has handled cases involving intellectual property, commercial contract disputes, construction litigation, and Tribal hunting and fishing rights. In addition to her work in private practice, Ms. King has served the public as an appellate court judge in the Northwest Intertribal Court System. She has also advocated for her community as a member of the Seattle Indian Health Board, which provides care to Native Americans and Alaskan Natives. Ms. King has long been recognized as a leader in the legal community. She served on the board of the Northwest Tribal Court Judges Association, has chaired both the Federal Bar Association's Indian Law Section Conference and the Washington State Bar Association's Indian Law Section. How is she rated by the American Bar Association? ``Well qualified.'' Ms. King has the strong support of her home State Senators, Murray and Cantwell, and bipartisan support in our Judiciary Committee, with Ranking Member Grassley and Senator Graham joining us in supporting her nomination. Her nomination has been endorsed by dozens of Tribes and Tribal organizations throughout the United States, including the National Congress of American Indians, the Native American Rights Fund, and the Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes. Ms. King has given back to her community every step of her career. With her confirmation, the Members of the Senate can continue the vital work of building the Federal judiciary that really reflects the diversity of this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6879-4 | null | 3,202 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the day that this majority commenced its work, I promised that this Chamber would meet the challenges that face our Nation ``not with timid solutions but with boldness and [with] courage.'' Now the 117th Congress stands at a pivotal moment in our pursuit of this goal. Over the past few months, both Chambers have dedicated themselves to passing two transformative, once-in-a-generation pieces of legislation: the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better agenda. Doing big things in Congress is always hard, but we didn't choose elected office just to pursue the easy things. In the days and weeks to come, Senate Democrats will remain focused on passing the agenda we promised no matter how hard the task. All last week, I held extensive talks with the Speaker, the President, and my Senate colleagues to bring us closer to a final agreement on our Build Back Better agenda. We made important progress, but there is more work to do. So, this week, I will continue meeting with my colleagues in an effort to produce a bill that all of us can get behind. Last Friday, President Biden spoke to House Democrats about the path forward for passing our ambitious agenda into law. His message was simple: If we stick together, if we work to find a legislative sweet spot that we can all support, then we will succeed. He is right, and that is exactly what we are going to do. As I explained this morning in my ``Dear Colleague,'' our new legislative goal must be to get both the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better agenda done by the end of October. The reason is simple: The infrastructure bill, for all its historic investments, is also a reauthorization of the highway trust fund. We passed a 30-day patch over the weekend to keep vital programs going. But as it stands, the trust fund is set to run out of money by the end of October. If we are going to meet this deadline, Democrats must arrive at a final agreement on the details of the Build Back Better agenda as soon as possible, preferably within a matter of days, not weeks. It is the only way we can give committees enough time to draft legislation to ensure its privileged status in our Chamber and complete the reconciliation process before the end of the month. Now, none of this is going to be easy. It will require sacrifice, compromise, and finding common ground. Nobody is going to get everything they want. But no matter what, our final proposal will deliver the core promise we made to the American people: We will take bold action on climate change, while creating millions of jobs; we will expand healthcare opportunities and lower costs for working Americans; and we will cut taxes for the working and middle class, while asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. I am confident we will be proud of the end result: a bill that will dramatically improve the lives of every single American not just for today but for generations; a bill that will rebuild ladders for working people to get to the middle class, help people stay in the middle class who are there already, and rekindle--rekindle--that sunny American disposition so central to our national identity but seems to be fading a bit in the last while. This is worth a couple of hard days. This is worth many hard days. Again, we didn't come to Washington to take the easy way out. We came here committed to work every day, to reward the faith that the American people have placed in us. We came here to get big things done, and that is exactly what we will do in the weeks ahead. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6880-2 | null | 3,203 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the day that this majority commenced its work, I promised that this Chamber would meet the challenges that face our Nation ``not with timid solutions but with boldness and [with] courage.'' Now the 117th Congress stands at a pivotal moment in our pursuit of this goal. Over the past few months, both Chambers have dedicated themselves to passing two transformative, once-in-a-generation pieces of legislation: the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better agenda. Doing big things in Congress is always hard, but we didn't choose elected office just to pursue the easy things. In the days and weeks to come, Senate Democrats will remain focused on passing the agenda we promised no matter how hard the task. All last week, I held extensive talks with the Speaker, the President, and my Senate colleagues to bring us closer to a final agreement on our Build Back Better agenda. We made important progress, but there is more work to do. So, this week, I will continue meeting with my colleagues in an effort to produce a bill that all of us can get behind. Last Friday, President Biden spoke to House Democrats about the path forward for passing our ambitious agenda into law. His message was simple: If we stick together, if we work to find a legislative sweet spot that we can all support, then we will succeed. He is right, and that is exactly what we are going to do. As I explained this morning in my ``Dear Colleague,'' our new legislative goal must be to get both the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better agenda done by the end of October. The reason is simple: The infrastructure bill, for all its historic investments, is also a reauthorization of the highway trust fund. We passed a 30-day patch over the weekend to keep vital programs going. But as it stands, the trust fund is set to run out of money by the end of October. If we are going to meet this deadline, Democrats must arrive at a final agreement on the details of the Build Back Better agenda as soon as possible, preferably within a matter of days, not weeks. It is the only way we can give committees enough time to draft legislation to ensure its privileged status in our Chamber and complete the reconciliation process before the end of the month. Now, none of this is going to be easy. It will require sacrifice, compromise, and finding common ground. Nobody is going to get everything they want. But no matter what, our final proposal will deliver the core promise we made to the American people: We will take bold action on climate change, while creating millions of jobs; we will expand healthcare opportunities and lower costs for working Americans; and we will cut taxes for the working and middle class, while asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. I am confident we will be proud of the end result: a bill that will dramatically improve the lives of every single American not just for today but for generations; a bill that will rebuild ladders for working people to get to the middle class, help people stay in the middle class who are there already, and rekindle--rekindle--that sunny American disposition so central to our national identity but seems to be fading a bit in the last while. This is worth a couple of hard days. This is worth many hard days. Again, we didn't come to Washington to take the easy way out. We came here committed to work every day, to reward the faith that the American people have placed in us. We came here to get big things done, and that is exactly what we will do in the weeks ahead. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6880-2 | null | 3,204 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now, on the debt ceiling, before the end of this week, the Senate must--must--get a bill to the President's desk to address the acute crisis of the debt limit. President Biden was crystal clear in his speech this morning. If Republicans don't get out of the way and let the Senate take action now, our government will in all likelihood enter default for the first time ever. Sadly, the Republican position as the party of default has now become so extreme that they have blocked every single attempt to prevent a default from happening, putting our country in serious, serious danger. They have gone so far as rejecting their own requests for how the debt ceiling should beraised. Their own requests for putting those in action--they are now saying no. Why do you think? Why do you think? Now the Republican leader has repeatedly stated that the Democrats must raise the debt ceiling on our own, and he has directly cited precedents of 2003, 2004, and 2006 when the Senate voted to raise the debt ceiling by a majority vote. But what he conveniently and repeatedly ignores--and he knows better--he ignores that in each of those examples, the minority allowed an up-or-down vote without--without--a partisan filibuster. In other words, the other side said: Get us to 50 votes, and we won't make you get to 60. That is just what we are asking for now. We are proposing the same offer now, which Leader McConnell has cited. Let us vote to raise the debt ceiling without a partisan filibuster. In fact, this was the thrust of my consent request last week, which would have resolved this Republican-driven default crisis with an up-or-down vote. Republicans could have gotten their chance to vote no, and we could all have put an end to this needless impasse. But given the easiest way out of the mess, the Republicans still refuse to take ``yes'' for an answer. Now our country is on the brink of a crisis whose consequences will reverberate around the world. The bottom line is, this Chamber must pass legislation to avoid a default. Accordingly, I will soon file cloture on the House-passed proposal that will suspend the debt limit until December of 2022. We aren't asking Republicans to support it when it comes time for a vote; we only ask that they get out of the way as Democrats pass it on our own, just as the majority party did in the early 2000s. It is really that simple. If Republicans want to vote to stop payments from going to Social Security recipients or veterans, then be my guest, but they ought to get out of the way and let the legislation pass the Senate. The fact is, we don't have the luxury of waiting until October 18 to extend the debt ceiling. Even a near miss can have dramatic consequences. Every single day we delay taking action, we increase the chances of doing irreversible damage to our global financial system, our economic recovery, and trust in our country's ability to pay its debts. So, again, we will need to get a bill extending the debt ceiling to the President's desk by the end of this week. We aren't asking Republicans to vote yes even though it is debt that they incurred; we are simply asking that they get out of the way. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for his courtesy. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6880-3 | null | 3,205 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to begin today with a quotation: Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. Now, Madam President, that was then-Senator Joe Biden in March of 2006, right before every single Democratic Senator voted against raising the debt limit and made a unified Republican government do it alone. Here is another quote: Today's fiscal mess . . . is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course. Well, that same speaker, then-Senator Biden, 2 years earlier in 2004. As Senate Republicans have made clear since last July and as I reminded the President in a letter just this morning, his sentiments then are our sentiments now. His sentiments then are our sentiments now. For the last few weeks, Washington Democrats tried to forget that they lined up to oppose debt limit increases during unified Republican government. They pretended these votes are always bipartisan. Well, that was simply not true. So now our colleagues have moved on to yet another new argument that is equally flimsy. Now they claim they would be perfectly happy to handle this responsibility with 51 votes done one way, but they would rather risk the Nation's credit than doing it with 51 votes a slightly different way--two different ways to achieve 51 votes. I am not kidding. This is the position they are taking. The President said it today. The reconciliation procedure would be slightly more inconvenient, they said--a few more days, a few more votes they would rather duck. The Democratic leaders running America are saying with a straight face that the entire U.S. economy should live or die based on the procedural convenience--convenience--of Washington Democrats. Now, they have got no problem using the party-line process over and over and over to spend trillions and transform the country, but now, for this purpose only, they suddenly and mysteriously find it unappealing. Democrats could not be more capable of handling this on their own. Just months ago, the Democratic leader won new powers to reuse reconciliation over and over. They don't even need our consent to set a vote at 51 instead of 60. They need even less help raising the debt limit than majorities needed in the past. So trust me, Madam President--if Republicans were sitting on a hidden veto power to stop reconciliation bills, you would have heard about it way back in the springtime. The majority doesn't need our votes. They just want a bipartisan shortcut around procedural hurdles that they can actually clear on their own, and they want that shortcut so they can pivot right back to partisan spending as fast as possible. They want a bipartisan shortcut to get right back to more partisan hardball. And Republicans have spent 2\1/2\ months--this is no surprise; 2\1/2\ months ago--explaining that this is the way they needed to go forward on the debt ceiling. This unified Democratic government is having trouble governing. They couldn't even pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill which the President negotiated and the Speaker of the House promised would pass last week. The majority needs to stop sleepwalking toward yet another preventable crisis. Democrats need to tackle the debt limit. We gave them a roadmap and 3 months' notice. I suggest that our colleagues get moving. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6881-2 | null | 3,206 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to begin today with a quotation: Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the debt limit increase. Now, Madam President, that was then-Senator Joe Biden in March of 2006, right before every single Democratic Senator voted against raising the debt limit and made a unified Republican government do it alone. Here is another quote: Today's fiscal mess . . . is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course. Well, that same speaker, then-Senator Biden, 2 years earlier in 2004. As Senate Republicans have made clear since last July and as I reminded the President in a letter just this morning, his sentiments then are our sentiments now. His sentiments then are our sentiments now. For the last few weeks, Washington Democrats tried to forget that they lined up to oppose debt limit increases during unified Republican government. They pretended these votes are always bipartisan. Well, that was simply not true. So now our colleagues have moved on to yet another new argument that is equally flimsy. Now they claim they would be perfectly happy to handle this responsibility with 51 votes done one way, but they would rather risk the Nation's credit than doing it with 51 votes a slightly different way--two different ways to achieve 51 votes. I am not kidding. This is the position they are taking. The President said it today. The reconciliation procedure would be slightly more inconvenient, they said--a few more days, a few more votes they would rather duck. The Democratic leaders running America are saying with a straight face that the entire U.S. economy should live or die based on the procedural convenience--convenience--of Washington Democrats. Now, they have got no problem using the party-line process over and over and over to spend trillions and transform the country, but now, for this purpose only, they suddenly and mysteriously find it unappealing. Democrats could not be more capable of handling this on their own. Just months ago, the Democratic leader won new powers to reuse reconciliation over and over. They don't even need our consent to set a vote at 51 instead of 60. They need even less help raising the debt limit than majorities needed in the past. So trust me, Madam President--if Republicans were sitting on a hidden veto power to stop reconciliation bills, you would have heard about it way back in the springtime. The majority doesn't need our votes. They just want a bipartisan shortcut around procedural hurdles that they can actually clear on their own, and they want that shortcut so they can pivot right back to partisan spending as fast as possible. They want a bipartisan shortcut to get right back to more partisan hardball. And Republicans have spent 2\1/2\ months--this is no surprise; 2\1/2\ months ago--explaining that this is the way they needed to go forward on the debt ceiling. This unified Democratic government is having trouble governing. They couldn't even pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill which the President negotiated and the Speaker of the House promised would pass last week. The majority needs to stop sleepwalking toward yet another preventable crisis. Democrats need to tackle the debt limit. We gave them a roadmap and 3 months' notice. I suggest that our colleagues get moving. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6881-2 | null | 3,207 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now on an obviously related matter, speaking of Democrats' reckless taxing and spending, this unified government is behind closed doors brainstorming ways to make inflation even more painful for American families. Their next reckless taxing-and-spending spree is packed with radical, leftwing policies and the biggest tax hike on the American people in half a century. So far, the bill is more than 2,400 pages long, but it can be summarized in just four words: hurts families and helps China. Hurts families and helps China. Wasting trillions and trillions of dollars on socialism would be a bad idea any day, but it is a uniquely bad idea at a time when American families are already being hammered by inflation and soaring costs. The government's own data continue to indicate that the historic and painful inflation that began to take hold of our economy this spring isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve acknowledged last week that rising prices have become an increasingly broad and structural problem. Last week, the Commerce Department reported that inflation has continued to rise faster than at any time since 1991. The Democrats' inflation is so bad that even though the average American worker has gotten a multiple-percentage-point pay raise over the last year, their actual purchasing power has actually been cut. Their paychecks have gone up, but their buying power has gone down. Wholesale inflation just marked the steepest 12-month jump on record. Even dollar stores are having to raise their prices. Just ask any American family about the last few trips to the supermarket, the gas station, or the toy store. Heaven forbid if they have had to participate in the housing market or the auto market anytime lately.And the Democrats are uniting around yet another multitrillion-dollar taxing-and-spending spree? I guess our colleagues think they can inflate their way out of inflation. That is going to be an extraordinarily painful experiment for the middle-class families of our country. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6881-3 | null | 3,208 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now on an obviously related matter, speaking of Democrats' reckless taxing and spending, this unified government is behind closed doors brainstorming ways to make inflation even more painful for American families. Their next reckless taxing-and-spending spree is packed with radical, leftwing policies and the biggest tax hike on the American people in half a century. So far, the bill is more than 2,400 pages long, but it can be summarized in just four words: hurts families and helps China. Hurts families and helps China. Wasting trillions and trillions of dollars on socialism would be a bad idea any day, but it is a uniquely bad idea at a time when American families are already being hammered by inflation and soaring costs. The government's own data continue to indicate that the historic and painful inflation that began to take hold of our economy this spring isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve acknowledged last week that rising prices have become an increasingly broad and structural problem. Last week, the Commerce Department reported that inflation has continued to rise faster than at any time since 1991. The Democrats' inflation is so bad that even though the average American worker has gotten a multiple-percentage-point pay raise over the last year, their actual purchasing power has actually been cut. Their paychecks have gone up, but their buying power has gone down. Wholesale inflation just marked the steepest 12-month jump on record. Even dollar stores are having to raise their prices. Just ask any American family about the last few trips to the supermarket, the gas station, or the toy store. Heaven forbid if they have had to participate in the housing market or the auto market anytime lately.And the Democrats are uniting around yet another multitrillion-dollar taxing-and-spending spree? I guess our colleagues think they can inflate their way out of inflation. That is going to be an extraordinarily painful experiment for the middle-class families of our country. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-04-pt1-PgS6881-3 | null | 3,209 |
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-2307. A letter from the Deputy Administrator for Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): 2008 Farm Bill Provisions on Clarification of Split Issuance; Accrual of Benefits and Definition Changes: Delay of Implementation Date for Certain Provisions [FNS 2016-0074] (RIN: 0584-AE02) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-2308. A letter from the Compliance Specialist, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Rescission of Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Rule (RIN: 1235- AA37) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-2309. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey and New York; 1997 Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area [EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0613; FRL-8928-02-R2] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2310. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Air Quality Standards [EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0301; FRL-8907-02-R2], pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2311. A letter from the Acting Director, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities; New York [EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0564, FRL 8921-02-Region 2] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2312. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Kansas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference [EPA-R07-UST- 2021-0345; FRL-8775-02-R7] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2313. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District [EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0176; FRL-8759-02-R9] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2314. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Greene County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0358; FRL-8686-02-R3] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2315. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Maine and New Hampshire; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements [EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0250; FRL-8860-02- R1] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-2316. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- C10-C18-Alkyl Dimethyl Amine Oxides (ADAOs); Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0164; FRL-8678-01-OCSPP] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-2317. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Fredericksburg, Texas) [MB Docket No: 21-254] (RM- 11911) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2318. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Sections 73.622(i) Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments Television Broadcast Stations (Superior and York, Nebraska) [MB Docket No.: 21-60] (RM-11884) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2319. A letter from the BOEM Analyst, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Maximum Daily Civil Penalty Amounts for Violations of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act [Docket No.: BOEM 2021-0028] (RIN: 1010-AE08) received August 17, 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-2320. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Public Assistance Appeals and Arbitrations [Docket ID: FEMA-2019-0012] (RIN: 1660-AB00) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2321. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Nashville, TN [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0248] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2322. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Tennessee River Mile 643 to 652, Knoxville, TN [Docket Number: USCG- 2021-0433] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2323. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone, Christina River, Newport, DE [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0131] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2324. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary rule -- Safety Zone; South Timbalier Block 22, Gulf of Mexico, Port Fourchon, LA [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0607] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2325. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Lake of the Ozarks, Mile Markers 7, 10.5, 13, 16, 22, 26, 34, and 42, Lake of the Ozarks, MO [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0480] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2326. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chicago River, Chicago, IL [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0034] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2327. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0416] (RIN: 1625- AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2328. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Great Egg Harbor Bay, Ocean City, NJ [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0331] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2329. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Security Zone, Christina River, Newport, DE [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0285] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2330. A letter from the Regulations Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Extension of Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) Application Periods in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (RIN: 2900-AR24) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2331. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Premium Assistance for COBRA Benefits Part II [Notice 2021-46] received August 17, 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-2332. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- 45Q Carbon Capture Equipment Revenue Ruling (Rev. Rul. 2021-13) received August 17, 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-2333. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Retroactive application of section 13204 of TCJA (Rev. Proc. 2021-28 (RP-128886-20)) received August 17, 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-2334. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, transmitting the Foundation's final rule -- Conservation of Antarctic Animals and Plants (RIN: 3145-AA59) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Science, Space, and Technology. EC-2335. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, transmitting the Foundation's final rule -- Conservation of Antarctic Animals and Plants (RIN: 3145-AA59) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Science, Space, and Technology. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-05-pt1-PgH5598-2 | null | 3,210 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-2307. A letter from the Deputy Administrator for Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): 2008 Farm Bill Provisions on Clarification of Split Issuance; Accrual of Benefits and Definition Changes: Delay of Implementation Date for Certain Provisions [FNS 2016-0074] (RIN: 0584-AE02) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-2308. A letter from the Compliance Specialist, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Rescission of Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Rule (RIN: 1235- AA37) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-2309. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey and New York; 1997 Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area [EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0613; FRL-8928-02-R2] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2310. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Air Quality Standards [EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0301; FRL-8907-02-R2], pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2311. A letter from the Acting Director, Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities; New York [EPA-R02-OAR-2018-0564, FRL 8921-02-Region 2] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2312. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Kansas: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference [EPA-R07-UST- 2021-0345; FRL-8775-02-R7] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2313. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; Imperial County Air Pollution Control District [EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0176; FRL-8759-02-R9] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2314. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Second Maintenance Plan for the Greene County Area [EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0358; FRL-8686-02-R3] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2315. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Maine and New Hampshire; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements [EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0250; FRL-8860-02- R1] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-2316. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- C10-C18-Alkyl Dimethyl Amine Oxides (ADAOs); Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0164; FRL-8678-01-OCSPP] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-2317. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Fredericksburg, Texas) [MB Docket No: 21-254] (RM- 11911) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2318. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Sections 73.622(i) Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments Television Broadcast Stations (Superior and York, Nebraska) [MB Docket No.: 21-60] (RM-11884) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2319. A letter from the BOEM Analyst, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Maximum Daily Civil Penalty Amounts for Violations of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act [Docket No.: BOEM 2021-0028] (RIN: 1010-AE08) received August 17, 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-2320. A letter from the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Public Assistance Appeals and Arbitrations [Docket ID: FEMA-2019-0012] (RIN: 1660-AB00) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2321. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Cumberland River, Nashville, TN [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0248] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2322. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Tennessee River Mile 643 to 652, Knoxville, TN [Docket Number: USCG- 2021-0433] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2323. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone, Christina River, Newport, DE [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0131] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2324. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary rule -- Safety Zone; South Timbalier Block 22, Gulf of Mexico, Port Fourchon, LA [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0607] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2325. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Lake of the Ozarks, Mile Markers 7, 10.5, 13, 16, 22, 26, 34, and 42, Lake of the Ozarks, MO [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0480] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2326. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chicago River, Chicago, IL [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0034] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2327. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0416] (RIN: 1625- AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2328. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Great Egg Harbor Bay, Ocean City, NJ [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0331] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2329. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Security Zone, Christina River, Newport, DE [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0285] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2330. A letter from the Regulations Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Extension of Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI) Application Periods in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (RIN: 2900-AR24) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2331. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Premium Assistance for COBRA Benefits Part II [Notice 2021-46] received August 17, 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-2332. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- 45Q Carbon Capture Equipment Revenue Ruling (Rev. Rul. 2021-13) received August 17, 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-2333. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Retroactive application of section 13204 of TCJA (Rev. Proc. 2021-28 (RP-128886-20)) received August 17, 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-2334. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, transmitting the Foundation's final rule -- Conservation of Antarctic Animals and Plants (RIN: 3145-AA59) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Science, Space, and Technology. EC-2335. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, transmitting the Foundation's final rule -- Conservation of Antarctic Animals and Plants (RIN: 3145-AA59) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and Science, Space, and Technology. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-05-pt1-PgH5598-2 | null | 3,211 |
formal | ghettos | null | racist | By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Markey, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Peters, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. Sanders): S. 2937. A bill to authorize humanitarian assistance and civil society support, promote democracy and human rights, and impose targeted sanctions with respect to human rights abuses in Burma, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Mr. CARDIN, Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2021, BURMA, which is cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Markey, Merkley, Feinstein, Kaine, Rosen, Murray, Peters, Klobuchar, Padilla, Wyden, and Lujan, We are doing so in tandem with simultaneous introduction of a companion bill today in the House of Representatives by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Meeks, along with Representatives Chabot and McCaul and others. The purpose in short is to provide a legislative foundation to certain steps the Biden administration has undertaken by Executive order and to push the executive branch to be even more forward-leaning in addressing the February 1 coup d'etat and the ongoing human rights being committed by the Burmese military, the Tatmadaw. The legislation includes authorization to impose sanctions on individuals and entities who helped stage the February 1 coup d'etat and are responsible for the subsequent repression of fundamental freedoms, human rights abuses, use of indiscriminate violence towards civilians, and other gross atrocities; authorization to prohibit the import of precious and semi-precious gemstones from Burma into the United States; authorization for a new position at the State Department, a Special Coordinator for Burmese Democracy, to promote an international effort to impose and enforce multilateral sanctions on Burma and coordinate U.S. Government interagency efforts on Burma; authorization for support to civil society and for humanitarian assistance in Burma, Bangladesh, Thailand, and the surrounding region; requires the Secretary of State to make a determination whether the persecution of the Rohingya in Burma constitutes genocide; and a call for the United States to take more decisive action with regard to Burma at the United Nations. Throughout its independence, Burma's history has suffered decades of repressive military rule and civil war with ethnic minority groups, and what we are seeing today in Burma is no different. In 1988, thousands of people took the streets to protest the government. Under the leadership of then-General Ne Win, who ruled for 26 years following a coup, security forces cracked down on protestors, killing thousands of citizens. During these uprisings, Aung San Suu Kyi emerged as a charismatic national icon, preaching democracy and nonviolence as she highlighted the political situation in Burma. In 1990, the military junta agreed to hold the first multiparty elections in 30 years in which Aung San Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy, won 81 percent of the seats in the government with over 70 percent voter turnout. However, the ray of hope in Burma was quickly diminished when the military refused to recognize the results and hand over power. Aung San Suu Kyi was detained and remained under house arrest for nearly 15 years--until her release in 2010 as the country continued to be ruled by the military. In 2011, President Thein Sein agreed to a series of reforms, including granting amnesty to political prisoners, relaxing media censorship, and implementing economic policies to encourage foreign investment. Aung San Suu Kyi became a member of Parliament when her party won 43 of the 45 vacant seats in the 2012 by-elections, as ongoing negotiations between civilians and military officials continued. In 2015, Myanmar held its first nationwide, multiparty elections--considered to be the freest and fairest elections in decades--since the country's transition away from military rule. Her party boycotted the 2010 elections, resulting in a decisive victory for the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party. In the 2015 elections, Aung San Suu Kyi's party won a landslide victory, taking 86 percent of the seats in the Assembly of the Union. Although she was prohibited from becoming the President due to a clause the military demanded be inserted in the constitution specifically to keep her from office, she assumed the role of State Counsellor of Myanmar. Yet, despite the facade of civilian governance that had been established in Burma, the real political power continued to rest in the hands of the military. Three years on, following decades of ongoing persecution, including confinement to ghettos, stripping away of citizenship rights, restrictions on healthcare and fertility, military unleashed a horrifying display of state-sanctioned violence in Rakhine state in August 2017, which resulted in wide-scale human rights violation, including tens of thousands of deaths, sexual violence, torture, unlawful arrest and detention, and widespread destruction of the Rohingya people's homes and communities. Over 736,000 survivors fled to refugee camps in Bangladesh, where they remain to this day, in urgent need of humanitarian aid, increased support--and justice. Since 2019, I joined my colleagues in the Senate in calling on directing the State Department to determine whether attacks by the Burmese military and security forces against the Rohingya constitutes genocide. The United States has still not issued a determination on whether the atrocities committed against the Rohingya constitute genocide, even though human rights investigators funded by the State Department concluded in 2018 that ``there are reasonable grounds to believe that genocide was committed.'' U.N. investigators have also found evidence that infers genocidal intent. This is something my colleagues and I address in our BURMA bill. The United States should lead in calling what happened what it is: a genocide. On February 1, 2021, the Burmese military led a coup against the democratically elected legislature, just hours before the Parliament was scheduled to be seated terrifying setback for the emerging potential for democracy and rule-of-law in Burma. Since seizing control, the military forces have killed over a thousand people across the country as they crack down on civilian protestors who have mobilized to oppose the ongoing assault on the country's nascent political institutions and traditions. Rather than follow the outcome of the parliamentary elections held last November, the Burmese military has detained Aung San Suu Kyi, President Win Myint, and other civilians, including other government officials. The military has also cut internet and telephone communication, and it has stopped flights in the country. For years, the Burmese military has been responsible for much of the violence against minority groups in Burma, including the Rohingya. More than 1 million Rohingya have fled the country and become refugees as a result of the military's atrocities against them. This coup d'etat further damages democratic institutions in Burma and makes the entire region less stable. As the death toll in Myanmar continues to rise, the United States must not be indifferent to Burma's fate. The Burmese military has also been responsible for horrible atrocities committed against minority groups in Burma, including the Rohingya, which has led more than 1 million to flee the country and become refugees. In recent months, the Tatmadaw, the country's military, escalated its brutal campaign, using COVID-19 like a biological weapon to terrorize and control the people of Burma. The military has arrested government officials, doctors, nurses, and journalist, including U.S. citizen Danny Fester. The bill aims to authorize sanctions on individuals and entities who helped stage the February 1 coup d'etat and are responsible for the subsequent repression of fundamental freedoms, human rights abuses, use of indiscriminate violence towards civilians, and other gross atrocities; authorizes increased humanitarian assistance for Rohingya refugees and provides support for civil society and independent media; prohibits the import ofgemstones from Burma into the United States; calls for the United States to pressure the United Nations to take more decisive action with regards to Burma; and requests a genocide determination regarding the persecution of the Rohingya. It is important for the international community to continue to pressure the military junta to restore democracy for the people of Burma. The behavior of the Tatmadaw has not and will not change--thus the need for additional & forceful actions by the United States and international community to bring justice, accountability, and restore democracy. I remain committed to continuing to work with the Biden administration and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that the United States and international response to the military coup is coordinated and targeted to have a strong impact on those responsible, while also encouraging a peaceful transition of power back to the civilian government. I continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Burma and condemn the ongoing violence against them. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-05-pt1-PgS6920 | null | 3,212 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about a crisis that is continuing at our southern border. It is a crisis that Joe Biden created, and it is a crisis that he has only made worse. Let me just tell you, the White House knows that it is getting worse. Leaks from the administration claim they are preparing for the possibility that the illegal immigration, over the next month, will double--double. This would mean 400,000 illegal immigrants reaching our border next month. This isn't just a record; this is nearly double of a record. This isn't just a crisis; this is an invasion. In the month of August, more than 200,000 illegal immigrants crossed our border. This is the most ever seen in the month of August in the last 21 years. In July, we saw more illegal immigrants than in any 1 month in 21 years. Since President Biden has taken office, we have seen recordbreaking month after recordbreaking month of illegal immigrants coming to this country. Our border is now wide open, and the rest of the world knows it. In recent weeks, we saw tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crowd a single bridge in Del Rio, TX. According to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, 30,000 people crossed into Del Rio in just 15 days. That was from September 9 through September 24. This is just the beginning. Now there are reports there are up to 60,000 more Haitians making their way to our border. And what happened in Del Rio is about to happen all over again on a much larger scale. The Foreign Minister of Panama recently said: ``We sounded the alarm'' about the last caravan. She said she warned the Biden administration. Yet the Biden administration did nothing. More than a million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border since President Biden has taken office. This is more than double the population of my home State of Wyoming. Many of these people are carrying deadly diseases. Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary admitted one in five--this is from the Secretary of Homeland Security--one in five illegal immigrants crossing our border carries an illness. This could mean 40,000 illegal immigrants brought disease across our border just this past month. In many cases, these people are then being sent all across the country to then stay there. Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary announced up to 12,000 of the illegal immigrants in Del Rio had been released into the United States--not sent to their home but sent into the United States. Oh, they are supposed to show up in court someday. Yet this will probably never happen. That has been the history of this--probably never show up in court. Instead, they will settle down in the United States and never leave. The lack of enforcement of the law by this administration is silent amnesty. The illegal immigrants know it, and the Democrats in this Chamber and in Washington know it as well. Many of these immigrants coming have applied for asylum, but it is highly unlikely these Del Rio immigrants actually would ever qualify for asylum. Most of them have been living in South America. In other words, they are not fleeing their home country. They already fled their home country to a safe third country where they were living. The current caravan is marching hundreds of miles through half a dozen countries. Asylum is only for people fleeing persecution. They are not. These people don't qualify for asylum. They have no right to come here. A competent administration would prevent them, stop them, from coming here. If they want to apply for asylum, they should remain in Mexico. Under the previous President, that is what was required. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was extremely successful and effective. Yet President Biden ended it on his very first day in office. Last month, a Federal judge ruled President Biden broke the law by ending it so suddenly. Now President Biden has to bring it back. Yet the administration has already announced that they are going to try to end it again. Two weeks ago, a judge also restricted the public health order called title 42. This a public health order which expels illegal immigrants from places where coronavirus is spreading. A Federal judge restricted title 42 to expelling single adults. Then the Biden administration appealed the ruling and asked to keep the order in place. Now an appeals judge has allowed it to continue while the appeal moves forward. If this appeal is not successful, we will see an additional tidal wave of illegal immigration. When I visited the border earlier this year, Border Patrol told me title 42 was their last line of defense. If title 42 is struck down, illegal immigration could double overnight. The Biden administration has also announced a new policy on deportations. Under the new rules, many illegal immigrants who commit crimes, amazingly, will not be deported. The policy explicitly says: ``Personnel should not rely on the fact of conviction''--should not rely on the fact of conviction--``when determining whom to deport.'' This is not accused of a crime. This is convicted of a crime. The policy lists out a host of mitigating factors. They include age, length of time in the United States, mental or physical health problems, and the potential impact on their family. We are talking about convicted criminals. These mitigating factors are largely subjective. In effect, Homeland Security now has license to not deport people who should, by law, be deported. This lack of effective enforcement is a silent amnesty. Here, in the Senate, Democrats just tried to pass amnesty for 8 million illegal immigrants. They failed. Yet it turns out they didn't need to pass it. The Biden administration will just let people stay. And I will tell you, people around this country, when they see what this administration is doing at the border, they are furious. They are offended. Amnesty only strengthens the magnet for people to come here illegally. As long as Democrats give amnesty and government benefits to illegal immigrants, of course, we will continue to have a border crisis. Last week, former President Barack Obama gave an interview. He was asked about the crisis on the southern border. He had something to say. It was on ABC ``Good Morning America,'' and I hope it is something that President Biden has heard or listened to. President Obama said: We are a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can have open borders is unsustainable. Unsustainable. That is President Barack Obama, former member of this Senate, a two-term President of the United States, saying what is happening now is unsustainable. And President Obama is absolutely right. It is unsustainable. It is leading to tragedies like one we saw in Yuma, AZ, just this August. Border Patrol agents, sadly, found a 2-year-old boy from Colombia. He was next to the dead bodies of his 11-year-old sister and their mother. We later found out his mother's name was Claudia Pena. She had called 9-1-1, and in the background of the call, the dispatchers heard a child saying: Mommy, I am hungry. The family had flown to Mexico from Colombia. Then they were smuggled over the border by a trafficker. They were seeking to be reunited with the father of the family. Now they will never be reunited. And stories like this one, heartbreaking stories, happen on a regular basis because our border is open. They are going to keep happening as long as the border remains open and as long as the President continues to send the message to attract more to come here illegally. We know what we need to do. We know what works: Finish the wall that we paid for; keep the public health rules in place; and keep the successful ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. Stop promising benefits--government benefits, paid benefits--to illegal immigrants. Turn off the magnet--the magnet which is drawing millions of people to risk their lives--or this stampede for the border will continue. It is time we enforce the law. Secure this border once and for all. That is what the American people want and are not getting from this administration. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-10-05-pt1-PgS6922 | null | 3,213 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about a crisis that is continuing at our southern border. It is a crisis that Joe Biden created, and it is a crisis that he has only made worse. Let me just tell you, the White House knows that it is getting worse. Leaks from the administration claim they are preparing for the possibility that the illegal immigration, over the next month, will double--double. This would mean 400,000 illegal immigrants reaching our border next month. This isn't just a record; this is nearly double of a record. This isn't just a crisis; this is an invasion. In the month of August, more than 200,000 illegal immigrants crossed our border. This is the most ever seen in the month of August in the last 21 years. In July, we saw more illegal immigrants than in any 1 month in 21 years. Since President Biden has taken office, we have seen recordbreaking month after recordbreaking month of illegal immigrants coming to this country. Our border is now wide open, and the rest of the world knows it. In recent weeks, we saw tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crowd a single bridge in Del Rio, TX. According to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, 30,000 people crossed into Del Rio in just 15 days. That was from September 9 through September 24. This is just the beginning. Now there are reports there are up to 60,000 more Haitians making their way to our border. And what happened in Del Rio is about to happen all over again on a much larger scale. The Foreign Minister of Panama recently said: ``We sounded the alarm'' about the last caravan. She said she warned the Biden administration. Yet the Biden administration did nothing. More than a million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border since President Biden has taken office. This is more than double the population of my home State of Wyoming. Many of these people are carrying deadly diseases. Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary admitted one in five--this is from the Secretary of Homeland Security--one in five illegal immigrants crossing our border carries an illness. This could mean 40,000 illegal immigrants brought disease across our border just this past month. In many cases, these people are then being sent all across the country to then stay there. Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary announced up to 12,000 of the illegal immigrants in Del Rio had been released into the United States--not sent to their home but sent into the United States. Oh, they are supposed to show up in court someday. Yet this will probably never happen. That has been the history of this--probably never show up in court. Instead, they will settle down in the United States and never leave. The lack of enforcement of the law by this administration is silent amnesty. The illegal immigrants know it, and the Democrats in this Chamber and in Washington know it as well. Many of these immigrants coming have applied for asylum, but it is highly unlikely these Del Rio immigrants actually would ever qualify for asylum. Most of them have been living in South America. In other words, they are not fleeing their home country. They already fled their home country to a safe third country where they were living. The current caravan is marching hundreds of miles through half a dozen countries. Asylum is only for people fleeing persecution. They are not. These people don't qualify for asylum. They have no right to come here. A competent administration would prevent them, stop them, from coming here. If they want to apply for asylum, they should remain in Mexico. Under the previous President, that is what was required. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was extremely successful and effective. Yet President Biden ended it on his very first day in office. Last month, a Federal judge ruled President Biden broke the law by ending it so suddenly. Now President Biden has to bring it back. Yet the administration has already announced that they are going to try to end it again. Two weeks ago, a judge also restricted the public health order called title 42. This a public health order which expels illegal immigrants from places where coronavirus is spreading. A Federal judge restricted title 42 to expelling single adults. Then the Biden administration appealed the ruling and asked to keep the order in place. Now an appeals judge has allowed it to continue while the appeal moves forward. If this appeal is not successful, we will see an additional tidal wave of illegal immigration. When I visited the border earlier this year, Border Patrol told me title 42 was their last line of defense. If title 42 is struck down, illegal immigration could double overnight. The Biden administration has also announced a new policy on deportations. Under the new rules, many illegal immigrants who commit crimes, amazingly, will not be deported. The policy explicitly says: ``Personnel should not rely on the fact of conviction''--should not rely on the fact of conviction--``when determining whom to deport.'' This is not accused of a crime. This is convicted of a crime. The policy lists out a host of mitigating factors. They include age, length of time in the United States, mental or physical health problems, and the potential impact on their family. We are talking about convicted criminals. These mitigating factors are largely subjective. In effect, Homeland Security now has license to not deport people who should, by law, be deported. This lack of effective enforcement is a silent amnesty. Here, in the Senate, Democrats just tried to pass amnesty for 8 million illegal immigrants. They failed. Yet it turns out they didn't need to pass it. The Biden administration will just let people stay. And I will tell you, people around this country, when they see what this administration is doing at the border, they are furious. They are offended. Amnesty only strengthens the magnet for people to come here illegally. As long as Democrats give amnesty and government benefits to illegal immigrants, of course, we will continue to have a border crisis. Last week, former President Barack Obama gave an interview. He was asked about the crisis on the southern border. He had something to say. It was on ABC ``Good Morning America,'' and I hope it is something that President Biden has heard or listened to. President Obama said: We are a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can have open borders is unsustainable. Unsustainable. That is President Barack Obama, former member of this Senate, a two-term President of the United States, saying what is happening now is unsustainable. And President Obama is absolutely right. It is unsustainable. It is leading to tragedies like one we saw in Yuma, AZ, just this August. Border Patrol agents, sadly, found a 2-year-old boy from Colombia. He was next to the dead bodies of his 11-year-old sister and their mother. We later found out his mother's name was Claudia Pena. She had called 9-1-1, and in the background of the call, the dispatchers heard a child saying: Mommy, I am hungry. The family had flown to Mexico from Colombia. Then they were smuggled over the border by a trafficker. They were seeking to be reunited with the father of the family. Now they will never be reunited. And stories like this one, heartbreaking stories, happen on a regular basis because our border is open. They are going to keep happening as long as the border remains open and as long as the President continues to send the message to attract more to come here illegally. We know what we need to do. We know what works: Finish the wall that we paid for; keep the public health rules in place; and keep the successful ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. Stop promising benefits--government benefits, paid benefits--to illegal immigrants. Turn off the magnet--the magnet which is drawing millions of people to risk their lives--or this stampede for the border will continue. It is time we enforce the law. Secure this border once and for all. That is what the American people want and are not getting from this administration. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-10-05-pt1-PgS6922 | null | 3,214 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about a crisis that is continuing at our southern border. It is a crisis that Joe Biden created, and it is a crisis that he has only made worse. Let me just tell you, the White House knows that it is getting worse. Leaks from the administration claim they are preparing for the possibility that the illegal immigration, over the next month, will double--double. This would mean 400,000 illegal immigrants reaching our border next month. This isn't just a record; this is nearly double of a record. This isn't just a crisis; this is an invasion. In the month of August, more than 200,000 illegal immigrants crossed our border. This is the most ever seen in the month of August in the last 21 years. In July, we saw more illegal immigrants than in any 1 month in 21 years. Since President Biden has taken office, we have seen recordbreaking month after recordbreaking month of illegal immigrants coming to this country. Our border is now wide open, and the rest of the world knows it. In recent weeks, we saw tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crowd a single bridge in Del Rio, TX. According to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, 30,000 people crossed into Del Rio in just 15 days. That was from September 9 through September 24. This is just the beginning. Now there are reports there are up to 60,000 more Haitians making their way to our border. And what happened in Del Rio is about to happen all over again on a much larger scale. The Foreign Minister of Panama recently said: ``We sounded the alarm'' about the last caravan. She said she warned the Biden administration. Yet the Biden administration did nothing. More than a million illegal immigrants have crossed our southern border since President Biden has taken office. This is more than double the population of my home State of Wyoming. Many of these people are carrying deadly diseases. Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary admitted one in five--this is from the Secretary of Homeland Security--one in five illegal immigrants crossing our border carries an illness. This could mean 40,000 illegal immigrants brought disease across our border just this past month. In many cases, these people are then being sent all across the country to then stay there. Last week, the Homeland Security Secretary announced up to 12,000 of the illegal immigrants in Del Rio had been released into the United States--not sent to their home but sent into the United States. Oh, they are supposed to show up in court someday. Yet this will probably never happen. That has been the history of this--probably never show up in court. Instead, they will settle down in the United States and never leave. The lack of enforcement of the law by this administration is silent amnesty. The illegal immigrants know it, and the Democrats in this Chamber and in Washington know it as well. Many of these immigrants coming have applied for asylum, but it is highly unlikely these Del Rio immigrants actually would ever qualify for asylum. Most of them have been living in South America. In other words, they are not fleeing their home country. They already fled their home country to a safe third country where they were living. The current caravan is marching hundreds of miles through half a dozen countries. Asylum is only for people fleeing persecution. They are not. These people don't qualify for asylum. They have no right to come here. A competent administration would prevent them, stop them, from coming here. If they want to apply for asylum, they should remain in Mexico. Under the previous President, that is what was required. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy was extremely successful and effective. Yet President Biden ended it on his very first day in office. Last month, a Federal judge ruled President Biden broke the law by ending it so suddenly. Now President Biden has to bring it back. Yet the administration has already announced that they are going to try to end it again. Two weeks ago, a judge also restricted the public health order called title 42. This a public health order which expels illegal immigrants from places where coronavirus is spreading. A Federal judge restricted title 42 to expelling single adults. Then the Biden administration appealed the ruling and asked to keep the order in place. Now an appeals judge has allowed it to continue while the appeal moves forward. If this appeal is not successful, we will see an additional tidal wave of illegal immigration. When I visited the border earlier this year, Border Patrol told me title 42 was their last line of defense. If title 42 is struck down, illegal immigration could double overnight. The Biden administration has also announced a new policy on deportations. Under the new rules, many illegal immigrants who commit crimes, amazingly, will not be deported. The policy explicitly says: ``Personnel should not rely on the fact of conviction''--should not rely on the fact of conviction--``when determining whom to deport.'' This is not accused of a crime. This is convicted of a crime. The policy lists out a host of mitigating factors. They include age, length of time in the United States, mental or physical health problems, and the potential impact on their family. We are talking about convicted criminals. These mitigating factors are largely subjective. In effect, Homeland Security now has license to not deport people who should, by law, be deported. This lack of effective enforcement is a silent amnesty. Here, in the Senate, Democrats just tried to pass amnesty for 8 million illegal immigrants. They failed. Yet it turns out they didn't need to pass it. The Biden administration will just let people stay. And I will tell you, people around this country, when they see what this administration is doing at the border, they are furious. They are offended. Amnesty only strengthens the magnet for people to come here illegally. As long as Democrats give amnesty and government benefits to illegal immigrants, of course, we will continue to have a border crisis. Last week, former President Barack Obama gave an interview. He was asked about the crisis on the southern border. He had something to say. It was on ABC ``Good Morning America,'' and I hope it is something that President Biden has heard or listened to. President Obama said: We are a nation state. We have borders. The idea that we can have open borders is unsustainable. Unsustainable. That is President Barack Obama, former member of this Senate, a two-term President of the United States, saying what is happening now is unsustainable. And President Obama is absolutely right. It is unsustainable. It is leading to tragedies like one we saw in Yuma, AZ, just this August. Border Patrol agents, sadly, found a 2-year-old boy from Colombia. He was next to the dead bodies of his 11-year-old sister and their mother. We later found out his mother's name was Claudia Pena. She had called 9-1-1, and in the background of the call, the dispatchers heard a child saying: Mommy, I am hungry. The family had flown to Mexico from Colombia. Then they were smuggled over the border by a trafficker. They were seeking to be reunited with the father of the family. Now they will never be reunited. And stories like this one, heartbreaking stories, happen on a regular basis because our border is open. They are going to keep happening as long as the border remains open and as long as the President continues to send the message to attract more to come here illegally. We know what we need to do. We know what works: Finish the wall that we paid for; keep the public health rules in place; and keep the successful ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. Stop promising benefits--government benefits, paid benefits--to illegal immigrants. Turn off the magnet--the magnet which is drawing millions of people to risk their lives--or this stampede for the border will continue. It is time we enforce the law. Secure this border once and for all. That is what the American people want and are not getting from this administration. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2021-10-05-pt1-PgS6922 | null | 3,215 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Biden Administration Mr. President, now on a related matter, President Biden makes two claims about the reckless taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats are writing behind closed doors. Listen to this: He is saying it costs zero dollars--zero dollars--but he needs massive tax hikes to pay for it. Talk about magical Washington math. If they embark on a Washington spending binge, as long as they send the bill to the American people and not themselves, they consider the whole thing free of charge--free of charge. Of course Democrats' plans wouldn't pay for themselves. That is why their reckless spending spree needs to come paired with a historic redistribution of wealth from the American people over to the Federal Government. With trillions of dollars in new spending comes the largest peacetime tax hike on record. Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree isn't even fully developed, and it already contains more than 40 different tax increases that would hurt families and help China. Some of the tax hikes take aim at workers and families directly. Others target small businesses, passthroughs, and family farms with extra burdens. Still others would make it harder to invest, create, and sustain jobs here in America instead of overseas. Ivy League economists say the Democrats' tax hikes would increase the incentive for American companies to move investments and profits overseas. Under Democrats' proposed expansion of the global minimum tax, more than a dozen of our most developed peers would have tax structures more favorable to U.S. companies than our own. If President Biden got his way on corporate taxes, even China would become more hospitable to job creators by comparison. So let me say that again: Democrats are planning to send America's top tax rate for job creators higher--higher--than communist China's. Needless to say, the biggest losers when Democrats make it harder to do business in America are, of course, American workers. Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the burden of the corporate tax hike Democrats are trying to ram through would end up falling on lower and middle-income Americans; 98.4 percent of it would hit Americans with incomes under $500,000. It turns out that President Biden's promise that taxes wouldn't go up for the vast majority of American families wasn't worth all that much. Not only are their taxes set to go up, so is the budget of the IRS. Democrats want to spend $80 billion so the Federal tax authorities can expand their reach into financial habits of average Americans, snooping on transactions as small as $600. They want to finance their spending spree by effectively treating every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit--every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit. I must have forgotten when the President campaigned on giving everybody their own audit. I don't remember him saying that last year. It isn't ordinary middle-class Americans who need a careful audit; it is the Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree, with these historic tax hikes that would hurt families and help China. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-06-pt1-PgS6927 | null | 3,216 |
formal | job creator | null | conservative | Biden Administration Mr. President, now on a related matter, President Biden makes two claims about the reckless taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats are writing behind closed doors. Listen to this: He is saying it costs zero dollars--zero dollars--but he needs massive tax hikes to pay for it. Talk about magical Washington math. If they embark on a Washington spending binge, as long as they send the bill to the American people and not themselves, they consider the whole thing free of charge--free of charge. Of course Democrats' plans wouldn't pay for themselves. That is why their reckless spending spree needs to come paired with a historic redistribution of wealth from the American people over to the Federal Government. With trillions of dollars in new spending comes the largest peacetime tax hike on record. Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree isn't even fully developed, and it already contains more than 40 different tax increases that would hurt families and help China. Some of the tax hikes take aim at workers and families directly. Others target small businesses, passthroughs, and family farms with extra burdens. Still others would make it harder to invest, create, and sustain jobs here in America instead of overseas. Ivy League economists say the Democrats' tax hikes would increase the incentive for American companies to move investments and profits overseas. Under Democrats' proposed expansion of the global minimum tax, more than a dozen of our most developed peers would have tax structures more favorable to U.S. companies than our own. If President Biden got his way on corporate taxes, even China would become more hospitable to job creators by comparison. So let me say that again: Democrats are planning to send America's top tax rate for job creators higher--higher--than communist China's. Needless to say, the biggest losers when Democrats make it harder to do business in America are, of course, American workers. Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the burden of the corporate tax hike Democrats are trying to ram through would end up falling on lower and middle-income Americans; 98.4 percent of it would hit Americans with incomes under $500,000. It turns out that President Biden's promise that taxes wouldn't go up for the vast majority of American families wasn't worth all that much. Not only are their taxes set to go up, so is the budget of the IRS. Democrats want to spend $80 billion so the Federal tax authorities can expand their reach into financial habits of average Americans, snooping on transactions as small as $600. They want to finance their spending spree by effectively treating every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit--every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit. I must have forgotten when the President campaigned on giving everybody their own audit. I don't remember him saying that last year. It isn't ordinary middle-class Americans who need a careful audit; it is the Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree, with these historic tax hikes that would hurt families and help China. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-06-pt1-PgS6927 | null | 3,217 |
formal | job creators | null | conservative | Biden Administration Mr. President, now on a related matter, President Biden makes two claims about the reckless taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats are writing behind closed doors. Listen to this: He is saying it costs zero dollars--zero dollars--but he needs massive tax hikes to pay for it. Talk about magical Washington math. If they embark on a Washington spending binge, as long as they send the bill to the American people and not themselves, they consider the whole thing free of charge--free of charge. Of course Democrats' plans wouldn't pay for themselves. That is why their reckless spending spree needs to come paired with a historic redistribution of wealth from the American people over to the Federal Government. With trillions of dollars in new spending comes the largest peacetime tax hike on record. Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree isn't even fully developed, and it already contains more than 40 different tax increases that would hurt families and help China. Some of the tax hikes take aim at workers and families directly. Others target small businesses, passthroughs, and family farms with extra burdens. Still others would make it harder to invest, create, and sustain jobs here in America instead of overseas. Ivy League economists say the Democrats' tax hikes would increase the incentive for American companies to move investments and profits overseas. Under Democrats' proposed expansion of the global minimum tax, more than a dozen of our most developed peers would have tax structures more favorable to U.S. companies than our own. If President Biden got his way on corporate taxes, even China would become more hospitable to job creators by comparison. So let me say that again: Democrats are planning to send America's top tax rate for job creators higher--higher--than communist China's. Needless to say, the biggest losers when Democrats make it harder to do business in America are, of course, American workers. Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the burden of the corporate tax hike Democrats are trying to ram through would end up falling on lower and middle-income Americans; 98.4 percent of it would hit Americans with incomes under $500,000. It turns out that President Biden's promise that taxes wouldn't go up for the vast majority of American families wasn't worth all that much. Not only are their taxes set to go up, so is the budget of the IRS. Democrats want to spend $80 billion so the Federal tax authorities can expand their reach into financial habits of average Americans, snooping on transactions as small as $600. They want to finance their spending spree by effectively treating every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit--every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit. I must have forgotten when the President campaigned on giving everybody their own audit. I don't remember him saying that last year. It isn't ordinary middle-class Americans who need a careful audit; it is the Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree, with these historic tax hikes that would hurt families and help China. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-06-pt1-PgS6927 | null | 3,218 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Biden Administration Mr. President, now on a related matter, President Biden makes two claims about the reckless taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats are writing behind closed doors. Listen to this: He is saying it costs zero dollars--zero dollars--but he needs massive tax hikes to pay for it. Talk about magical Washington math. If they embark on a Washington spending binge, as long as they send the bill to the American people and not themselves, they consider the whole thing free of charge--free of charge. Of course Democrats' plans wouldn't pay for themselves. That is why their reckless spending spree needs to come paired with a historic redistribution of wealth from the American people over to the Federal Government. With trillions of dollars in new spending comes the largest peacetime tax hike on record. Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree isn't even fully developed, and it already contains more than 40 different tax increases that would hurt families and help China. Some of the tax hikes take aim at workers and families directly. Others target small businesses, passthroughs, and family farms with extra burdens. Still others would make it harder to invest, create, and sustain jobs here in America instead of overseas. Ivy League economists say the Democrats' tax hikes would increase the incentive for American companies to move investments and profits overseas. Under Democrats' proposed expansion of the global minimum tax, more than a dozen of our most developed peers would have tax structures more favorable to U.S. companies than our own. If President Biden got his way on corporate taxes, even China would become more hospitable to job creators by comparison. So let me say that again: Democrats are planning to send America's top tax rate for job creators higher--higher--than communist China's. Needless to say, the biggest losers when Democrats make it harder to do business in America are, of course, American workers. Based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the burden of the corporate tax hike Democrats are trying to ram through would end up falling on lower and middle-income Americans; 98.4 percent of it would hit Americans with incomes under $500,000. It turns out that President Biden's promise that taxes wouldn't go up for the vast majority of American families wasn't worth all that much. Not only are their taxes set to go up, so is the budget of the IRS. Democrats want to spend $80 billion so the Federal tax authorities can expand their reach into financial habits of average Americans, snooping on transactions as small as $600. They want to finance their spending spree by effectively treating every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit--every ordinary American as if they were under IRS audit. I must have forgotten when the President campaigned on giving everybody their own audit. I don't remember him saying that last year. It isn't ordinary middle-class Americans who need a careful audit; it is the Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree, with these historic tax hikes that would hurt families and help China. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-06-pt1-PgS6927 | null | 3,219 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dave and Jenny Marrs of Bentonville, AR, on being named National Angels in Adoption honorees by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, CCAI. The CCAI is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, and I was honored to nominate Dave and Jenny for their work to support and promote adoption and other critical services for children in Arkansas and around the world. Since 2001, the CCAI has played a vital role in eliminating barriers standing between orphaned and foster children becoming part of a loving family. As the CCAI's signature public awareness program, Angels in Adoption annually recognizes outstanding individuals, families, and organizations that have made extraordinary contributions to adoption and child welfare. Dave and Jenny are the parents of five children, including Sylvie whom they adopted from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They had always known they wanted to adopt and, in 2012, began the process to make Sylvie part of their family. It only took a few months for Sylvie to legally became their child, but the couple had no idea how difficult it would be to bring her home to Arkansas when international challenges brought the process to a halt. Shortly after their visit to the Congo, the Congolese Government shut down adoptions. Dave and Jenny were devasted, but the hardships only strengthened their resolve to rescue their daughter. It was during that process that my office first met the Marrs family, and I am pleased we were able to advocate for them with the U.S. State Department and Embassy officials. After more than 600 days, their Sylvie finally arrived home. Inspired by their newest addition to the family, Dave and Jenny developed a passion for orphan care, family preservation, and adoption. The family started a nonprofit blueberry farm in northwest Arkansas as a way to help fund a program to educate orphaned and at-risk teenage boys in Marondera, Zimbabwe. They also advocate for children in need, including working closely with the philanthropic organization Help One Now to empower families in developing nations through capable local leaders. The Marrs family has traveled the world to see firsthand the extreme poverty and truly dark circumstances facing parentless children around the globe. While visiting the Congo, the couple witnessed extreme starvation in the orphanage where their daughter Sylvie was living. This shocked Dave and Jenny, launching them into action. They organized an online raffle to raise money to feed the kids and their program was so successful it was able to feed three orphanages for an entire month. The Marrses have also used their platform on their hit HGTV show ``Fixer to Fabulous'' to help spread awareness about adoption and share their journey with viewers. It was a privilege to nominate Dave and Jenny for their exemplary work that led to this well-deserved national honor, and I believe I speak for all Arkansans when I say they have made our State incredibly proud. They join influential and deserving members of this community, including Mohammed Ali and First Lady Laura Bush, as recipients of this important recognition. I am grateful for the life-changing efforts Dave and Jenny Marrs, as well astheir wonderful children Nathan, Ben, Sylvie, Charlotte, and Luke, have contributed to shine a light on this truly worthy and necessary cause. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BOOZMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-06-pt1-PgS6940-2 | null | 3,220 |
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-2359. 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; Tulsa, Oklahoma'' (DA 21-1161) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2360. 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 ``Modification of the Boundaries of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas'' (RIN1513-AC55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2361. 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 Virginia Peninsula Viticultural Area'' (RIN1513-AC71) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2362. A communication from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Local Regulation; Lighthouse Musicfest, Huntington Bay, Long Island, NY'' ((RIN1625-AA08) (Docket No. USCG-2021-0653)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 23, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2363. A communication from the Deputy Director and Acting Director of Privacy and Open Government, Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 Implementation'' (RIN0605-AA49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 13, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2364. 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, Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth - Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021- 0610)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 23, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2365. A communication from the Legal Tech, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Temporary Safety Zone; Ferdon Wedding Fireworks Display, Harbor Springs, MI; Sector Sault Sainte Marie Captain of the Port Zone'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021-0608)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 23, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2366. 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, Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth - Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021- 0610)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 23, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2367. A communication from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone, Potomac River, Prince William County, VA'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021-0497)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 23, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2368. A communication from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone, Corpus Christi Bay; Corpus Christi, TX'' ((RIN1625-AA00) (Docket No. USCG-2021-0569)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 23, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2369. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 8857-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 28, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2370. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fluazinam; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 8664- 01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 28, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2371. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Spinetoram; Pesticide Tolerances; Corrections'' (FRL No. 8962-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 28, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2372. A communication from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a violation of the Antideficiency Act; to the Committee on Appropriations. EC-2373. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Legislative Affairs, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``The Consumer Credit Card Market (September 2021)''; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-2374. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency that was declared in Executive Order 13413 with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-2375. A communication from the Congressional Affairs Director, Export-Import Bank of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a vacancy in the position of President, Export-Import Bank of the United States, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-2376. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Negative Declaration for the Oil and Gas Industry'' (FRL No. 8974-02-R3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2377. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Health and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of 20 High-Priority Substances and 30 Organohalogen Flame Retardants; Extension of Submission Deadline'' ((RIN2070- AB11) (FRL No. 8204-02-OCSPP)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2378. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Restriction of Particulate Matter Emissions from Fuel Burning Equipment Used for Indirect Heating'' (FRL No. 8757-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2379. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New York; 2011 Periodic Emission Inventory SIP for the Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' (FRL No. 8943-02-R2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2380. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County Air Quality Department'' (FRL No. 8996-02-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2381. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Illinois; National Ambient Air Quality Standards Updates; Reference and Equivalent Methods Updates'' (FRL No. 9003-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-06-pt1-PgS6941-3 | null | 3,221 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on a related matter, while Americans contend with Democrats' self-created border crisis and inflation crisis, our foreign policy is in crisis as well. The Biden administration's disastrous retreat from Afghanistan may be over, but the danger to the American citizens and Afghan partners it left behind certainly is not over. Around the world, adversaries and allies alike are drawing new conclusions from President Biden's Afghanistan disaster about America's will to defend our allies and our interests. Pyongyang is putting on another master class in how despots disdain the so-called rules-based international order. Literally, while a North Korean official was haranguing the U.N. in a speech about the ``consequences it will bring in the future in case it tries to encroach upon [its] sovereignty,'' the Kim regime punctuated the speech with yet another provocative round of U.N. sanctions-violating ballistic missile tests. Iranian disregard for international norms and the Biden administration's efforts to enforce them continues apace. Tehran is ramping up its nuclear activities, demanding bribes to even return to the negotiating table, as well as stepping up its use of terrorist proxies to threaten its adversaries all across the region. In light of our retreat from Afghanistan, we should not be surprised if Iranian-backed groups redouble their efforts to inflict U.S. casualties and otherwise pressure the Biden administration to turn tail and run from Syria and Iraq. When it comes to near-peer competitors like Russia, the Biden campaign's tough talk has been replaced by the Biden administration's desperate rhetoric of diplomacy. Putin is unfazed and undeterred. Repression at home, manipulation of energy markets abroad, military modernization, cyber mischief--this doesn't exactly scream ready for good-faith engagement. Most of all, the administration's hollow rhetoric has done nothing to deter the growing threat from communist China. Just this month, Beijing has sent a record number of military aircraft on provocative missions into Taiwan's airspace. As senior Pentagon officials have warned, ``we are witnessing a strategic breakout'' by China, Democrats still refuse to let us adequately fund our own military and defense. The Biden administration's budget falls woefully short of our requirements for greater competition with China and with Russia--all the more so given the inevitable growing terror threat. And here in Congress, Democrats are doubling down on this reckless misstep. Democrats want to spend trillions of dollars on a socialist wish list at home while leaving the servicemembers who keep us safe overseas in the lurch. Now, I don't expect Chairman Sanders or certain radicals in the House to be keen on using reconciliation to fund our military--hardly. But Senate Democrats have left Congress's most fundamental tool for influencing defense policy--the historically bipartisan NDAA--in procedural limbo literally for months. The Democratic leader's latest public statement on his caucus's spending priorities did not even mention the defense authorization bill. Apparently, he is content to let it languish behind their leftwing wish list. So, Madam President, America is staring down serious and historic threats. And somehow, with unified control of government, the only actions Democrats have managed to take on foreign policy have made them worse. The American people deserve a lot better than this. Our servicemembers deserve better. Our allies deserve better. But Washington Democrats are proving they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6950-2 | null | 3,222 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now, on a related matter, while Americans contend with Democrats' self-created border crisis and inflation crisis, our foreign policy is in crisis as well. The Biden administration's disastrous retreat from Afghanistan may be over, but the danger to the American citizens and Afghan partners it left behind certainly is not over. Around the world, adversaries and allies alike are drawing new conclusions from President Biden's Afghanistan disaster about America's will to defend our allies and our interests. Pyongyang is putting on another master class in how despots disdain the so-called rules-based international order. Literally, while a North Korean official was haranguing the U.N. in a speech about the ``consequences it will bring in the future in case it tries to encroach upon [its] sovereignty,'' the Kim regime punctuated the speech with yet another provocative round of U.N. sanctions-violating ballistic missile tests. Iranian disregard for international norms and the Biden administration's efforts to enforce them continues apace. Tehran is ramping up its nuclear activities, demanding bribes to even return to the negotiating table, as well as stepping up its use of terrorist proxies to threaten its adversaries all across the region. In light of our retreat from Afghanistan, we should not be surprised if Iranian-backed groups redouble their efforts to inflict U.S. casualties and otherwise pressure the Biden administration to turn tail and run from Syria and Iraq. When it comes to near-peer competitors like Russia, the Biden campaign's tough talk has been replaced by the Biden administration's desperate rhetoric of diplomacy. Putin is unfazed and undeterred. Repression at home, manipulation of energy markets abroad, military modernization, cyber mischief--this doesn't exactly scream ready for good-faith engagement. Most of all, the administration's hollow rhetoric has done nothing to deter the growing threat from communist China. Just this month, Beijing has sent a record number of military aircraft on provocative missions into Taiwan's airspace. As senior Pentagon officials have warned, ``we are witnessing a strategic breakout'' by China, Democrats still refuse to let us adequately fund our own military and defense. The Biden administration's budget falls woefully short of our requirements for greater competition with China and with Russia--all the more so given the inevitable growing terror threat. And here in Congress, Democrats are doubling down on this reckless misstep. Democrats want to spend trillions of dollars on a socialist wish list at home while leaving the servicemembers who keep us safe overseas in the lurch. Now, I don't expect Chairman Sanders or certain radicals in the House to be keen on using reconciliation to fund our military--hardly. But Senate Democrats have left Congress's most fundamental tool for influencing defense policy--the historically bipartisan NDAA--in procedural limbo literally for months. The Democratic leader's latest public statement on his caucus's spending priorities did not even mention the defense authorization bill. Apparently, he is content to let it languish behind their leftwing wish list. So, Madam President, America is staring down serious and historic threats. And somehow, with unified control of government, the only actions Democrats have managed to take on foreign policy have made them worse. The American people deserve a lot better than this. Our servicemembers deserve better. Our allies deserve better. But Washington Democrats are proving they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6950-2 | null | 3,223 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, now on a related matter, Washington Democrats are behind closed doors trying to hammer out a multitrillion-dollar reckless taxing-and-spending spree, but we already know a lot about this bill. First and foremost, we know their reckless legislation would hurt American families and actually help China. It is that simple: inflicting pain on American workers and families while putting us at a global disadvantage. Just look at the radical climate policies Democrats have packed into the spree to satisfy their far-left base. The apples haven't fallen far from the awful Green New Deal. In the name of clean energy performance, Democrats want to force electric utilities to model their grids off of the high-cost, blackout-prone system that liberals have set up in the State of California; move all 50 States' electric grids toward California's. As one group of major power providers observed, not only would this be logistically unworkable, it would also threaten to send consumers' electricity costs totally out of control. And in the words of a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who testified before our colleagues just last week, the scheme would be ``H-bomb''--``H-bomb''--for the electricity markets. At the same time, Democrats are also pushing a brand-new natural gas tax they call a methane fee. It is a natural gas tax is what it is. Just as our friends in Europe are facing soaring natural gas costs and the threat of winter shortages, just as it seems Russia may be willingly supplying less and less gas to the free world, Democrats want our Nation to declare war on natural gas, kill tens of thousands of jobs, drain billions from the economy, and increase costs for our families--at a moment when U.S. natural gas futures just hit a 12-year high. There is no limit to the harm Democrats will inflict on America to force the heartland to accept elite liberal fashions. Their legislation includes special giveaways for electric cars that are disproportionately the preferred option--you guessed it--of wealthy people, jacking up America's gas bills and utility prices in order to turn 49 other States into California. It is a bad idea at an awful time and just one more way their reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6950 | null | 3,224 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on another matter, today, President Biden is traveling to Chicago. He arrives with a simple message: Vaccines work. In Illinois and across the country, vaccine mandates are saving lives and allowing life to return closer to normal. Over the past month, our State has experienced a nearly 40-percent decrease in new COVID cases. We are seeing similar trends around the country. In the months since the Biden administration announced its policy requiring the majority of Americans to get vaccinated, the United States has finally begun to turn the corner against the delta variant. Over the past 2 weeks--2 weeks--our Nation has seen a roughly 25-percent decrease in new COVID infections. Hospitalizations have decreased by 20 percent, and deaths are down as well. In Illinois, we are proud to support the Biden vaccine policy. In fact, some of the biggest employers in our State were ahead of the curve. In early July, Loyola Medicine in Chicago was one of the first health systems in America to implement the vaccine requirement. In August, United Airlines, based in Chicago, announced it would require its employees to get vaccinated. At the time, skeptics questioned whether this would lead to mass resignations or labor shortages. They predicted chaos. Well, much to the dismay of the doomsayers, as of yesterday, more than 99 percent of United Airlines' employees in America have rolled up their sleeves and gotten vaccinated. Every major airline in the country has followed United's lead and introduced a vaccine requirement. This means safer skies for passengers and crew members. It is another big step back to normal. Unfortunately, not everyone is on board with this science-driven approach. Earlier this week, one of my colleagues from Wisconsin took the floor and made some unfortunate and irresponsible statements about the safety of coronavirus vaccines. This false information, unfortunately, may mislead some people. Senator Johnson decided to bring an argument from a Facebook comment section to the floor of the Senate. So let me say this: More than 700,000 Americans have now died from coronavirus. That is more than the number of Americans who have died in every war since the Civil War combined. We have the power to prevent more needless deaths from this disease in the form of three remarkably safe and effective vaccines. Fully vaccinated individuals are 10 times less likely to die from COVID, 10 times less likely to be hospitalized, and far less likely to spread the virus. The strong majority of Americans agree with President Biden's actions. Importantly, the administration's vaccine mandate is saving lives while also providing commonsense exceptions for those limited numbers of people who have medical or religious reasons. The fact is, the President's vaccine policy is constitutional, evidence-based, and it is what America needs to once and for all put this pandemic behind us. Still, some of our colleagues continue to oppose it. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah once again introduced legislation that would do away with the President's vaccine policy. It would also allow anyone to sue the government or their employers for any perceived harm from vaccine requirements. What that harm might be is unclear. Can you imagine the chaos in our courtrooms if the Senator from Utah has his way? Well, you don't have to imagine too hard because some States have already shown us the deadly cost of taking a stand against public health. There are several States in our country that both threaten to sue the Biden administration and enact the policies on their own to ban vaccine and mask mandates. They include Texas, Florida, Utah, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Georgia. The leaders in these States have gone to extraordinary lengths to stymie public health efforts to save lives. How has that worked out for these States? What has this dangerous, deadly policy of opposing vaccines and masks meant in those States? Take a look at the map here. This was the deadly cost of resisting science and vaccines between July 1 of this year and October 1. Of the 6 States--Texas, Florida, Utah, Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia--their infection rates per 100,000 people was 4,441 compared to the rest of the country at 2,548 per 100,000. The death rate, sadly, was 54 per 100,000 in these 6 States, 20 in the rest of the country. I bring this chart to the floor to make it clear that taking a political position is not about polling and deciding what sounds popular to so many people. It is about the life-and-death reality we face with this virus and this pandemic. These leaders are arguing for a position against vaccines and against masks, and look who is paying the price: the men and women who live intheir States, who are facing higher infection rates and, sadly, dramatically higher death rates because of it. It is time for them to accept the reality that vaccines are safe and effective and that they work. These States have reported almost twice as many coronavirus infections as the rest of the country and, tragically, nearly three times as many deaths. Lawmakers in these States have chosen a political course rather than one that makes common sense or cares for the well-being of their people. Our Nation's healthcare professionals are exhausted. You would be, too, if you had to battle the virus every day for 18 months. Now they are threatened with another deadly public health crisis: COVID disinformation from politicians. Doctors and nurses and healthcare workers are being threatened by the virus, and the patients, sadly, who carry it or those who don't believe COVID even exists. What makes this all the more troubling is that some of the biggest peddlers of disinformation about vaccines have taken steps to protect themselves from the coronavirus. Allow me to give you exhibit A. Nearly every night, Tucker Carlson appears on FOX News and distributes bogus information to hundreds of thousands of households across America. Tucker Carlson is the biggest anti-vax quack in America. But while Tucker is quick to question the science behind masks and vaccines, what he won't tell you is that, every day, he has to comply with a vaccine policy at FOX News. That is right. FOX News requires every one of its employees to disclose their vaccination status. According to ABC News, more than 90 percent of FOX Network's employees have been vaccinated. The remaining 10 percent are required to get tested every single day. Sound familiar, the FOX policy? It is the same thing Joe Biden has asked for nationwide that many Republicans come to the floor and scream about every day and then turn on FOX News for their information. So, while there is little ideological overlap between the heads of FOX News and the officials in the Biden administration, they both recognize one undeniable truth: Vaccine mandates are the key to ending this pandemic. I thank President Biden for showing the world that Chicago is leading the way in putting the pandemic behind us. If we want to save lives, jump-start the economy, get kids back in school, all I can say is three words: Follow the science; stop villainizing public health officials; and start encouraging every American to do their part in, finally, ending this pandemic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6952-2 | null | 3,225 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on another matter, today, President Biden is traveling to Chicago. He arrives with a simple message: Vaccines work. In Illinois and across the country, vaccine mandates are saving lives and allowing life to return closer to normal. Over the past month, our State has experienced a nearly 40-percent decrease in new COVID cases. We are seeing similar trends around the country. In the months since the Biden administration announced its policy requiring the majority of Americans to get vaccinated, the United States has finally begun to turn the corner against the delta variant. Over the past 2 weeks--2 weeks--our Nation has seen a roughly 25-percent decrease in new COVID infections. Hospitalizations have decreased by 20 percent, and deaths are down as well. In Illinois, we are proud to support the Biden vaccine policy. In fact, some of the biggest employers in our State were ahead of the curve. In early July, Loyola Medicine in Chicago was one of the first health systems in America to implement the vaccine requirement. In August, United Airlines, based in Chicago, announced it would require its employees to get vaccinated. At the time, skeptics questioned whether this would lead to mass resignations or labor shortages. They predicted chaos. Well, much to the dismay of the doomsayers, as of yesterday, more than 99 percent of United Airlines' employees in America have rolled up their sleeves and gotten vaccinated. Every major airline in the country has followed United's lead and introduced a vaccine requirement. This means safer skies for passengers and crew members. It is another big step back to normal. Unfortunately, not everyone is on board with this science-driven approach. Earlier this week, one of my colleagues from Wisconsin took the floor and made some unfortunate and irresponsible statements about the safety of coronavirus vaccines. This false information, unfortunately, may mislead some people. Senator Johnson decided to bring an argument from a Facebook comment section to the floor of the Senate. So let me say this: More than 700,000 Americans have now died from coronavirus. That is more than the number of Americans who have died in every war since the Civil War combined. We have the power to prevent more needless deaths from this disease in the form of three remarkably safe and effective vaccines. Fully vaccinated individuals are 10 times less likely to die from COVID, 10 times less likely to be hospitalized, and far less likely to spread the virus. The strong majority of Americans agree with President Biden's actions. Importantly, the administration's vaccine mandate is saving lives while also providing commonsense exceptions for those limited numbers of people who have medical or religious reasons. The fact is, the President's vaccine policy is constitutional, evidence-based, and it is what America needs to once and for all put this pandemic behind us. Still, some of our colleagues continue to oppose it. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah once again introduced legislation that would do away with the President's vaccine policy. It would also allow anyone to sue the government or their employers for any perceived harm from vaccine requirements. What that harm might be is unclear. Can you imagine the chaos in our courtrooms if the Senator from Utah has his way? Well, you don't have to imagine too hard because some States have already shown us the deadly cost of taking a stand against public health. There are several States in our country that both threaten to sue the Biden administration and enact the policies on their own to ban vaccine and mask mandates. They include Texas, Florida, Utah, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Georgia. The leaders in these States have gone to extraordinary lengths to stymie public health efforts to save lives. How has that worked out for these States? What has this dangerous, deadly policy of opposing vaccines and masks meant in those States? Take a look at the map here. This was the deadly cost of resisting science and vaccines between July 1 of this year and October 1. Of the 6 States--Texas, Florida, Utah, Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia--their infection rates per 100,000 people was 4,441 compared to the rest of the country at 2,548 per 100,000. The death rate, sadly, was 54 per 100,000 in these 6 States, 20 in the rest of the country. I bring this chart to the floor to make it clear that taking a political position is not about polling and deciding what sounds popular to so many people. It is about the life-and-death reality we face with this virus and this pandemic. These leaders are arguing for a position against vaccines and against masks, and look who is paying the price: the men and women who live intheir States, who are facing higher infection rates and, sadly, dramatically higher death rates because of it. It is time for them to accept the reality that vaccines are safe and effective and that they work. These States have reported almost twice as many coronavirus infections as the rest of the country and, tragically, nearly three times as many deaths. Lawmakers in these States have chosen a political course rather than one that makes common sense or cares for the well-being of their people. Our Nation's healthcare professionals are exhausted. You would be, too, if you had to battle the virus every day for 18 months. Now they are threatened with another deadly public health crisis: COVID disinformation from politicians. Doctors and nurses and healthcare workers are being threatened by the virus, and the patients, sadly, who carry it or those who don't believe COVID even exists. What makes this all the more troubling is that some of the biggest peddlers of disinformation about vaccines have taken steps to protect themselves from the coronavirus. Allow me to give you exhibit A. Nearly every night, Tucker Carlson appears on FOX News and distributes bogus information to hundreds of thousands of households across America. Tucker Carlson is the biggest anti-vax quack in America. But while Tucker is quick to question the science behind masks and vaccines, what he won't tell you is that, every day, he has to comply with a vaccine policy at FOX News. That is right. FOX News requires every one of its employees to disclose their vaccination status. According to ABC News, more than 90 percent of FOX Network's employees have been vaccinated. The remaining 10 percent are required to get tested every single day. Sound familiar, the FOX policy? It is the same thing Joe Biden has asked for nationwide that many Republicans come to the floor and scream about every day and then turn on FOX News for their information. So, while there is little ideological overlap between the heads of FOX News and the officials in the Biden administration, they both recognize one undeniable truth: Vaccine mandates are the key to ending this pandemic. I thank President Biden for showing the world that Chicago is leading the way in putting the pandemic behind us. If we want to save lives, jump-start the economy, get kids back in school, all I can say is three words: Follow the science; stop villainizing public health officials; and start encouraging every American to do their part in, finally, ending this pandemic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6952-2 | null | 3,226 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on another matter, today, President Biden is traveling to Chicago. He arrives with a simple message: Vaccines work. In Illinois and across the country, vaccine mandates are saving lives and allowing life to return closer to normal. Over the past month, our State has experienced a nearly 40-percent decrease in new COVID cases. We are seeing similar trends around the country. In the months since the Biden administration announced its policy requiring the majority of Americans to get vaccinated, the United States has finally begun to turn the corner against the delta variant. Over the past 2 weeks--2 weeks--our Nation has seen a roughly 25-percent decrease in new COVID infections. Hospitalizations have decreased by 20 percent, and deaths are down as well. In Illinois, we are proud to support the Biden vaccine policy. In fact, some of the biggest employers in our State were ahead of the curve. In early July, Loyola Medicine in Chicago was one of the first health systems in America to implement the vaccine requirement. In August, United Airlines, based in Chicago, announced it would require its employees to get vaccinated. At the time, skeptics questioned whether this would lead to mass resignations or labor shortages. They predicted chaos. Well, much to the dismay of the doomsayers, as of yesterday, more than 99 percent of United Airlines' employees in America have rolled up their sleeves and gotten vaccinated. Every major airline in the country has followed United's lead and introduced a vaccine requirement. This means safer skies for passengers and crew members. It is another big step back to normal. Unfortunately, not everyone is on board with this science-driven approach. Earlier this week, one of my colleagues from Wisconsin took the floor and made some unfortunate and irresponsible statements about the safety of coronavirus vaccines. This false information, unfortunately, may mislead some people. Senator Johnson decided to bring an argument from a Facebook comment section to the floor of the Senate. So let me say this: More than 700,000 Americans have now died from coronavirus. That is more than the number of Americans who have died in every war since the Civil War combined. We have the power to prevent more needless deaths from this disease in the form of three remarkably safe and effective vaccines. Fully vaccinated individuals are 10 times less likely to die from COVID, 10 times less likely to be hospitalized, and far less likely to spread the virus. The strong majority of Americans agree with President Biden's actions. Importantly, the administration's vaccine mandate is saving lives while also providing commonsense exceptions for those limited numbers of people who have medical or religious reasons. The fact is, the President's vaccine policy is constitutional, evidence-based, and it is what America needs to once and for all put this pandemic behind us. Still, some of our colleagues continue to oppose it. Yesterday, the senior Senator from Utah once again introduced legislation that would do away with the President's vaccine policy. It would also allow anyone to sue the government or their employers for any perceived harm from vaccine requirements. What that harm might be is unclear. Can you imagine the chaos in our courtrooms if the Senator from Utah has his way? Well, you don't have to imagine too hard because some States have already shown us the deadly cost of taking a stand against public health. There are several States in our country that both threaten to sue the Biden administration and enact the policies on their own to ban vaccine and mask mandates. They include Texas, Florida, Utah, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Georgia. The leaders in these States have gone to extraordinary lengths to stymie public health efforts to save lives. How has that worked out for these States? What has this dangerous, deadly policy of opposing vaccines and masks meant in those States? Take a look at the map here. This was the deadly cost of resisting science and vaccines between July 1 of this year and October 1. Of the 6 States--Texas, Florida, Utah, Arizona, South Carolina, and Georgia--their infection rates per 100,000 people was 4,441 compared to the rest of the country at 2,548 per 100,000. The death rate, sadly, was 54 per 100,000 in these 6 States, 20 in the rest of the country. I bring this chart to the floor to make it clear that taking a political position is not about polling and deciding what sounds popular to so many people. It is about the life-and-death reality we face with this virus and this pandemic. These leaders are arguing for a position against vaccines and against masks, and look who is paying the price: the men and women who live intheir States, who are facing higher infection rates and, sadly, dramatically higher death rates because of it. It is time for them to accept the reality that vaccines are safe and effective and that they work. These States have reported almost twice as many coronavirus infections as the rest of the country and, tragically, nearly three times as many deaths. Lawmakers in these States have chosen a political course rather than one that makes common sense or cares for the well-being of their people. Our Nation's healthcare professionals are exhausted. You would be, too, if you had to battle the virus every day for 18 months. Now they are threatened with another deadly public health crisis: COVID disinformation from politicians. Doctors and nurses and healthcare workers are being threatened by the virus, and the patients, sadly, who carry it or those who don't believe COVID even exists. What makes this all the more troubling is that some of the biggest peddlers of disinformation about vaccines have taken steps to protect themselves from the coronavirus. Allow me to give you exhibit A. Nearly every night, Tucker Carlson appears on FOX News and distributes bogus information to hundreds of thousands of households across America. Tucker Carlson is the biggest anti-vax quack in America. But while Tucker is quick to question the science behind masks and vaccines, what he won't tell you is that, every day, he has to comply with a vaccine policy at FOX News. That is right. FOX News requires every one of its employees to disclose their vaccination status. According to ABC News, more than 90 percent of FOX Network's employees have been vaccinated. The remaining 10 percent are required to get tested every single day. Sound familiar, the FOX policy? It is the same thing Joe Biden has asked for nationwide that many Republicans come to the floor and scream about every day and then turn on FOX News for their information. So, while there is little ideological overlap between the heads of FOX News and the officials in the Biden administration, they both recognize one undeniable truth: Vaccine mandates are the key to ending this pandemic. I thank President Biden for showing the world that Chicago is leading the way in putting the pandemic behind us. If we want to save lives, jump-start the economy, get kids back in school, all I can say is three words: Follow the science; stop villainizing public health officials; and start encouraging every American to do their part in, finally, ending this pandemic. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6952-2 | null | 3,227 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | A bill (S. 2126) to designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building'', and for other purposes, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed as follows: | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6992-4 | null | 3,228 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last night, a Federal judge in Texas did what the U.S. Supreme Court should have done. He issued an injunction blocking Texas' clearly unconstitutional bounty hunter abortion ban from being enforced while challenges to the law make their way through the courts. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman came in response to a challenge of the Texas ban brought by the Federal Department of Justice. The Texas abortion law, known as S.B. 8, is the most restrictive abortion law in the Nation and the most serious challenge to Roe v. Wade in 50 years. It was deliberately crafted to outlaw most abortions while allowing State lawmakers to evade judicial review. It deputizes private citizens to enforce the ban by suing anyone who ``aids and abets'' a woman seeking an abortion. And it offers rewards of $10,000 or more to plaintiffs who bring suits. In his ruling, Judge Pitman wrote that Texas politicians had ``contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme'' that has ``unlawfully prevented [women in Texas] from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution.'' The Supreme Court order allowing the Texas law to take effect was a product of the Court's ``shadow docket'' of cases that are decided without full briefing or oral arguments--and without transparency or accountability. The 5-4 order, from the Court's conservative majority, was criticized by some of the Court's own members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who warned that Texas lawmakers had created a ``model for action,'' that other States could copy to undermine constitutionally protected rights. The Chief Justice was right. Since the Court's ruling on S.B. 8, elected officials and political candidates in a number of States have vowed to introduce similar abortion bans. With Judge Pitman's wise ruling last night, that rush to use citizen bounty hunters to avoid legal accountability while denying the constitutional rights of women and perhaps others is on hold--at least for now. But the threat to constitutional rights remains. Texas has already filed a notice of appeal in the conservative Fifth Circuit. Abortion providers remain at risk of facing bounty hunter lawsuits if they perform abortions prohibited by the ban while the injunction is in place. Anti-choice organizations have vowed to be ``vigilant'' in suing individuals retroactively if the order is reversed. I hope that justice--and the Constitution--will prevail in the coming days as this litigation continues. The fundamental rights of millions of Texans are at stake. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6995-3 | null | 3,229 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention of colleagues the recent passing of long-time U.S. diplomat George Southall Vest, III, a long-time resident of Bethesda, MD. He was 102 years old. His career with the State Department spanned the Cold War era, from 1947 to 1989. As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I want to draw particular attention to Ambassador Vest's representation of the United States at the initial multilateral discussions of 35 countries that led to an historic summit in Helsinki, Finland, from July 30 to August 1, 1975, where the Helsinki Final Act was signed. An all-European summit was not a priority for the United States in the early 1970s. Indeed, it was a long-standing Soviet proposal, and Washington was wary of its use to confirm the division of Europe, give added legitimacy to communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and provide an opportunity for Moscow to divide the United States from its European allies. Washington agreed to engage but saw little value in the effort. As Ambassador Vest himself was quoted as saying, ``This was the first time after World War II where all the Eastern European countries, all the Western European countries, together with Canada and the United States, sat down to talk about security and cooperation . . . I had very, very few instructions. I was left pretty much to feel my own way.'' The early work of Ambassador Vest and his team and that of his immediate successors led to the Helsinki Final Act, which included 10 principles guiding relations between states that serve as a basis, to this day, of our response to events in Europe, including Russia's aggression against Ukraine and other neighbors. The Final Act provided a comprehensive definition of security that includes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the basis for us to address today's brutal crackdown on dissent in Belarus and authoritarianism elsewhere. It also provided for a follow-up to the Final Act with regular reviews of implementation and development of new norms, a multilateral effort now represented by today's 57-country Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, with its important institutions and field missions. Ambassador Vest, left pretty much to feel his own way, may not have intended to make such an impact on European security. Keep in mind that he represented the United States in these negotiations during the tumultuous time of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, an oil crisis on the horizon, the growing Watergate scandal at home, and a rising Soviet threat across the globe. Nevertheless, his initial efforts contributed to an end of the Cold War division of Europe rather than a confirmation of it. That is quite a turnaround. I should add that the Congress later played a major role in shaping the U.S. contribution to this result when it created the Helsinki Commission in 1976. While things have changed since then, the Commission does now what it did in the late 1970s: ensure that human rights considerations are central to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. relations with other countries. Given the challenges we face today, I hope it is useful to remind my colleagues of Ambassador Vest's legacy as a diplomat. Both before and after the negotiations, he served in positions in which he worked to strengthen ties with Europe, including through the NATO alliance and dialogue with a growing European Union. He was also a mentor to new generations of American diplomats. All of this followed his combat service as a forward artillery observer in Europe during World War II. George Vest joined the Foreign Service in 1947, after using the G.I. Bill to earn his master's degree in history from the University of Virginia, where he had received his B.A. in 1941. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under President Carter and as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union from 1981 to 1985. His last assignment at the State Department was as Director General of the Foreign Service. He retired in 1989 as a ``career ambassador,'' a rank requiring a Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. George Vest's father was an Episcopal priest and Vest graduated from the Episcopal High School in Alexandria, VA, before attending U-Va. He was as dedicated to his church as he was to our Nation. He served on the vestry at St. Albans Episcopal Church and volunteered in its Opportunity (thrift) Shop, both located on the Close of Washington National Cathedral. He also tutored students in DC public schools. Two sons, George S. Vest, IV of Fairfax, VA, and Henry Vest of Broomfield, CO, and two granddaughters survive him. I send my condolences to his family and thank them for his life of service. Let us be inspired by Ambassador George Vest and plant our own seeds for a better world tomorrow. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6996 | null | 3,230 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I would like to bring to the attention of colleagues the recent passing of long-time U.S. diplomat George Southall Vest, III, a long-time resident of Bethesda, MD. He was 102 years old. His career with the State Department spanned the Cold War era, from 1947 to 1989. As chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, I want to draw particular attention to Ambassador Vest's representation of the United States at the initial multilateral discussions of 35 countries that led to an historic summit in Helsinki, Finland, from July 30 to August 1, 1975, where the Helsinki Final Act was signed. An all-European summit was not a priority for the United States in the early 1970s. Indeed, it was a long-standing Soviet proposal, and Washington was wary of its use to confirm the division of Europe, give added legitimacy to communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and provide an opportunity for Moscow to divide the United States from its European allies. Washington agreed to engage but saw little value in the effort. As Ambassador Vest himself was quoted as saying, ``This was the first time after World War II where all the Eastern European countries, all the Western European countries, together with Canada and the United States, sat down to talk about security and cooperation . . . I had very, very few instructions. I was left pretty much to feel my own way.'' The early work of Ambassador Vest and his team and that of his immediate successors led to the Helsinki Final Act, which included 10 principles guiding relations between states that serve as a basis, to this day, of our response to events in Europe, including Russia's aggression against Ukraine and other neighbors. The Final Act provided a comprehensive definition of security that includes respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the basis for us to address today's brutal crackdown on dissent in Belarus and authoritarianism elsewhere. It also provided for a follow-up to the Final Act with regular reviews of implementation and development of new norms, a multilateral effort now represented by today's 57-country Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, with its important institutions and field missions. Ambassador Vest, left pretty much to feel his own way, may not have intended to make such an impact on European security. Keep in mind that he represented the United States in these negotiations during the tumultuous time of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, an oil crisis on the horizon, the growing Watergate scandal at home, and a rising Soviet threat across the globe. Nevertheless, his initial efforts contributed to an end of the Cold War division of Europe rather than a confirmation of it. That is quite a turnaround. I should add that the Congress later played a major role in shaping the U.S. contribution to this result when it created the Helsinki Commission in 1976. While things have changed since then, the Commission does now what it did in the late 1970s: ensure that human rights considerations are central to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. relations with other countries. Given the challenges we face today, I hope it is useful to remind my colleagues of Ambassador Vest's legacy as a diplomat. Both before and after the negotiations, he served in positions in which he worked to strengthen ties with Europe, including through the NATO alliance and dialogue with a growing European Union. He was also a mentor to new generations of American diplomats. All of this followed his combat service as a forward artillery observer in Europe during World War II. George Vest joined the Foreign Service in 1947, after using the G.I. Bill to earn his master's degree in history from the University of Virginia, where he had received his B.A. in 1941. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under President Carter and as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union from 1981 to 1985. His last assignment at the State Department was as Director General of the Foreign Service. He retired in 1989 as a ``career ambassador,'' a rank requiring a Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. George Vest's father was an Episcopal priest and Vest graduated from the Episcopal High School in Alexandria, VA, before attending U-Va. He was as dedicated to his church as he was to our Nation. He served on the vestry at St. Albans Episcopal Church and volunteered in its Opportunity (thrift) Shop, both located on the Close of Washington National Cathedral. He also tutored students in DC public schools. Two sons, George S. Vest, IV of Fairfax, VA, and Henry Vest of Broomfield, CO, and two granddaughters survive him. I send my condolences to his family and thank them for his life of service. Let us be inspired by Ambassador George Vest and plant our own seeds for a better world tomorrow. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS6996 | null | 3,231 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Portman, Mr. Coons, and Mr. Murphy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 412 Whereas hydrogen, which has an atomic mass of 1.008, is the most abundant element in the universe; Whereas the United States is a world leader in the development and deployment of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies; Whereas hydrogen fuel cells played an instrumental role in the United States space program, helping the United States achieve the mission of landing a man on the Moon; Whereas private industry, Federal and State governments, national laboratories, and institutions of higher education continue to improve fuel cell and hydrogen technologies to address the most pressing energy, environmental, and economic issues of the United States; Whereas fuel cells utilizing hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels to generate electricity are clean, efficient, safe, and resilient technologies being used for-- (1) stationary and backup power generation; and (2) zero-emission transportation for light-duty vehicles, industrial vehicles, delivery vans, buses, trucks, trains, military vehicles, marine applications, and aerial vehicles; Whereas stationary fuel cells are being placed in service for continuous and backup power to provide businesses and other energy consumers with reliable power in the event of grid outages; Whereas stationary fuel cells can help reduce water use, as compared to traditional power generation technologies; Whereas fuel cell electric vehicles that utilize hydrogen can completely replicate the experience of internal combustion vehicles, including comparable range and refueling times; Whereas hydrogen fuel cell industrial vehicles are deployed at logistical hubs and warehouses across the United States and exported to facilities in Europe and Asia; Whereas hydrogen is a nontoxic gas that can be derived from a variety of domestically available traditional and renewable resources, including solar, wind, biogas, and the abundant supply of natural gas in the United States; Whereas hydrogen and fuel cells can store energy to help enhance the grid and maximize opportunities to deploy renewable energy; Whereas the United States produces and uses approximately 10,000,000 metric tons of hydrogen per year; Whereas engineers and safety code and standard professionals have developed consensus-based protocols for safe delivery, handling, and use of hydrogen; and Whereas the ingenuity of the people of the United States is essential to paving the way for the future use of hydrogen technologies: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates October 8, 2021, as ``National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS7003-2 | null | 3,232 |
formal | urban | null | racist | 2021, AS ``NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WEEK'' Mr. COONS (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 415 Whereas in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt established the first national wildlife refuge on Pelican Island in Florida; Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and has grown to 568 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts, with units located in every State and territory of the United States; Whereas national wildlife refuges are important recreational and tourism destinations in communities across the United States, and offer a variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation; Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System receives more than 61,000,000 annual visits that-- (1) generate more than $3,200,000,000 for local economies; and (2) support 41,000 jobs; Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System has hosted more than 37,000,000 birding and wildlife observation visits in recent years; Whereas national wildlife refuges are important to local businesses and gateway communities; Whereas 434 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System have hunting programs and 378 units have fishing programs that support more than 2,500,000 hunting visits and more than 8,300,000 fishing visits annually; Whereas the National Wildlife Refuge System contains many different kinds of ecosystems, including tropical and boreal forests, wetlands, deserts, grasslands, arctic tundras, and remote islands, and spans 12 time zones from the United States Virgin Islands to Guam; Whereas national wildlife refuges support more than 700 species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 species of reptiles and amphibians, and more than 1,000 species of fish; Whereas national wildlife refuges are the primary Federal lands that support waterfowl habitats; Whereas, since 1934, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund has generated more than $1,100,000,000 and enabled the conservation of more than 6,000,000 acres of habitat for waterfowl and numerous other species in the National Wildlife Refuge System; Whereas refuges provide protection to more than 380 threatened species and endangered species; Whereas 101 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System are within 25 miles of cities and suburbs where 80 percent of individuals in the United States live; Whereas through the Urban Wildlife Conservation Program, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service works to dismantle barriers that have blocked under-served communities from full and equal participation in outdoor recreation and wildlife conservation; Whereas the Urban Wildlife Conservation Program fosters strong new conservation coalitions, educates and employs youth, betters communities, builds trust in government; and connects individuals with nature; Whereas more than 33,000 volunteers and almost 180 national wildlife refuge ``Friends'' organizations contribute approximately 900,000 volunteer hours annually, the equivalent of 442 full-time employees, and provide an important link to local communities; Whereas national wildlife refuges provide an important opportunity for children to discover and gain a greater appreciation for the natural world; Whereas national wildlife refuges provide opportunities for people from all backgrounds to explore, connect with, and preserve the natural heritage of the United States; Whereas, since 1995, national wildlife refuges across the United States have held festivals, educational programs, guided tours, and other events to celebrate National Wildlife Refuge Week during the second full week of October; Whereas the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has designated the week beginning on October 10, 2021, as National Wildlife Refuge Week; and Whereas the designation of National Wildlife Refuge Week by the Senate would recognize more than a century of conservation in the United States, raise awareness about the importance of wildlife and the National Wildlife Refuge System, and celebrate the myriad recreational opportunities available for the enjoyment of this network of protected lands: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week beginning on October 10, 2021, as ``National Wildlife Refuge Week''; (2) encourages the observance of National Wildlife Refuge Week with appropriate events and activities; (3) recognizes the importance of national wildlife refuges to wildlife conservation, the protection of imperiled species and ecosystems, and compatible uses; (4) acknowledges the importance of national wildlife refuges for their recreational opportunities and contribution to local economies across the United States; (5) identifies the significance of national wildlife refuges in advancing the traditions of wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation; (6) finds that national wildlife refuges play a vital role in securing the hunting and fishing heritage of the United States for future generations; (7) recognizes the important work of urban national wildlife refuges in welcoming racially and ethnically diverse urban communities that were long excluded, including work-- (A) to foster strong new conservation coalitions; (B) to provide education and employment opportunities to youth; (C) to improve communities; (D) to build trust in government; and (E) to connect individuals with nature; (8) acknowledges the role of national wildlife refuges in conserving waterfowl and waterfowl habitat under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.); (9) reaffirms the support of the Senate for wildlife conservation and the National Wildlife Refuge System; and (10) expresses the intent of the Senate-- (A) to continue working to conserve wildlife; and (B) to manage the National Wildlife Refuge System for current and future generations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS7004-3 | null | 3,233 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Warnock, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 417 Whereas, from September 15, 2021, through October 15, 2021, the United States celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month; Whereas the Bureau of the Census estimates the Hispanic population living in the 50 States at more than 60,000,000 people, plus close to 3,200,000 people living in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, making Hispanic Americans 18.75 percent of the total population of the United States and the largest racial or ethnic minority group in the United States; Whereas, in 2021, there were close to 1,000,000 or more Latino residents in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and in each of the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington; Whereas, from 2010 to 2019, Latinos grew the population of the United States by approximately 9,829,000 individuals, accounting for more than \1/2\ of the total population growth of the United States during that period; Whereas the Latino population in the United States is projected to grow to 111,000,000 people by 2060, at which point the Latino population will comprise more than 28 percent of the total population of the United States; Whereas the Latino population in the United States is currently the third largest population of Latinos worldwide, exceeding the size of the population in every Latin American and Caribbean country, except Mexico and Brazil; Whereas, in 2019, there were more than 18,687,000 Latino children under 18 years of age in the United States, which represents approximately \1/3\ of the total Latino population in the United States; Whereas 27.3 percent of public school students in the United States are Latino, and the share of Latino students is expected to rise to nearly 30 percent by 2027; Whereas 19.5 percent of all college students in the United States are Latino, making Latinos the second largest racial or ethnic minority group enrolled in higher education in the United States, including 2-year community colleges and 4-year colleges and universities; Whereas, from 1996 to 2016, the number of Hispanic students enrolled in schools, colleges, and universities in the United States doubled from 8,800,000 to 17,900,000, and Hispanics now make up 24 percent of all people enrolled in school in the United States; Whereas a record 32,000,000 Latinos were eligible to vote in the 2020 Presidential election, representing 13.3 percent of the electorate in the United States; Whereas, in the 2020 Presidential election, Latinos cast 16,600,000 votes, a 30.9 percent increase from the number of votes cast by Latinos in the 2016 Presidential election; Whereas the number of eligible Latino voters is expected to rise to 40,000,000 by 2030, accounting for 40 percent of the growth in the eligible electorate in the United States by 2030; Whereas, each year, approximately 800,000 Latino citizens of the United States reach 18 years of age and become eligible to vote, a number that could grow to 1,000,000 per year, potentially adding 10,000,000 new Latino voters by 2032; Whereas it is estimated that, in 2020, the annual purchasing power of Hispanic Americans was $1,700,000,000,000, which is an amount greater than the economy of all except 17 countries in the world; Whereas there are close to 4,000,000 Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States, supporting millions of employees nationwide and contributing more than $700,000,000,000 in revenue to the economy of the United States; Whereas, in 2018, Hispanic-owned businesses represented the fastest growing segment of small businesses in the United States, with those businesses representing 5.8 percent of all businesses in the United States; Whereas, as of August 2018, more than 28,000,000 Latino workers represented 17 percent of the total civilian labor force of the United States, and, as a result of Latinos experiencing the fastest population growth of all race and ethnicity groups in the United States, the rate of Latino participation in the labor force is expected to grow to 20 percent by 2024, accounting for \1/5\ of the total labor force; Whereas, in 2017, the labor force participation rate of Latinos was 66.1 percent, higher than the labor force participation rate of non-Hispanics, which was 62.2 percent; Whereas, as of 2017, there were approximately 326,800 Latino elementary and middle school teachers, 77,033 Latino chief executives of businesses, 54,576 Latino lawyers, 73,372 Latino physicians and surgeons, and 15,895 Latino psychologists, who contribute to the United States through their professions; Whereas Hispanic Americans serve in all branches of the Armed Forces and have fought bravely in every war in the history of the United States; Whereas, as of 2019-- (1) more than 200,000 Hispanic members of the Armed Forces serve on active duty; and (2) there are approximately 1,200,000 Hispanic veterans of the Armed Forces, including 136,000 Latinas; Whereas, as of 2018, more than 399,000 Hispanics have served in post-September 11, 2001, overseas contingency operations, and Hispanics represent 12.1 percent of the total number of veterans who have served in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since September 11, 2001; Whereas, as of August 2019, at least 688 fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan were members of the Armed Forces who were Hispanic; Whereas an estimated 200,000 Hispanics were mobilized for World War I, and approximately 500,000 Hispanics served in World War II; Whereas more than 80,000 Hispanics served in the Vietnam war, representing 5.5 percent of individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States in that conflict, even though Hispanics comprised only 4.5 percent of the population of the United States during the Vietnam war; Whereas approximately 150,000 Hispanic soldiers served in the Korean war, including the 65th Infantry Regiment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, known as the ``Borinqueneers'', the only active duty, segregated Latino military unit in the history of the United States; Whereas 61 Hispanic Americans have received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force bestowed on an individual serving in the Armed Forces; Whereas Hispanic Americans are dedicated public servants, holding posts at the highest levels of the Government of the United States, including 1 seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, 6 seats in the Senate, and 47 seats in the House of Representatives; and Whereas Hispanic Americans harbor a deep commitment to family and community, an enduring work ethic, and a perseverance to succeed and contribute to society: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the celebration of Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15, 2021, through October 15, 2021; (2) esteems the integral role of Latinos and the manifold heritages of Latinos in the economy, culture, and identity of the United States; and (3) urges the people of the United States to observe Hispanic Heritage Month with appropriate programs and activities that celebrate the contributions of Latinos to the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS7005-2 | null | 3,234 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | 2021, AS ``NATIONAL CHEMISTRY WEEK'' Mr. COONS (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Toomey) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 416 Whereas chemistry is the science of the basic units of matter and, consequently, plays a role in every aspect of human life; Whereas chemistry has broad applications, including food science, soil science, water quality, energy, sustainability, medicine, and electronics; Whereas the science of chemistry is vital to improving the quality of human life and plays an important role in addressing critical global challenges; Whereas innovations in chemistry continue to spur economic growth and job creation and have applications for a wide range of industries; Whereas the practitioners of chemistry are catalysts of positive change in their communities and the world; Whereas National Chemistry Week is part of a broader vision to improve human life through chemistry and to advance the chemistry enterprise; Whereas the purpose of National Chemistry Week is to reach the public with educational messages about chemistry in order to foster greater understanding of and appreciation for the applications and benefits of chemistry; Whereas National Chemistry Week strives to stimulate the interest of young people, including women and underrepresented groups, in enthusiastically studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and in pursuing science-related careers that lead to innovations and major scientific breakthroughs; Whereas National Chemistry Week signifies the collaborative nature of science and promotes partnership between scientific societies, academia, industry, and the public; Whereas National Chemistry Week highlights many of the everyday uses of chemistry, including in food, dyes and pigments, plastics, soaps and detergents, health products, and energy technologies; Whereas the theme of the 32nd annual National Chemistry Week is ``Fast or Slow . . . Chemistry Makes It Go!''; and Whereas students who participate in National Chemistry Week deserve recognition and support for their efforts: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week beginning on October 17, 2021, as ``National Chemistry Week''; (2) supports the goals and welcomes the participants of the 32nd annual National Chemistry Week; (3) recognizes the need to promote the fields of science, including chemistry, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to encourage youth, including from underrepresented groups, to pursue careers in these fields; and (4) commends-- (A) the American Chemicals Society (ACS) and the partners of that society for seeking opportunities to engage with the public and for organizing and convening events and activities surrounding National Chemistry Week each year; (B) the National Organization for the Professional Advancement of Black Chemists and Chemical Engineers (NOBCChE) for leading collaborative engagement in National Chemistry Week; (C) the Society for Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) for leading collaborative engagement in National Chemistry Week; and (D) the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES) for leading collaborative engagement in National Chemistry Week. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS7005 | null | 3,235 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Smith, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Cramer, Mr. King, Mr. Hoeven, Ms. Collins, Mr. Booker, Mr. Tillis, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Brown, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Risch, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Moran, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Peters, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Young, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Burr, Mr. Daines, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry: S. Res. 418 Whereas 4-H is the largest youth development organization in the United States, supporting nearly 6,000,000 young people across the country; Whereas 4-H helps young people become confident, independent, resilient, and compassionate leaders; Whereas 4-H is delivered by the Cooperative Extension System, a community of more than 100 land-grant universities across the United States that provides experiences for young people to learn through hands-on projects in the important areas of health, science, agriculture, and civic engagement; Whereas the National Institute of Food and Agriculture of the Department of Agriculture serves as the Federal partner of 4-H in collaboration with land-grant universities, the Cooperative Extension System, and the National 4-H Council; Whereas National 4-H Week showcases the incredible ways that 4-H provides opportunities for all young people and highlights the remarkable members of 4-H in all 50 States and across the globe who work each day to make a positive impact on other individuals; Whereas the 4-H network of nearly 500,000 volunteers and 3,500 professionals provides caring and supportive mentoring to all members of 4-H, helping members to grow into true leaders, entrepreneurs, and visionaries; and Whereas members of 4-H will celebrate ``National 4-H Week'' during the week of October 3 through October 9, 2021: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the designation of October 3 through 9, 2021, as ``National 4-H Week''; (2) recognizes the important role of 4-H in youth development and education; and (3) encourages all citizens to recognize 4-H for the significant impact the organization and members have made and continue to make by empowering young people with the skills needed to lead for a lifetime.SENATE RESOLUTION 419--ACKNOWLEDGING AND COMMEMORATING THE WORLD WAR II | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-07-pt1-PgS7006 | null | 3,236 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces, on behalf of the Speaker and minority leader, their joint appointment pursuant to section 103(c) of the Law Enforcement Congressional Bravery Act of 2008, (34 U.S.C. 50313), and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, of the following individual on the part of the House to the Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board: Mrs. Val Butler Demings, Orlando, Florida | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-08-pt1-PgH5603-9 | null | 3,237 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-2336. A letter from the Compliance Specialist, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Partial Withdrawal (RIN: 1235- AA21) received September 24, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-2337. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(i), Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Eagle River, Wisconsin) [MB Docket No. 21-157] (RM- 11902) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2338. A letter from the President of the United States, transmitting notification that the national emergency declared with respect to the situation in and in relation to Syria in Executive Order 13894 of October 14, 2019, is to continue in effect beyond October 14, 2021, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 202(d); (90 Stat. 1257) (H. Doc. No. 117--64); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. EC-2339. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-003, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2340. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-008, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2341. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-009, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2342. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-015, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2343. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-018, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2344. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-022, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2345. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-025, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2346. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-027, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2347. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-049, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2348. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-072, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2349. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-074, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2350. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-082, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2351. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-087, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2352. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-090, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2353. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-025, pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2354. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-060, pursuant to Section 36(d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2355. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-080, pursuant to Section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2356. A letter from the Executive Director of Operations, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, transmitting the Board's direct final rule -- Government in the Sunshine Act [Docket No.: DNFSB-2021-0001] received September 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 Oversight and Reform. EC-2357. A letter from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2021 Re-Opening and Subsequent Closure of the Commercial Longline Fishery for South Atlantic Golden Tilefish [Docket No.: 120404257-3325-02; RTID 0648-XA921] received August 25, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-2358. A letter from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2021 Red Snapper Recreational For-Hire Fishing Season in the Gulf of Mexico [Docket No.: 140818679-5356-02] (RTID: 0648-XA942) received August 25, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-2359. A letter from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; 2021-2022 Recreational Fishing Season for Black Sea Bass [Docket No.: 130403320-4891-02] (RTID: 0648-XA938) received August 25, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-2360. A letter from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Common Pool Fishery and Other Measures for Fishing Year 2021 [Docket No.: 200723-0199; RTID 0648-XA979] received August 25, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-2361. A letter from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's temporary rule -- Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; 2021 Management Area 3 Sub-Annual Catch Limit Harvested [Docket No: 210325-0071; RTID 0648-XA993] received August 25, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-2362. A letter from the Branch Chief, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Pollock in the West Yakutat District in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 210210-0018; RTID 0648-XA987] received August 25, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-2363. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Lake of the Ozarks, Mile Marker 7, Lake of the Ozarks, MO [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0597] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2364. A letter from the Legal Tech, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Temporary Safety Zone; Ferdon Wedding Fireworks Display, Harbor Springs, MI; Sector Sault Sainte Marie Captain of the Port Zone [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0608] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2365. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors, Baltimore, MD [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0496] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2366. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; St. Mary's River, St. George Creek, Piney Point, MD [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0346] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2367. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Great South Bay, Brightwaters, NY [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0545] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2368. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Baltimore, MD [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0327] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2369. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Security Zone; Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Corpus Christi, TX [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0603] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2370. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Delaware Bay, Lower Township, NJ [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0146] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2371. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Electronic Submission of Facility Operations and Emergency Manuals [Docket No.: USCG-2020-0315] (RIN: 1625-AC61) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2372. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zones; Sabine Pass Channel, Cameron, LA [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0120] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2373. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Special Local Regulation; Lighthouse Musicfest, Huntington Bay, Long Island, NY [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0653] (RIN: 1625-AA08) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2374. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay; Corpus Christi, TX [Docket Number: USCG-2021- 0569] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2375. A letter from the Legal Tech, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporay final rule -- Temporary Safety Zone; Ferdon Wedding Fireworks Display, Harbor Springs, MI; Sector Sault Sainte Marie Captain of the Port Zone [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0608] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2376. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Potomac River, Prince William County, VA [Docket Number: USCG-2021- 0497] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2377. A letter from the Legal Tech, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone, Recurring Events in Captain of the Port Duluth -- Bridgefest Regatta Fireworks [Docket No.: USCG-2021-0610] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received September 23, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2378. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Elimination of Copayment for Opioid Antagonists and Education on Use of Opioid Antagonists (RIN: 2900-AQ31) received September 22, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2379. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Extension of Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers Eligibility for Legacy Participants and Legacy Applicants (RIN: 2900-AR28) received September 22, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2380. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Referral for VA Administrative Decision for Character of Discharge Determinations (RIN: 2900-AR03) received September 22, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2381. A letter from the Acting Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District [EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0366; FRL-8797-02-R9] received September 10, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2382. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- State Populations Residing in a Qualified Disaster Zone [Notice 2021-45] received August 17, 201, 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-2383. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's temporary regulations -- Recapture of Excess Employment Tax Credits Under the Families First Act and the CARES Act [TD 9904] (RIN: 1545-BP89) received August 17, 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-2384. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulations -- Nuclear Decommissioning Funds [TD 9906] (RIN: 1545-BN42) received August 17, 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-2385. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final regulations -- Mandatory 60-Day Postponement of Certain Tax-Related Deadlines by Reason of a Federally Declared Disaster [TD 9950] (RIN: 1545-BP98) received August 17, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-08-pt1-PgH5604-3 | null | 3,238 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 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. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4067. A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a council to make recommendations on ways to increase the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications networks, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-145). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-15-pt1-PgH5637 | null | 3,239 |
formal | job creator | null | conservative | The Economy Madam President, now on an entirely different matter, there is a famous saying: If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. Well, my Democratic colleagues' policydecisions have dug our economy into a deep hole, and American families desperately need them to stop digging. Families of this country are currently battling the worst inflation in well over a decade. Over the last 12 months, consumer prices have shot up by 5.4 percent. Gasoline prices and food prices each increased by a full 1.2 percent just last month alone. That is just in 1 month. Year on year, groceries are about 4.5 percent more expensive than they were at this time in 2020. Let's look at housing. Rent jumped a full half a percentage point just in September alone. That was the biggest monthly jump in two decades. On paper, American workers have been getting raises. The average worker's paychecks have gotten bigger over the last year, but the Democrats' inflation has cannibalized all those gains and then some. Any man or woman in the country who hasn't gotten a pay raise of 5.5 percent this year has effectively had their pay cut by the Democrats' inflation. Let me say it again: Unless you have recently gotten a 5.5-percent raise, you have gotten a pay cut. And even the households that have enjoyed pay raises are contending with major shortages of the things they want to buy and rapid and unpredictable price changes. Of course, none of the families we represent need to hear these figures from experts on the news; they are living this reality every time they need to swing by the store, fill up their tank, or grab some essentials. What is especially remarkable and especially sad is that our Nation's inflation nightmare was not unavoidable. These conditions are the product of intentional policy decisions made by Democrats over the objection of experts who warned exactly--exactly--what would happen. Larry Summers, a leading economist and top adviser to each of the last two Democratic Presidents, said a few days ago--just a few days ago--``We're in more danger than we've been during my career of losing control of inflation in the U.S.'' That is Larry Summers, just a couple of days ago. The worst inflation risk he has ever seen? Mr. Summers was one of the many mainstream economists who warned the Biden administration what their policies would unleash. From the start, they tried to persuade Democrats not to ram through their historic glut of borrowing, printing, and spending. Ah, but alas, Democrats didn't listen. Back in the springtime, they used the pandemic as an excuse to pass a massive spending bill that the White House boasted was the most leftwing legislation in American history. Now families are paying the painful price. The country is deep in this hole that Democrats dug, but they are showing no indication--none--that they want to stop digging. Led by our socialist colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Chairman Sanders, Washington Democrats are plowing forward with yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would make their huge inflationary package from the springtime look like child's play by comparison. They want the government to borrow and print multiple trillions more dollars and dump all that spending onto the heads of families who are already struggling--struggling--to stay afloat. Meanwhile, Democrats want to saddle a sputtering economy with the biggest peacetime tax hikes on record, obliterating President Biden's promise not to raise taxes for the vast majority of American families and leaving American job creators with tougher tax rates than businesses pay in communist China. Look at energy prices. Americans are already paying more at the pump than they have in 7 years, but now our colleagues want to go beyond their war on gasoline and slap new taxes and new regulations on other domestic energy sources such as natural gas. But winter is fast approaching. The whole world is steeling for huge price increases in natural gas. Our friends in Europe are frantically trying to secure their gas supply lines, and Russia is threatening to turn the continent's winter heating into a political hostage. But, inexplicably, Democrats' response is essentially to have America stand down as an energy superpower--new taxes and new regulations on top of the inflation that is already wreaking havoc. Here was one headline last week: Winter heating bills set to jump as inflation hits home. The story went on: With prices surging worldwide for heating oil, natural gas and other fuels, the U.S. government said Wednesday it expects households to see their heating bills jump as much as 54% compared to last winter. This is the moment that President Biden is choosing to let the farthest-left people in Washington, DC, rewrite America's energy and environmental policy. Reckless liberal policies have dug America into a hole. Americans need Democrats to stop digging deeper, but the response from my colleagues across the aisle is to trade in their shovels for an excavator. Democrats want to keep digging deeper. They want to try to inflate their way out of inflation. It makes no sense whatsoever. It sounds as crazy as it is. No wonder this expensive socialist experiment is proving so very painful. It is not what American voters elected, and it is not what American families want. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7019-10 | null | 3,240 |
formal | job creators | null | conservative | The Economy Madam President, now on an entirely different matter, there is a famous saying: If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. Well, my Democratic colleagues' policydecisions have dug our economy into a deep hole, and American families desperately need them to stop digging. Families of this country are currently battling the worst inflation in well over a decade. Over the last 12 months, consumer prices have shot up by 5.4 percent. Gasoline prices and food prices each increased by a full 1.2 percent just last month alone. That is just in 1 month. Year on year, groceries are about 4.5 percent more expensive than they were at this time in 2020. Let's look at housing. Rent jumped a full half a percentage point just in September alone. That was the biggest monthly jump in two decades. On paper, American workers have been getting raises. The average worker's paychecks have gotten bigger over the last year, but the Democrats' inflation has cannibalized all those gains and then some. Any man or woman in the country who hasn't gotten a pay raise of 5.5 percent this year has effectively had their pay cut by the Democrats' inflation. Let me say it again: Unless you have recently gotten a 5.5-percent raise, you have gotten a pay cut. And even the households that have enjoyed pay raises are contending with major shortages of the things they want to buy and rapid and unpredictable price changes. Of course, none of the families we represent need to hear these figures from experts on the news; they are living this reality every time they need to swing by the store, fill up their tank, or grab some essentials. What is especially remarkable and especially sad is that our Nation's inflation nightmare was not unavoidable. These conditions are the product of intentional policy decisions made by Democrats over the objection of experts who warned exactly--exactly--what would happen. Larry Summers, a leading economist and top adviser to each of the last two Democratic Presidents, said a few days ago--just a few days ago--``We're in more danger than we've been during my career of losing control of inflation in the U.S.'' That is Larry Summers, just a couple of days ago. The worst inflation risk he has ever seen? Mr. Summers was one of the many mainstream economists who warned the Biden administration what their policies would unleash. From the start, they tried to persuade Democrats not to ram through their historic glut of borrowing, printing, and spending. Ah, but alas, Democrats didn't listen. Back in the springtime, they used the pandemic as an excuse to pass a massive spending bill that the White House boasted was the most leftwing legislation in American history. Now families are paying the painful price. The country is deep in this hole that Democrats dug, but they are showing no indication--none--that they want to stop digging. Led by our socialist colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Chairman Sanders, Washington Democrats are plowing forward with yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would make their huge inflationary package from the springtime look like child's play by comparison. They want the government to borrow and print multiple trillions more dollars and dump all that spending onto the heads of families who are already struggling--struggling--to stay afloat. Meanwhile, Democrats want to saddle a sputtering economy with the biggest peacetime tax hikes on record, obliterating President Biden's promise not to raise taxes for the vast majority of American families and leaving American job creators with tougher tax rates than businesses pay in communist China. Look at energy prices. Americans are already paying more at the pump than they have in 7 years, but now our colleagues want to go beyond their war on gasoline and slap new taxes and new regulations on other domestic energy sources such as natural gas. But winter is fast approaching. The whole world is steeling for huge price increases in natural gas. Our friends in Europe are frantically trying to secure their gas supply lines, and Russia is threatening to turn the continent's winter heating into a political hostage. But, inexplicably, Democrats' response is essentially to have America stand down as an energy superpower--new taxes and new regulations on top of the inflation that is already wreaking havoc. Here was one headline last week: Winter heating bills set to jump as inflation hits home. The story went on: With prices surging worldwide for heating oil, natural gas and other fuels, the U.S. government said Wednesday it expects households to see their heating bills jump as much as 54% compared to last winter. This is the moment that President Biden is choosing to let the farthest-left people in Washington, DC, rewrite America's energy and environmental policy. Reckless liberal policies have dug America into a hole. Americans need Democrats to stop digging deeper, but the response from my colleagues across the aisle is to trade in their shovels for an excavator. Democrats want to keep digging deeper. They want to try to inflate their way out of inflation. It makes no sense whatsoever. It sounds as crazy as it is. No wonder this expensive socialist experiment is proving so very painful. It is not what American voters elected, and it is not what American families want. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7019-10 | null | 3,241 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Gustavo A. Gelpi Finally, Madam President, today the Senate will vote to confirm Gustavo Gelpi to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Judge Gelpi is a highly qualified jurist who has two decades of experience on the bench. When confirmed, he will be only the second judge of Hispanic origin and the second judge from Puerto Rico to serve on the First Circuit. I would like to take just a moment to discuss his extensive qualifications and experience. Throughout his career, Judge Gelpi has dedicated himself to public service. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he gained a keen understanding of the need for fairness and impartiality in our system of justice. He worked as a public defender as well as prosecutor. He served in the Puerto Rican Department of Justice, where he handled criminal matters on behalf of the attorney general of Puerto Rico. In 2001, Judge Gelpi was selected to serve as magistrate judge for the District of Puerto Rico. Five years later, his impressive judicial record caught the attention of President George W. Bush, who nominated him to serve as district judge for the District of Puerto Rico. With Senate Republicans in the majority, Judge Gelpi's nomination received unanimous support in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. Having served as a Federal judge for 20 years, Judge Gelpi is eminently qualified to sit on the First Circuit. He has already presided over 3,400 cases, 62 jury trials, and issued almost 900 written opinions. He is a real judge. He is well versed in both complex and civil criminal matters and was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Judge Gelpi's nomination is yet another example of the Biden administration and Senate Democrats working to advance judicial nominees to bring professional and demographic diversity to the Federal bench. The fact that Judge Gelpi has been nominated by both Republican and Democratic Presidents is almost historic and is certainly a testament to his evenhandedness and fidelity to the rule of law. Leaders on both sides of the aisle trust that he will rule impartially and without regard for partisanship. Once he is confirmed as only the second judge of Hispanic origin to serve on the First Circuit, Judge Gelpi will help build a Federal bench that truly reflects the diversity of America. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Judge Gelpi's nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7021-2 | null | 3,242 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Congratulating the Chicago Sky Madam President, last night, the world discovered that in Chicago, the sky is the limit. Our city of Chicago is home to a new team of champions. During the Women's National Basketball Association finals at Wintrust Arena, the Chicago Sky mounted a comeback for the ages. In the fourth quarter, the team overcame an 11-point deficit to claim their first-ever championship title. The victory was the culmination of a historic season. Their record in the regular season was a mediocre 16 and 16, but in the runup for the playoffs, the Chicago Sky won 8 postseason games, an alltime record for the WNBA. And from start to finish, last night's victory was truly a team effort. Hometown hero Candace Parker scored 16 points--she is nothing short of amazing--including a three-pointer that tied the game with less than 2 minutes left, sending the arena into an uproar. Kahleah Copper was named the WNBA finals MVP. Allie Quigley, a Joliet native, scored 26 points, and her wife and fellow teammate, Courtney Vandersloot, finished the game with 15 assists. All-around, last night's victory was a legendary feat for the Chicago Sky. Tomorrow, our city will celebrate our new hometown champs in Millennium Park. I want to thank every member of the Chicago Sky for making Skytown proud, especially Michael Alter and John Rogers, two personal friends who brought the franchise to Chicago and have worked diligently to make it the best every step of the way. Last night, they did. It is an inspiration to our city and to all the young players everywhere who want to look to a team that proves you should never quit. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7021 | null | 3,243 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Voting Rights Madam President, on voting rights, this week, the Senate will have an opportunity to engage in a momentous and urgent debate protecting the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later this evening, I will begin the process for the Senate to consider the Freedom to Vote Act, a powerful new bill designed to fortify our democracy, protect the vote, and renew the American people's trust in our elections. After I file cloture tonight on the motion to proceed, Members can expect the vote to take place on Wednesday. The Freedom to Vote Act is a balanced, effective, and commonsense bill. It sets basic standards for all Americans to vote safely and securely, while protecting elections from subversion. It fights back against the power of Big Money and ends partisan gerrymandering, while respecting the role of States in carrying out elections. The bill represents the first time every single Senate Democrat has united on voting rights legislation. It is a strong bill. It advances election reforms proven to work in red, blue, and purple States across the country. I thank my colleagues--all of my colleagues--for the work in putting thisbill together. I thank them for their dedication in advancing the simple idea that all Americans, no matter what ZIP Code they live in, should have the freedom to vote safely and securely. I want to particularly thank Senator Manchin, who has led the way in finding common ground with our Republican colleagues on this proposal. It is now time for us to move forward on this legislation as promised. Now, just so we are all clear, the vote that will happen on Wednesday is a procedural vote to begin debate on the bill. Voting yes does not mean signing on any policy or bill text; it is, rather, an invitation for Senators to come to the table to debate, to deliberate, and to compromise, just as the Senate was meant to do. If there is anything worthy of debate in this Chamber, it should be protecting and strengthening our democracy. With everything we are seeing at the State level, the Senate must take action, and we must take action now. The right to vote is the beating heart of any democracy. I know we can vote to protect our elections and empower all Americans to have their voices heard. I hope we can do so together across the aisle. I implore my Republican colleagues to come to the table and work with us on this issue. I implore them to turn away from spurious claims of the Big Lie that are degrading faith in our democracy. I know many of my colleagues agree in their heart of hearts that we cannot allow our democracy to fall victim to conspiracy theories, subversion, and disinformation, but they must join us in working towards solutions. To be sure, Senate Democrats don't expect that our Republican colleagues will agree with every idea we have on voting rights. We know the disagreements run deep. But in this Chamber, Senators should not run away from debating the things we disagree about. If our Republican colleagues have good ideas, we are ready to work in good faith to listen to them, to consider them, and if they are aligned with the goals of this bill, to include them in the final text. But for any of that to happen, our Republican colleagues must agree to come to the table first. They should agree to let the Senate begin debate. That is all this first vote is. It says: Are we willing to debate voting rights, sacred and important in our democracy? It is not acceptable to simply turn away from debating voting rights, to act as if the Congress has no role to play in the defense of free and fair elections and simply pretend like there is nothing malicious afoot at the State level. No, inaction is not an option. The clock is ticking--the clock is ticking--for this Chamber to do something to protect our democracy before these dangerous laws take root for the next election. The Senate can rise to the task if given the chance, but it must be allowed to begin its work first. Republicans, later this week, will have a chance to go on record and show if they believe that protecting our democracy is worthy of this Chamber's attention. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7022-5 | null | 3,244 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Voting Rights Madam President, on voting rights, this week, the Senate will have an opportunity to engage in a momentous and urgent debate protecting the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later this evening, I will begin the process for the Senate to consider the Freedom to Vote Act, a powerful new bill designed to fortify our democracy, protect the vote, and renew the American people's trust in our elections. After I file cloture tonight on the motion to proceed, Members can expect the vote to take place on Wednesday. The Freedom to Vote Act is a balanced, effective, and commonsense bill. It sets basic standards for all Americans to vote safely and securely, while protecting elections from subversion. It fights back against the power of Big Money and ends partisan gerrymandering, while respecting the role of States in carrying out elections. The bill represents the first time every single Senate Democrat has united on voting rights legislation. It is a strong bill. It advances election reforms proven to work in red, blue, and purple States across the country. I thank my colleagues--all of my colleagues--for the work in putting thisbill together. I thank them for their dedication in advancing the simple idea that all Americans, no matter what ZIP Code they live in, should have the freedom to vote safely and securely. I want to particularly thank Senator Manchin, who has led the way in finding common ground with our Republican colleagues on this proposal. It is now time for us to move forward on this legislation as promised. Now, just so we are all clear, the vote that will happen on Wednesday is a procedural vote to begin debate on the bill. Voting yes does not mean signing on any policy or bill text; it is, rather, an invitation for Senators to come to the table to debate, to deliberate, and to compromise, just as the Senate was meant to do. If there is anything worthy of debate in this Chamber, it should be protecting and strengthening our democracy. With everything we are seeing at the State level, the Senate must take action, and we must take action now. The right to vote is the beating heart of any democracy. I know we can vote to protect our elections and empower all Americans to have their voices heard. I hope we can do so together across the aisle. I implore my Republican colleagues to come to the table and work with us on this issue. I implore them to turn away from spurious claims of the Big Lie that are degrading faith in our democracy. I know many of my colleagues agree in their heart of hearts that we cannot allow our democracy to fall victim to conspiracy theories, subversion, and disinformation, but they must join us in working towards solutions. To be sure, Senate Democrats don't expect that our Republican colleagues will agree with every idea we have on voting rights. We know the disagreements run deep. But in this Chamber, Senators should not run away from debating the things we disagree about. If our Republican colleagues have good ideas, we are ready to work in good faith to listen to them, to consider them, and if they are aligned with the goals of this bill, to include them in the final text. But for any of that to happen, our Republican colleagues must agree to come to the table first. They should agree to let the Senate begin debate. That is all this first vote is. It says: Are we willing to debate voting rights, sacred and important in our democracy? It is not acceptable to simply turn away from debating voting rights, to act as if the Congress has no role to play in the defense of free and fair elections and simply pretend like there is nothing malicious afoot at the State level. No, inaction is not an option. The clock is ticking--the clock is ticking--for this Chamber to do something to protect our democracy before these dangerous laws take root for the next election. The Senate can rise to the task if given the chance, but it must be allowed to begin its work first. Republicans, later this week, will have a chance to go on record and show if they believe that protecting our democracy is worthy of this Chamber's attention. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7022-5 | null | 3,245 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Biofuels Madam President, on another subject, I would like to speak to an issue that is hurting the pocketbooks of hard-working Americans, particularly in the State of Iowa. The media has reported that the White House has been in discussions with Big Oil regarding rising fuel prices. This is quite a surprise to some of us who have heard nothing from the administration all year; that we have got to stop fossil fuels and we have got to worry more about global warming. We shouldn't stop Big Oil, but you still have got to worry about global warming. President Biden has called on OPEC cartels to drill for additional crude oil and discussed potentially opening up our domestic Strategic Petroleum Reserve. With rising energy prices, it is commonsense to promote additional development of energy; but with the Biden administration's sole focus seemingly being on climate change, I would think more attention would be paid to promoting an emphasis upon clean energy. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have promoted alternative energy sources as a way of protecting our environment and increasing our energy independence. As the No. 1 producer of corn, ethanol, and biodiesel, Iowa leads the Nation's renewable fuels industry. But if the President doesn't care about Iowa--my State of Iowa--the President should remember the States of Illinois and Minnesota, just as an example. Historically, blue States are also major producers of corn and soybeans, as well as ethanol and biodiesel. A recent study has shown the expanded use of ethanol under the renewable fuel standard has lowered gasoline prices by an average of 22 cents per gallon. This saves the typical American household $250 annually. In recent weeks, E-10, which is a 10-percent mixture of ethanol and gasoline, has sold for 35 cents to 50 cents per gallon less than gasoline with no ethanol. Not only is ethanol-blended gas cheaper than non-ethanol gasoline, but a recent study has also shown that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent compared to conventional gasoline. Considering President Biden's sudden interest in high gasoline prices, a commonsense solution would be to turn to the biofuel industry for assistance in this time of high gasoline prices. Enhancing energy security while lowering emissions was the exact reason why Congress created the renewable fuel standard in 2005 and 2007. The Midwest has the potential to provide a solution to the multifaceted problems that this administration faces. Instead, President Biden and his White House continue--it seems to me--to turn to Big Oil to solve the energy crisis instead of looking at the renewable fuels opportunities. Big Oil seems to then have a friendly relationship with the White House, which is completely contrary to what you would think of when they want to do away with fossil fuels. Recent rumors in the press are saying that the administration is considering gutting the renewable fuel standard with massive cuts to the required volume obligations. This is strange considering President Biden campaigned on supporting the renewable fuel standard. He campaigned in Iowa as a friend of ethanol--yes, in Iowa. President Biden said that ``the Renewable Fuel Standard marks our bond with our farmers and our commitment to a thriving rural economy.'' Increased drilling for crude oil and increasing our dependence on OPEC is not a solution to higher prices at the pumps. Why ask OPEC to pump more oil? Why ask Big Oil to pump more oil? Americans need relief, and that relief can come from having a partnership with the biofuels industry, and it is past time for the administration to look to the heartland instead of Texas and OPEC for an answer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7022 | null | 3,246 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Biofuels Madam President, on another subject, I would like to speak to an issue that is hurting the pocketbooks of hard-working Americans, particularly in the State of Iowa. The media has reported that the White House has been in discussions with Big Oil regarding rising fuel prices. This is quite a surprise to some of us who have heard nothing from the administration all year; that we have got to stop fossil fuels and we have got to worry more about global warming. We shouldn't stop Big Oil, but you still have got to worry about global warming. President Biden has called on OPEC cartels to drill for additional crude oil and discussed potentially opening up our domestic Strategic Petroleum Reserve. With rising energy prices, it is commonsense to promote additional development of energy; but with the Biden administration's sole focus seemingly being on climate change, I would think more attention would be paid to promoting an emphasis upon clean energy. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have promoted alternative energy sources as a way of protecting our environment and increasing our energy independence. As the No. 1 producer of corn, ethanol, and biodiesel, Iowa leads the Nation's renewable fuels industry. But if the President doesn't care about Iowa--my State of Iowa--the President should remember the States of Illinois and Minnesota, just as an example. Historically, blue States are also major producers of corn and soybeans, as well as ethanol and biodiesel. A recent study has shown the expanded use of ethanol under the renewable fuel standard has lowered gasoline prices by an average of 22 cents per gallon. This saves the typical American household $250 annually. In recent weeks, E-10, which is a 10-percent mixture of ethanol and gasoline, has sold for 35 cents to 50 cents per gallon less than gasoline with no ethanol. Not only is ethanol-blended gas cheaper than non-ethanol gasoline, but a recent study has also shown that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent compared to conventional gasoline. Considering President Biden's sudden interest in high gasoline prices, a commonsense solution would be to turn to the biofuel industry for assistance in this time of high gasoline prices. Enhancing energy security while lowering emissions was the exact reason why Congress created the renewable fuel standard in 2005 and 2007. The Midwest has the potential to provide a solution to the multifaceted problems that this administration faces. Instead, President Biden and his White House continue--it seems to me--to turn to Big Oil to solve the energy crisis instead of looking at the renewable fuels opportunities. Big Oil seems to then have a friendly relationship with the White House, which is completely contrary to what you would think of when they want to do away with fossil fuels. Recent rumors in the press are saying that the administration is considering gutting the renewable fuel standard with massive cuts to the required volume obligations. This is strange considering President Biden campaigned on supporting the renewable fuel standard. He campaigned in Iowa as a friend of ethanol--yes, in Iowa. President Biden said that ``the Renewable Fuel Standard marks our bond with our farmers and our commitment to a thriving rural economy.'' Increased drilling for crude oil and increasing our dependence on OPEC is not a solution to higher prices at the pumps. Why ask OPEC to pump more oil? Why ask Big Oil to pump more oil? Americans need relief, and that relief can come from having a partnership with the biofuels industry, and it is past time for the administration to look to the heartland instead of Texas and OPEC for an answer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7022 | null | 3,247 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Biofuels Madam President, on another subject, I would like to speak to an issue that is hurting the pocketbooks of hard-working Americans, particularly in the State of Iowa. The media has reported that the White House has been in discussions with Big Oil regarding rising fuel prices. This is quite a surprise to some of us who have heard nothing from the administration all year; that we have got to stop fossil fuels and we have got to worry more about global warming. We shouldn't stop Big Oil, but you still have got to worry about global warming. President Biden has called on OPEC cartels to drill for additional crude oil and discussed potentially opening up our domestic Strategic Petroleum Reserve. With rising energy prices, it is commonsense to promote additional development of energy; but with the Biden administration's sole focus seemingly being on climate change, I would think more attention would be paid to promoting an emphasis upon clean energy. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have promoted alternative energy sources as a way of protecting our environment and increasing our energy independence. As the No. 1 producer of corn, ethanol, and biodiesel, Iowa leads the Nation's renewable fuels industry. But if the President doesn't care about Iowa--my State of Iowa--the President should remember the States of Illinois and Minnesota, just as an example. Historically, blue States are also major producers of corn and soybeans, as well as ethanol and biodiesel. A recent study has shown the expanded use of ethanol under the renewable fuel standard has lowered gasoline prices by an average of 22 cents per gallon. This saves the typical American household $250 annually. In recent weeks, E-10, which is a 10-percent mixture of ethanol and gasoline, has sold for 35 cents to 50 cents per gallon less than gasoline with no ethanol. Not only is ethanol-blended gas cheaper than non-ethanol gasoline, but a recent study has also shown that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent compared to conventional gasoline. Considering President Biden's sudden interest in high gasoline prices, a commonsense solution would be to turn to the biofuel industry for assistance in this time of high gasoline prices. Enhancing energy security while lowering emissions was the exact reason why Congress created the renewable fuel standard in 2005 and 2007. The Midwest has the potential to provide a solution to the multifaceted problems that this administration faces. Instead, President Biden and his White House continue--it seems to me--to turn to Big Oil to solve the energy crisis instead of looking at the renewable fuels opportunities. Big Oil seems to then have a friendly relationship with the White House, which is completely contrary to what you would think of when they want to do away with fossil fuels. Recent rumors in the press are saying that the administration is considering gutting the renewable fuel standard with massive cuts to the required volume obligations. This is strange considering President Biden campaigned on supporting the renewable fuel standard. He campaigned in Iowa as a friend of ethanol--yes, in Iowa. President Biden said that ``the Renewable Fuel Standard marks our bond with our farmers and our commitment to a thriving rural economy.'' Increased drilling for crude oil and increasing our dependence on OPEC is not a solution to higher prices at the pumps. Why ask OPEC to pump more oil? Why ask Big Oil to pump more oil? Americans need relief, and that relief can come from having a partnership with the biofuels industry, and it is past time for the administration to look to the heartland instead of Texas and OPEC for an answer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7022 | null | 3,248 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Build Back Better Agenda Madam President, finally, a quick BBB update. This week, Senate Democrats continue our work on finalizing our Build Back Better agenda. Congress, right now, has the best chance in years to make meaningful investments to help American families climb up to the middle class and stay in the middle class. By passing both the Build Back Better Act and the infrastructure bill, we can improve our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, create good-paying jobs for this century, and lower costs and cut taxes for American families, while taking overdue steps to meaningfully address the climate crisis. It is a difficult task, but we are committed to getting it done. Over the last week and weekend, I held many productive conversations with my colleagues here in the Senate, with Speaker Pelosi, and with the White House. We still have work to do. We all know that in order to pass meaningful legislation, we must put aside our differences and find common ground within our party. As with any bill of such historic proportions, not every Member will get everything he or she wants, but at the end of the day, we will pass legislation that dramatically improves the lives of the American people. We will continue to make progress and keep working until the job is done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7023 | null | 3,249 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Build Back Better Agenda Madam President, finally, a quick BBB update. This week, Senate Democrats continue our work on finalizing our Build Back Better agenda. Congress, right now, has the best chance in years to make meaningful investments to help American families climb up to the middle class and stay in the middle class. By passing both the Build Back Better Act and the infrastructure bill, we can improve our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, create good-paying jobs for this century, and lower costs and cut taxes for American families, while taking overdue steps to meaningfully address the climate crisis. It is a difficult task, but we are committed to getting it done. Over the last week and weekend, I held many productive conversations with my colleagues here in the Senate, with Speaker Pelosi, and with the White House. We still have work to do. We all know that in order to pass meaningful legislation, we must put aside our differences and find common ground within our party. As with any bill of such historic proportions, not every Member will get everything he or she wants, but at the end of the day, we will pass legislation that dramatically improves the lives of the American people. We will continue to make progress and keep working until the job is done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7023 | null | 3,250 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Afghanistan Madam President, as I have said before, we have seen this playbook again and again. Following an objectively chaotic exit from Afghanistan because of the President's arbitrary decision date, President Biden called the mission an extraordinary success. Well, we know that is not true. We can see that with our own eyes. We know that 13 brave servicemembers lost their lives in a terrorist attack, including a young marine named David Espinoza, whose funeral my wife and I attended in Laredo, TX. Countless Americans and Afghan allies were left behind. We heard from the State Department today that they can't even tell us how many Afghans, who qualify for the special immigrant visa, remain in Afghanistan, and we know now, with the Taliban in control, that they are hunting down people who worked with the United States during the last 20 years in order to prevent another terrorist attack like we experienced on 9/11/2001. And, no, the new Taliban is not better or a kinder, gentler version of the old Taliban. So in no way could this be considered a success, let alone an extraordinary one. And then there is the border. Ever since President Biden became President, his administration has either ignored, downplayed, or denied the humanitarian crisis at our border. For months, the administration wouldn't even talk about it; and when it did, there were very peculiar rules that applied, apparently, to how it should be discussed. The administration refused to use the term ``crisis'' and came up with a range of euphemisms to downplay what was actually happening. They called it a challenge, a situation, a mess--all to, apparently, deceive the American people into thinking that what you are seeing with your own eyes is not really a problem. The Secretary of Homeland Security took this deception to a whole new level recently. When testifying before a House committee last week, Secretary Mayorkas said the border is ``no less secure than it was previously.'' That is demonstrably false. The data tells a very clearly different story. In the first 7 months of the Biden administration, more than 1.2 million migrants have crossed our southern border. That is an astronomical number, 1.2 million. To provide some context, in 7 months, Customs and Border Protection encountered 2\1/2\ times as many people as they did in all of fiscal year 2020. So it is not getting any better if the Secretary of Homeland Security, whose responsibility it is to secure the border, says things are no worse off than they used to be. At the same time, he tells us that the numbers are unrivalled in the last 20 years. Both can't be true. So whatever you want to call this--lying, misleading, or gaslighting--we have all had to learn a little bit of a new vocabulary. ``Gaslighting'' basically means creating your own alternative reality and trying to sell that as true. None of this changes the fact that the Biden administration has consistently tried to deceive the American people about each of these matters. And the list actually goes on and on. The President and his administration won't even admit there is a humanitarian crisis along our southern border, let alone take the pretty obvious and necessary steps to address it. Senator Sinema from Arizona, a Democrat, and I, a Republican from Texas, working with Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican who represents the largest border district in the country, we presented the bipartisan border security plan, but the administration just looks the other way. They won't acknowledge their massive failures in Afghanistan either, which resulted in the death of 13 servicemembers and left our allies, our friends, and their families in a lurch. And they refuse to admit that their reckless tax-and-spending-spree bill is designed to fundamentally transform America and will drive up taxes not just for the wealthy, but for the middle class, and hurt our already wobbly postpandemic economy. This is not what leadership should look like. The American people deserve better than getting scammed by their own President, no less. If the administration put half as much energy in trying to solve problems as it does in trying to disassemble them or to cover them up, our Nation would be far better off. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7024 | null | 3,251 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Afghanistan Madam President, as I have said before, we have seen this playbook again and again. Following an objectively chaotic exit from Afghanistan because of the President's arbitrary decision date, President Biden called the mission an extraordinary success. Well, we know that is not true. We can see that with our own eyes. We know that 13 brave servicemembers lost their lives in a terrorist attack, including a young marine named David Espinoza, whose funeral my wife and I attended in Laredo, TX. Countless Americans and Afghan allies were left behind. We heard from the State Department today that they can't even tell us how many Afghans, who qualify for the special immigrant visa, remain in Afghanistan, and we know now, with the Taliban in control, that they are hunting down people who worked with the United States during the last 20 years in order to prevent another terrorist attack like we experienced on 9/11/2001. And, no, the new Taliban is not better or a kinder, gentler version of the old Taliban. So in no way could this be considered a success, let alone an extraordinary one. And then there is the border. Ever since President Biden became President, his administration has either ignored, downplayed, or denied the humanitarian crisis at our border. For months, the administration wouldn't even talk about it; and when it did, there were very peculiar rules that applied, apparently, to how it should be discussed. The administration refused to use the term ``crisis'' and came up with a range of euphemisms to downplay what was actually happening. They called it a challenge, a situation, a mess--all to, apparently, deceive the American people into thinking that what you are seeing with your own eyes is not really a problem. The Secretary of Homeland Security took this deception to a whole new level recently. When testifying before a House committee last week, Secretary Mayorkas said the border is ``no less secure than it was previously.'' That is demonstrably false. The data tells a very clearly different story. In the first 7 months of the Biden administration, more than 1.2 million migrants have crossed our southern border. That is an astronomical number, 1.2 million. To provide some context, in 7 months, Customs and Border Protection encountered 2\1/2\ times as many people as they did in all of fiscal year 2020. So it is not getting any better if the Secretary of Homeland Security, whose responsibility it is to secure the border, says things are no worse off than they used to be. At the same time, he tells us that the numbers are unrivalled in the last 20 years. Both can't be true. So whatever you want to call this--lying, misleading, or gaslighting--we have all had to learn a little bit of a new vocabulary. ``Gaslighting'' basically means creating your own alternative reality and trying to sell that as true. None of this changes the fact that the Biden administration has consistently tried to deceive the American people about each of these matters. And the list actually goes on and on. The President and his administration won't even admit there is a humanitarian crisis along our southern border, let alone take the pretty obvious and necessary steps to address it. Senator Sinema from Arizona, a Democrat, and I, a Republican from Texas, working with Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican who represents the largest border district in the country, we presented the bipartisan border security plan, but the administration just looks the other way. They won't acknowledge their massive failures in Afghanistan either, which resulted in the death of 13 servicemembers and left our allies, our friends, and their families in a lurch. And they refuse to admit that their reckless tax-and-spending-spree bill is designed to fundamentally transform America and will drive up taxes not just for the wealthy, but for the middle class, and hurt our already wobbly postpandemic economy. This is not what leadership should look like. The American people deserve better than getting scammed by their own President, no less. If the administration put half as much energy in trying to solve problems as it does in trying to disassemble them or to cover them up, our Nation would be far better off. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7024 | null | 3,252 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Afghanistan Madam President, as I have said before, we have seen this playbook again and again. Following an objectively chaotic exit from Afghanistan because of the President's arbitrary decision date, President Biden called the mission an extraordinary success. Well, we know that is not true. We can see that with our own eyes. We know that 13 brave servicemembers lost their lives in a terrorist attack, including a young marine named David Espinoza, whose funeral my wife and I attended in Laredo, TX. Countless Americans and Afghan allies were left behind. We heard from the State Department today that they can't even tell us how many Afghans, who qualify for the special immigrant visa, remain in Afghanistan, and we know now, with the Taliban in control, that they are hunting down people who worked with the United States during the last 20 years in order to prevent another terrorist attack like we experienced on 9/11/2001. And, no, the new Taliban is not better or a kinder, gentler version of the old Taliban. So in no way could this be considered a success, let alone an extraordinary one. And then there is the border. Ever since President Biden became President, his administration has either ignored, downplayed, or denied the humanitarian crisis at our border. For months, the administration wouldn't even talk about it; and when it did, there were very peculiar rules that applied, apparently, to how it should be discussed. The administration refused to use the term ``crisis'' and came up with a range of euphemisms to downplay what was actually happening. They called it a challenge, a situation, a mess--all to, apparently, deceive the American people into thinking that what you are seeing with your own eyes is not really a problem. The Secretary of Homeland Security took this deception to a whole new level recently. When testifying before a House committee last week, Secretary Mayorkas said the border is ``no less secure than it was previously.'' That is demonstrably false. The data tells a very clearly different story. In the first 7 months of the Biden administration, more than 1.2 million migrants have crossed our southern border. That is an astronomical number, 1.2 million. To provide some context, in 7 months, Customs and Border Protection encountered 2\1/2\ times as many people as they did in all of fiscal year 2020. So it is not getting any better if the Secretary of Homeland Security, whose responsibility it is to secure the border, says things are no worse off than they used to be. At the same time, he tells us that the numbers are unrivalled in the last 20 years. Both can't be true. So whatever you want to call this--lying, misleading, or gaslighting--we have all had to learn a little bit of a new vocabulary. ``Gaslighting'' basically means creating your own alternative reality and trying to sell that as true. None of this changes the fact that the Biden administration has consistently tried to deceive the American people about each of these matters. And the list actually goes on and on. The President and his administration won't even admit there is a humanitarian crisis along our southern border, let alone take the pretty obvious and necessary steps to address it. Senator Sinema from Arizona, a Democrat, and I, a Republican from Texas, working with Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, and Tony Gonzales, a Republican who represents the largest border district in the country, we presented the bipartisan border security plan, but the administration just looks the other way. They won't acknowledge their massive failures in Afghanistan either, which resulted in the death of 13 servicemembers and left our allies, our friends, and their families in a lurch. And they refuse to admit that their reckless tax-and-spending-spree bill is designed to fundamentally transform America and will drive up taxes not just for the wealthy, but for the middle class, and hurt our already wobbly postpandemic economy. This is not what leadership should look like. The American people deserve better than getting scammed by their own President, no less. If the administration put half as much energy in trying to solve problems as it does in trying to disassemble them or to cover them up, our Nation would be far better off. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7024 | null | 3,253 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 3:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 4350. An act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Speaker and Minority Leader announced their joint appointment, pursuant to section 203(c) of the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008 (34 U.S.C. 50323), and the order the House of January 4, 2021, of the following individual on the part of the House of Representatives to the State and Local Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board: Mr. Donny H. Youngblood of Bakersfield, California. The message further announced that the Speaker and Minority Leader announced their joint appointment, pursuant to section 103 (c) of the Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act (34 U.S.C. 50313), and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, of the following individual on the part of the House of Representatives to the Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board: Mrs. Val Butler Demings of Orlando, Florida. The message also announced that pursuant to section 4 of the United States Semiquincentennial Commission Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-196), and as previously agreed, because of the change in Congress and the presumed statutory intent of the Commission, the Minority Leader appoints the following Member for appointment to the United States Semiquincentennial Commission on behalf of the Speaker: Mr. Joseph F. Crowley of Arlington, Virginia. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7031 | null | 3,254 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Grassley) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 421 Whereas, according to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey-- (1) up to 12,000,000 individuals in the United States report experiencing intimate partner violence annually, including physical violence, rape, or stalking; and (2) approximately 1 in 5 women in the United States and up to 1 in 7 men in the United States have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetimes; Whereas, on average, 3 women in the United States are killed each day by a current or former intimate partner, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics; Whereas domestic violence can affect anyone, but women who are 18 to 34 years of age typically experience the highest rates of domestic violence; Whereas survivors of domestic violence are strong, courageous, and resilient; Whereas most female victims of intimate partner violence have been victimized by the same offender previously; Whereas domestic violence is cited as a significant factor in homelessness among families; Whereas millions of children are exposed to domestic violence each year; Whereas research shows that boys who are exposed to domestic violence in their households are more likely to become perpetrators of intimate partner violence; Whereas victims of domestic violence experience immediate and long-term negative outcomes, including detrimental effects on mental and physical health; Whereas research consistently shows that being abused by an intimate partner increases an individual's likelihood of substance use as well as associated harmful consequences; Whereas victims of domestic violence may lose several days of paid work each year and may lose their jobs due to reasons stemming from domestic violence; Whereas crisis hotlines serving domestic violence victims operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, and offer important crisis intervention services, support services, information, and referrals for victims; Whereas staff and volunteers of domestic violence shelters and programs in the United States, in cooperation with 56 State and territorial coalitions against domestic violence, provide essential services to-- (1) thousands of adults and children each day; and (2) 1,000,000 adults and children each year; Whereas more than 160 States, counties, and cities have experienced an increase in reports of domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas domestic violence programs and hotlines have seen a substantial increase in contacts since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to experience a surge in requests for services; Whereas local YWCAs shared that between March 31, 2020, and late summer 2020, as a result of the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic-- (1) 69 percent of respondent YWCAs that operate domestic violence hotlines reported an increase in demand for services; and (2) 64 percent of nearly 100 local YWCAs who provide domestic violence services (either emergency shelter or transitional housing) reported an increase in demand for domestic violence shelter; Whereas while violence as a lived experience of American Indian and Alaska Native women exists in less pressing times, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the challenges and barriers to accessing safety by exacerbating already existing issues including-- (1) lack of safe housing for victims; (2) lack of space in shelters for victims to maintain safe social distancing; (3) lack of personal protective equipment for staff of tribal shelters and victim services programs; (4) limited transportation for victims; and (5) lack of access to adequate health care; Whereas respondents to a survey of domestic violence programs reported that survivors of domestic violence are facing financial challenges related to COVID-19 and \3/4\ of those respondents reported that survivors are having trouble accessing food, and more than half of those respondents have reported that survivors cannot pay their bills; Whereas medical professionals have reported that survivors of domestic violence are presenting with more severe injuries during the pandemic; Whereas domestic violence programs are having to change the way they provide services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; Whereas advocates for survivors of domestic violence and survivors face the same challenges with child care and facilitating online learning that others do; Whereas, according to a 2020 survey conducted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, 76,525 domestic violence victims were served by domestic violence shelters and programs around the United States in a single day; Whereas some victims of domestic violence face additional challenges in accessing law enforcement and services due to conditions specific to the communities in which they live; Whereas law enforcement officers in the United States put their lives at risk each day by responding to incidents of domestic violence, which can be among the most volatile and deadly calls; Whereas Congress first demonstrated a significant commitment to supporting victims of domestic violence with the enactment of the landmark Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.); Whereas Congress has remained committed to protecting survivors of all forms of domestic violence and sexual abuse by making Federal funding available to support the activities that are authorized under-- (1) the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.); (2) the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291 et seq.); and (3) the VOCA Fix to Sustain the Crime Victims Fund Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-27; 135 Stat. 301); Whereas there is a need to continue to support programs and activities aimed at domestic violence intervention and domestic violence prevention in the United States; Whereas domestic violence programs provide trauma-informed services to protect the safety, privacy, and confidentiality of survivors of domestic violence; and Whereas individuals and organizations that are dedicated to preventing and ending domestic violence should be recognized: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That-- (1) the Senate-- (A) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Domestic Violence Awareness Month''; (B) commends domestic violence victim advocates, domestic violence victim service providers, crisis hotline staff, and first responders serving victims of domestic violence, for their compassionate support of survivors of domestic violence; and (C) recognizes the strength and courage of survivors of domestic violence; and (2) it is the sense of the Senate that Congress should-- (A) continue to raise awareness of-- (i) domestic violence in the United States; and (ii) the corresponding devastating effects of domestic violence on survivors, families, and communities; and (B) pledge continued support for programs designed to-- (i) assist survivors of domestic violence; (ii) hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable; and (iii) bring an end to domestic violence. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-18-pt1-PgS7034 | null | 3,255 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: God of abundant grace, thank You for the bounty of gifts You have showered upon us. It is You who have supplied seed for the sower and bread for food. If only we take time to look, we discover that You have given us all that we require. You have enriched us in every way, and we come before You overflowing with gratitude. Now, as we have so richly received, may we richly give. As we savor the supply and enjoy the increase of our welfare, may we look for every occasion to be unsparing to those who do not experience those same privileges. As we have been enriched by the harvest of Your righteousness made available to us, may we show our thanksgiving to You through our generosity of spirit and collegiality with those to whom You have called us to serve. God, cause us to pause and realize how profoundly we have been blessed. May we be intentional, even deliberate, this day in sharing Your surpassing grace. In the strength of Your name we pray. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5643-3 | null | 3,256 |
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-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5645-7 | null | 3,257 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 654) to provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PALLONE | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5650 | null | 3,258 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3919) to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission does not approve radio frequency devices that pose a national security risk, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PALLONE | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5654 | null | 3,259 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4067) to direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a council to make recommendations on ways to increase the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications networks, and for other purposes, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PALLONE | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5657 | null | 3,260 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1029) to Waive the application fee for any special use permit for veterans' special events at war memorials on land administered by the National Park Service in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5661-3 | null | 3,261 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | The SPEAKER. 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. 4089) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and disseminate best practices for rental companies and dealers to report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies at the point of sale of a covered rental vehicle to prevent and mitigate acts of terrorism using motor vehicles, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5662-2 | null | 3,262 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4089) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and disseminate best practices for rental companies and dealers to report suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies at the point of sale of a covered rental vehicle to prevent and mitigate acts of terrorism using motor vehicles, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5662-2 | null | 3,263 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4369) to amend the 21st Century Cures Act to provide for designation of institutions of higher education that provide research, data, and leadership on continuous manufacturing as National Centers of Excellence in Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and for other purposes, asamended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5662-3 | null | 3,264 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-2457. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting the Office's Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2021, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 904(e); Public Law 99-177, Sec. 254(e) (as amended by Public Law 112-25, Sec. 103); (125 Stat. 246); to the Committee on Appropriations. EC-2458. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter authorizing Lieutenant General Laura J. Richardson, United States Army, to wear the insignia of the grade of general for a period not to exceed 14 days before assuming the duties of the position for which the higher grade is authorized, 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-2459. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting authorization of Colonel James E. Smith, United States Space Force, to wear the insignia of the grade of brigadier general, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777(b)(3)(B); Public Law 104-106, Sec. 503(a)(1) (as added by Public Law 108-136, Sec. 509(a)(3)); (117 Stat. 1458); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-2460. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Lieutenant General Mark C. Schwartz, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec. 502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-2461. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Attorney General's 2020 Annual Report pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1691f; Public Law 90-321, Sec. 707 (as added by Public Law 94-239, Sec. 7); (90 Stat. 255); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2462. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Libya that was declared in Executive Order 13566 of February 25, 2011, 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-2463. 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-2464. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2465. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2466. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2467. A letter from the Chair of the Board and Director, Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's FY 2020 actuarial evaluation of the expected operations and status of the PBGC funds, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1308; Public Law 93-406, Sec. 4008 (as amended by Public Law 109-280, Sec. 412); (120 Stat. 936); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2468. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting notification of termination of United States Secret Service protection, pursuant to Public Law 116-260, Sec. 16, div. F; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2469. A letter from the Deputy Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, transmitting a notification of a 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-2470. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination on a petition filed on behalf of workers at the Superior Steel Co. in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7384q(c)(2); Public Law 106-398, Sec. 1 (as amended by Public Law 108-375, Sec. 3166(b)(1)); (118 Stat. 2188); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2471. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination on a petition filed on behalf of workers at Savannah River Site, in Aiken, South Carolina, to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7384q(c)(2); Public Law 106-398, Sec. 1 (as amended by Public Law 108-375, Sec. 3166(b)(1)); (118 Stat. 2188); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2472. A letter from the Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's Privacy and Civil Liberties Activities First Semi-Annual Report for FY 2018, covering October 1, 2019 -- March 31, 2020; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5671-2 | null | 3,265 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | 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. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 654. A bill to provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program; with amendments (Rept. 117-146). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4028. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to report on and develop a whole-of-Government strategy with respect to the economic competitiveness of the information and communication technology supply chain, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. 117-147). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3919. A bill to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission does not approve radio frequency devices that pose a national security risk; with amendments (Rept. 117-148). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2379. A bill to amend the 21st Century Cures Act to reauthorize and expand a grant program for State response to the opioid use disorders crisis, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-149). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4032. A bill to provide outreach and technical assistance to small providers regarding the benefits of Open RAN networks, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. 117- 150). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4369. A bill to amend the 21st Century Cures Act to provide for designation of institutions of higher education that provide research, data, and leadership on continuous manufacturing as National Centers of Excellence in Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and for other purposes, with amendments (Rept. 117-151). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi: Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (Rept. 117-152). Referred to the House Calendar. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgH5671-3 | null | 3,266 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Protests Mr. President, now on another matter, last week, Washington, DC, was again the site of illegal political violence from the radical left. A mob of environmental extremists set upon the Department of the Interior. They shoved through blocked doors. They hurt the police and security personnel who tried to hold the line. These radicals put one law enforcement officer actually in the hospital. Political violence and attacks on government buildings are flatout wrong no matter who is perpetrating them or what they claim to believe. That is why it is puzzling that last week's incidents attracted so little attention and condemnation. The White House was directly asked about the day's demonstrations just a few hours after the violence and the break-in occurred. Instead of condemning the radicals, the Biden administration actually praised them--praised them. The White House Press Secretary was asked about the protests multiple hours after the violence and the break-in and said--this is a direct quote--``Of course we're listening to advocates and people who have been elevating the issue of climate for decades. They have important voices.'' So that is how the Biden administration officially described the demonstrators who put a cop in the hospital--``important voices.'' This is just absurd. But those weren't just regrettable comments; they capture the politicized and selective approach to law enforcement that increasingly defines the Democratic Party. Last year, our Nation saw a 30-percent jump in homicides--the biggest jump in the murder rate in modern history; the worst spike in the homicide rate in modern American history. The head of the National Center for Health Statistics says it was the worst increase in more than 100 years, since atleast 1905. Actually, he went on to say that even 1905 wasn't comparable because that was likely a clerical matter. So the experts don't really know the last time the murder rate shot up this much, but we know it was before the average American family had electricity or indoor plumbing. That was a long time ago. Responding to this terrible trend should be very simple. It should be a no-brainer for elected officials at every level: more and better resources for more and better policing for more and better community safety. Instead, liberal local officials across the country from city halls and city councils to right here in Congress have gotten caught up in the radicalism of ``defund the police.'' As one leftwing House Member put it, ``Not only do we need to disinvest from police . . . we need to completely dismantle''--``dismantle''--her local police department.'' That was a Member of the Congress. Another declared, ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' One news story from last weekend reported that ``a crowd of 100 people wreaked havoc in downtown Portland, Oregon, this week--smashing storefront windows, lighting dumpsters on fire and causing at least $500,000 in damage--but police officers didn't stop them. Portland Police Bureau officials say that's because of legislation passed by Oregon lawmakers this year, which restricts the tools they can use to confront people vandalizing buildings and causing mayhem.'' So apparently it is OK in Portland to do those kinds of things because of legislation they passed out in Oregon. While all of this is percolating, what is the Department of Justice focused on? Where is the Attorney General training his firepower? Well, here is the answer: Two weeks ago, Attorney General Garland published a special memorandum directing Federal law to focus specifically on parents who are dissatisfied with ``woke'' school boards and far-left indoctrination. You get the picture here. The worst spike in the murder rate in over a century and the Attorney General wants main justice laser-focused on--listen to this--parents who are asking questions about their kids' curriculum. It is beyond parody. To be perfectly clear, I never offered anything but condemnation for violence and threats in the political square, but local law enforcement is fully capable of handling isolated incidents where crimes are committed. There is absolutely no reason--none--for Attorney General Garland to pull this J. Edgar Hoover act on American parents. But these strange and warped priorities are defining the Biden administration's approach: soft on crime; heavy on indulging far-left fads. Currently deadlocked in the Judiciary Committee is the nomination of Rachael Rollins, a would-be U.S. Attorney who has a national reputation for being soft on crime during her time as a prosecutor. In her current role as district attorney, the nominee has said that prosecutors in her jurisdiction should--listen to this--decline to prosecute a whole laundry list of crimes--just decline to prosecute them. From shoplifting to trespassing, to drug possession with the intent to distribute, Ms. Rollins wants her county to be a place where these crimes get free passes. And the Biden administration rewards this with a big promotion? Mr. President, support for equal justice, support for law enforcement, and support for the innocent people they protect go hand in hand. It is time for the Biden administration to get serious about the rule of law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7038-4 | null | 3,267 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Build Back Better Agenda Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, for decades now, millions of families in this country have found the basic American promise that if you work hard, then you can have a better life for yourselves and your loved ones, the proverbial American dream--Americans have found it is getting harder to reach. That is what creates a sourness in the land. That sunny optimism so crucial to our identity has receded away from view. Democrats have promised to do something about it. When Senate Democrats secured our majority this year, we committed to delivering on the trust that the American people placed in us and to respond to the challenge of our times. That is why we immediately set to work and passed the American Rescue Plan to propel our economy out of the crisis of COVID. And that has been the driving force behind our efforts to make President Biden's Build Back Better agenda into law. Last night, I continued my discussions with Speaker Pelosi and President Biden as we work to an agreement on legislation we can bring to the floor. I know that, throughout the day, the President will meet with a number of Members from both Chambers, and, as the week progresses, I will continue to hold talks with my colleagues as we move forward to the finish line. Here is what matters: Build Back Better legislation is going to dramatically improve the lives of tens of millions of American families for years to come. Something that impactful is not an easy feat, but we are going to keep working. By passing this legislation, we can create good-paying jobs for this generation and the next; we can lower costs and cut taxes for American families while taking overdue steps to meaningfully address the climate crisis. We still have work to do, but we are going to continue at it until--until the job is done. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7038 | null | 3,268 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Freedom to Vote Act Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to protect free and fair elections in America. A big question we have to ask in the U.S. Senate is whether the right to vote and free and fair elections are worth any of our time. You see, the first vote we have here is what is known as a motion to proceed. It is a basic question in the Senate: You want to talk about something? Is it important enough for your time? You want to bring it up here and say a few words about the right to vote in America? That is the first vote. I think it is pretty simple. Why wouldn't we, at this moment in history, with everything that is going on, spend some time talking about the right to vote? Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, says, no, we shouldn't take any time to discuss the right to vote in the United States of America. He and many of our Republican colleagues are threatening to use the age-old weapon against civil rights, the filibuster, to stop even a conversation on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the right to vote. That would make it the third time this year that Senate Republicans have used the filibuster to kill voting rights legislation. They filibustered For the People Act twice this year after it passed the House. They said then they support voting rights, but not that voting rights bill. They said more compromise was needed. You can't reach compromise on anything until you talk about it. We are going to have a motion to proceed to talk about voting rights on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. If they want to offer a compromise, if they want to get into a conversation or debate, that is the moment. This empty Chamber--I wonder sometimes why we leave it the way it is. This would be a great meeting hall. We could rent it out for wedding receptions and have something productive happen on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But instead, this empty Chamber, day after day, finds ways to avoid the important issues of our time. That is sad. There are very few of us who have been given this great honor and opportunity to serve in the Senate. We are supposed to come and talk about the things that matter in America. Isn't the right to vote one of the most important things that matters in this country? The Freedom to Vote Act is a compromise itself. It is based on a set of principles offered by Senator Manchin of West Virginia. Now, Senator Manchin has not concealed the fact that he didn't agree with the original bill, but in fairness to him, he sat down in good faith and bargained a compromised bill. He has worked exhaustively for months with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to find some common ground. I salute him for that. That is what we all should be doing. The Freedom to Vote Act includes reasonable national standards for a voter ID in States that require identification for in-person voting. Now, that is a big concession from the Democratic side because, although many of our States have a photo voter ID requirement, many do not, and we believe in some cases in the past it has been abused. With the fundamental concept of a voter ID, I don't have any objection to, as long as it is managed and administered fairly. That is what we are setting out to do. If our Republican colleagues are really worried about election integrity and making sure voters are who they say they are, wouldn't you think that they would at least vote to start the debate on the Freedom to Vote Act? That we would have a conversation in this empty Chamber that might even attract a handful of Senators on both sides of the aisle to talk about the right to vote in America in the year 2021 and beyond? That just seems so basic. Well, what the Republicans say is the Freedom to Vote Act is much more than just a debate topic; it is a Federal takeover of our elections. That simply is not the case. The Freedom to Vote Act does not create any undue burden on any State. Instead, it sets reasonable, minimum standards for voting access in all States, including automatic and same-day voter registration, 2 weeks of early voting, no-excuse mail-in voting. It establishes election day as a Federal holiday. (Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.) All of these proposals are consistent with the clear language of the Constitution. It will protect nonpartisan election officials from undue pressure and prevent politicians from overturning elections if they don't agree with voters' choices. The Freedom to Vote Act makes it harder for billionaires and powerful corporations to buy elections. Let's be real honest, Members of Congress and others who run for office and set out to raise money, but the important fundraising is taking place in a mystery, in secret, with dark money that comes into an election with no indication of its source. The Freedom to Vote Act is going to prevent the flow of foreign money into U.S. elections. Is there anybody who wants to argue for the premise that we should allow foreigners to invest in our election results or to try to influence the electorate, sometimes with misinformation and outright lies? I don't think they have any business interfering in our elections. I think most Americans agree with that. That is what the Freedom to Vote Act says. In addition to that, dark money needs to get out of politics. If you want to stand up and support a candidate, so be it. But for goodness' sake, say who you are; identify yourself; let the American people know who is pushing one candidate or the other. Organizations engaged in political spending will be required to tell the public who is giving them how much money. That is pretty simple, pretty obvious. There was a time when that level of disclosure was supported by the Republican minority leader in the Senate. I remember his speeches well on floor of the Senate. He shifted 180 degrees on the topic now. Last fall, 2020, Americans braved a pandemic to vote in record numbers, but supporters of the former President nonetheless exhausted legal challenges and recounts seeking to validate the outrageous lie of election fraud, and their efforts went nowhere. Former President Trump went to 50 or 60 different courts to argue that Joe Biden didn't win the election. He couldn't produce a shred of evidence. All he had were the ramblings and gossip and fake news, if you will, on the internet. It didn't work. Rudy Giuliani came up with some hair-brained schemes on behalf of President Trump: ``Italy-gate,'' that somehow the Italians had satellites that controlled America's voting machinery. Ridiculous things. When that didn't work, the former President decided he would just take over the Department of Justice. Our Judiciary Committee, which I serve on, Mr. President, went into extensive investigation of that and came up withdetailed information, which we released to the public 2 weeks ago. And the Republicans were in on all of our investigation. They were invited to question the witnesses, to be present, to even see our majority report in advance. We wanted to make this bipartisan and fair, and we did. And what we found was the President's failed attempt to take over the Department of Justice--to force them to go to the States and say: Don't validate the 2020 election. A few people stood up and showed courage at the Department of Justice and said they were prepared to resign before they bent to President Trump's pressure, and that was a fact. That is what we are faced with now--this former President still marketing his lies across America about the outcome of the 2020 election, and we will not even take the time to discuss elections and voting. The Republicans will stop us with a filibuster. Many politicians in many States continue to use the Big Lie of the stolen election to try to make it harder for citizens to vote in future elections. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 19 States passed 33 bills to make it harder for citizens to vote, so far this year. Hundreds of similar bills have been proposed in 49 States. These laws and proposals are a dagger at the heart of America's democracy. The Freedom to Vote Act, which we want to start the conversation on, just the conversation and debate on tomorrow, is America's democracy defense act. I want to commend the bill's sponsors: Senator Amy Klobuchar. I don't know anybody who has worked harder than she has as chair of the Senate Rules Committee; Senator Manchin, he has been involved in the compromise; Senators Tim Kaine, Angus King, and Rev. Raphael Warnock. And particularly I want to acknowledge our majority leader, Chuck Schumer, for his leadership in this effort. He has worked hard at it, trying to bring this matter before the American people and on the floor. We have also been engaged in a similar process on an equally critical piece of legislation, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I have been here long enough to remember a time when the Voting Rights Act came before the U.S. Senate and got 98 votes--virtually all the Democrats, all the Republicans voted for it. No controversy. They believed that this product of the 1960s civil rights debate was fair. It said that in certain States with a proven history of discrimination against minority voters, when they proposed changes in election laws, we would examine them, preclear them, as they say. The Supreme Court tossed out that section, and we have tried to restore it. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and maybe even naive in believing that voter discrimination could not take place in the future. When there was a voter suppression law passed in North Carolina and it was taken to a Federal court, the court said, and I paraphrase: They worked with ``surgical precision'' to violate the voting rights of minority voters. The Freedom to Vote Act is the first of two crucial steps to take what our friend and colleague John Lewis said is a ``precious, almost sacred'' right, and I hope we take similar action on the Voting Rights soon. Like the Freedom to Vote Act, the Voting Rights Act extension that Ronald Reagan signed in 1982 was the result of a compromise. In signing it, President Reagan said the final bill ``prove[d] that differences can be settled in good will and good faith.'' Wouldn't that be nice to have that happen on this empty floor of the Senate tomorrow? That is all we ask of our Senate colleagues. Don't use the filibuster, the weapon of Jim Crow, to abet the attacks we are seeing on Americans' voting rights. Offer amendments if you like, but work with us in good will and good faith to protect the voting rights which so many have sacrificed for. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7040 | null | 3,269 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Freedom to Vote Act Mr. President, tomorrow, the Senate will vote on whether to protect free and fair elections in America. A big question we have to ask in the U.S. Senate is whether the right to vote and free and fair elections are worth any of our time. You see, the first vote we have here is what is known as a motion to proceed. It is a basic question in the Senate: You want to talk about something? Is it important enough for your time? You want to bring it up here and say a few words about the right to vote in America? That is the first vote. I think it is pretty simple. Why wouldn't we, at this moment in history, with everything that is going on, spend some time talking about the right to vote? Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, says, no, we shouldn't take any time to discuss the right to vote in the United States of America. He and many of our Republican colleagues are threatening to use the age-old weapon against civil rights, the filibuster, to stop even a conversation on the floor of the U.S. Senate about the right to vote. That would make it the third time this year that Senate Republicans have used the filibuster to kill voting rights legislation. They filibustered For the People Act twice this year after it passed the House. They said then they support voting rights, but not that voting rights bill. They said more compromise was needed. You can't reach compromise on anything until you talk about it. We are going to have a motion to proceed to talk about voting rights on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. If they want to offer a compromise, if they want to get into a conversation or debate, that is the moment. This empty Chamber--I wonder sometimes why we leave it the way it is. This would be a great meeting hall. We could rent it out for wedding receptions and have something productive happen on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But instead, this empty Chamber, day after day, finds ways to avoid the important issues of our time. That is sad. There are very few of us who have been given this great honor and opportunity to serve in the Senate. We are supposed to come and talk about the things that matter in America. Isn't the right to vote one of the most important things that matters in this country? The Freedom to Vote Act is a compromise itself. It is based on a set of principles offered by Senator Manchin of West Virginia. Now, Senator Manchin has not concealed the fact that he didn't agree with the original bill, but in fairness to him, he sat down in good faith and bargained a compromised bill. He has worked exhaustively for months with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to find some common ground. I salute him for that. That is what we all should be doing. The Freedom to Vote Act includes reasonable national standards for a voter ID in States that require identification for in-person voting. Now, that is a big concession from the Democratic side because, although many of our States have a photo voter ID requirement, many do not, and we believe in some cases in the past it has been abused. With the fundamental concept of a voter ID, I don't have any objection to, as long as it is managed and administered fairly. That is what we are setting out to do. If our Republican colleagues are really worried about election integrity and making sure voters are who they say they are, wouldn't you think that they would at least vote to start the debate on the Freedom to Vote Act? That we would have a conversation in this empty Chamber that might even attract a handful of Senators on both sides of the aisle to talk about the right to vote in America in the year 2021 and beyond? That just seems so basic. Well, what the Republicans say is the Freedom to Vote Act is much more than just a debate topic; it is a Federal takeover of our elections. That simply is not the case. The Freedom to Vote Act does not create any undue burden on any State. Instead, it sets reasonable, minimum standards for voting access in all States, including automatic and same-day voter registration, 2 weeks of early voting, no-excuse mail-in voting. It establishes election day as a Federal holiday. (Mr. PADILLA assumed the Chair.) All of these proposals are consistent with the clear language of the Constitution. It will protect nonpartisan election officials from undue pressure and prevent politicians from overturning elections if they don't agree with voters' choices. The Freedom to Vote Act makes it harder for billionaires and powerful corporations to buy elections. Let's be real honest, Members of Congress and others who run for office and set out to raise money, but the important fundraising is taking place in a mystery, in secret, with dark money that comes into an election with no indication of its source. The Freedom to Vote Act is going to prevent the flow of foreign money into U.S. elections. Is there anybody who wants to argue for the premise that we should allow foreigners to invest in our election results or to try to influence the electorate, sometimes with misinformation and outright lies? I don't think they have any business interfering in our elections. I think most Americans agree with that. That is what the Freedom to Vote Act says. In addition to that, dark money needs to get out of politics. If you want to stand up and support a candidate, so be it. But for goodness' sake, say who you are; identify yourself; let the American people know who is pushing one candidate or the other. Organizations engaged in political spending will be required to tell the public who is giving them how much money. That is pretty simple, pretty obvious. There was a time when that level of disclosure was supported by the Republican minority leader in the Senate. I remember his speeches well on floor of the Senate. He shifted 180 degrees on the topic now. Last fall, 2020, Americans braved a pandemic to vote in record numbers, but supporters of the former President nonetheless exhausted legal challenges and recounts seeking to validate the outrageous lie of election fraud, and their efforts went nowhere. Former President Trump went to 50 or 60 different courts to argue that Joe Biden didn't win the election. He couldn't produce a shred of evidence. All he had were the ramblings and gossip and fake news, if you will, on the internet. It didn't work. Rudy Giuliani came up with some hair-brained schemes on behalf of President Trump: ``Italy-gate,'' that somehow the Italians had satellites that controlled America's voting machinery. Ridiculous things. When that didn't work, the former President decided he would just take over the Department of Justice. Our Judiciary Committee, which I serve on, Mr. President, went into extensive investigation of that and came up withdetailed information, which we released to the public 2 weeks ago. And the Republicans were in on all of our investigation. They were invited to question the witnesses, to be present, to even see our majority report in advance. We wanted to make this bipartisan and fair, and we did. And what we found was the President's failed attempt to take over the Department of Justice--to force them to go to the States and say: Don't validate the 2020 election. A few people stood up and showed courage at the Department of Justice and said they were prepared to resign before they bent to President Trump's pressure, and that was a fact. That is what we are faced with now--this former President still marketing his lies across America about the outcome of the 2020 election, and we will not even take the time to discuss elections and voting. The Republicans will stop us with a filibuster. Many politicians in many States continue to use the Big Lie of the stolen election to try to make it harder for citizens to vote in future elections. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 19 States passed 33 bills to make it harder for citizens to vote, so far this year. Hundreds of similar bills have been proposed in 49 States. These laws and proposals are a dagger at the heart of America's democracy. The Freedom to Vote Act, which we want to start the conversation on, just the conversation and debate on tomorrow, is America's democracy defense act. I want to commend the bill's sponsors: Senator Amy Klobuchar. I don't know anybody who has worked harder than she has as chair of the Senate Rules Committee; Senator Manchin, he has been involved in the compromise; Senators Tim Kaine, Angus King, and Rev. Raphael Warnock. And particularly I want to acknowledge our majority leader, Chuck Schumer, for his leadership in this effort. He has worked hard at it, trying to bring this matter before the American people and on the floor. We have also been engaged in a similar process on an equally critical piece of legislation, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I have been here long enough to remember a time when the Voting Rights Act came before the U.S. Senate and got 98 votes--virtually all the Democrats, all the Republicans voted for it. No controversy. They believed that this product of the 1960s civil rights debate was fair. It said that in certain States with a proven history of discrimination against minority voters, when they proposed changes in election laws, we would examine them, preclear them, as they say. The Supreme Court tossed out that section, and we have tried to restore it. I think the Supreme Court was wrong and maybe even naive in believing that voter discrimination could not take place in the future. When there was a voter suppression law passed in North Carolina and it was taken to a Federal court, the court said, and I paraphrase: They worked with ``surgical precision'' to violate the voting rights of minority voters. The Freedom to Vote Act is the first of two crucial steps to take what our friend and colleague John Lewis said is a ``precious, almost sacred'' right, and I hope we take similar action on the Voting Rights soon. Like the Freedom to Vote Act, the Voting Rights Act extension that Ronald Reagan signed in 1982 was the result of a compromise. In signing it, President Reagan said the final bill ``prove[d] that differences can be settled in good will and good faith.'' Wouldn't that be nice to have that happen on this empty floor of the Senate tomorrow? That is all we ask of our Senate colleagues. Don't use the filibuster, the weapon of Jim Crow, to abet the attacks we are seeing on Americans' voting rights. Offer amendments if you like, but work with us in good will and good faith to protect the voting rights which so many have sacrificed for. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7040 | null | 3,270 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,271 |
formal | entitlement program | null | racist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,272 |
formal | entitlement programs | null | racist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,273 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,274 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,275 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,276 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,277 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Border Crisis Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. In August, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 208,887 people attempting to illegally cross our southern border, a 318-percent increase from August of 2020. Now, for context, that number is bigger than the population of Sioux Falls, SD, the largest city in my home State. At this point, ``crisis'' is too mild of a description. Things at the border are out of control, and there is little to suggest that things will improve anytime soon as the Biden administration continues to permit an influx of migrant entries and has sought to install appointees who have lax views about enforcing our immigration laws. In yet another sign of how bad things are, dozens of National Guard members from South Dakota recently deployedto our southern border. I know these South Dakotans are always ready to serve wherever and whenever they are needed, and I am grateful for their service. You would think that the border crisis would be at the top of the Democrats' priority list here in Washington, DC, particularly when they have to call in the National Guard from States around this country, but you would be wrong. In fact, the border crisis seems like barely a blip on the Democrats' radar, and it is not the only crisis they are ignoring. Our national security situation is taking a giant step backward with the President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal and the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. Here at home, inflation is becoming a serious and a long-term, not a temporary, problem. Americans' purchasing power is shrinking as they have to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in everything from the price of groceries to the high price of gasoline. But none of that really seems to matter to Democrats. Their main priority seems to be forcing through a $3.5 trillion partisan tax-and-spending spree that would permanently expand the reach of government into Americans' lives. Where to start when it comes to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree? Well, there are tax hikes that would put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage and shrink jobs and opportunities for American workers. There is a death tax expansion that could put a lot of family farms and businesses in jeopardy. There are the major new entitlements--free college, free preschool, subsidized daycare, paid leave. Yes, one of the major existing entitlement programs, Medicare, is rapidly heading toward insolvency. Yet, instead of shoring up that program, Democrats are expanding entitlements and putting the government on the hook for an unsustainable level of spending. Then there are items that get less attention, but they are just as troubling. Traditionally in the United States, individuals have picked the winners and losers through the free market, but the more you insert government into economic and family life, the more government ends up being the one making the decisions. Government ends up picking the winners and the losers. Take the Democrats' childcare benefit. A 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that among working families who used center-based childcare, 53 percent used a faith-based center--53 percent. But now Democrats are coming in with their childcare subsidies and in the process changing decades-old childcare funding programs to favor secular childcare providers who provide care at daycare centers. So if you are one of the 53 percent who chooses a faith-based provider for your child, you could be out of luck, not because you changed your childcare preferences but simply because Democrats have set up their benefit to favor secular center-based childcare providers. Democrats are repeating this pattern of picking winners and losers throughout their bill. Labor unions win under this bill. Democrats have included a special benefit that would expressly allow union members to deduct their union dues on their taxes. Meanwhile, nonunion workers can expect to pay their usual tax bills. You only get special privileges if you are a union member. If you are one of the 90 percent of American workers who don't belong to a union, then you are not going to see say help as they subsidize the dues of those who do belong to a union. I guess Democrats want to make sure that they get those union votes to come out at election time. Of course, that is not the bill's only benefit for unions. There is funding for electronic voting systems for union elections and incentives to purchase an electric car from a union factory. Unions, of course, are not the only winner. Electric vehicle manufacturers, for one, also win. The bill clearly endorses electric vehicles as the--the--climate change solution for the transportation sector. Other clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a back seat in this bill. I could go on all day when it comes to the spending priorities in this bill, like the fact that the bill dedicates more than $200 million--$200 million--to urban agriculture. That is right--urban agriculture. I am not saying that you can't have a garden if you live in a city, but urban gardens are never going to produce the volume of food needed to feed our country, and anyone who thinks they will doesn't know much about agriculture, which may be the problem here. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree reads like the product of too much socialist daydreaming and not enough time spent learning about how things like agriculture, energy, and economies actually work. Speaking of which, I haven't mentioned the Democrats' tree equity measure--yes, tree equity. Democrats have allowed $3 billion prioritized for what they recently referred to and have been referring to as tree equity. Now, I support and encourage planting trees, but I don't think the Federal Government can afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats are planning to spend $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features luxury housing and a golf course and provide tax benefits for Ivy League universities and other well-funded colleges, including a new tax credit for higher education institutions for teaching ``environmental justice'' programs. Then there are the tax credits for electric bicycles--bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. It may be just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 bicycle, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Then, of course, Democrats are planning to provide billions of dollars to fund a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists and $20 billion for the creation of a National Climate Bank to fund Democrats' pet environmental projects. Now, as you can see, this list goes on and on and on. The more you read the Democrats' bill with its massive expansion of government and historic tax hikes and its payoffs to liberal constituencies, the more you realize that there is pretty much no area of life the Democrats think wouldn't be better run by the Federal Government. But my fellow Republicans and I still believe in a vibrant, private economy, and in the right of individuals and families to run their lives as they see fit. So we will continue to oppose Democrats' social spending spree, and continue to fight to secure a future of prosperity, opportunity, and freedom--freedom--for each and every American. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7042-3 | null | 3,278 |
formal | balance the budget | null | conservative | The following bills were read the first time: S. 3005. A bill establishing appropriate thresholds for certain budget points of order in the Senate, and for other purposes. S. 3006. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2022 through 2031. S. 3007. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits. S. 3008. A bill to establish the Federal Rainy Day Fund to control emergency spending. S. 3009. A bill to amend title VI of the Social Security Act to remove the prohibition on States and territories against lowering their taxes. S. 3010. A bill to cap noninterest Federal spending as a percentage of potential GDP to right-size the Government, grow the economy, and balance the budget. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7063-6 | null | 3,279 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first time: S. 3005. A bill establishing appropriate thresholds for certain budget points of order in the Senate, and for other purposes. S. 3006. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2022 through 2031. S. 3007. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to extend the discretionary spending limits. S. 3008. A bill to establish the Federal Rainy Day Fund to control emergency spending. S. 3009. A bill to amend title VI of the Social Security Act to remove the prohibition on States and territories against lowering their taxes. S. 3010. A bill to cap noninterest Federal spending as a percentage of potential GDP to right-size the Government, grow the economy, and balance the budget. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7063-6 | null | 3,280 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WHITEHOUSE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 423 Whereas the historical role of the juvenile court system is to rehabilitate and treat young people while holding them accountable and maintaining public safety, and the juvenile court system is therefore better equipped to work with youth than the adult criminal justice system, which is punitive in nature; Whereas youth are developmentally different from adults, and those differences have been-- (1) documented by research on the adolescent brain; and (2) acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States, State supreme courts, and many State and Federal laws that prohibit youth under the age of 18 from taking on major adult responsibilities such as voting, jury duty, and military service; Whereas youth who are placed under the commitment of the juvenile court system are able to access age-appropriate services and education and remain closer to their families, which reduces the likelihood that those youth will commit offenses in the future; Whereas every year in the United States an estimated 76,000 youths are tried, sentenced, or incarcerated as adults, and most of those youth are prosecuted for nonviolent offenses; Whereas most laws allowing the prosecution of youth as adults were enacted before the publication of research-based evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice demonstrating that prosecuting youth in adult court actually decreases public safety as, on average, youth prosecuted in adult court are 34 percent more likely to commit future crimes than youth retained in the juvenile court system; Whereas youth of color, youth with disabilities, and youth with mental health issues are disproportionately represented at all stages of the criminal justice system; Whereas it is harmful to public safety and to young people in the legal system to confine youth in adult jails or prisons where they are significantly more likely to be physically and sexually assaulted and often placed in solitary confinement; Whereas youth sentenced as adults receive an adult criminal record that hinders future education and employment opportunities; Whereas youth who receive extremely long sentences deserve an opportunity to demonstrate their potential to grow and change; and Whereas, in October, people around the United States participate in Youth Justice Action Month to increase public awareness of the need to protect the constitutional rights of youth, establish a minimum age for arresting children, remove youth from adult courts and prisons, and end the practice of sentencing children to life, and de facto life, without parole and to provide people across the United States with an opportunity to develop action-oriented events in their communities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) acknowledges that the collateral consequences normally applied in the adult criminal justice system should not automatically apply to youth arrested for crimes before the age of 18; (2) expresses support for the designation of October 2021 as ``National Youth Justice Action Month''; (3) recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of National Youth Justice Action Month; and (4) recognizes the importance of and encourages the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice to fully implement the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-385; 132 Stat. 5123) in a manner in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7074-4 | null | 3,281 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. KING. Madam President, the United States of America is an anomaly in world history. We are a 245-year experiment in self-government, which is based upon an idea that was radical in 1776. It was tested at Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, and the Wilderness. It was defended at Anzio, Iwo Jima, and Normandy, and was reaffirmed in 1965. It is an idea that the people--all the people--are the ultimate source of power and can govern themselves through their elected representatives. That was a radical notion in 1776. The historical norm is just the opposite--kings; pharaohs; dictators; czars; warlords; emperors; and, more recently, presidents for life. Throughout most of human history, and right up to the present day, in most countries, the people have little or no say in the decisions that determine their fate. And these rulers are rarely, if ever, beneficent. In fact, again, the historical norm is just the opposite--pervasive corruption, the pursuit of power for its own sake, the crushing of dissent, sham elections, and the abuse or even elimination of anyone not sufficiently loyal or useful to the leader. That is the historical norm. There is nothing surprising about this because it reflects human nature. History fairly shouts at us that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Given the consistent history of this experience--of warlords, dictators, czars, and the abuse of their authority--it is clear that what we are doing, this experiment, is fragile. It is not the norm. It is an anomaly. What we have and take for granted is in no way guaranteed. As has been the case for democratic experiments throughout history, it can fail. Rarely can it fail from external attack. Almost always, democratic experiments fail from erosion from within. On the surface, our democratic system protects us by resting upon our ingenuous Constitution, the primary purpose of which is to establish an effective government while at the same time dividing and dispersing power, and in Madison's evocative phrase: Obliging the government to control itself. And of all the safeguards built into the Constitution--and there are many; two Houses of Congress, vetoes, division of the war power, advise and consent, enumerated powers, Federalism, the Bill of Rights--of all of those protections, the most fundamental and essential is regular elections, the clearest expression of the people's will. For most of my life, I have not really thought much about how elections actually work. You go to the town office or the school gym, they cross your name off on a list, hand you a ballot, and you go into a booth and make yourchoice. You then put the marked ballot into a box or hand it to a clerk--usually it is a volunteer doing their civic duty in my hometown--and then they run it through a counter. Or you can get a mail-in ballot from your town clerk, mark it at home and send it in. Or in my town you can drop it in a drop box anytime of the night or day. It is out in the front of the town office. That is it until later that night, when the results--either from automatic counters or from hand counting the ballots themselves--are announced, precinct by precinct, town by town, city by city, and State by State. And then you go to bed, happy or unhappy, energized or discouraged, either reveling in the victory of your preferred candidates or determined to work harder next time. And thanks to the Framers, there always is a next time, usually in 2 years hence. The next day, you go about your business trusting--trusting--that the system was operating according to the rules and that the announced vote count accurately reflects the preference of you and your fellow citizens. The key word is ``trust.'' The miraculous result of this entire process is something we completely take for granted but is exceedingly rare--exceedingly rare--in human history: the peaceful transfer of power, whether it is the city council, the Congress, or the Presidency itself. But two interrelated things are happening right now with regard to this system that are unprecedented in my lifetime and have caused me to worry as I never have before about the future of my country. These two things are profoundly dangerous to our fragile Republic. One is the breakdown of trust in the system itself and the other is an overtly partisan attempt to use this loss of trust as a pretext to change the results of future elections by limiting the participation of voters deemed unworthy--although that is rarely said out loud--or unlikely to vote for your particular political party. This discussion is usually framed in terms of election integrity--the prevention of widespread voter fraud--which it is argued is tainting the outcome of our elections. Unfortunately, these so-called election integrity measures almost invariably end up limiting the participation of a substantial number of voters, many of whom have historically been denied the right to vote by one device or another for over 100 years. It is limiting that participation either as inadvertent collateral damage or, more likely, as stone-cold partisan voter suppression. When I used to interact with the main legislature either as a private citizen for many years or as Governor, the inevitable first question from the chair of the committee was: What is the problem we are trying to solve here? You want to change the law; what is the problem we are trying to solve? In this case, is the problem really voter fraud, or is it election results the party in power in a particular State doesn't like? The implicit burden that this question puts upon those who would change a law is to demonstrate by some reasonable and credible evidence that there is a problem in the first place. And simply saying--or endlessly repeating--that there is a problem doesn't make it so. To put it another way, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Every objective study to try to detect widespread voter fraud in this country has failed to produce credible evidence of anything but scattered and vanishingly rare cases. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but they are scattered and vanishingly rare cases. Even the overtly partisan so-called ``audit'' of the votes in Maricopa County, AZ, failed to find what they were so desperately looking for--failed to find what they were so desperately looking for. The key question is not whether such fraud exists at all but whether it is so widespread as to change the results of an election involving a substantial number of voters. In the wake of the 2016 election, the President convened a commission to assess this very question, but the commission was disbanded within 8 months with no published finding of significant election fraud whatsoever. That was their mission--to find fraud--and they couldn't find it. Further, as I mentioned, I know of no objective study that has ever concluded that such widespread fraud exists anywhere in our country. Even more compelling is that in spite of Herculean efforts by the former President and his supporters over the course of the months following the 2020 election, no credible evidence has yet been produced to support his allegations, and all of the allegations have been rejected by every court--more than 60. They have been rejected by every court that has considered it. The only fraud here is the allegations themselves. In other words, not only is there no evidence of substantial fraud, what evidence there is reaches the opposite conclusion. But here is the problem; here is what is chilling. Fully, one-third of Americans and two-thirds of members of the Republican Party now believe that the 2020 Presidential election was not legitimate, that there was widespread fraud, and that the election was somehow stolen--not based upon evidence, because there isn't any, but based upon the repeated assertions of the former President and his supporters. The problem with this goes well beyond the wave of voter suppression legislation that is sweeping the country. The deeper problem is the massive and unprecedented erosion of trust in the electoral system itself, the beating heart of our democracy. Of all the depravations of the former President, this is by far the worst. In relentlessly pursuing his narrow self-interest, he has grievously wounded democracy itself. And, by the way, I mean ``narrow self-interest'' quite literally. He doesn't give the slightest damn about any of us, about any of us in this body. He will cast any or all of us aside whenever it suits his needs of the moment. Everyone in this room knows this to be true. The reason this is so destructive is that if you can't trust elections, what are your options? What are your options for making the transcendent decisions upon which our society is based? One is to change the rules to discourage your perceived enemies from voting. Check--that is in the works. Another is to change the rules to give partisan legislators the power to override election results they don't like. Check--also in the works. Another is to contrive pseudo legal arguments to justify the corruption of the counting of electoral votes and then to pressure the Vice President, who presides over the counting of the electoral votes, to join in the scheme. Check--we now know this was very much in the works in the days leading up to January 6. Or, finally, tragically, try to change the results if you don't trust elections through violence or threats of violence. Check--January 6 and death threats to election officials of both parties across the country. January 6 was not a random day on the calendar. It was the day appointed by law to finalize the results of the November election. Many of those who came to Washington that day were not there to protest but were there with the explicit purpose of disrupting and stopping this crucial final step in our democratic process. The rallying cry that day was not ``protest the steal.'' It was ``stop the steal.'' And that is exactly what was attempted in this room on January 6. It is important to remember that most failures of democracy, as we look at history, started with legitimate elections. But once in office, the leader manipulated the electoral process to consolidate their hold on power, just as was attempted last winter. And once power is seized, the control and reach of the modern surveillance state is truly terrifying, truly terrifying. Ask the Uighurs in China or members of the opposition in Russia, if you can find any alive. Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Hungary are all examples of the slide from democracy into authoritarianism that has happened just in our living memory, just in our lifetimes. This is not a theoretical threat. We have seen it already happen in our lifetimes. Those countries still have elections, but they don't mean much. And what if the current wave of voter suppression legislation succeeds and keeps tens or hundreds of thousands ofpeople from voting in 2022 or 2024? Or what if in 2024 a partisan legislature in a swing State--and they are giving themselves this power right now--votes to override the election results in their State and send their own preferred set of electors to Washington? Then it won't just be Republicans who distrust elections, and we will be left with a downward spiral toward a hollow shell of democracy, where only raw power prevails and a peaceful transfer becomes a distant memory. There has been a great deal of talk in recent weeks and months of a possible constitutional crisis in 2022 or 2024. We don't have to wait that long. We are in the midst of such a crisis right now. One of our great political parties has embraced the idea that our last election was fraudulent, that our current President is illegitimate, that they must move legislatures across the country to ``fix'' the results--to ``fix'' the results--of future elections. Here is the part that I think is the most tragic. A substantial portion of our population has lost faith in our democratic system because they have been repeatedly told that something important was stolen from them, even though that is untrue. And that portion of our population seems prepared to accept some version of authoritarianism. All but the most extreme sources of information have been devalued, and violence bubbles just below the surface. But it doesn't have to be this way. We in this body, perhaps more than anyone else in this country, have the power to change direction, to pull our country back from the brink, and to begin the work of restoring our democracy, as we did in the Revolution, as we did in the Civil War, and as we did in the civil rights struggles of 60 years ago--first, by simply telling the truth and then by enacting a set of basic protections of the sacred right to vote. It won't be easy, and it will involve risk. I am aware of that. I understand that. It will be particularly difficult when we are asked to speak hard truths that many of our most ardent supporters don't want to hear. But the alternative is worse, worse even than losing your job in this body. The alternative is the loss of our identity as a people, the loss of the miracle of self-government, the loss of the idea of America. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that we are at a hinge of history, that circumstances have thrust us--those of us in this body--into a moment when the fate of the American experiment hangs in the balance. We are the heirs and trustees--I emphasize ``trustees''--of a tradition that goes back to Jefferson and Lincoln, to Webster, Madison, Margaret Chase Smith, and, yes, our friend John McCain. All of them were partisans in one way or another, but all shared an overriding commitment to the idea that animates the American experiment, the idea that our government is of, by, and for the people--all the people. Lincoln thought that the most important word in the Declaration of Independence was ``all.'' ``All men are created equal''--all, all the people. Now is the moment that we are called upon to reach beyond our region, our State, our party, ourselves to save and reinvigorate the sputtering flame of the American idea. Yes, democracy is an anomaly in world history. We have to remember that what we have is unusual. It is rare, and it is fragile. It rests upon the Constitution and laws, to be sure, but it also rests even more on the trust our people place in our democratic system and in us. Deliberately undermining that trust for short-term political advantage, which is exactly what is happening right now--undermining that trust for political advantage in the short term is exactly what is happening right now--is a tragic and dangerous game. No election, no endorsement, no Senate seat, no Presidency is worth it. Nothing is worth destroying what our forebears fought and died for--nothing. Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of us went to Gettysburg and walked the battlefield with two leaders from the Army War College. I have been there before but have never been so moved by the experience as I was on this trip. The stories of valor and supreme sacrifice--the 20th Maine on Little Round Top, you know that I would mention that; the 1st Minnesota at the exposed center of the Union line; the Iron Brigade on the first day; the colossal losses on both sides, unimaginable losses on both sides in a matter of 3 days--were a sobering reminder of what it took to preserve this country. But we learned something else that day--that it was a near thing. If a Union officer named Strong Vincent had hesitated in moving those three regiments to the top of Little Round Top, or if an officer from Minnesota named William Colvill had hesitated in leading the 1st Minnesota on a suicidal charge--82-percent casualties, a suicidal charge--into the teeth of the Confederate advance, our country would have been lost. It was a near thing. It never had struck me so hard as it did at Gettysburg several weeks ago. And so it is today--a near thing--only, the test is not on the battlefield, and no one here is being asked to give up their lives. We are simply being asked to tell the truth, to recommit to the ideal of democracy, to keep faith with our history and our inheritance. And if we hesitate, all could be lost. This is not speculation. All could be lost. And we now know from the events of January 6 and the relentless attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 election in the last days of the prior administration, it was and still is a near thing. That is what is so chilling and frightening. As it is in the old Protestant hymn I remember from my youth, so it is today: Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. I believe that this is that moment for each of us. The concluding words of Lincoln in his message to Congress in the dark winter of 1862 have never been more apt. They are eerily applicable to us today. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said: Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. In honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. Indeed, destiny has placed us here at one of history's fateful moments. Our response to it will be our most important legacy. Of all the other things that we have done, this moment will be our most important legacy. I believe we all know our responsibility. And whether we like it or not, history will record whether we--each one of us--meets that responsibility. Madam President, may God, working through each of us, save the United States of America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KING | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7082-5 | null | 3,282 |
formal | election integrity | null | racist | Mr. KING. Madam President, the United States of America is an anomaly in world history. We are a 245-year experiment in self-government, which is based upon an idea that was radical in 1776. It was tested at Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, and the Wilderness. It was defended at Anzio, Iwo Jima, and Normandy, and was reaffirmed in 1965. It is an idea that the people--all the people--are the ultimate source of power and can govern themselves through their elected representatives. That was a radical notion in 1776. The historical norm is just the opposite--kings; pharaohs; dictators; czars; warlords; emperors; and, more recently, presidents for life. Throughout most of human history, and right up to the present day, in most countries, the people have little or no say in the decisions that determine their fate. And these rulers are rarely, if ever, beneficent. In fact, again, the historical norm is just the opposite--pervasive corruption, the pursuit of power for its own sake, the crushing of dissent, sham elections, and the abuse or even elimination of anyone not sufficiently loyal or useful to the leader. That is the historical norm. There is nothing surprising about this because it reflects human nature. History fairly shouts at us that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Given the consistent history of this experience--of warlords, dictators, czars, and the abuse of their authority--it is clear that what we are doing, this experiment, is fragile. It is not the norm. It is an anomaly. What we have and take for granted is in no way guaranteed. As has been the case for democratic experiments throughout history, it can fail. Rarely can it fail from external attack. Almost always, democratic experiments fail from erosion from within. On the surface, our democratic system protects us by resting upon our ingenuous Constitution, the primary purpose of which is to establish an effective government while at the same time dividing and dispersing power, and in Madison's evocative phrase: Obliging the government to control itself. And of all the safeguards built into the Constitution--and there are many; two Houses of Congress, vetoes, division of the war power, advise and consent, enumerated powers, Federalism, the Bill of Rights--of all of those protections, the most fundamental and essential is regular elections, the clearest expression of the people's will. For most of my life, I have not really thought much about how elections actually work. You go to the town office or the school gym, they cross your name off on a list, hand you a ballot, and you go into a booth and make yourchoice. You then put the marked ballot into a box or hand it to a clerk--usually it is a volunteer doing their civic duty in my hometown--and then they run it through a counter. Or you can get a mail-in ballot from your town clerk, mark it at home and send it in. Or in my town you can drop it in a drop box anytime of the night or day. It is out in the front of the town office. That is it until later that night, when the results--either from automatic counters or from hand counting the ballots themselves--are announced, precinct by precinct, town by town, city by city, and State by State. And then you go to bed, happy or unhappy, energized or discouraged, either reveling in the victory of your preferred candidates or determined to work harder next time. And thanks to the Framers, there always is a next time, usually in 2 years hence. The next day, you go about your business trusting--trusting--that the system was operating according to the rules and that the announced vote count accurately reflects the preference of you and your fellow citizens. The key word is ``trust.'' The miraculous result of this entire process is something we completely take for granted but is exceedingly rare--exceedingly rare--in human history: the peaceful transfer of power, whether it is the city council, the Congress, or the Presidency itself. But two interrelated things are happening right now with regard to this system that are unprecedented in my lifetime and have caused me to worry as I never have before about the future of my country. These two things are profoundly dangerous to our fragile Republic. One is the breakdown of trust in the system itself and the other is an overtly partisan attempt to use this loss of trust as a pretext to change the results of future elections by limiting the participation of voters deemed unworthy--although that is rarely said out loud--or unlikely to vote for your particular political party. This discussion is usually framed in terms of election integrity--the prevention of widespread voter fraud--which it is argued is tainting the outcome of our elections. Unfortunately, these so-called election integrity measures almost invariably end up limiting the participation of a substantial number of voters, many of whom have historically been denied the right to vote by one device or another for over 100 years. It is limiting that participation either as inadvertent collateral damage or, more likely, as stone-cold partisan voter suppression. When I used to interact with the main legislature either as a private citizen for many years or as Governor, the inevitable first question from the chair of the committee was: What is the problem we are trying to solve here? You want to change the law; what is the problem we are trying to solve? In this case, is the problem really voter fraud, or is it election results the party in power in a particular State doesn't like? The implicit burden that this question puts upon those who would change a law is to demonstrate by some reasonable and credible evidence that there is a problem in the first place. And simply saying--or endlessly repeating--that there is a problem doesn't make it so. To put it another way, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Every objective study to try to detect widespread voter fraud in this country has failed to produce credible evidence of anything but scattered and vanishingly rare cases. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but they are scattered and vanishingly rare cases. Even the overtly partisan so-called ``audit'' of the votes in Maricopa County, AZ, failed to find what they were so desperately looking for--failed to find what they were so desperately looking for. The key question is not whether such fraud exists at all but whether it is so widespread as to change the results of an election involving a substantial number of voters. In the wake of the 2016 election, the President convened a commission to assess this very question, but the commission was disbanded within 8 months with no published finding of significant election fraud whatsoever. That was their mission--to find fraud--and they couldn't find it. Further, as I mentioned, I know of no objective study that has ever concluded that such widespread fraud exists anywhere in our country. Even more compelling is that in spite of Herculean efforts by the former President and his supporters over the course of the months following the 2020 election, no credible evidence has yet been produced to support his allegations, and all of the allegations have been rejected by every court--more than 60. They have been rejected by every court that has considered it. The only fraud here is the allegations themselves. In other words, not only is there no evidence of substantial fraud, what evidence there is reaches the opposite conclusion. But here is the problem; here is what is chilling. Fully, one-third of Americans and two-thirds of members of the Republican Party now believe that the 2020 Presidential election was not legitimate, that there was widespread fraud, and that the election was somehow stolen--not based upon evidence, because there isn't any, but based upon the repeated assertions of the former President and his supporters. The problem with this goes well beyond the wave of voter suppression legislation that is sweeping the country. The deeper problem is the massive and unprecedented erosion of trust in the electoral system itself, the beating heart of our democracy. Of all the depravations of the former President, this is by far the worst. In relentlessly pursuing his narrow self-interest, he has grievously wounded democracy itself. And, by the way, I mean ``narrow self-interest'' quite literally. He doesn't give the slightest damn about any of us, about any of us in this body. He will cast any or all of us aside whenever it suits his needs of the moment. Everyone in this room knows this to be true. The reason this is so destructive is that if you can't trust elections, what are your options? What are your options for making the transcendent decisions upon which our society is based? One is to change the rules to discourage your perceived enemies from voting. Check--that is in the works. Another is to change the rules to give partisan legislators the power to override election results they don't like. Check--also in the works. Another is to contrive pseudo legal arguments to justify the corruption of the counting of electoral votes and then to pressure the Vice President, who presides over the counting of the electoral votes, to join in the scheme. Check--we now know this was very much in the works in the days leading up to January 6. Or, finally, tragically, try to change the results if you don't trust elections through violence or threats of violence. Check--January 6 and death threats to election officials of both parties across the country. January 6 was not a random day on the calendar. It was the day appointed by law to finalize the results of the November election. Many of those who came to Washington that day were not there to protest but were there with the explicit purpose of disrupting and stopping this crucial final step in our democratic process. The rallying cry that day was not ``protest the steal.'' It was ``stop the steal.'' And that is exactly what was attempted in this room on January 6. It is important to remember that most failures of democracy, as we look at history, started with legitimate elections. But once in office, the leader manipulated the electoral process to consolidate their hold on power, just as was attempted last winter. And once power is seized, the control and reach of the modern surveillance state is truly terrifying, truly terrifying. Ask the Uighurs in China or members of the opposition in Russia, if you can find any alive. Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Hungary are all examples of the slide from democracy into authoritarianism that has happened just in our living memory, just in our lifetimes. This is not a theoretical threat. We have seen it already happen in our lifetimes. Those countries still have elections, but they don't mean much. And what if the current wave of voter suppression legislation succeeds and keeps tens or hundreds of thousands ofpeople from voting in 2022 or 2024? Or what if in 2024 a partisan legislature in a swing State--and they are giving themselves this power right now--votes to override the election results in their State and send their own preferred set of electors to Washington? Then it won't just be Republicans who distrust elections, and we will be left with a downward spiral toward a hollow shell of democracy, where only raw power prevails and a peaceful transfer becomes a distant memory. There has been a great deal of talk in recent weeks and months of a possible constitutional crisis in 2022 or 2024. We don't have to wait that long. We are in the midst of such a crisis right now. One of our great political parties has embraced the idea that our last election was fraudulent, that our current President is illegitimate, that they must move legislatures across the country to ``fix'' the results--to ``fix'' the results--of future elections. Here is the part that I think is the most tragic. A substantial portion of our population has lost faith in our democratic system because they have been repeatedly told that something important was stolen from them, even though that is untrue. And that portion of our population seems prepared to accept some version of authoritarianism. All but the most extreme sources of information have been devalued, and violence bubbles just below the surface. But it doesn't have to be this way. We in this body, perhaps more than anyone else in this country, have the power to change direction, to pull our country back from the brink, and to begin the work of restoring our democracy, as we did in the Revolution, as we did in the Civil War, and as we did in the civil rights struggles of 60 years ago--first, by simply telling the truth and then by enacting a set of basic protections of the sacred right to vote. It won't be easy, and it will involve risk. I am aware of that. I understand that. It will be particularly difficult when we are asked to speak hard truths that many of our most ardent supporters don't want to hear. But the alternative is worse, worse even than losing your job in this body. The alternative is the loss of our identity as a people, the loss of the miracle of self-government, the loss of the idea of America. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that we are at a hinge of history, that circumstances have thrust us--those of us in this body--into a moment when the fate of the American experiment hangs in the balance. We are the heirs and trustees--I emphasize ``trustees''--of a tradition that goes back to Jefferson and Lincoln, to Webster, Madison, Margaret Chase Smith, and, yes, our friend John McCain. All of them were partisans in one way or another, but all shared an overriding commitment to the idea that animates the American experiment, the idea that our government is of, by, and for the people--all the people. Lincoln thought that the most important word in the Declaration of Independence was ``all.'' ``All men are created equal''--all, all the people. Now is the moment that we are called upon to reach beyond our region, our State, our party, ourselves to save and reinvigorate the sputtering flame of the American idea. Yes, democracy is an anomaly in world history. We have to remember that what we have is unusual. It is rare, and it is fragile. It rests upon the Constitution and laws, to be sure, but it also rests even more on the trust our people place in our democratic system and in us. Deliberately undermining that trust for short-term political advantage, which is exactly what is happening right now--undermining that trust for political advantage in the short term is exactly what is happening right now--is a tragic and dangerous game. No election, no endorsement, no Senate seat, no Presidency is worth it. Nothing is worth destroying what our forebears fought and died for--nothing. Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of us went to Gettysburg and walked the battlefield with two leaders from the Army War College. I have been there before but have never been so moved by the experience as I was on this trip. The stories of valor and supreme sacrifice--the 20th Maine on Little Round Top, you know that I would mention that; the 1st Minnesota at the exposed center of the Union line; the Iron Brigade on the first day; the colossal losses on both sides, unimaginable losses on both sides in a matter of 3 days--were a sobering reminder of what it took to preserve this country. But we learned something else that day--that it was a near thing. If a Union officer named Strong Vincent had hesitated in moving those three regiments to the top of Little Round Top, or if an officer from Minnesota named William Colvill had hesitated in leading the 1st Minnesota on a suicidal charge--82-percent casualties, a suicidal charge--into the teeth of the Confederate advance, our country would have been lost. It was a near thing. It never had struck me so hard as it did at Gettysburg several weeks ago. And so it is today--a near thing--only, the test is not on the battlefield, and no one here is being asked to give up their lives. We are simply being asked to tell the truth, to recommit to the ideal of democracy, to keep faith with our history and our inheritance. And if we hesitate, all could be lost. This is not speculation. All could be lost. And we now know from the events of January 6 and the relentless attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 election in the last days of the prior administration, it was and still is a near thing. That is what is so chilling and frightening. As it is in the old Protestant hymn I remember from my youth, so it is today: Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. I believe that this is that moment for each of us. The concluding words of Lincoln in his message to Congress in the dark winter of 1862 have never been more apt. They are eerily applicable to us today. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said: Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. In honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. Indeed, destiny has placed us here at one of history's fateful moments. Our response to it will be our most important legacy. Of all the other things that we have done, this moment will be our most important legacy. I believe we all know our responsibility. And whether we like it or not, history will record whether we--each one of us--meets that responsibility. Madam President, may God, working through each of us, save the United States of America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KING | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7082-5 | null | 3,283 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mr. KING. Madam President, the United States of America is an anomaly in world history. We are a 245-year experiment in self-government, which is based upon an idea that was radical in 1776. It was tested at Gettysburg, Antietam, Shiloh, and the Wilderness. It was defended at Anzio, Iwo Jima, and Normandy, and was reaffirmed in 1965. It is an idea that the people--all the people--are the ultimate source of power and can govern themselves through their elected representatives. That was a radical notion in 1776. The historical norm is just the opposite--kings; pharaohs; dictators; czars; warlords; emperors; and, more recently, presidents for life. Throughout most of human history, and right up to the present day, in most countries, the people have little or no say in the decisions that determine their fate. And these rulers are rarely, if ever, beneficent. In fact, again, the historical norm is just the opposite--pervasive corruption, the pursuit of power for its own sake, the crushing of dissent, sham elections, and the abuse or even elimination of anyone not sufficiently loyal or useful to the leader. That is the historical norm. There is nothing surprising about this because it reflects human nature. History fairly shouts at us that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Given the consistent history of this experience--of warlords, dictators, czars, and the abuse of their authority--it is clear that what we are doing, this experiment, is fragile. It is not the norm. It is an anomaly. What we have and take for granted is in no way guaranteed. As has been the case for democratic experiments throughout history, it can fail. Rarely can it fail from external attack. Almost always, democratic experiments fail from erosion from within. On the surface, our democratic system protects us by resting upon our ingenuous Constitution, the primary purpose of which is to establish an effective government while at the same time dividing and dispersing power, and in Madison's evocative phrase: Obliging the government to control itself. And of all the safeguards built into the Constitution--and there are many; two Houses of Congress, vetoes, division of the war power, advise and consent, enumerated powers, Federalism, the Bill of Rights--of all of those protections, the most fundamental and essential is regular elections, the clearest expression of the people's will. For most of my life, I have not really thought much about how elections actually work. You go to the town office or the school gym, they cross your name off on a list, hand you a ballot, and you go into a booth and make yourchoice. You then put the marked ballot into a box or hand it to a clerk--usually it is a volunteer doing their civic duty in my hometown--and then they run it through a counter. Or you can get a mail-in ballot from your town clerk, mark it at home and send it in. Or in my town you can drop it in a drop box anytime of the night or day. It is out in the front of the town office. That is it until later that night, when the results--either from automatic counters or from hand counting the ballots themselves--are announced, precinct by precinct, town by town, city by city, and State by State. And then you go to bed, happy or unhappy, energized or discouraged, either reveling in the victory of your preferred candidates or determined to work harder next time. And thanks to the Framers, there always is a next time, usually in 2 years hence. The next day, you go about your business trusting--trusting--that the system was operating according to the rules and that the announced vote count accurately reflects the preference of you and your fellow citizens. The key word is ``trust.'' The miraculous result of this entire process is something we completely take for granted but is exceedingly rare--exceedingly rare--in human history: the peaceful transfer of power, whether it is the city council, the Congress, or the Presidency itself. But two interrelated things are happening right now with regard to this system that are unprecedented in my lifetime and have caused me to worry as I never have before about the future of my country. These two things are profoundly dangerous to our fragile Republic. One is the breakdown of trust in the system itself and the other is an overtly partisan attempt to use this loss of trust as a pretext to change the results of future elections by limiting the participation of voters deemed unworthy--although that is rarely said out loud--or unlikely to vote for your particular political party. This discussion is usually framed in terms of election integrity--the prevention of widespread voter fraud--which it is argued is tainting the outcome of our elections. Unfortunately, these so-called election integrity measures almost invariably end up limiting the participation of a substantial number of voters, many of whom have historically been denied the right to vote by one device or another for over 100 years. It is limiting that participation either as inadvertent collateral damage or, more likely, as stone-cold partisan voter suppression. When I used to interact with the main legislature either as a private citizen for many years or as Governor, the inevitable first question from the chair of the committee was: What is the problem we are trying to solve here? You want to change the law; what is the problem we are trying to solve? In this case, is the problem really voter fraud, or is it election results the party in power in a particular State doesn't like? The implicit burden that this question puts upon those who would change a law is to demonstrate by some reasonable and credible evidence that there is a problem in the first place. And simply saying--or endlessly repeating--that there is a problem doesn't make it so. To put it another way, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Every objective study to try to detect widespread voter fraud in this country has failed to produce credible evidence of anything but scattered and vanishingly rare cases. I am not saying it doesn't exist, but they are scattered and vanishingly rare cases. Even the overtly partisan so-called ``audit'' of the votes in Maricopa County, AZ, failed to find what they were so desperately looking for--failed to find what they were so desperately looking for. The key question is not whether such fraud exists at all but whether it is so widespread as to change the results of an election involving a substantial number of voters. In the wake of the 2016 election, the President convened a commission to assess this very question, but the commission was disbanded within 8 months with no published finding of significant election fraud whatsoever. That was their mission--to find fraud--and they couldn't find it. Further, as I mentioned, I know of no objective study that has ever concluded that such widespread fraud exists anywhere in our country. Even more compelling is that in spite of Herculean efforts by the former President and his supporters over the course of the months following the 2020 election, no credible evidence has yet been produced to support his allegations, and all of the allegations have been rejected by every court--more than 60. They have been rejected by every court that has considered it. The only fraud here is the allegations themselves. In other words, not only is there no evidence of substantial fraud, what evidence there is reaches the opposite conclusion. But here is the problem; here is what is chilling. Fully, one-third of Americans and two-thirds of members of the Republican Party now believe that the 2020 Presidential election was not legitimate, that there was widespread fraud, and that the election was somehow stolen--not based upon evidence, because there isn't any, but based upon the repeated assertions of the former President and his supporters. The problem with this goes well beyond the wave of voter suppression legislation that is sweeping the country. The deeper problem is the massive and unprecedented erosion of trust in the electoral system itself, the beating heart of our democracy. Of all the depravations of the former President, this is by far the worst. In relentlessly pursuing his narrow self-interest, he has grievously wounded democracy itself. And, by the way, I mean ``narrow self-interest'' quite literally. He doesn't give the slightest damn about any of us, about any of us in this body. He will cast any or all of us aside whenever it suits his needs of the moment. Everyone in this room knows this to be true. The reason this is so destructive is that if you can't trust elections, what are your options? What are your options for making the transcendent decisions upon which our society is based? One is to change the rules to discourage your perceived enemies from voting. Check--that is in the works. Another is to change the rules to give partisan legislators the power to override election results they don't like. Check--also in the works. Another is to contrive pseudo legal arguments to justify the corruption of the counting of electoral votes and then to pressure the Vice President, who presides over the counting of the electoral votes, to join in the scheme. Check--we now know this was very much in the works in the days leading up to January 6. Or, finally, tragically, try to change the results if you don't trust elections through violence or threats of violence. Check--January 6 and death threats to election officials of both parties across the country. January 6 was not a random day on the calendar. It was the day appointed by law to finalize the results of the November election. Many of those who came to Washington that day were not there to protest but were there with the explicit purpose of disrupting and stopping this crucial final step in our democratic process. The rallying cry that day was not ``protest the steal.'' It was ``stop the steal.'' And that is exactly what was attempted in this room on January 6. It is important to remember that most failures of democracy, as we look at history, started with legitimate elections. But once in office, the leader manipulated the electoral process to consolidate their hold on power, just as was attempted last winter. And once power is seized, the control and reach of the modern surveillance state is truly terrifying, truly terrifying. Ask the Uighurs in China or members of the opposition in Russia, if you can find any alive. Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and Hungary are all examples of the slide from democracy into authoritarianism that has happened just in our living memory, just in our lifetimes. This is not a theoretical threat. We have seen it already happen in our lifetimes. Those countries still have elections, but they don't mean much. And what if the current wave of voter suppression legislation succeeds and keeps tens or hundreds of thousands ofpeople from voting in 2022 or 2024? Or what if in 2024 a partisan legislature in a swing State--and they are giving themselves this power right now--votes to override the election results in their State and send their own preferred set of electors to Washington? Then it won't just be Republicans who distrust elections, and we will be left with a downward spiral toward a hollow shell of democracy, where only raw power prevails and a peaceful transfer becomes a distant memory. There has been a great deal of talk in recent weeks and months of a possible constitutional crisis in 2022 or 2024. We don't have to wait that long. We are in the midst of such a crisis right now. One of our great political parties has embraced the idea that our last election was fraudulent, that our current President is illegitimate, that they must move legislatures across the country to ``fix'' the results--to ``fix'' the results--of future elections. Here is the part that I think is the most tragic. A substantial portion of our population has lost faith in our democratic system because they have been repeatedly told that something important was stolen from them, even though that is untrue. And that portion of our population seems prepared to accept some version of authoritarianism. All but the most extreme sources of information have been devalued, and violence bubbles just below the surface. But it doesn't have to be this way. We in this body, perhaps more than anyone else in this country, have the power to change direction, to pull our country back from the brink, and to begin the work of restoring our democracy, as we did in the Revolution, as we did in the Civil War, and as we did in the civil rights struggles of 60 years ago--first, by simply telling the truth and then by enacting a set of basic protections of the sacred right to vote. It won't be easy, and it will involve risk. I am aware of that. I understand that. It will be particularly difficult when we are asked to speak hard truths that many of our most ardent supporters don't want to hear. But the alternative is worse, worse even than losing your job in this body. The alternative is the loss of our identity as a people, the loss of the miracle of self-government, the loss of the idea of America. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that we are at a hinge of history, that circumstances have thrust us--those of us in this body--into a moment when the fate of the American experiment hangs in the balance. We are the heirs and trustees--I emphasize ``trustees''--of a tradition that goes back to Jefferson and Lincoln, to Webster, Madison, Margaret Chase Smith, and, yes, our friend John McCain. All of them were partisans in one way or another, but all shared an overriding commitment to the idea that animates the American experiment, the idea that our government is of, by, and for the people--all the people. Lincoln thought that the most important word in the Declaration of Independence was ``all.'' ``All men are created equal''--all, all the people. Now is the moment that we are called upon to reach beyond our region, our State, our party, ourselves to save and reinvigorate the sputtering flame of the American idea. Yes, democracy is an anomaly in world history. We have to remember that what we have is unusual. It is rare, and it is fragile. It rests upon the Constitution and laws, to be sure, but it also rests even more on the trust our people place in our democratic system and in us. Deliberately undermining that trust for short-term political advantage, which is exactly what is happening right now--undermining that trust for political advantage in the short term is exactly what is happening right now--is a tragic and dangerous game. No election, no endorsement, no Senate seat, no Presidency is worth it. Nothing is worth destroying what our forebears fought and died for--nothing. Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of us went to Gettysburg and walked the battlefield with two leaders from the Army War College. I have been there before but have never been so moved by the experience as I was on this trip. The stories of valor and supreme sacrifice--the 20th Maine on Little Round Top, you know that I would mention that; the 1st Minnesota at the exposed center of the Union line; the Iron Brigade on the first day; the colossal losses on both sides, unimaginable losses on both sides in a matter of 3 days--were a sobering reminder of what it took to preserve this country. But we learned something else that day--that it was a near thing. If a Union officer named Strong Vincent had hesitated in moving those three regiments to the top of Little Round Top, or if an officer from Minnesota named William Colvill had hesitated in leading the 1st Minnesota on a suicidal charge--82-percent casualties, a suicidal charge--into the teeth of the Confederate advance, our country would have been lost. It was a near thing. It never had struck me so hard as it did at Gettysburg several weeks ago. And so it is today--a near thing--only, the test is not on the battlefield, and no one here is being asked to give up their lives. We are simply being asked to tell the truth, to recommit to the ideal of democracy, to keep faith with our history and our inheritance. And if we hesitate, all could be lost. This is not speculation. All could be lost. And we now know from the events of January 6 and the relentless attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 election in the last days of the prior administration, it was and still is a near thing. That is what is so chilling and frightening. As it is in the old Protestant hymn I remember from my youth, so it is today: Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide. I believe that this is that moment for each of us. The concluding words of Lincoln in his message to Congress in the dark winter of 1862 have never been more apt. They are eerily applicable to us today. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said: Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. In honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. Indeed, destiny has placed us here at one of history's fateful moments. Our response to it will be our most important legacy. Of all the other things that we have done, this moment will be our most important legacy. I believe we all know our responsibility. And whether we like it or not, history will record whether we--each one of us--meets that responsibility. Madam President, may God, working through each of us, save the United States of America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KING | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7082-5 | null | 3,284 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor this evening to talk about the troubling state of our economy today and what needs to be done to get it back on track. The Labor Department reported last week that the consumer price index, CPI, rose by 5.4 percent on an annualized basis. That accounts for the largest year-to-year inflationary increase in 13 years. And we are feeling it. There is no question inflation is on the rise. We are paying more for everything--from groceries, to buying furniture, to cars, even pumpkins for Halloween. Yes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture just told us that pumpkins, year to year, are going to see an, on average, 15.7-percent increase in prices. So you might have to get a little smaller pumpkin this year. And, of course, we are paying more at the pump, on average, a staggering 42-percent increase this year--42-percent increase. This is both because of increased demand but also because there is less supply as the new administration, the Biden administration, has put more regulations or handcuffs on American energy production. And don't forget the higher heating bills, about 25 percent higher this year as compared to last year. Just as this cooler weather begins to come in, we are all going to be paying more on our utility bills, particularly for natural gas. If all this isn't bad enough, workers' wages are not keeping up with these price spikes. I love to see wages goingup, but honestly, if you look at the data, it says that since President Biden took office, wages after inflation, adjusted for inflation, are down almost 2 percent--1.9 percent lower. Remember, before the pandemic started, in February of 2020, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of 3 percent or more on an annualized basis, well above inflation. Now, we are seeing just the opposite. This means a pay cut to the middle class. The damaging effect of this hidden inflation is, in part, the result of actions that were taken by the Biden administration and by Democrats here in Congress to overheat the economy through unprecedented levels of government spending. What do I mean by that? Well, you will recall that economist and former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Larry Summers, said earlier this year, as Democrats were talking about this huge new spending bill that they ended up passing without a single Republican input or vote in March, he said: If you do this, it is going to cause inflation. He warned about it because he had seen this movie before. When you have got an economy that is already improving and you overheat it with massive amounts of stimulus--remember, the $1.9 trillion that was spent in March was the highest level ever spent. It was the biggest program ever passed by either House of Congress, $1.9 trillion. We forget how much money that is. He recognized that this bill contained billions in stimulus money, social service spending, the stimulus checks. And those were going to fuel the demand side of the economy. And they did--not just the stimulus checks but other things as well: COVID funds to all kinds of institutions, a continuing generous unemployment supplement that paid 42 percent of American workers more to go on unemployment than to go back to work. All of this added up to a huge influx of social spending, government spending--borrowed money but government spending--into the economy that everyone who was looking at it objectively, I believe, knew was going to be a problem. Earlier this year, before the Democrats passed this $1.9 trillion spending bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office here on Capitol Hill told us that the economy was already recovering, and that is what outside economists were saying as well. Everybody was looking at the economy and saying, you know, in January, February, going into March, the economy was improving nicely. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office--again, nonpartisan group up here--said the economy is going to get back to its prepandemic level by midyear, by June 30. And it did. The stimulus was really poorly timed. Instead of allowing the recovery to continue steadily, it effectively poured fuel on an already hot economy, which led to the surging inflation we are seeing now. The White House likes to say that the inflation we are experiencing is transitory. That is the word that they have been using; in other words, it will pass--as Congress passes more legislation to fix the economy, I suppose. Unfortunately, it has not been transitory. And I haven't seen anybody who is looking at this objectively say that it will be transitory. In fact, I saw an analysis today from an outside group, a nonpartisan group, that said they are, unfortunately, convinced that this high inflation is going to continue next year as well. I hope that is not true, but that seems to be the consensus. Economists across the spectrum, even the International Monetary Fund, are now saying that rising inflation is dampening future economic growth. You would think all of this would cause a policy shift by the administration, a pulling back on the stimulus, doing things to actually help on the supply side of the economy. But rather than changing course from the policies that contributed to this high inflation and this demand-side stimulus, Democrats want to double down with a $3.5-trillion-plus massive tax-and-spending spree that would spend trillions to fund social programs, expand government entitlements, and encourage more consumer demand, fueling more inflation. What makes this proposal even more concerning is Democrats want to pay for it by hurting the economy more with big tax increases. Some say it is the biggest tax increase in 50 years. Some say it is the largest tax increase in history. It depends, I guess, where they end up. But we know it will increase taxes on pretty much everybody. The Joint Committee on Taxation has done an analysis and said, yes, it is going to increase taxes on middle-income workers. Why? Because it increases taxes on businesses and they say that about 70 percent of that tax increase will be borne by workers. That is, again, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. So it is taxes not just on businesses, large and small, but it is also on workers, on farmers, on manufacturers. This increased spending, combined with job-killing tax increases, could lead to the kind of stagflation, low growth, high interest rates, high inflation that we had back in the 1970s. We hoped never to see that again; yet if we don't change course, we could be heading toward that direction. It is the last thing our economy needs right now. But surging consumer demand is not the only factor driving our current inflation crisis. The other main culprit is that we are facing a shortage of goods due to a global supply chain crisis. Almost anyone you talk to will tell you they have had some kind of shipping delay due to these supply chain issues. There are contractors you probably know who can't get lumber, can't get steel to be able to finish a building, a home. There are plenty of parents out there right now waiting to get their kid a gift for their birthday, only to find out that, no matter how much they pay, it is going to arrive not for the birthday but maybe 2 or 3 months later. These issues are clearly visible if you look at our seaports, which are often the main connecter between our country and the main global supply chain, consisting of manufacturers often in Asia, sometimes in China. Just last week, there were about 60 or 70 ships in a holding pattern near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA. Think about that: 60 or 70 huge container ships just in a holding pattern, not being able to get in. And even when the shipping containers are taken on shore, by the way, there aren't enough trucks to pick them up. So the containers are staying at the port. There aren't enough truck drivers because of the labor shortage. By the way, that is driven in part by this increased demand but in part by some of the rules and regulations around those transportation logistics and truckers. Between bottlenecks and backlogs at our ports and challenges in transporting freight, there is real trouble for our supply chains just as we come into the holiday season, which is typically, of course, when people do most of their shopping. One reason for this global supply chain crisis is the ripple effects of COVID-19. No question about that. When factories shut down their operations to stem the flow of COVID among their workers, assembly lines sometimes stopped working altogether and created the shortage of goods and materials. The companies that work in the shipping industry also were hit hard by the pandemic and had some of their operations negatively impacted. But then the pent-up demand for goods and services kicked in, and, again, much more demand was created by the $1.9 trillion spending bill in March of this year than would have been normal. So, yeah, you had some of these factories shutting down; you had essential workers still working; but you had less production and then all of a sudden this big surge and, therefore, the bottleneck. Some in the Biden administration have said that this inflation and supply chain bottleneck is a problem for the rich. I don't see it that way. If they think that, they ought to talk to the factory workers I talked to in Ohio whose wages are being eaten up by inflation. I think they should say that to the mother or father who is having to ask their kid what gift they want for Christmas 2 or 3 months ahead of time. In fact, it is too late already to get some gifts for Christmas even now. A recent college graduate who is trying to fill her car up with gas to get to work--tell it to her that this is a problem for the rich--a 42-percent increase in gas prices this year. The supply chain is like any other chain. If you have one weak link, it is enough to cause the whole thing to fall apart, and that is exactly what has happened, and it is happening at the worst possible time. Part of the near-term solution is to stop any new stimulus spending. That is not what is needed right now in the economy. It is just terrible timing. And stop the new tax increases because that is also what we don't need in our economy right now. We don't want to make America and American workers less competitive; we want to do just the opposite. And part of the long-term solution to prevent a similar crisis from happening in the future is to shore up our supply chains. Instead of being so reliant on manufacturers from places like China, bring the manufacturing home; reshore it; invest more in production here in the United States. In the process, create more domestic manufacturing and transport jobs and greater supply chain security. I think that is going to start happening. If you look at the cost to bring a product from Asia to the United States now, it has skyrocketed. That gives us a competitive advantage. The market is here. We ought to bring the manufacturing here as well. Another solution is to improve our Nation's infrastructure. Targeted investments in increasing the capacity and operability of our ports, our waterways, fixing our roads and bridges, improving our railways, that all makes sense. For decades, we have neglected our infrastructure needs. Every President, by the way, in modern times has said that. You know, the society of engineers who look at our infrastructure says that we have a grade of somewhere between D-plus and C-minus in this country. We are falling behind other countries. Other countries spend a lot more as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure. And it has been recognized. Really, every President since from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump has said: Let's make a significant investment in infrastructure. Yet we didn't do it. We neglected our infrastructure. We have neglected our ports, and that is why they are so inefficient today in part and one reason we are having to pay the price. The good news is that right now there is a bipartisan infrastructure package awaiting passage in the House of Representatives to address this and other problems. It is called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This is the bill that passed the U.S. Senate here in August with a 69-vote majority. That doesn't happen very often around here, particularly with big, important legislation like that. It was bipartisan from the start. It was passed with the support of Republicans here in this Chamber, Democrats in this Chamber, and, most importantly, the American people who think it is a really good idea. Economists think it is a good idea, too, because it improves the efficiency of our economy. Think about it. The bridge that is holding up traffic right now in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, every day--a massive bridge where I-71 and 75 come together--it is a huge hit to our economy. It is also a huge safety problem. Fixing that bridge has been something people talked about for 30 years. It is time to do it, and we will do it if we can get this infrastructure bill passed. It will also create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in industries ranging from construction and plumbing to electrical engineering and software development, with one recent study from the Association of Equipment Manufacturers finding that the legislation will create about a half a million jobs. It will also help address issues at our ports by providing increased funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program, investments in our freight system through rail and waterway and highway and air freight investments. So it actually addresses a real problem we have right now. By the way, these investments are long-term investments. It won't be a lot of money spent in the next year or so; it will be a lot of money, though, spent over the next 5, 10, 15 years to improve this infrastructure. And they will be long-term assets that will last for decades. So it is a different kind of spending than the stimulus spending. All of this will help improve the movement of goods throughout our country. That is why every business group in America is supporting this legislation, not just the chamber of commerce but every group out there--by the way, as well as all the agriculture groups. Over 30 ag groups, including the American Farm Bureau, are supporting this legislation. It is why a lot of the union members are supporting it too. In fact, the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council is strongly in support of this legislation because they know it is going to create good-paying jobs, good benefits, allowing people to get out there and build things. Even more importantly, to me, given the recent economic news we have seen, this proposal will not cause inflation to increase. Why? Because it is spending on the supply side rather than the demand side of the economy, as economists would say. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, now head of the American Action Forum, and Michael Strain, who is the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, also a conservative scholar, have said that our bipartisan infrastructure package will slow down inflation. They said: Improving roads, bridges, and ports would make it less costly for businesses to operate, allowing them to increase their output per hour and putting downward pressure on consumer prices. Again, this is long-term spending capital assets. It makes the economy more efficient; therefore, more productive. That is counterinflationary. So this is the right time to do this kind of project. To me, this bill makes all the sense in the world, given the trouble and uncertain stage of our economy. It gets relief to our supply chains. It makes long-term investments in hard assets that do boost our productivity in this country. It has a counterinflationary effect on the economy. So why hasn't it passed? What is the problem? Again, it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate. Well, unfortunately, the answer is politics. Democrats in the House of Representatives want to do everything they can to tie their big $3.5 trillion-plus tax-and-spend bill we talked about earlier to the infrastructure investment because they know that is the only way their partisan bill is going to get the votes needed to pass. So they held it hostage. Hard-core progressives don't like the bipartisan infrastructure bill because it doesn't have the tax increases; it doesn't haven't the Green New Deal policies; it doesn't have all the new social spending programs that are in this reconciliation bill that they really want. But holding this investment in infrastructure hostage to this larger tax-and-spend bill is just wrong. It is playing politics. And it is playing politics with the American people. It is also counter to the pledge that President Biden made to the bipartisan group that negotiated this agreement and made to the American people. President Biden supports this infrastructure legislation. He said he didn't get everything he wanted. Nobody did. But he supports it. He wants it to move forward. And he pledged to keep it separate--separate--from the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill, and yet what you see in the House is just the opposite. It is not fair to the American people. They deserve to have the opportunity to have the infrastructure bill be voted on its own merits. Let it rise or fall on its own merits. Don't tie it to something else. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised it would come to the House floor about 6 weeks ago. She promised that to the so-called Democrat moderates in the House, and it didn't come to the floor. Then she promised it would come to the floor 3 weeks ago. It didn't come to the floor for a vote. Now she said, on October 2, that October 31 is the date. That is Halloween. That is a Sunday. But that is fine. We can vote on Sundays, even on Halloween. It is so important, we ought to do it--and do it. It is past time to take this bill to the floor of the House and let it be judged on its own merits. If passed, it will strengthen our economy over the long term and have a positive impact on the lives of every single American. It is counterinflationary. It makes our economy more efficient. It adds to,again, the supply side, allowing us to see not just a short-term boost but a longer term boost to our economy. And wouldn't it be nice to pass something that makes sense around here that is bipartisan? Instead of jamming Republicans and the country with another reckless spending bill and raising taxes on this uncertain economy, let's focus on the infrastructure bill that addresses real problems we face today. We could use a sensible, bipartisan success right now, all of us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7084 | null | 3,285 |
formal | government spending | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor this evening to talk about the troubling state of our economy today and what needs to be done to get it back on track. The Labor Department reported last week that the consumer price index, CPI, rose by 5.4 percent on an annualized basis. That accounts for the largest year-to-year inflationary increase in 13 years. And we are feeling it. There is no question inflation is on the rise. We are paying more for everything--from groceries, to buying furniture, to cars, even pumpkins for Halloween. Yes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture just told us that pumpkins, year to year, are going to see an, on average, 15.7-percent increase in prices. So you might have to get a little smaller pumpkin this year. And, of course, we are paying more at the pump, on average, a staggering 42-percent increase this year--42-percent increase. This is both because of increased demand but also because there is less supply as the new administration, the Biden administration, has put more regulations or handcuffs on American energy production. And don't forget the higher heating bills, about 25 percent higher this year as compared to last year. Just as this cooler weather begins to come in, we are all going to be paying more on our utility bills, particularly for natural gas. If all this isn't bad enough, workers' wages are not keeping up with these price spikes. I love to see wages goingup, but honestly, if you look at the data, it says that since President Biden took office, wages after inflation, adjusted for inflation, are down almost 2 percent--1.9 percent lower. Remember, before the pandemic started, in February of 2020, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of 3 percent or more on an annualized basis, well above inflation. Now, we are seeing just the opposite. This means a pay cut to the middle class. The damaging effect of this hidden inflation is, in part, the result of actions that were taken by the Biden administration and by Democrats here in Congress to overheat the economy through unprecedented levels of government spending. What do I mean by that? Well, you will recall that economist and former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Larry Summers, said earlier this year, as Democrats were talking about this huge new spending bill that they ended up passing without a single Republican input or vote in March, he said: If you do this, it is going to cause inflation. He warned about it because he had seen this movie before. When you have got an economy that is already improving and you overheat it with massive amounts of stimulus--remember, the $1.9 trillion that was spent in March was the highest level ever spent. It was the biggest program ever passed by either House of Congress, $1.9 trillion. We forget how much money that is. He recognized that this bill contained billions in stimulus money, social service spending, the stimulus checks. And those were going to fuel the demand side of the economy. And they did--not just the stimulus checks but other things as well: COVID funds to all kinds of institutions, a continuing generous unemployment supplement that paid 42 percent of American workers more to go on unemployment than to go back to work. All of this added up to a huge influx of social spending, government spending--borrowed money but government spending--into the economy that everyone who was looking at it objectively, I believe, knew was going to be a problem. Earlier this year, before the Democrats passed this $1.9 trillion spending bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office here on Capitol Hill told us that the economy was already recovering, and that is what outside economists were saying as well. Everybody was looking at the economy and saying, you know, in January, February, going into March, the economy was improving nicely. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office--again, nonpartisan group up here--said the economy is going to get back to its prepandemic level by midyear, by June 30. And it did. The stimulus was really poorly timed. Instead of allowing the recovery to continue steadily, it effectively poured fuel on an already hot economy, which led to the surging inflation we are seeing now. The White House likes to say that the inflation we are experiencing is transitory. That is the word that they have been using; in other words, it will pass--as Congress passes more legislation to fix the economy, I suppose. Unfortunately, it has not been transitory. And I haven't seen anybody who is looking at this objectively say that it will be transitory. In fact, I saw an analysis today from an outside group, a nonpartisan group, that said they are, unfortunately, convinced that this high inflation is going to continue next year as well. I hope that is not true, but that seems to be the consensus. Economists across the spectrum, even the International Monetary Fund, are now saying that rising inflation is dampening future economic growth. You would think all of this would cause a policy shift by the administration, a pulling back on the stimulus, doing things to actually help on the supply side of the economy. But rather than changing course from the policies that contributed to this high inflation and this demand-side stimulus, Democrats want to double down with a $3.5-trillion-plus massive tax-and-spending spree that would spend trillions to fund social programs, expand government entitlements, and encourage more consumer demand, fueling more inflation. What makes this proposal even more concerning is Democrats want to pay for it by hurting the economy more with big tax increases. Some say it is the biggest tax increase in 50 years. Some say it is the largest tax increase in history. It depends, I guess, where they end up. But we know it will increase taxes on pretty much everybody. The Joint Committee on Taxation has done an analysis and said, yes, it is going to increase taxes on middle-income workers. Why? Because it increases taxes on businesses and they say that about 70 percent of that tax increase will be borne by workers. That is, again, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. So it is taxes not just on businesses, large and small, but it is also on workers, on farmers, on manufacturers. This increased spending, combined with job-killing tax increases, could lead to the kind of stagflation, low growth, high interest rates, high inflation that we had back in the 1970s. We hoped never to see that again; yet if we don't change course, we could be heading toward that direction. It is the last thing our economy needs right now. But surging consumer demand is not the only factor driving our current inflation crisis. The other main culprit is that we are facing a shortage of goods due to a global supply chain crisis. Almost anyone you talk to will tell you they have had some kind of shipping delay due to these supply chain issues. There are contractors you probably know who can't get lumber, can't get steel to be able to finish a building, a home. There are plenty of parents out there right now waiting to get their kid a gift for their birthday, only to find out that, no matter how much they pay, it is going to arrive not for the birthday but maybe 2 or 3 months later. These issues are clearly visible if you look at our seaports, which are often the main connecter between our country and the main global supply chain, consisting of manufacturers often in Asia, sometimes in China. Just last week, there were about 60 or 70 ships in a holding pattern near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA. Think about that: 60 or 70 huge container ships just in a holding pattern, not being able to get in. And even when the shipping containers are taken on shore, by the way, there aren't enough trucks to pick them up. So the containers are staying at the port. There aren't enough truck drivers because of the labor shortage. By the way, that is driven in part by this increased demand but in part by some of the rules and regulations around those transportation logistics and truckers. Between bottlenecks and backlogs at our ports and challenges in transporting freight, there is real trouble for our supply chains just as we come into the holiday season, which is typically, of course, when people do most of their shopping. One reason for this global supply chain crisis is the ripple effects of COVID-19. No question about that. When factories shut down their operations to stem the flow of COVID among their workers, assembly lines sometimes stopped working altogether and created the shortage of goods and materials. The companies that work in the shipping industry also were hit hard by the pandemic and had some of their operations negatively impacted. But then the pent-up demand for goods and services kicked in, and, again, much more demand was created by the $1.9 trillion spending bill in March of this year than would have been normal. So, yeah, you had some of these factories shutting down; you had essential workers still working; but you had less production and then all of a sudden this big surge and, therefore, the bottleneck. Some in the Biden administration have said that this inflation and supply chain bottleneck is a problem for the rich. I don't see it that way. If they think that, they ought to talk to the factory workers I talked to in Ohio whose wages are being eaten up by inflation. I think they should say that to the mother or father who is having to ask their kid what gift they want for Christmas 2 or 3 months ahead of time. In fact, it is too late already to get some gifts for Christmas even now. A recent college graduate who is trying to fill her car up with gas to get to work--tell it to her that this is a problem for the rich--a 42-percent increase in gas prices this year. The supply chain is like any other chain. If you have one weak link, it is enough to cause the whole thing to fall apart, and that is exactly what has happened, and it is happening at the worst possible time. Part of the near-term solution is to stop any new stimulus spending. That is not what is needed right now in the economy. It is just terrible timing. And stop the new tax increases because that is also what we don't need in our economy right now. We don't want to make America and American workers less competitive; we want to do just the opposite. And part of the long-term solution to prevent a similar crisis from happening in the future is to shore up our supply chains. Instead of being so reliant on manufacturers from places like China, bring the manufacturing home; reshore it; invest more in production here in the United States. In the process, create more domestic manufacturing and transport jobs and greater supply chain security. I think that is going to start happening. If you look at the cost to bring a product from Asia to the United States now, it has skyrocketed. That gives us a competitive advantage. The market is here. We ought to bring the manufacturing here as well. Another solution is to improve our Nation's infrastructure. Targeted investments in increasing the capacity and operability of our ports, our waterways, fixing our roads and bridges, improving our railways, that all makes sense. For decades, we have neglected our infrastructure needs. Every President, by the way, in modern times has said that. You know, the society of engineers who look at our infrastructure says that we have a grade of somewhere between D-plus and C-minus in this country. We are falling behind other countries. Other countries spend a lot more as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure. And it has been recognized. Really, every President since from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump has said: Let's make a significant investment in infrastructure. Yet we didn't do it. We neglected our infrastructure. We have neglected our ports, and that is why they are so inefficient today in part and one reason we are having to pay the price. The good news is that right now there is a bipartisan infrastructure package awaiting passage in the House of Representatives to address this and other problems. It is called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This is the bill that passed the U.S. Senate here in August with a 69-vote majority. That doesn't happen very often around here, particularly with big, important legislation like that. It was bipartisan from the start. It was passed with the support of Republicans here in this Chamber, Democrats in this Chamber, and, most importantly, the American people who think it is a really good idea. Economists think it is a good idea, too, because it improves the efficiency of our economy. Think about it. The bridge that is holding up traffic right now in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, every day--a massive bridge where I-71 and 75 come together--it is a huge hit to our economy. It is also a huge safety problem. Fixing that bridge has been something people talked about for 30 years. It is time to do it, and we will do it if we can get this infrastructure bill passed. It will also create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in industries ranging from construction and plumbing to electrical engineering and software development, with one recent study from the Association of Equipment Manufacturers finding that the legislation will create about a half a million jobs. It will also help address issues at our ports by providing increased funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program, investments in our freight system through rail and waterway and highway and air freight investments. So it actually addresses a real problem we have right now. By the way, these investments are long-term investments. It won't be a lot of money spent in the next year or so; it will be a lot of money, though, spent over the next 5, 10, 15 years to improve this infrastructure. And they will be long-term assets that will last for decades. So it is a different kind of spending than the stimulus spending. All of this will help improve the movement of goods throughout our country. That is why every business group in America is supporting this legislation, not just the chamber of commerce but every group out there--by the way, as well as all the agriculture groups. Over 30 ag groups, including the American Farm Bureau, are supporting this legislation. It is why a lot of the union members are supporting it too. In fact, the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council is strongly in support of this legislation because they know it is going to create good-paying jobs, good benefits, allowing people to get out there and build things. Even more importantly, to me, given the recent economic news we have seen, this proposal will not cause inflation to increase. Why? Because it is spending on the supply side rather than the demand side of the economy, as economists would say. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, now head of the American Action Forum, and Michael Strain, who is the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, also a conservative scholar, have said that our bipartisan infrastructure package will slow down inflation. They said: Improving roads, bridges, and ports would make it less costly for businesses to operate, allowing them to increase their output per hour and putting downward pressure on consumer prices. Again, this is long-term spending capital assets. It makes the economy more efficient; therefore, more productive. That is counterinflationary. So this is the right time to do this kind of project. To me, this bill makes all the sense in the world, given the trouble and uncertain stage of our economy. It gets relief to our supply chains. It makes long-term investments in hard assets that do boost our productivity in this country. It has a counterinflationary effect on the economy. So why hasn't it passed? What is the problem? Again, it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate. Well, unfortunately, the answer is politics. Democrats in the House of Representatives want to do everything they can to tie their big $3.5 trillion-plus tax-and-spend bill we talked about earlier to the infrastructure investment because they know that is the only way their partisan bill is going to get the votes needed to pass. So they held it hostage. Hard-core progressives don't like the bipartisan infrastructure bill because it doesn't have the tax increases; it doesn't haven't the Green New Deal policies; it doesn't have all the new social spending programs that are in this reconciliation bill that they really want. But holding this investment in infrastructure hostage to this larger tax-and-spend bill is just wrong. It is playing politics. And it is playing politics with the American people. It is also counter to the pledge that President Biden made to the bipartisan group that negotiated this agreement and made to the American people. President Biden supports this infrastructure legislation. He said he didn't get everything he wanted. Nobody did. But he supports it. He wants it to move forward. And he pledged to keep it separate--separate--from the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill, and yet what you see in the House is just the opposite. It is not fair to the American people. They deserve to have the opportunity to have the infrastructure bill be voted on its own merits. Let it rise or fall on its own merits. Don't tie it to something else. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised it would come to the House floor about 6 weeks ago. She promised that to the so-called Democrat moderates in the House, and it didn't come to the floor. Then she promised it would come to the floor 3 weeks ago. It didn't come to the floor for a vote. Now she said, on October 2, that October 31 is the date. That is Halloween. That is a Sunday. But that is fine. We can vote on Sundays, even on Halloween. It is so important, we ought to do it--and do it. It is past time to take this bill to the floor of the House and let it be judged on its own merits. If passed, it will strengthen our economy over the long term and have a positive impact on the lives of every single American. It is counterinflationary. It makes our economy more efficient. It adds to,again, the supply side, allowing us to see not just a short-term boost but a longer term boost to our economy. And wouldn't it be nice to pass something that makes sense around here that is bipartisan? Instead of jamming Republicans and the country with another reckless spending bill and raising taxes on this uncertain economy, let's focus on the infrastructure bill that addresses real problems we face today. We could use a sensible, bipartisan success right now, all of us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7084 | null | 3,286 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor this evening to talk about the troubling state of our economy today and what needs to be done to get it back on track. The Labor Department reported last week that the consumer price index, CPI, rose by 5.4 percent on an annualized basis. That accounts for the largest year-to-year inflationary increase in 13 years. And we are feeling it. There is no question inflation is on the rise. We are paying more for everything--from groceries, to buying furniture, to cars, even pumpkins for Halloween. Yes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture just told us that pumpkins, year to year, are going to see an, on average, 15.7-percent increase in prices. So you might have to get a little smaller pumpkin this year. And, of course, we are paying more at the pump, on average, a staggering 42-percent increase this year--42-percent increase. This is both because of increased demand but also because there is less supply as the new administration, the Biden administration, has put more regulations or handcuffs on American energy production. And don't forget the higher heating bills, about 25 percent higher this year as compared to last year. Just as this cooler weather begins to come in, we are all going to be paying more on our utility bills, particularly for natural gas. If all this isn't bad enough, workers' wages are not keeping up with these price spikes. I love to see wages goingup, but honestly, if you look at the data, it says that since President Biden took office, wages after inflation, adjusted for inflation, are down almost 2 percent--1.9 percent lower. Remember, before the pandemic started, in February of 2020, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of 3 percent or more on an annualized basis, well above inflation. Now, we are seeing just the opposite. This means a pay cut to the middle class. The damaging effect of this hidden inflation is, in part, the result of actions that were taken by the Biden administration and by Democrats here in Congress to overheat the economy through unprecedented levels of government spending. What do I mean by that? Well, you will recall that economist and former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Larry Summers, said earlier this year, as Democrats were talking about this huge new spending bill that they ended up passing without a single Republican input or vote in March, he said: If you do this, it is going to cause inflation. He warned about it because he had seen this movie before. When you have got an economy that is already improving and you overheat it with massive amounts of stimulus--remember, the $1.9 trillion that was spent in March was the highest level ever spent. It was the biggest program ever passed by either House of Congress, $1.9 trillion. We forget how much money that is. He recognized that this bill contained billions in stimulus money, social service spending, the stimulus checks. And those were going to fuel the demand side of the economy. And they did--not just the stimulus checks but other things as well: COVID funds to all kinds of institutions, a continuing generous unemployment supplement that paid 42 percent of American workers more to go on unemployment than to go back to work. All of this added up to a huge influx of social spending, government spending--borrowed money but government spending--into the economy that everyone who was looking at it objectively, I believe, knew was going to be a problem. Earlier this year, before the Democrats passed this $1.9 trillion spending bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office here on Capitol Hill told us that the economy was already recovering, and that is what outside economists were saying as well. Everybody was looking at the economy and saying, you know, in January, February, going into March, the economy was improving nicely. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office--again, nonpartisan group up here--said the economy is going to get back to its prepandemic level by midyear, by June 30. And it did. The stimulus was really poorly timed. Instead of allowing the recovery to continue steadily, it effectively poured fuel on an already hot economy, which led to the surging inflation we are seeing now. The White House likes to say that the inflation we are experiencing is transitory. That is the word that they have been using; in other words, it will pass--as Congress passes more legislation to fix the economy, I suppose. Unfortunately, it has not been transitory. And I haven't seen anybody who is looking at this objectively say that it will be transitory. In fact, I saw an analysis today from an outside group, a nonpartisan group, that said they are, unfortunately, convinced that this high inflation is going to continue next year as well. I hope that is not true, but that seems to be the consensus. Economists across the spectrum, even the International Monetary Fund, are now saying that rising inflation is dampening future economic growth. You would think all of this would cause a policy shift by the administration, a pulling back on the stimulus, doing things to actually help on the supply side of the economy. But rather than changing course from the policies that contributed to this high inflation and this demand-side stimulus, Democrats want to double down with a $3.5-trillion-plus massive tax-and-spending spree that would spend trillions to fund social programs, expand government entitlements, and encourage more consumer demand, fueling more inflation. What makes this proposal even more concerning is Democrats want to pay for it by hurting the economy more with big tax increases. Some say it is the biggest tax increase in 50 years. Some say it is the largest tax increase in history. It depends, I guess, where they end up. But we know it will increase taxes on pretty much everybody. The Joint Committee on Taxation has done an analysis and said, yes, it is going to increase taxes on middle-income workers. Why? Because it increases taxes on businesses and they say that about 70 percent of that tax increase will be borne by workers. That is, again, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. So it is taxes not just on businesses, large and small, but it is also on workers, on farmers, on manufacturers. This increased spending, combined with job-killing tax increases, could lead to the kind of stagflation, low growth, high interest rates, high inflation that we had back in the 1970s. We hoped never to see that again; yet if we don't change course, we could be heading toward that direction. It is the last thing our economy needs right now. But surging consumer demand is not the only factor driving our current inflation crisis. The other main culprit is that we are facing a shortage of goods due to a global supply chain crisis. Almost anyone you talk to will tell you they have had some kind of shipping delay due to these supply chain issues. There are contractors you probably know who can't get lumber, can't get steel to be able to finish a building, a home. There are plenty of parents out there right now waiting to get their kid a gift for their birthday, only to find out that, no matter how much they pay, it is going to arrive not for the birthday but maybe 2 or 3 months later. These issues are clearly visible if you look at our seaports, which are often the main connecter between our country and the main global supply chain, consisting of manufacturers often in Asia, sometimes in China. Just last week, there were about 60 or 70 ships in a holding pattern near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA. Think about that: 60 or 70 huge container ships just in a holding pattern, not being able to get in. And even when the shipping containers are taken on shore, by the way, there aren't enough trucks to pick them up. So the containers are staying at the port. There aren't enough truck drivers because of the labor shortage. By the way, that is driven in part by this increased demand but in part by some of the rules and regulations around those transportation logistics and truckers. Between bottlenecks and backlogs at our ports and challenges in transporting freight, there is real trouble for our supply chains just as we come into the holiday season, which is typically, of course, when people do most of their shopping. One reason for this global supply chain crisis is the ripple effects of COVID-19. No question about that. When factories shut down their operations to stem the flow of COVID among their workers, assembly lines sometimes stopped working altogether and created the shortage of goods and materials. The companies that work in the shipping industry also were hit hard by the pandemic and had some of their operations negatively impacted. But then the pent-up demand for goods and services kicked in, and, again, much more demand was created by the $1.9 trillion spending bill in March of this year than would have been normal. So, yeah, you had some of these factories shutting down; you had essential workers still working; but you had less production and then all of a sudden this big surge and, therefore, the bottleneck. Some in the Biden administration have said that this inflation and supply chain bottleneck is a problem for the rich. I don't see it that way. If they think that, they ought to talk to the factory workers I talked to in Ohio whose wages are being eaten up by inflation. I think they should say that to the mother or father who is having to ask their kid what gift they want for Christmas 2 or 3 months ahead of time. In fact, it is too late already to get some gifts for Christmas even now. A recent college graduate who is trying to fill her car up with gas to get to work--tell it to her that this is a problem for the rich--a 42-percent increase in gas prices this year. The supply chain is like any other chain. If you have one weak link, it is enough to cause the whole thing to fall apart, and that is exactly what has happened, and it is happening at the worst possible time. Part of the near-term solution is to stop any new stimulus spending. That is not what is needed right now in the economy. It is just terrible timing. And stop the new tax increases because that is also what we don't need in our economy right now. We don't want to make America and American workers less competitive; we want to do just the opposite. And part of the long-term solution to prevent a similar crisis from happening in the future is to shore up our supply chains. Instead of being so reliant on manufacturers from places like China, bring the manufacturing home; reshore it; invest more in production here in the United States. In the process, create more domestic manufacturing and transport jobs and greater supply chain security. I think that is going to start happening. If you look at the cost to bring a product from Asia to the United States now, it has skyrocketed. That gives us a competitive advantage. The market is here. We ought to bring the manufacturing here as well. Another solution is to improve our Nation's infrastructure. Targeted investments in increasing the capacity and operability of our ports, our waterways, fixing our roads and bridges, improving our railways, that all makes sense. For decades, we have neglected our infrastructure needs. Every President, by the way, in modern times has said that. You know, the society of engineers who look at our infrastructure says that we have a grade of somewhere between D-plus and C-minus in this country. We are falling behind other countries. Other countries spend a lot more as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure. And it has been recognized. Really, every President since from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump has said: Let's make a significant investment in infrastructure. Yet we didn't do it. We neglected our infrastructure. We have neglected our ports, and that is why they are so inefficient today in part and one reason we are having to pay the price. The good news is that right now there is a bipartisan infrastructure package awaiting passage in the House of Representatives to address this and other problems. It is called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This is the bill that passed the U.S. Senate here in August with a 69-vote majority. That doesn't happen very often around here, particularly with big, important legislation like that. It was bipartisan from the start. It was passed with the support of Republicans here in this Chamber, Democrats in this Chamber, and, most importantly, the American people who think it is a really good idea. Economists think it is a good idea, too, because it improves the efficiency of our economy. Think about it. The bridge that is holding up traffic right now in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, every day--a massive bridge where I-71 and 75 come together--it is a huge hit to our economy. It is also a huge safety problem. Fixing that bridge has been something people talked about for 30 years. It is time to do it, and we will do it if we can get this infrastructure bill passed. It will also create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in industries ranging from construction and plumbing to electrical engineering and software development, with one recent study from the Association of Equipment Manufacturers finding that the legislation will create about a half a million jobs. It will also help address issues at our ports by providing increased funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program, investments in our freight system through rail and waterway and highway and air freight investments. So it actually addresses a real problem we have right now. By the way, these investments are long-term investments. It won't be a lot of money spent in the next year or so; it will be a lot of money, though, spent over the next 5, 10, 15 years to improve this infrastructure. And they will be long-term assets that will last for decades. So it is a different kind of spending than the stimulus spending. All of this will help improve the movement of goods throughout our country. That is why every business group in America is supporting this legislation, not just the chamber of commerce but every group out there--by the way, as well as all the agriculture groups. Over 30 ag groups, including the American Farm Bureau, are supporting this legislation. It is why a lot of the union members are supporting it too. In fact, the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council is strongly in support of this legislation because they know it is going to create good-paying jobs, good benefits, allowing people to get out there and build things. Even more importantly, to me, given the recent economic news we have seen, this proposal will not cause inflation to increase. Why? Because it is spending on the supply side rather than the demand side of the economy, as economists would say. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, now head of the American Action Forum, and Michael Strain, who is the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, also a conservative scholar, have said that our bipartisan infrastructure package will slow down inflation. They said: Improving roads, bridges, and ports would make it less costly for businesses to operate, allowing them to increase their output per hour and putting downward pressure on consumer prices. Again, this is long-term spending capital assets. It makes the economy more efficient; therefore, more productive. That is counterinflationary. So this is the right time to do this kind of project. To me, this bill makes all the sense in the world, given the trouble and uncertain stage of our economy. It gets relief to our supply chains. It makes long-term investments in hard assets that do boost our productivity in this country. It has a counterinflationary effect on the economy. So why hasn't it passed? What is the problem? Again, it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate. Well, unfortunately, the answer is politics. Democrats in the House of Representatives want to do everything they can to tie their big $3.5 trillion-plus tax-and-spend bill we talked about earlier to the infrastructure investment because they know that is the only way their partisan bill is going to get the votes needed to pass. So they held it hostage. Hard-core progressives don't like the bipartisan infrastructure bill because it doesn't have the tax increases; it doesn't haven't the Green New Deal policies; it doesn't have all the new social spending programs that are in this reconciliation bill that they really want. But holding this investment in infrastructure hostage to this larger tax-and-spend bill is just wrong. It is playing politics. And it is playing politics with the American people. It is also counter to the pledge that President Biden made to the bipartisan group that negotiated this agreement and made to the American people. President Biden supports this infrastructure legislation. He said he didn't get everything he wanted. Nobody did. But he supports it. He wants it to move forward. And he pledged to keep it separate--separate--from the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill, and yet what you see in the House is just the opposite. It is not fair to the American people. They deserve to have the opportunity to have the infrastructure bill be voted on its own merits. Let it rise or fall on its own merits. Don't tie it to something else. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised it would come to the House floor about 6 weeks ago. She promised that to the so-called Democrat moderates in the House, and it didn't come to the floor. Then she promised it would come to the floor 3 weeks ago. It didn't come to the floor for a vote. Now she said, on October 2, that October 31 is the date. That is Halloween. That is a Sunday. But that is fine. We can vote on Sundays, even on Halloween. It is so important, we ought to do it--and do it. It is past time to take this bill to the floor of the House and let it be judged on its own merits. If passed, it will strengthen our economy over the long term and have a positive impact on the lives of every single American. It is counterinflationary. It makes our economy more efficient. It adds to,again, the supply side, allowing us to see not just a short-term boost but a longer term boost to our economy. And wouldn't it be nice to pass something that makes sense around here that is bipartisan? Instead of jamming Republicans and the country with another reckless spending bill and raising taxes on this uncertain economy, let's focus on the infrastructure bill that addresses real problems we face today. We could use a sensible, bipartisan success right now, all of us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7084 | null | 3,287 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor this evening to talk about the troubling state of our economy today and what needs to be done to get it back on track. The Labor Department reported last week that the consumer price index, CPI, rose by 5.4 percent on an annualized basis. That accounts for the largest year-to-year inflationary increase in 13 years. And we are feeling it. There is no question inflation is on the rise. We are paying more for everything--from groceries, to buying furniture, to cars, even pumpkins for Halloween. Yes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture just told us that pumpkins, year to year, are going to see an, on average, 15.7-percent increase in prices. So you might have to get a little smaller pumpkin this year. And, of course, we are paying more at the pump, on average, a staggering 42-percent increase this year--42-percent increase. This is both because of increased demand but also because there is less supply as the new administration, the Biden administration, has put more regulations or handcuffs on American energy production. And don't forget the higher heating bills, about 25 percent higher this year as compared to last year. Just as this cooler weather begins to come in, we are all going to be paying more on our utility bills, particularly for natural gas. If all this isn't bad enough, workers' wages are not keeping up with these price spikes. I love to see wages goingup, but honestly, if you look at the data, it says that since President Biden took office, wages after inflation, adjusted for inflation, are down almost 2 percent--1.9 percent lower. Remember, before the pandemic started, in February of 2020, we had the 19th straight month of wage increases of 3 percent or more on an annualized basis, well above inflation. Now, we are seeing just the opposite. This means a pay cut to the middle class. The damaging effect of this hidden inflation is, in part, the result of actions that were taken by the Biden administration and by Democrats here in Congress to overheat the economy through unprecedented levels of government spending. What do I mean by that? Well, you will recall that economist and former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Larry Summers, said earlier this year, as Democrats were talking about this huge new spending bill that they ended up passing without a single Republican input or vote in March, he said: If you do this, it is going to cause inflation. He warned about it because he had seen this movie before. When you have got an economy that is already improving and you overheat it with massive amounts of stimulus--remember, the $1.9 trillion that was spent in March was the highest level ever spent. It was the biggest program ever passed by either House of Congress, $1.9 trillion. We forget how much money that is. He recognized that this bill contained billions in stimulus money, social service spending, the stimulus checks. And those were going to fuel the demand side of the economy. And they did--not just the stimulus checks but other things as well: COVID funds to all kinds of institutions, a continuing generous unemployment supplement that paid 42 percent of American workers more to go on unemployment than to go back to work. All of this added up to a huge influx of social spending, government spending--borrowed money but government spending--into the economy that everyone who was looking at it objectively, I believe, knew was going to be a problem. Earlier this year, before the Democrats passed this $1.9 trillion spending bill, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office here on Capitol Hill told us that the economy was already recovering, and that is what outside economists were saying as well. Everybody was looking at the economy and saying, you know, in January, February, going into March, the economy was improving nicely. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office--again, nonpartisan group up here--said the economy is going to get back to its prepandemic level by midyear, by June 30. And it did. The stimulus was really poorly timed. Instead of allowing the recovery to continue steadily, it effectively poured fuel on an already hot economy, which led to the surging inflation we are seeing now. The White House likes to say that the inflation we are experiencing is transitory. That is the word that they have been using; in other words, it will pass--as Congress passes more legislation to fix the economy, I suppose. Unfortunately, it has not been transitory. And I haven't seen anybody who is looking at this objectively say that it will be transitory. In fact, I saw an analysis today from an outside group, a nonpartisan group, that said they are, unfortunately, convinced that this high inflation is going to continue next year as well. I hope that is not true, but that seems to be the consensus. Economists across the spectrum, even the International Monetary Fund, are now saying that rising inflation is dampening future economic growth. You would think all of this would cause a policy shift by the administration, a pulling back on the stimulus, doing things to actually help on the supply side of the economy. But rather than changing course from the policies that contributed to this high inflation and this demand-side stimulus, Democrats want to double down with a $3.5-trillion-plus massive tax-and-spending spree that would spend trillions to fund social programs, expand government entitlements, and encourage more consumer demand, fueling more inflation. What makes this proposal even more concerning is Democrats want to pay for it by hurting the economy more with big tax increases. Some say it is the biggest tax increase in 50 years. Some say it is the largest tax increase in history. It depends, I guess, where they end up. But we know it will increase taxes on pretty much everybody. The Joint Committee on Taxation has done an analysis and said, yes, it is going to increase taxes on middle-income workers. Why? Because it increases taxes on businesses and they say that about 70 percent of that tax increase will be borne by workers. That is, again, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. So it is taxes not just on businesses, large and small, but it is also on workers, on farmers, on manufacturers. This increased spending, combined with job-killing tax increases, could lead to the kind of stagflation, low growth, high interest rates, high inflation that we had back in the 1970s. We hoped never to see that again; yet if we don't change course, we could be heading toward that direction. It is the last thing our economy needs right now. But surging consumer demand is not the only factor driving our current inflation crisis. The other main culprit is that we are facing a shortage of goods due to a global supply chain crisis. Almost anyone you talk to will tell you they have had some kind of shipping delay due to these supply chain issues. There are contractors you probably know who can't get lumber, can't get steel to be able to finish a building, a home. There are plenty of parents out there right now waiting to get their kid a gift for their birthday, only to find out that, no matter how much they pay, it is going to arrive not for the birthday but maybe 2 or 3 months later. These issues are clearly visible if you look at our seaports, which are often the main connecter between our country and the main global supply chain, consisting of manufacturers often in Asia, sometimes in China. Just last week, there were about 60 or 70 ships in a holding pattern near the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, CA. Think about that: 60 or 70 huge container ships just in a holding pattern, not being able to get in. And even when the shipping containers are taken on shore, by the way, there aren't enough trucks to pick them up. So the containers are staying at the port. There aren't enough truck drivers because of the labor shortage. By the way, that is driven in part by this increased demand but in part by some of the rules and regulations around those transportation logistics and truckers. Between bottlenecks and backlogs at our ports and challenges in transporting freight, there is real trouble for our supply chains just as we come into the holiday season, which is typically, of course, when people do most of their shopping. One reason for this global supply chain crisis is the ripple effects of COVID-19. No question about that. When factories shut down their operations to stem the flow of COVID among their workers, assembly lines sometimes stopped working altogether and created the shortage of goods and materials. The companies that work in the shipping industry also were hit hard by the pandemic and had some of their operations negatively impacted. But then the pent-up demand for goods and services kicked in, and, again, much more demand was created by the $1.9 trillion spending bill in March of this year than would have been normal. So, yeah, you had some of these factories shutting down; you had essential workers still working; but you had less production and then all of a sudden this big surge and, therefore, the bottleneck. Some in the Biden administration have said that this inflation and supply chain bottleneck is a problem for the rich. I don't see it that way. If they think that, they ought to talk to the factory workers I talked to in Ohio whose wages are being eaten up by inflation. I think they should say that to the mother or father who is having to ask their kid what gift they want for Christmas 2 or 3 months ahead of time. In fact, it is too late already to get some gifts for Christmas even now. A recent college graduate who is trying to fill her car up with gas to get to work--tell it to her that this is a problem for the rich--a 42-percent increase in gas prices this year. The supply chain is like any other chain. If you have one weak link, it is enough to cause the whole thing to fall apart, and that is exactly what has happened, and it is happening at the worst possible time. Part of the near-term solution is to stop any new stimulus spending. That is not what is needed right now in the economy. It is just terrible timing. And stop the new tax increases because that is also what we don't need in our economy right now. We don't want to make America and American workers less competitive; we want to do just the opposite. And part of the long-term solution to prevent a similar crisis from happening in the future is to shore up our supply chains. Instead of being so reliant on manufacturers from places like China, bring the manufacturing home; reshore it; invest more in production here in the United States. In the process, create more domestic manufacturing and transport jobs and greater supply chain security. I think that is going to start happening. If you look at the cost to bring a product from Asia to the United States now, it has skyrocketed. That gives us a competitive advantage. The market is here. We ought to bring the manufacturing here as well. Another solution is to improve our Nation's infrastructure. Targeted investments in increasing the capacity and operability of our ports, our waterways, fixing our roads and bridges, improving our railways, that all makes sense. For decades, we have neglected our infrastructure needs. Every President, by the way, in modern times has said that. You know, the society of engineers who look at our infrastructure says that we have a grade of somewhere between D-plus and C-minus in this country. We are falling behind other countries. Other countries spend a lot more as a percent of their GDP on infrastructure. And it has been recognized. Really, every President since from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump has said: Let's make a significant investment in infrastructure. Yet we didn't do it. We neglected our infrastructure. We have neglected our ports, and that is why they are so inefficient today in part and one reason we are having to pay the price. The good news is that right now there is a bipartisan infrastructure package awaiting passage in the House of Representatives to address this and other problems. It is called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This is the bill that passed the U.S. Senate here in August with a 69-vote majority. That doesn't happen very often around here, particularly with big, important legislation like that. It was bipartisan from the start. It was passed with the support of Republicans here in this Chamber, Democrats in this Chamber, and, most importantly, the American people who think it is a really good idea. Economists think it is a good idea, too, because it improves the efficiency of our economy. Think about it. The bridge that is holding up traffic right now in my hometown of Cincinnati, OH, every day--a massive bridge where I-71 and 75 come together--it is a huge hit to our economy. It is also a huge safety problem. Fixing that bridge has been something people talked about for 30 years. It is time to do it, and we will do it if we can get this infrastructure bill passed. It will also create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in industries ranging from construction and plumbing to electrical engineering and software development, with one recent study from the Association of Equipment Manufacturers finding that the legislation will create about a half a million jobs. It will also help address issues at our ports by providing increased funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program, investments in our freight system through rail and waterway and highway and air freight investments. So it actually addresses a real problem we have right now. By the way, these investments are long-term investments. It won't be a lot of money spent in the next year or so; it will be a lot of money, though, spent over the next 5, 10, 15 years to improve this infrastructure. And they will be long-term assets that will last for decades. So it is a different kind of spending than the stimulus spending. All of this will help improve the movement of goods throughout our country. That is why every business group in America is supporting this legislation, not just the chamber of commerce but every group out there--by the way, as well as all the agriculture groups. Over 30 ag groups, including the American Farm Bureau, are supporting this legislation. It is why a lot of the union members are supporting it too. In fact, the AFL-CIO Building Trades Council is strongly in support of this legislation because they know it is going to create good-paying jobs, good benefits, allowing people to get out there and build things. Even more importantly, to me, given the recent economic news we have seen, this proposal will not cause inflation to increase. Why? Because it is spending on the supply side rather than the demand side of the economy, as economists would say. Conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, now head of the American Action Forum, and Michael Strain, who is the director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, also a conservative scholar, have said that our bipartisan infrastructure package will slow down inflation. They said: Improving roads, bridges, and ports would make it less costly for businesses to operate, allowing them to increase their output per hour and putting downward pressure on consumer prices. Again, this is long-term spending capital assets. It makes the economy more efficient; therefore, more productive. That is counterinflationary. So this is the right time to do this kind of project. To me, this bill makes all the sense in the world, given the trouble and uncertain stage of our economy. It gets relief to our supply chains. It makes long-term investments in hard assets that do boost our productivity in this country. It has a counterinflationary effect on the economy. So why hasn't it passed? What is the problem? Again, it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate. Well, unfortunately, the answer is politics. Democrats in the House of Representatives want to do everything they can to tie their big $3.5 trillion-plus tax-and-spend bill we talked about earlier to the infrastructure investment because they know that is the only way their partisan bill is going to get the votes needed to pass. So they held it hostage. Hard-core progressives don't like the bipartisan infrastructure bill because it doesn't have the tax increases; it doesn't haven't the Green New Deal policies; it doesn't have all the new social spending programs that are in this reconciliation bill that they really want. But holding this investment in infrastructure hostage to this larger tax-and-spend bill is just wrong. It is playing politics. And it is playing politics with the American people. It is also counter to the pledge that President Biden made to the bipartisan group that negotiated this agreement and made to the American people. President Biden supports this infrastructure legislation. He said he didn't get everything he wanted. Nobody did. But he supports it. He wants it to move forward. And he pledged to keep it separate--separate--from the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill, and yet what you see in the House is just the opposite. It is not fair to the American people. They deserve to have the opportunity to have the infrastructure bill be voted on its own merits. Let it rise or fall on its own merits. Don't tie it to something else. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised it would come to the House floor about 6 weeks ago. She promised that to the so-called Democrat moderates in the House, and it didn't come to the floor. Then she promised it would come to the floor 3 weeks ago. It didn't come to the floor for a vote. Now she said, on October 2, that October 31 is the date. That is Halloween. That is a Sunday. But that is fine. We can vote on Sundays, even on Halloween. It is so important, we ought to do it--and do it. It is past time to take this bill to the floor of the House and let it be judged on its own merits. If passed, it will strengthen our economy over the long term and have a positive impact on the lives of every single American. It is counterinflationary. It makes our economy more efficient. It adds to,again, the supply side, allowing us to see not just a short-term boost but a longer term boost to our economy. And wouldn't it be nice to pass something that makes sense around here that is bipartisan? Instead of jamming Republicans and the country with another reckless spending bill and raising taxes on this uncertain economy, let's focus on the infrastructure bill that addresses real problems we face today. We could use a sensible, bipartisan success right now, all of us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-19-pt1-PgS7084 | null | 3,288 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lieu). 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 (Mr. Lieu) | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5689-6 | null | 3,289 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4611) to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue guidance with respect to certain information and communications technology or services contracts, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5698-2 | null | 3,290 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Wild). 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. 2379) to amend the 21st Century Cures Act to reauthorize and expand a grant program for State response to the opioid use disorders crisis, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Wild) | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5699 | null | 3,291 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 654) to provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5700 | null | 3,292 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 654) to provide the Administrator of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program the authority to waive the Federal fund limitation for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5700 | null | 3,293 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3919) to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission does not approve radio frequency devices that pose a national security risk, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5701-2 | null | 3,294 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3919) to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission does not approve radio frequency devices that pose a national security risk, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5701-2 | null | 3,295 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3635) to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the Strategic National Stockpile, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5701 | null | 3,296 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4032) to provide outreach and technical assistance to small providers regarding the benefits of Open RAN networks, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5702 | null | 3,297 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4028) to require the Secretary of Commerce to report on and develop a whole-of-Government strategy withrespect to the economic competitiveness of the information and communication technology supply chain, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5703-2 | null | 3,298 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4067) to direct the Federal Communications Commission to establish a council to make recommendations on ways to increase the security, reliability, and interoperability of communications networks, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5703 | null | 3,299 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.