data_type stringclasses 2 values | dog_whistle stringlengths 2 26 | dog_whistle_root stringlengths 2 98 ⌀ | ingroup stringclasses 17 values | content stringlengths 2 83.3k | date stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | speaker stringlengths 4 62 ⌀ | chamber stringclasses 2 values | reference stringlengths 24 31 ⌀ | community stringclasses 11 values | __index_level_0__ int64 0 35.6k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 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 | 3,300 |
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-2473. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulations Policy and Management, Office of General Councel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Schedule for Rating Disabilities; The Genitourinary Diseases and Conditions (RIN: 2900-AQ71) received October 8, 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-2474. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Elimination of the Voluntary Trichinae Certification Program [Docket No.: APHIS-2020-0065] (RIN: 0579-AE59) received October 8, 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-2475. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's statement of final policy -- Statement of Policy Regarding Minority Depository Institutions (RIN: 3064- ZA19) received October 8, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2476. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality Act; Validity of Visa [Public Notice: 11458] (RIN: 1400-AE82) received September 30, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2477. 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-2478. A letter from the Supervisor, Executive Services Operations Staff, Human Resources Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting two notifications of a change in previously submitted reported information and discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2479. A letter from the Chair, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting the Board's annual submission regarding agency compliance with the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and revised Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2480. A letter from the Regulatory Specialist, Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- ONRR 2020 Valuation Reform and Civil Penalty Rule: Delay of Effective Date; Request for Public Comment [Docket No.: ONRR-2020-0001; | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgH5724-4 | null | 3,301 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, for over 240 years, the story of American democracy has been an inexorable march toward universal suffrage--toward the realization of that sacred principle that all citizens should have a voice in selecting their leaders. The grand ideal had humble beginnings. At the time of the Constitution's ratification, hardly 1 in 10 Americans would have been even eligible to vote. If you were not White, not a landowner, not a male, and not a Protestant, chances were that the democracy did not apply to you; chances were that you were cut out of the political process. It took over two centuries of Americans marching, fighting, and dying for the promise of freedom to expand to our citizens, regardless of race or gender or creed, the right to vote. But for every two steps forward, sometimes there are those who try to pull us one step back. Unfortunately, we find ourselves today in the midst of such a struggle. Across the country, the Big Lie--the Big Lie--has spread like a cancer, as many States across the Nation have passed the most draconian restrictions against voting that we have seen in decades. If nothing is done, these laws will make it harder for millions of Americans to participate in their government. If there is anything worthy of the Senate's attention, if there is any issue that merits debate on this floor, it is protecting our democracy from the forces that are trying to unravel it from the inside out. That is why this afternoon, the U.S. Senate will vote to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act. The Freedom to Vote Act is a balanced, effective, and commonsense proposal that will fortify our democracy and protect Americans' right to vote. It sets basic standards for all Americans to vote safely and securely, no matter what ZIP Code they live in. It adopts proven reforms that will protect voters from both parties, whether they live in blue States or red States or purple States. It fights back against the power of dark money in politics and ends the toxic practice of partisan gerrymandering. And, all the while, it respects the rightful authority of States to carry out their elections. At its core, the Freedom to Vote Act rests on a simple principle: Americans must be able to freely choose their leaders, and those leaders must be accountable to the people, not to well-heeled donors. These are policies all Americans can get behind. When was the last time we heard Americans cheer about dark money in our elections or the pervasiveness of partisan gerrymandering? What sort of voter would willingly choose to make voting harder--arbitrarily harder--when it should be easy, safe, and secure? The Freedom to Vote Act would provide long-overdue remedies for all these concerns. Now, crafting this bill, as you know, Mr. President, was no easy feat. It took months of hard work, compromise, and gathering feedback from experts on sensible policies that have been proven to work. I want to thank all of my colleagues who dedicated their energies to making this moment possible, and I want to especially thank Senator Manchin for his hard work over the past few weeks. He has reached across the aisle to try and find a way for the Senate to do its work in a bipartisan fashion. I thank him for his commitment to finding bipartisanship on a subject that, by all accounts, should be bipartisan to its core and has been for much of our history. Now, today's vote is a cloture vote simply on a motion to proceed. It presents Senators with a simple question: Should the Senate even debate--debate--voting rights? That is what this is about, simply a debate and an important one to be sure. No Republican is being asked to sign their name to this or that policy today, but they are being asked to come to the table and have a discussion and allow amendments. I want to be clear. If Republicans join us in proceeding to this bill, I am prepared to hold a full-fledged debate worthy of the U.S. Senate. The minority will have the chance to have their voices heard. The Senate has already voted on more amendments than in any year under former-President Trump, and on this legislation, again Republican Senators would be able to offer amendments. But for that to happen, we have to get on the bill today. What we can't accept is a situation where one side is calling for bipartisan debate and bipartisan cooperation while the other refuses to even engage in a dialogue. If our Republican colleagues don't like our ideas, they have a responsibility to present their own. It is ludicrous for any Republican to assert that the Federal Government has no role to play in safeguarding elections when State laws disenfranchise American citizens. I invite them to read the Constitution of the United States of America, which precisely empowers Congress to regulate the ``times, places, and manners'' of holding elections. I invite them to look at modern American history, when the Senate stepped into the breach numerous times when Jim Crow States sought to restrict the right to vote. There is a long and hallowed tradition of the Senate, often in a bipartisan coalition, working to protect access to the franchise, and today our colleagues should vote to begin debate for how we can add to that legacy. But what Republicans should not do--they must not do--is squelch any chance--any chance--for the Senate to debate something as critical, as sacrosanct, as American as the right to vote. The clock is ticking on our chance to take meaningful action. Our experiment in democracy has been the greatest feat of self-rule in all of modern history. We cannot allow it to backslide here in the 21st century. Today, we have a chance to begin debate on how we can prevent that from happening, but Republicans must join us in the debate and vote to allow debate to proceed. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7093-8 | null | 3,302 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, for over 240 years, the story of American democracy has been an inexorable march toward universal suffrage--toward the realization of that sacred principle that all citizens should have a voice in selecting their leaders. The grand ideal had humble beginnings. At the time of the Constitution's ratification, hardly 1 in 10 Americans would have been even eligible to vote. If you were not White, not a landowner, not a male, and not a Protestant, chances were that the democracy did not apply to you; chances were that you were cut out of the political process. It took over two centuries of Americans marching, fighting, and dying for the promise of freedom to expand to our citizens, regardless of race or gender or creed, the right to vote. But for every two steps forward, sometimes there are those who try to pull us one step back. Unfortunately, we find ourselves today in the midst of such a struggle. Across the country, the Big Lie--the Big Lie--has spread like a cancer, as many States across the Nation have passed the most draconian restrictions against voting that we have seen in decades. If nothing is done, these laws will make it harder for millions of Americans to participate in their government. If there is anything worthy of the Senate's attention, if there is any issue that merits debate on this floor, it is protecting our democracy from the forces that are trying to unravel it from the inside out. That is why this afternoon, the U.S. Senate will vote to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act. The Freedom to Vote Act is a balanced, effective, and commonsense proposal that will fortify our democracy and protect Americans' right to vote. It sets basic standards for all Americans to vote safely and securely, no matter what ZIP Code they live in. It adopts proven reforms that will protect voters from both parties, whether they live in blue States or red States or purple States. It fights back against the power of dark money in politics and ends the toxic practice of partisan gerrymandering. And, all the while, it respects the rightful authority of States to carry out their elections. At its core, the Freedom to Vote Act rests on a simple principle: Americans must be able to freely choose their leaders, and those leaders must be accountable to the people, not to well-heeled donors. These are policies all Americans can get behind. When was the last time we heard Americans cheer about dark money in our elections or the pervasiveness of partisan gerrymandering? What sort of voter would willingly choose to make voting harder--arbitrarily harder--when it should be easy, safe, and secure? The Freedom to Vote Act would provide long-overdue remedies for all these concerns. Now, crafting this bill, as you know, Mr. President, was no easy feat. It took months of hard work, compromise, and gathering feedback from experts on sensible policies that have been proven to work. I want to thank all of my colleagues who dedicated their energies to making this moment possible, and I want to especially thank Senator Manchin for his hard work over the past few weeks. He has reached across the aisle to try and find a way for the Senate to do its work in a bipartisan fashion. I thank him for his commitment to finding bipartisanship on a subject that, by all accounts, should be bipartisan to its core and has been for much of our history. Now, today's vote is a cloture vote simply on a motion to proceed. It presents Senators with a simple question: Should the Senate even debate--debate--voting rights? That is what this is about, simply a debate and an important one to be sure. No Republican is being asked to sign their name to this or that policy today, but they are being asked to come to the table and have a discussion and allow amendments. I want to be clear. If Republicans join us in proceeding to this bill, I am prepared to hold a full-fledged debate worthy of the U.S. Senate. The minority will have the chance to have their voices heard. The Senate has already voted on more amendments than in any year under former-President Trump, and on this legislation, again Republican Senators would be able to offer amendments. But for that to happen, we have to get on the bill today. What we can't accept is a situation where one side is calling for bipartisan debate and bipartisan cooperation while the other refuses to even engage in a dialogue. If our Republican colleagues don't like our ideas, they have a responsibility to present their own. It is ludicrous for any Republican to assert that the Federal Government has no role to play in safeguarding elections when State laws disenfranchise American citizens. I invite them to read the Constitution of the United States of America, which precisely empowers Congress to regulate the ``times, places, and manners'' of holding elections. I invite them to look at modern American history, when the Senate stepped into the breach numerous times when Jim Crow States sought to restrict the right to vote. There is a long and hallowed tradition of the Senate, often in a bipartisan coalition, working to protect access to the franchise, and today our colleagues should vote to begin debate for how we can add to that legacy. But what Republicans should not do--they must not do--is squelch any chance--any chance--for the Senate to debate something as critical, as sacrosanct, as American as the right to vote. The clock is ticking on our chance to take meaningful action. Our experiment in democracy has been the greatest feat of self-rule in all of modern history. We cannot allow it to backslide here in the 21st century. Today, we have a chance to begin debate on how we can prevent that from happening, but Republicans must join us in the debate and vote to allow debate to proceed. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7093-8 | null | 3,303 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, for over 240 years, the story of American democracy has been an inexorable march toward universal suffrage--toward the realization of that sacred principle that all citizens should have a voice in selecting their leaders. The grand ideal had humble beginnings. At the time of the Constitution's ratification, hardly 1 in 10 Americans would have been even eligible to vote. If you were not White, not a landowner, not a male, and not a Protestant, chances were that the democracy did not apply to you; chances were that you were cut out of the political process. It took over two centuries of Americans marching, fighting, and dying for the promise of freedom to expand to our citizens, regardless of race or gender or creed, the right to vote. But for every two steps forward, sometimes there are those who try to pull us one step back. Unfortunately, we find ourselves today in the midst of such a struggle. Across the country, the Big Lie--the Big Lie--has spread like a cancer, as many States across the Nation have passed the most draconian restrictions against voting that we have seen in decades. If nothing is done, these laws will make it harder for millions of Americans to participate in their government. If there is anything worthy of the Senate's attention, if there is any issue that merits debate on this floor, it is protecting our democracy from the forces that are trying to unravel it from the inside out. That is why this afternoon, the U.S. Senate will vote to begin debate on the Freedom to Vote Act. The Freedom to Vote Act is a balanced, effective, and commonsense proposal that will fortify our democracy and protect Americans' right to vote. It sets basic standards for all Americans to vote safely and securely, no matter what ZIP Code they live in. It adopts proven reforms that will protect voters from both parties, whether they live in blue States or red States or purple States. It fights back against the power of dark money in politics and ends the toxic practice of partisan gerrymandering. And, all the while, it respects the rightful authority of States to carry out their elections. At its core, the Freedom to Vote Act rests on a simple principle: Americans must be able to freely choose their leaders, and those leaders must be accountable to the people, not to well-heeled donors. These are policies all Americans can get behind. When was the last time we heard Americans cheer about dark money in our elections or the pervasiveness of partisan gerrymandering? What sort of voter would willingly choose to make voting harder--arbitrarily harder--when it should be easy, safe, and secure? The Freedom to Vote Act would provide long-overdue remedies for all these concerns. Now, crafting this bill, as you know, Mr. President, was no easy feat. It took months of hard work, compromise, and gathering feedback from experts on sensible policies that have been proven to work. I want to thank all of my colleagues who dedicated their energies to making this moment possible, and I want to especially thank Senator Manchin for his hard work over the past few weeks. He has reached across the aisle to try and find a way for the Senate to do its work in a bipartisan fashion. I thank him for his commitment to finding bipartisanship on a subject that, by all accounts, should be bipartisan to its core and has been for much of our history. Now, today's vote is a cloture vote simply on a motion to proceed. It presents Senators with a simple question: Should the Senate even debate--debate--voting rights? That is what this is about, simply a debate and an important one to be sure. No Republican is being asked to sign their name to this or that policy today, but they are being asked to come to the table and have a discussion and allow amendments. I want to be clear. If Republicans join us in proceeding to this bill, I am prepared to hold a full-fledged debate worthy of the U.S. Senate. The minority will have the chance to have their voices heard. The Senate has already voted on more amendments than in any year under former-President Trump, and on this legislation, again Republican Senators would be able to offer amendments. But for that to happen, we have to get on the bill today. What we can't accept is a situation where one side is calling for bipartisan debate and bipartisan cooperation while the other refuses to even engage in a dialogue. If our Republican colleagues don't like our ideas, they have a responsibility to present their own. It is ludicrous for any Republican to assert that the Federal Government has no role to play in safeguarding elections when State laws disenfranchise American citizens. I invite them to read the Constitution of the United States of America, which precisely empowers Congress to regulate the ``times, places, and manners'' of holding elections. I invite them to look at modern American history, when the Senate stepped into the breach numerous times when Jim Crow States sought to restrict the right to vote. There is a long and hallowed tradition of the Senate, often in a bipartisan coalition, working to protect access to the franchise, and today our colleagues should vote to begin debate for how we can add to that legacy. But what Republicans should not do--they must not do--is squelch any chance--any chance--for the Senate to debate something as critical, as sacrosanct, as American as the right to vote. The clock is ticking on our chance to take meaningful action. Our experiment in democracy has been the greatest feat of self-rule in all of modern history. We cannot allow it to backslide here in the 21st century. Today, we have a chance to begin debate on how we can prevent that from happening, but Republicans must join us in the debate and vote to allow debate to proceed. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7093-8 | null | 3,304 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on another matter, BBB, Build Back Better, even as we work to push legislation in defense of our democracy, Senate Democrats are also making good progress on reaching an agreement on President Biden's Build Back Better plan. Yesterday, Senate Democrats had a very spirited and very positive caucus lunch to go over the latest outstanding items before we can all reach a deal. We walked out of that lunch united in our desire to reach an agreement this week. I believe we can get it done, and I want to thank all my colleagues for their leadership, diligence, and focus on reaching an end result. We are going to keep talking to each other all week long until we get the job done. Later this morning, I will speak again with the Speaker and with the White House to go over the latest details of the President's proposal. I have spoken to the President just about every day and Speaker Pelosi several times a day about these issues. I will continue meeting with my caucus to try and keep us all on the same page because be on the same page we must. Everyone is going to have to compromise if we are going to find that legislative sweet spot we can all get behind. Nobody will 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 against the climate crisis while creating millions of new, good-paying jobs; we will expand economic opportunity and lower costs for working Americans; and we will cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans while asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. In short, we will deliver on a bill that dramatically improves the lives of millions and millions and millions of American families. We are getting closer to an agreement. We want to finalize a deal by the end of this week, but we all must keep moving together. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7094 | null | 3,305 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on another matter, BBB, Build Back Better, even as we work to push legislation in defense of our democracy, Senate Democrats are also making good progress on reaching an agreement on President Biden's Build Back Better plan. Yesterday, Senate Democrats had a very spirited and very positive caucus lunch to go over the latest outstanding items before we can all reach a deal. We walked out of that lunch united in our desire to reach an agreement this week. I believe we can get it done, and I want to thank all my colleagues for their leadership, diligence, and focus on reaching an end result. We are going to keep talking to each other all week long until we get the job done. Later this morning, I will speak again with the Speaker and with the White House to go over the latest details of the President's proposal. I have spoken to the President just about every day and Speaker Pelosi several times a day about these issues. I will continue meeting with my caucus to try and keep us all on the same page because be on the same page we must. Everyone is going to have to compromise if we are going to find that legislative sweet spot we can all get behind. Nobody will 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 against the climate crisis while creating millions of new, good-paying jobs; we will expand economic opportunity and lower costs for working Americans; and we will cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans while asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. In short, we will deliver on a bill that dramatically improves the lives of millions and millions and millions of American families. We are getting closer to an agreement. We want to finalize a deal by the end of this week, but we all must keep moving together. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7094 | null | 3,306 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Federal Government's own analysts of the energy sector are predicting that this winter American families could face home heating bills that are 54 percent higher than last year--54 percent higher than just last year. On average, the price for our households running on natural gas is expected to jump 30 percent. For homes that use propane, a different assessment says the forecast looks like ``propane-market Armageddon.'' As the head of one aid organization put it, ``After the beating that people have taken in the pandemic, it's like: What's next?'' What is next? Well, astonishingly, what is next is yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree from Washington Democrats, including more inflationary spending to push costs even higher and more anti-domestic-energy taxes and regulations that would only compound these problems. That includes new, crushing taxes aimed at domestic natural gas production. They want to reprise the Obama administration's War on Coal. But this time the target is also--in addition to coal, the target is also the natural gas that provides electricity for our communities and heats families' homes. And then there are the new mandates and new penalties that are essentially designed to make 49 States' electrical grids move more in the direction of California's--paying higher costs for less reliable power. Now, unfortunately, this has been the Biden administration's playbook going back to the very beginning. Remember, killing the Keystone XL Pipeline and thousands of American jobs was a day one--a day one--priority. Then it was the ban on new development of domestic energy reserves and the hasty mission to rejoin the toothless Paris climate accords, where virtually nobody--nobody--but America seems to be remotely interested in achieving their nonbinding ``commitments.'' So for all the leftwing's apparent urgency to pass radical climate policy, they seem not to care much about tackling the biggest sources of the world's carbon emissions. The so-called international community that had scraped together the failed Paris deal could only get the world's most prolific polluter, that is, China, to agree--now, listen to this--to curb its increase in emissions 9 years from now. That is all they got out of China: an agreement to curb their emissions 9 years from now. That is what this administration calls a good deal? America signs up for self-inflicted pain today, and China maybe--maybe--thinks about beginning to follow suit in another decade. So, listen, China continues to produce more than one-fourth--one-fourth--of the world's carbon output, roughly 2\1/2\ times as much as the United States. Instead of fighting back against our adversaries, Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would just hand-deliver them one big gift right after another, like the big new tax hikes on American businesses that would leave our industries paying higher tax rates than businesses in communist China; like doubling down on the anti-energy policies that already have the Biden administration going hat in hand to Russia and OPEC and begging them to up their own production for us. As our colleague Senator Barrasso pointed out yesterday, before the Biden administration took over, America was enjoying energy independence for the first time in seven decades. Before the Biden administration took over, America was enjoying energy independence for the first time in seven decades, but now, we are heading the other way. America has doubled our oil purchases from Russia on President Biden's watch. We are twice as dependent on Russian oil today as we were before this administration took power. And President Biden green-lighted Putin's new gas pipeline that will give Moscow even more leverage over the European continent. So Democrats want our Nation on a path toward less energy independence and higher costs for working families. Their reckless taxing-and-spending spree would make it all dramatically worse. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7095-2 | null | 3,307 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Federal Government's own analysts of the energy sector are predicting that this winter American families could face home heating bills that are 54 percent higher than last year--54 percent higher than just last year. On average, the price for our households running on natural gas is expected to jump 30 percent. For homes that use propane, a different assessment says the forecast looks like ``propane-market Armageddon.'' As the head of one aid organization put it, ``After the beating that people have taken in the pandemic, it's like: What's next?'' What is next? Well, astonishingly, what is next is yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree from Washington Democrats, including more inflationary spending to push costs even higher and more anti-domestic-energy taxes and regulations that would only compound these problems. That includes new, crushing taxes aimed at domestic natural gas production. They want to reprise the Obama administration's War on Coal. But this time the target is also--in addition to coal, the target is also the natural gas that provides electricity for our communities and heats families' homes. And then there are the new mandates and new penalties that are essentially designed to make 49 States' electrical grids move more in the direction of California's--paying higher costs for less reliable power. Now, unfortunately, this has been the Biden administration's playbook going back to the very beginning. Remember, killing the Keystone XL Pipeline and thousands of American jobs was a day one--a day one--priority. Then it was the ban on new development of domestic energy reserves and the hasty mission to rejoin the toothless Paris climate accords, where virtually nobody--nobody--but America seems to be remotely interested in achieving their nonbinding ``commitments.'' So for all the leftwing's apparent urgency to pass radical climate policy, they seem not to care much about tackling the biggest sources of the world's carbon emissions. The so-called international community that had scraped together the failed Paris deal could only get the world's most prolific polluter, that is, China, to agree--now, listen to this--to curb its increase in emissions 9 years from now. That is all they got out of China: an agreement to curb their emissions 9 years from now. That is what this administration calls a good deal? America signs up for self-inflicted pain today, and China maybe--maybe--thinks about beginning to follow suit in another decade. So, listen, China continues to produce more than one-fourth--one-fourth--of the world's carbon output, roughly 2\1/2\ times as much as the United States. Instead of fighting back against our adversaries, Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would just hand-deliver them one big gift right after another, like the big new tax hikes on American businesses that would leave our industries paying higher tax rates than businesses in communist China; like doubling down on the anti-energy policies that already have the Biden administration going hat in hand to Russia and OPEC and begging them to up their own production for us. As our colleague Senator Barrasso pointed out yesterday, before the Biden administration took over, America was enjoying energy independence for the first time in seven decades. Before the Biden administration took over, America was enjoying energy independence for the first time in seven decades, but now, we are heading the other way. America has doubled our oil purchases from Russia on President Biden's watch. We are twice as dependent on Russian oil today as we were before this administration took power. And President Biden green-lighted Putin's new gas pipeline that will give Moscow even more leverage over the European continent. So Democrats want our Nation on a path toward less energy independence and higher costs for working families. Their reckless taxing-and-spending spree would make it all dramatically worse. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7095-2 | null | 3,308 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on another matter, our country would be much better off if our Democratic colleagues shelved their radical wish list and focused on their fundamental responsibilities as a one-party government. But while they continue to spin their wheels negotiating this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, their most basic jobs are being neglected. This week, already months behind the usual pace, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee released partisan drafts of spending bills that are dead on arrival. They spend too much. They cut our longstanding taxpayer protections like the Hyde amendment. They shortchange our national defense even as we face serious and growing threats from terrorism and from major competitors like China and Russia. Most of these bills can't earn 50 votes, much less 60. When Republicans ran the Senate, by this time of year, we had had bipartisan frameworks in hand for months, and we were hammering out the fine details across the aisle. Our Democratic colleagues are way, way behind schedule, with no solution in sight. It is also looking increasingly likely that we will reach Veterans Day before the Senate takes up the National Defense Authorization Act--now, never mind that this year's bill earned overwhelming, bipartisan support in committee; never mind that it represents this body's single most important opportunity to influence national security. Our troops are being put in the back seat so the socialists can drive the car. At the end of the month, because House liberals still cannot get their act together and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which the Senate passed months ago, major highway projects and American workers are scheduled to be thrown into limbo. Our Democratic colleagues have unified control of the government--unified control of the government. The country needs them to stop arguing among themselves over how to waste trillions of dollars and get about executing their most basic jobs. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7095-3 | null | 3,309 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on another matter, our country would be much better off if our Democratic colleagues shelved their radical wish list and focused on their fundamental responsibilities as a one-party government. But while they continue to spin their wheels negotiating this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, their most basic jobs are being neglected. This week, already months behind the usual pace, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee released partisan drafts of spending bills that are dead on arrival. They spend too much. They cut our longstanding taxpayer protections like the Hyde amendment. They shortchange our national defense even as we face serious and growing threats from terrorism and from major competitors like China and Russia. Most of these bills can't earn 50 votes, much less 60. When Republicans ran the Senate, by this time of year, we had had bipartisan frameworks in hand for months, and we were hammering out the fine details across the aisle. Our Democratic colleagues are way, way behind schedule, with no solution in sight. It is also looking increasingly likely that we will reach Veterans Day before the Senate takes up the National Defense Authorization Act--now, never mind that this year's bill earned overwhelming, bipartisan support in committee; never mind that it represents this body's single most important opportunity to influence national security. Our troops are being put in the back seat so the socialists can drive the car. At the end of the month, because House liberals still cannot get their act together and pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which the Senate passed months ago, major highway projects and American workers are scheduled to be thrown into limbo. Our Democratic colleagues have unified control of the government--unified control of the government. The country needs them to stop arguing among themselves over how to waste trillions of dollars and get about executing their most basic jobs. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7095-3 | null | 3,310 |
formal | election integrity | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on one final matter, later today, the Democratic leader will have the Senate vote on the latest iteration of his party's election takeover scheme. Frankly, I have just about lost count of how many times our Democratic colleagues have tried to truss up the same takeover with new trappings. For multiple years running, Washington Democrats have offered a rotating merry-go-round of rationale to explain why they need to federalize voting laws and take over all of America's elections themselves, but every time they try this shtick in the Senate, it falls flat. Today will be no exception. This latest umpteenth iteration is only a compromise in the sense that the left and the far left argued among themselves about exactly how much power to grab and in which areas. This latest bill still subjects popular, commonsense election integrity protections like voter ID to the whims ofFederal bureaucrats. It still sends government money to political campaigns--government money, taxpayers' money, to political campaigns, for goodness' sake. It still puts Washington in the middle of the States' redistricting decisions and on and on. The same rotten core is all still there. The Senate knows how to make a law in a productive, bipartisan way. We have done it this year on multiple subjects. We have done it on election issues themselves in recent memory--the Help America Vote Act 20 years ago that Chris Dodd and I put together. We did that when there was an actual problem that needed solving and an actual bipartisan process. But as long as Senate Democrats remain fixated on their radical agenda, this body will continue to do the job the Framers assigned it and stop terrible ideas in their tracks. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7095-4 | null | 3,311 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Nomination of Tana Lin Finally, Mr. President, on another matter, this week, the Senate is going to vote to confirm Tana Lin to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of the State of Washington. Ms. Lin is an accomplished litigator whose credentials, skills, and decades of experience have prepared her for this assignment. If confirmed, she would be the first Asian American to serve on a Federal district court in the State of Washington. She graduated from Cornell University and New York University School of Law and began her career here in DC as a public defender. She then continued defending the rights of the most vulnerable as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Following her time there, she moved to my home State of Illinois to work in the Chicago district office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She litigated cases under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, age discrimination cases, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Today, Ms. Lin works as an attorney in private practice, where she primarily litigates cases involving antitrust, consumer protection, the environment, and labor and employment issues. And as a pro bono civil rights attorney, she has combated racial discrimination, advocated for religious accommodations in the workplace, and helped protect our elections from political interference. Her nomination is another example of the Biden administration and Senate Democrats working together to advance highly qualified judicial nominees. Ms. Lin received a unanimous--unanimous--rating of ``well qualified'' from the American Bar Association, and she has the strong support of her home State Senators, Murray and Cantwell. I urge my colleagues to support Ms. Lin's historic nomination. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7100-2 | null | 3,312 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Build Back Better Mr. President, ``denial,'' incidentally, seems to be the watchword on the Republican side. Certainly it is when it comes to climate change. Some of our Republican colleagues insist, despite all of the evidence, that climate change is a phony, fake news, a hoax. Others acknowledge it is real but say we just can't afford to do anything about it. In fact, what we can't afford to do is nothing. Climate change is here, and the cost of it is disastrous. One in three Americans live in a county that has been hit by an extreme weather event this summer--one in three--with family homes consumed by wildfires, farms ravaged by unprecedented droughts, and lives lost in floods of Biblical proportion. Last year, our Nation was hit by 18 climate disasters costing at least a billion dollars each--18. The total tab for climate-related disasters that year was $95 billion. This year is worse. Remember Hurricane Ida? It caused $100 billion in damages. Think about that. One storm: $100 billion. And don't believe that that is just a matter of private citizens contacting their insurance companies. You can bet that the Federal Government and many State and local governments will be investing heavily to overcome the damage that has been done. Climate change is the gravest threat to our economy, bar none--not to mention our children's and grandchildren's future. We have waited too long. Climate change must be addressed today. Tomorrow is too late. Delay and denial would not make it disappear. They will only increase the damage and lessen the opportunities for solutions that we might consider. America is the world's can-do Nation. We are the Nation who looks at problems and says: We can fix it. And here is something that our Republican colleagues either don't get or won't admit: Dealing with climate change has the potential to be the biggest job creator in generations. We have an opportunity to put millions of Americans to work building a sustainable, resilient future for our country. Let me give you a recent example from last week. I had a chance to meet with the public transit officials in Champaign-Urbana, IL. Of course, Champaign-Urbana, IL, is home to the University of Illinois. They were there to showcase a new zero-emissions bus and a charging infrastructure that is cutting edge. You see, these buses run on hydrogen fuel cells powered by solar energy. They will save tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and prevent more than 130 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every single year. Imagine if every city in America followed the lead of Champaign-Urbana, reconstructing their public transit system, making them sustainable and dependable. Think of all the Americans we could put to work assembling buses and trains, building charging stations, training workers to maintain and repair these fleets. That is what President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill will help do. It is the largest infrastructure proposal in decades, and it will invest billions in green transit alone. And, for the record, the previous President, Republican President Donald Trump, had no transportation package. He talked about it in the campaign, and for 4 straight years he delivered nothing. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is also an investment in our future. If you are worried about our worker shortage--and you should be--the Build Back Better plan will enable parents, especially mothers, to return to work by making safe and affordable childcare resources and senior care available for every family in this country. And it is a blueprint for America to win the 21st century and boost every family's economic security by investing in schools, education, and first-class job training. Continuing to do nothing while China and our other competitors pass us by is a strategy for finishing in second place, which appears to be the Republican strategy. Our Republican colleagues say: We just can't afford to invest in America's workers, families, and economic potential. Boy, are they wrong. What we can't afford is to do nothing--nothing. That is what they did when it came to the American Rescue Plan. Not a single Republican would support our efforts for the American Rescue Plan to address the COVID-19 crisis. The vaccination program, which has vaccinated most of Americans and continues to do even more, was funded by that program. Money was in that program to help businesses get back on their feet after the pandemic. It was a real investment in the future of America. Unfortunately, it did not have support from the other side of the aisle. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7100 | null | 3,313 |
formal | job creator | null | conservative | Build Back Better Mr. President, ``denial,'' incidentally, seems to be the watchword on the Republican side. Certainly it is when it comes to climate change. Some of our Republican colleagues insist, despite all of the evidence, that climate change is a phony, fake news, a hoax. Others acknowledge it is real but say we just can't afford to do anything about it. In fact, what we can't afford to do is nothing. Climate change is here, and the cost of it is disastrous. One in three Americans live in a county that has been hit by an extreme weather event this summer--one in three--with family homes consumed by wildfires, farms ravaged by unprecedented droughts, and lives lost in floods of Biblical proportion. Last year, our Nation was hit by 18 climate disasters costing at least a billion dollars each--18. The total tab for climate-related disasters that year was $95 billion. This year is worse. Remember Hurricane Ida? It caused $100 billion in damages. Think about that. One storm: $100 billion. And don't believe that that is just a matter of private citizens contacting their insurance companies. You can bet that the Federal Government and many State and local governments will be investing heavily to overcome the damage that has been done. Climate change is the gravest threat to our economy, bar none--not to mention our children's and grandchildren's future. We have waited too long. Climate change must be addressed today. Tomorrow is too late. Delay and denial would not make it disappear. They will only increase the damage and lessen the opportunities for solutions that we might consider. America is the world's can-do Nation. We are the Nation who looks at problems and says: We can fix it. And here is something that our Republican colleagues either don't get or won't admit: Dealing with climate change has the potential to be the biggest job creator in generations. We have an opportunity to put millions of Americans to work building a sustainable, resilient future for our country. Let me give you a recent example from last week. I had a chance to meet with the public transit officials in Champaign-Urbana, IL. Of course, Champaign-Urbana, IL, is home to the University of Illinois. They were there to showcase a new zero-emissions bus and a charging infrastructure that is cutting edge. You see, these buses run on hydrogen fuel cells powered by solar energy. They will save tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and prevent more than 130 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every single year. Imagine if every city in America followed the lead of Champaign-Urbana, reconstructing their public transit system, making them sustainable and dependable. Think of all the Americans we could put to work assembling buses and trains, building charging stations, training workers to maintain and repair these fleets. That is what President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill will help do. It is the largest infrastructure proposal in decades, and it will invest billions in green transit alone. And, for the record, the previous President, Republican President Donald Trump, had no transportation package. He talked about it in the campaign, and for 4 straight years he delivered nothing. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is also an investment in our future. If you are worried about our worker shortage--and you should be--the Build Back Better plan will enable parents, especially mothers, to return to work by making safe and affordable childcare resources and senior care available for every family in this country. And it is a blueprint for America to win the 21st century and boost every family's economic security by investing in schools, education, and first-class job training. Continuing to do nothing while China and our other competitors pass us by is a strategy for finishing in second place, which appears to be the Republican strategy. Our Republican colleagues say: We just can't afford to invest in America's workers, families, and economic potential. Boy, are they wrong. What we can't afford is to do nothing--nothing. That is what they did when it came to the American Rescue Plan. Not a single Republican would support our efforts for the American Rescue Plan to address the COVID-19 crisis. The vaccination program, which has vaccinated most of Americans and continues to do even more, was funded by that program. Money was in that program to help businesses get back on their feet after the pandemic. It was a real investment in the future of America. Unfortunately, it did not have support from the other side of the aisle. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7100 | null | 3,314 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Build Back Better Mr. President, ``denial,'' incidentally, seems to be the watchword on the Republican side. Certainly it is when it comes to climate change. Some of our Republican colleagues insist, despite all of the evidence, that climate change is a phony, fake news, a hoax. Others acknowledge it is real but say we just can't afford to do anything about it. In fact, what we can't afford to do is nothing. Climate change is here, and the cost of it is disastrous. One in three Americans live in a county that has been hit by an extreme weather event this summer--one in three--with family homes consumed by wildfires, farms ravaged by unprecedented droughts, and lives lost in floods of Biblical proportion. Last year, our Nation was hit by 18 climate disasters costing at least a billion dollars each--18. The total tab for climate-related disasters that year was $95 billion. This year is worse. Remember Hurricane Ida? It caused $100 billion in damages. Think about that. One storm: $100 billion. And don't believe that that is just a matter of private citizens contacting their insurance companies. You can bet that the Federal Government and many State and local governments will be investing heavily to overcome the damage that has been done. Climate change is the gravest threat to our economy, bar none--not to mention our children's and grandchildren's future. We have waited too long. Climate change must be addressed today. Tomorrow is too late. Delay and denial would not make it disappear. They will only increase the damage and lessen the opportunities for solutions that we might consider. America is the world's can-do Nation. We are the Nation who looks at problems and says: We can fix it. And here is something that our Republican colleagues either don't get or won't admit: Dealing with climate change has the potential to be the biggest job creator in generations. We have an opportunity to put millions of Americans to work building a sustainable, resilient future for our country. Let me give you a recent example from last week. I had a chance to meet with the public transit officials in Champaign-Urbana, IL. Of course, Champaign-Urbana, IL, is home to the University of Illinois. They were there to showcase a new zero-emissions bus and a charging infrastructure that is cutting edge. You see, these buses run on hydrogen fuel cells powered by solar energy. They will save tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and prevent more than 130 tons of greenhouse gas emissions every single year. Imagine if every city in America followed the lead of Champaign-Urbana, reconstructing their public transit system, making them sustainable and dependable. Think of all the Americans we could put to work assembling buses and trains, building charging stations, training workers to maintain and repair these fleets. That is what President Biden's bipartisan infrastructure bill will help do. It is the largest infrastructure proposal in decades, and it will invest billions in green transit alone. And, for the record, the previous President, Republican President Donald Trump, had no transportation package. He talked about it in the campaign, and for 4 straight years he delivered nothing. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is also an investment in our future. If you are worried about our worker shortage--and you should be--the Build Back Better plan will enable parents, especially mothers, to return to work by making safe and affordable childcare resources and senior care available for every family in this country. And it is a blueprint for America to win the 21st century and boost every family's economic security by investing in schools, education, and first-class job training. Continuing to do nothing while China and our other competitors pass us by is a strategy for finishing in second place, which appears to be the Republican strategy. Our Republican colleagues say: We just can't afford to invest in America's workers, families, and economic potential. Boy, are they wrong. What we can't afford is to do nothing--nothing. That is what they did when it came to the American Rescue Plan. Not a single Republican would support our efforts for the American Rescue Plan to address the COVID-19 crisis. The vaccination program, which has vaccinated most of Americans and continues to do even more, was funded by that program. Money was in that program to help businesses get back on their feet after the pandemic. It was a real investment in the future of America. Unfortunately, it did not have support from the other side of the aisle. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7100 | null | 3,315 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Tax Code Madam President, now let me say one final word on a timely topic here. As you know, our body is going to soon be considering, I think, some changes to our Tax Code. We don't know exactly what they are. I just want to strongly encourage my colleagues and my friends--because I like everybody in this body--if we are going to make changes to our Tax Code, to make those changes on the basis of sound economic principles. Don't make them on the basis of class warfare. Some of the proponents of some of the changes that I have seen discussed in the media, in my opinion, don't understand the complexity of the American economy. They just don't. They think of our economy as it was in primitive times, when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. In those days, in primitive times, when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers, the only value that was created in the economy that we had was labor. It was all labor. And then, in those days, when somebody became rich, they became rich by exploiting the capital of others. In fact, that is what Marx talked about. Marx's concept of the economy was that the only value in an economy is work. And if you become wealthy in an economy, you become wealthy as a result of exploiting the labor of others. So Marx agreed with this description of the--I want to say our medieval, but it was way before medieval times, when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. That is not the American economy today. The American economy today is the greatest economy in all of human history because it is a marriage of capital and labor. And capital and labor are not antagonistic. They work together. Now, it is not without friction. I understand that. But that is why we have become the greatest economy in all of human history. And when capital joins labor and the two contribute and play their own role, we are able to all work and save and invest and fund the research and development and do the innovative things that have given all of us the greatest quality of life in all of human history. So capital is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. And there has been a lot of talk around here about billionaires--bad, bad billionaires; they are not paying their fair share. I have never completely understood how you determine what the fair share is of somebody. Let me put it another way. I don't understand what the fair share is of what somebody else has worked for. I don't know what my fair share is of what Madam President's--what she has worked for. It is yours. You worked for it. But that aside, this talk about the bad, bad billionaires and they don't pay their fair share and they are hurting our economy and they only got rich based on exploiting other people's labor, I think, shows a gross misunderstanding of the complexity of the U.S. economy and a gross misunderstanding of free enterprise. And I hope we don't lose sight of that as we go about the process of making changes to our Tax Code. Let me say it again. If we make changes to our Tax Code, let's don't make them on the basis of class warfare. Let's make them on the basis of sound economic principles. So congratulations to Robert Travis Scott from PAR. Robert, I hope you have a wonderful retirement. Don't be moving back to South Carolina or Baltimore or other places. Stay in Louisiana. And, Mike, I miss you. Mike Enzi, I miss you. I have heard it said before that--I didn't say this, now; I am just repeating it--most Senators believe in God, and the rest of them think they are God. Mike Enzi was in the former category. Just a great man. Smart, good fisherman. But most of all, he was decent. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7112 | null | 3,316 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Tax Code Madam President, now let me say one final word on a timely topic here. As you know, our body is going to soon be considering, I think, some changes to our Tax Code. We don't know exactly what they are. I just want to strongly encourage my colleagues and my friends--because I like everybody in this body--if we are going to make changes to our Tax Code, to make those changes on the basis of sound economic principles. Don't make them on the basis of class warfare. Some of the proponents of some of the changes that I have seen discussed in the media, in my opinion, don't understand the complexity of the American economy. They just don't. They think of our economy as it was in primitive times, when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. In those days, in primitive times, when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers, the only value that was created in the economy that we had was labor. It was all labor. And then, in those days, when somebody became rich, they became rich by exploiting the capital of others. In fact, that is what Marx talked about. Marx's concept of the economy was that the only value in an economy is work. And if you become wealthy in an economy, you become wealthy as a result of exploiting the labor of others. So Marx agreed with this description of the--I want to say our medieval, but it was way before medieval times, when our ancestors were hunters and gatherers. That is not the American economy today. The American economy today is the greatest economy in all of human history because it is a marriage of capital and labor. And capital and labor are not antagonistic. They work together. Now, it is not without friction. I understand that. But that is why we have become the greatest economy in all of human history. And when capital joins labor and the two contribute and play their own role, we are able to all work and save and invest and fund the research and development and do the innovative things that have given all of us the greatest quality of life in all of human history. So capital is not a bad thing; it is a good thing. And there has been a lot of talk around here about billionaires--bad, bad billionaires; they are not paying their fair share. I have never completely understood how you determine what the fair share is of somebody. Let me put it another way. I don't understand what the fair share is of what somebody else has worked for. I don't know what my fair share is of what Madam President's--what she has worked for. It is yours. You worked for it. But that aside, this talk about the bad, bad billionaires and they don't pay their fair share and they are hurting our economy and they only got rich based on exploiting other people's labor, I think, shows a gross misunderstanding of the complexity of the U.S. economy and a gross misunderstanding of free enterprise. And I hope we don't lose sight of that as we go about the process of making changes to our Tax Code. Let me say it again. If we make changes to our Tax Code, let's don't make them on the basis of class warfare. Let's make them on the basis of sound economic principles. So congratulations to Robert Travis Scott from PAR. Robert, I hope you have a wonderful retirement. Don't be moving back to South Carolina or Baltimore or other places. Stay in Louisiana. And, Mike, I miss you. Mike Enzi, I miss you. I have heard it said before that--I didn't say this, now; I am just repeating it--most Senators believe in God, and the rest of them think they are God. Mike Enzi was in the former category. Just a great man. Smart, good fisherman. But most of all, he was decent. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7112 | null | 3,317 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The Economy Madam President, I have one other topic I want to address this afternoon, and it has to do with this really extraordinary and very reckless tax-and-spending spree that our Democratic colleagues seem determined to attempt to pass. Now, there has been a lot of focus, understandably, on the staggering size of this, right? Is this going to be the $3.5 trillion of the budget resolution that passed here and is that a compromise from $6 trillion that some of our Democratic colleagues preferred or 7 trillion--or will it be 1.5 or 2? OK. I would just say that there is no doubt in my mind, wherever this ends up, if it ends up anywhere, it is going to do a lot of damage. It is going to do a lot of damage to our economy. And I think that is probably why there are significant reservations, even among Democrats, and there is not any support among any Republicans for the various iterations of this bill. At the heart of it, what this bill does is several things, but one of them is to attempt to redefine the very role of the Federal Government in our society. And what I am referring to is the attempt to have the Federal Government provide the needs--like all kinds of basic needs, so basically anyone in the middle class--from cradle to grave. It is free pre-K, free childcare, free paid leave, free community college--oh, maybe that one got dropped. I mean, many of them aren't even means-tested. They are not meant to be means-tested. If they are, you can have many multiples of the median family income and still qualify. It is all about making the middle class dependent on government. What a terrible idea. But I will have more to say on another occasion about the idea of putting the entire middle class on the dole. Instead, I want to focus for a minute on a particularly ill-conceived provision on the tax side of this because it has massive tax increases as part of this proposal. And one of them is the huge increase in the U.S. global minimum tax. When we did tax reform of 2017 and brought about the end of corporate inversions, among other things, we established a global minimum tax at a low rate of 10 percent. Now, what the Biden administration is proposing is going to completely upend the tax reform of 2017. We probably all remember the big announcements about this international agreement on multinational taxation. It consists of two pillars, as you may recall. Pillar 1 is this unprecedented change that would allow foreign countries to tax American companies based on the sales of the American companies into the foreign country. We have never had a tax policy based on that. You could tax the income of a company that is based in your country; you don't get to reach into the income of a company based in some other country. Many of our allies and friends around the world have long wanted to grab some income tax from American companies, and American administrationshave fought it. This administration has embraced it. It is a big revenue transfer from U.S. Treasury to the treasuries of other countries. Unsurprisingly, this feature--this pillar 1--has been a high priority for these other countries. As I say, they have long sought this source of money. That is pillar 1. Pillar 2 is an agreement by OECD countries to impose a 15-percent minimum tax on the foreign income of their multinational countries. Now, why was this important? Well, this is very important to the Biden administration because they want to raise the tax imposed on foreign income of U.S. multinationals, and they at least implicitly acknowledge that if foreign countries don't do likewise--if they don't have a very burdensome tax regime like we are going to create under the Biden plan--then we would be at a huge competitive disadvantage, and multinationals would have no choice but to flee the United States and many, many jobs going with them. So that is pillar 2. Now, here is one of the big problems with this whole arrangement, this whole negotiation. As I said before, the administration has implicitly acknowledged that if the rest of the world doesn't impose this huge minimum tax on their multinationals, we would be at a huge competitive disadvantage. That is why they negotiate with us. But there is a very real possibility that some of these countries--many of them--may not implement a global minimum tax, despite the tentative agreement. And there are at least two reasons. One is, these countries have only reluctantly agreed to pillar 2 in the first place. They didn't think this was such a great idea, but they agreed to it in return for pillar 1--right?--in return for the commitment that they would be able to grab some of the tax revenue that we normally collect. There is a problem with that. Implementing pillar 1 requires changing the treaties--the multilateral or the bilateral tax treaties--that the United States has with these other countries. Changing the treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate because under the Constitution, ratification of a treaty is subject to a two-thirds vote. Well, guess what. I don't think there is two-thirds of the U.S. Senate prepared to vote for this tax giveaway to these other countries. So if I am right, then pillar 1 never gets implemented. If pillar 1 never gets implemented, then the sole motivation for these countries to raise their corporate global minimum tax goes away. So I am not sure how they square this circle. And at a minimum, I would think they ought to sort this out--the administration, that is--before they just go ahead and put American companies at a huge competitive disadvantage. By the way, even if they get their way exactly, we are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage. The best they could negotiate from OECD countries was a global minimum tax of 15 percent. Their own proposal has an effective global minimum tax rate of 26 percent that we will be imposing on our own companies. That is a pretty big difference on the margin, and it creates an incentive to have your multinational headquartered somewhere other than the United States of America. That is a very bad idea. So I think there is a very substantial risk that when the administration gets wrapped around the axle because they are finding they can't get the two-thirds majority in the Senate for us to inflict this wound on ourselves--on our own economy--well, the rest of the world is going to rethink raising their minimum tax. And yet--and yet--our Democratic colleagues seem determined to move ahead with this huge tax increase and all this spending. And who knows, maybe it passes any day now. But let me be clear, this is a destructive tax increase. It will hurt American workers, make the United States a less competitive place to do business, whether or not the rest of the world follows suit. And so I would just urge my colleagues, don't do this damage. I don't know what people think they are fixing. In 2019--just 1 year after the full implementation of our tax reform--we had the best economy of my lifetime. There was an end to corporate inversions. There was an economic boom. We had a record low unemployment rate--alltime record low unemployment for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, women. Workforce participation rate was at multidecade highs. Wages were growing, and wages were growing fastest for the lowest income workers. Under our regulatory and tax reforms, we were narrowing the income gap and allowing Americans to create wealth and prosperity and achieve a higher standard of living. I ask my colleagues: What was so bad about that? What is really so bad about the best economy of my lifetime--rising wages, a better standard of living, and a narrowing of the income gap? What was so bad about that that you want to throw it out the door, out the window? I don't get that. I don't get that at all. It is not too late. Maybe we will be fortunate enough to be able to dodge this. But if we don't, a lot of families, workers, Americans of all walks of life will have a lower standard of living as a result of this very ill-conceived tax policy in the Biden administration. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7113 | null | 3,318 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The Economy Madam President, I have one other topic I want to address this afternoon, and it has to do with this really extraordinary and very reckless tax-and-spending spree that our Democratic colleagues seem determined to attempt to pass. Now, there has been a lot of focus, understandably, on the staggering size of this, right? Is this going to be the $3.5 trillion of the budget resolution that passed here and is that a compromise from $6 trillion that some of our Democratic colleagues preferred or 7 trillion--or will it be 1.5 or 2? OK. I would just say that there is no doubt in my mind, wherever this ends up, if it ends up anywhere, it is going to do a lot of damage. It is going to do a lot of damage to our economy. And I think that is probably why there are significant reservations, even among Democrats, and there is not any support among any Republicans for the various iterations of this bill. At the heart of it, what this bill does is several things, but one of them is to attempt to redefine the very role of the Federal Government in our society. And what I am referring to is the attempt to have the Federal Government provide the needs--like all kinds of basic needs, so basically anyone in the middle class--from cradle to grave. It is free pre-K, free childcare, free paid leave, free community college--oh, maybe that one got dropped. I mean, many of them aren't even means-tested. They are not meant to be means-tested. If they are, you can have many multiples of the median family income and still qualify. It is all about making the middle class dependent on government. What a terrible idea. But I will have more to say on another occasion about the idea of putting the entire middle class on the dole. Instead, I want to focus for a minute on a particularly ill-conceived provision on the tax side of this because it has massive tax increases as part of this proposal. And one of them is the huge increase in the U.S. global minimum tax. When we did tax reform of 2017 and brought about the end of corporate inversions, among other things, we established a global minimum tax at a low rate of 10 percent. Now, what the Biden administration is proposing is going to completely upend the tax reform of 2017. We probably all remember the big announcements about this international agreement on multinational taxation. It consists of two pillars, as you may recall. Pillar 1 is this unprecedented change that would allow foreign countries to tax American companies based on the sales of the American companies into the foreign country. We have never had a tax policy based on that. You could tax the income of a company that is based in your country; you don't get to reach into the income of a company based in some other country. Many of our allies and friends around the world have long wanted to grab some income tax from American companies, and American administrationshave fought it. This administration has embraced it. It is a big revenue transfer from U.S. Treasury to the treasuries of other countries. Unsurprisingly, this feature--this pillar 1--has been a high priority for these other countries. As I say, they have long sought this source of money. That is pillar 1. Pillar 2 is an agreement by OECD countries to impose a 15-percent minimum tax on the foreign income of their multinational countries. Now, why was this important? Well, this is very important to the Biden administration because they want to raise the tax imposed on foreign income of U.S. multinationals, and they at least implicitly acknowledge that if foreign countries don't do likewise--if they don't have a very burdensome tax regime like we are going to create under the Biden plan--then we would be at a huge competitive disadvantage, and multinationals would have no choice but to flee the United States and many, many jobs going with them. So that is pillar 2. Now, here is one of the big problems with this whole arrangement, this whole negotiation. As I said before, the administration has implicitly acknowledged that if the rest of the world doesn't impose this huge minimum tax on their multinationals, we would be at a huge competitive disadvantage. That is why they negotiate with us. But there is a very real possibility that some of these countries--many of them--may not implement a global minimum tax, despite the tentative agreement. And there are at least two reasons. One is, these countries have only reluctantly agreed to pillar 2 in the first place. They didn't think this was such a great idea, but they agreed to it in return for pillar 1--right?--in return for the commitment that they would be able to grab some of the tax revenue that we normally collect. There is a problem with that. Implementing pillar 1 requires changing the treaties--the multilateral or the bilateral tax treaties--that the United States has with these other countries. Changing the treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate because under the Constitution, ratification of a treaty is subject to a two-thirds vote. Well, guess what. I don't think there is two-thirds of the U.S. Senate prepared to vote for this tax giveaway to these other countries. So if I am right, then pillar 1 never gets implemented. If pillar 1 never gets implemented, then the sole motivation for these countries to raise their corporate global minimum tax goes away. So I am not sure how they square this circle. And at a minimum, I would think they ought to sort this out--the administration, that is--before they just go ahead and put American companies at a huge competitive disadvantage. By the way, even if they get their way exactly, we are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage. The best they could negotiate from OECD countries was a global minimum tax of 15 percent. Their own proposal has an effective global minimum tax rate of 26 percent that we will be imposing on our own companies. That is a pretty big difference on the margin, and it creates an incentive to have your multinational headquartered somewhere other than the United States of America. That is a very bad idea. So I think there is a very substantial risk that when the administration gets wrapped around the axle because they are finding they can't get the two-thirds majority in the Senate for us to inflict this wound on ourselves--on our own economy--well, the rest of the world is going to rethink raising their minimum tax. And yet--and yet--our Democratic colleagues seem determined to move ahead with this huge tax increase and all this spending. And who knows, maybe it passes any day now. But let me be clear, this is a destructive tax increase. It will hurt American workers, make the United States a less competitive place to do business, whether or not the rest of the world follows suit. And so I would just urge my colleagues, don't do this damage. I don't know what people think they are fixing. In 2019--just 1 year after the full implementation of our tax reform--we had the best economy of my lifetime. There was an end to corporate inversions. There was an economic boom. We had a record low unemployment rate--alltime record low unemployment for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, women. Workforce participation rate was at multidecade highs. Wages were growing, and wages were growing fastest for the lowest income workers. Under our regulatory and tax reforms, we were narrowing the income gap and allowing Americans to create wealth and prosperity and achieve a higher standard of living. I ask my colleagues: What was so bad about that? What is really so bad about the best economy of my lifetime--rising wages, a better standard of living, and a narrowing of the income gap? What was so bad about that that you want to throw it out the door, out the window? I don't get that. I don't get that at all. It is not too late. Maybe we will be fortunate enough to be able to dodge this. But if we don't, a lot of families, workers, Americans of all walks of life will have a lower standard of living as a result of this very ill-conceived tax policy in the Biden administration. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7113 | null | 3,319 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | The Economy Madam President, I have one other topic I want to address this afternoon, and it has to do with this really extraordinary and very reckless tax-and-spending spree that our Democratic colleagues seem determined to attempt to pass. Now, there has been a lot of focus, understandably, on the staggering size of this, right? Is this going to be the $3.5 trillion of the budget resolution that passed here and is that a compromise from $6 trillion that some of our Democratic colleagues preferred or 7 trillion--or will it be 1.5 or 2? OK. I would just say that there is no doubt in my mind, wherever this ends up, if it ends up anywhere, it is going to do a lot of damage. It is going to do a lot of damage to our economy. And I think that is probably why there are significant reservations, even among Democrats, and there is not any support among any Republicans for the various iterations of this bill. At the heart of it, what this bill does is several things, but one of them is to attempt to redefine the very role of the Federal Government in our society. And what I am referring to is the attempt to have the Federal Government provide the needs--like all kinds of basic needs, so basically anyone in the middle class--from cradle to grave. It is free pre-K, free childcare, free paid leave, free community college--oh, maybe that one got dropped. I mean, many of them aren't even means-tested. They are not meant to be means-tested. If they are, you can have many multiples of the median family income and still qualify. It is all about making the middle class dependent on government. What a terrible idea. But I will have more to say on another occasion about the idea of putting the entire middle class on the dole. Instead, I want to focus for a minute on a particularly ill-conceived provision on the tax side of this because it has massive tax increases as part of this proposal. And one of them is the huge increase in the U.S. global minimum tax. When we did tax reform of 2017 and brought about the end of corporate inversions, among other things, we established a global minimum tax at a low rate of 10 percent. Now, what the Biden administration is proposing is going to completely upend the tax reform of 2017. We probably all remember the big announcements about this international agreement on multinational taxation. It consists of two pillars, as you may recall. Pillar 1 is this unprecedented change that would allow foreign countries to tax American companies based on the sales of the American companies into the foreign country. We have never had a tax policy based on that. You could tax the income of a company that is based in your country; you don't get to reach into the income of a company based in some other country. Many of our allies and friends around the world have long wanted to grab some income tax from American companies, and American administrationshave fought it. This administration has embraced it. It is a big revenue transfer from U.S. Treasury to the treasuries of other countries. Unsurprisingly, this feature--this pillar 1--has been a high priority for these other countries. As I say, they have long sought this source of money. That is pillar 1. Pillar 2 is an agreement by OECD countries to impose a 15-percent minimum tax on the foreign income of their multinational countries. Now, why was this important? Well, this is very important to the Biden administration because they want to raise the tax imposed on foreign income of U.S. multinationals, and they at least implicitly acknowledge that if foreign countries don't do likewise--if they don't have a very burdensome tax regime like we are going to create under the Biden plan--then we would be at a huge competitive disadvantage, and multinationals would have no choice but to flee the United States and many, many jobs going with them. So that is pillar 2. Now, here is one of the big problems with this whole arrangement, this whole negotiation. As I said before, the administration has implicitly acknowledged that if the rest of the world doesn't impose this huge minimum tax on their multinationals, we would be at a huge competitive disadvantage. That is why they negotiate with us. But there is a very real possibility that some of these countries--many of them--may not implement a global minimum tax, despite the tentative agreement. And there are at least two reasons. One is, these countries have only reluctantly agreed to pillar 2 in the first place. They didn't think this was such a great idea, but they agreed to it in return for pillar 1--right?--in return for the commitment that they would be able to grab some of the tax revenue that we normally collect. There is a problem with that. Implementing pillar 1 requires changing the treaties--the multilateral or the bilateral tax treaties--that the United States has with these other countries. Changing the treaty requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate because under the Constitution, ratification of a treaty is subject to a two-thirds vote. Well, guess what. I don't think there is two-thirds of the U.S. Senate prepared to vote for this tax giveaway to these other countries. So if I am right, then pillar 1 never gets implemented. If pillar 1 never gets implemented, then the sole motivation for these countries to raise their corporate global minimum tax goes away. So I am not sure how they square this circle. And at a minimum, I would think they ought to sort this out--the administration, that is--before they just go ahead and put American companies at a huge competitive disadvantage. By the way, even if they get their way exactly, we are going to be at a huge competitive disadvantage. The best they could negotiate from OECD countries was a global minimum tax of 15 percent. Their own proposal has an effective global minimum tax rate of 26 percent that we will be imposing on our own companies. That is a pretty big difference on the margin, and it creates an incentive to have your multinational headquartered somewhere other than the United States of America. That is a very bad idea. So I think there is a very substantial risk that when the administration gets wrapped around the axle because they are finding they can't get the two-thirds majority in the Senate for us to inflict this wound on ourselves--on our own economy--well, the rest of the world is going to rethink raising their minimum tax. And yet--and yet--our Democratic colleagues seem determined to move ahead with this huge tax increase and all this spending. And who knows, maybe it passes any day now. But let me be clear, this is a destructive tax increase. It will hurt American workers, make the United States a less competitive place to do business, whether or not the rest of the world follows suit. And so I would just urge my colleagues, don't do this damage. I don't know what people think they are fixing. In 2019--just 1 year after the full implementation of our tax reform--we had the best economy of my lifetime. There was an end to corporate inversions. There was an economic boom. We had a record low unemployment rate--alltime record low unemployment for African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, women. Workforce participation rate was at multidecade highs. Wages were growing, and wages were growing fastest for the lowest income workers. Under our regulatory and tax reforms, we were narrowing the income gap and allowing Americans to create wealth and prosperity and achieve a higher standard of living. I ask my colleagues: What was so bad about that? What is really so bad about the best economy of my lifetime--rising wages, a better standard of living, and a narrowing of the income gap? What was so bad about that that you want to throw it out the door, out the window? I don't get that. I don't get that at all. It is not too late. Maybe we will be fortunate enough to be able to dodge this. But if we don't, a lot of families, workers, Americans of all walks of life will have a lower standard of living as a result of this very ill-conceived tax policy in the Biden administration. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7113 | null | 3,320 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, these days, it is not uncommon for people to frequently change careers, companies, or job paths. At one iconic Vermont entity, though, Vermont Creamery, president and chief executive officer Adeline Druart has dedicated more than 17 years to growing and expanding the company's product line and brand. She was recently featured on the Positive Enterprise Podcast, and hers is a story in which all Vermonters can find pride and motivation. The cheese and butter that Vermont Creamery produces is some of the best in the world. As a Certified B Corporation, Vermont Creamery follows a long Vermont legacy of investing in environmental sustainability, local supply chains, and worker satisfaction. These investments have clearly paid off. In 2017, Vermont Creamery was acquired by Land O'Lakes, a century-old farmer-owned cooperative, and has continued on an impressive path of conscious growth. With Land O'Lakes' support, Vermont Creamery has expanded its facilities nearly 40 percent and is now a recognizable brand in grocery stores across the country. In 2020, the company supported our community through the pandemic, donating 12,000 pounds of food to hungry Vermonters, providing hazard pay to their employees, and advocating for universal childcare for Vermont's working families. They also converted their Websterville-based facility to run on 100-percent renewable energy. And these changes have only underlined their belief that consciously crafted products made with the best ingredients just taste better. Today, the beloved Vermont Creamery makes the No. 1 best-selling goat cheese in the country. Adeline Druart is responsible for so much of this impressive growth. In the early 2000s, Adeline, then a student from France, came to Vermont Creamery to complete an internship for her master's degree. She just couldn't stay away. Adeline worked her way up the ranks at the creamery, before being named president and CEO in 2015. In that role, she has shown exactly what tenacity and hard work, when paired with a people-first approach to business, can do. The mother of two young sons, Adeline has reinforced Vermont Creamery's original family-oriented culture while steering the company's growth. She is an inspiration to me, and I am so proud that she calls Vermont home. Vermont is home to some of the finest agriculture, wood-based, and other products in the country. We feature many of these at the annual Taste of Vermont here in Washington, a tradition I hope to return to next year. At the helm of so many of these Vermont companies are people like Adeline. It is in these hard-working and creative leaders that we can find great hope for Vermont's economic recovery and vibrant future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7122 | null | 3,321 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, these days, it is not uncommon for people to frequently change careers, companies, or job paths. At one iconic Vermont entity, though, Vermont Creamery, president and chief executive officer Adeline Druart has dedicated more than 17 years to growing and expanding the company's product line and brand. She was recently featured on the Positive Enterprise Podcast, and hers is a story in which all Vermonters can find pride and motivation. The cheese and butter that Vermont Creamery produces is some of the best in the world. As a Certified B Corporation, Vermont Creamery follows a long Vermont legacy of investing in environmental sustainability, local supply chains, and worker satisfaction. These investments have clearly paid off. In 2017, Vermont Creamery was acquired by Land O'Lakes, a century-old farmer-owned cooperative, and has continued on an impressive path of conscious growth. With Land O'Lakes' support, Vermont Creamery has expanded its facilities nearly 40 percent and is now a recognizable brand in grocery stores across the country. In 2020, the company supported our community through the pandemic, donating 12,000 pounds of food to hungry Vermonters, providing hazard pay to their employees, and advocating for universal childcare for Vermont's working families. They also converted their Websterville-based facility to run on 100-percent renewable energy. And these changes have only underlined their belief that consciously crafted products made with the best ingredients just taste better. Today, the beloved Vermont Creamery makes the No. 1 best-selling goat cheese in the country. Adeline Druart is responsible for so much of this impressive growth. In the early 2000s, Adeline, then a student from France, came to Vermont Creamery to complete an internship for her master's degree. She just couldn't stay away. Adeline worked her way up the ranks at the creamery, before being named president and CEO in 2015. In that role, she has shown exactly what tenacity and hard work, when paired with a people-first approach to business, can do. The mother of two young sons, Adeline has reinforced Vermont Creamery's original family-oriented culture while steering the company's growth. She is an inspiration to me, and I am so proud that she calls Vermont home. Vermont is home to some of the finest agriculture, wood-based, and other products in the country. We feature many of these at the annual Taste of Vermont here in Washington, a tradition I hope to return to next year. At the helm of so many of these Vermont companies are people like Adeline. It is in these hard-working and creative leaders that we can find great hope for Vermont's economic recovery and vibrant future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7122 | null | 3,322 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1029. An act 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. H.R. 4089. An act 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 a point of sale of a covered rental vehicle to prevent and mitigate acts of terrorism using motor vehicles, and for other purposes. H.R. 4369. An act to amend the 21st Century Cures Act to provide for designation of institutions of higher education that provide research, data, and leadership on advanced and continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing as National Centers of Excellence in Advanced and Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and for other purposes. The message also announced that pursuant to section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (34 U.S.C. 11116), and the order of the House of January 4, 2021, the Speaker appoints the following individuals on the part of the House of Representatives to the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: Ms. Sharyl Davis of San Francisco, California, to a 3-year term, and Ms. Renee Rodriguez-Betancourt of Edinburg, Texas, to a 2-year term. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7123-5 | null | 3,323 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1029. An act 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; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 4089. An act 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; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 4369. An act to amend the 21st Century Cures Act to provide for designation of institutions of higher education that provide research, data, and leadership on advanced and continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing as National Centers of Excellence in Advanced and Continuous Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7123-6 | null | 3,324 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I wish to honor and recognize a true hero from Phillipsburg, KS, Deputy Sheriff John Miner. On November 4, 2020, Deputy Miner responded to an accident caused by a semi-truck colliding with multiple vehicles in Long Island, KS. What was already a scary situation on its own turned worse when fuel from the semi began leaking and ignited shortly after. A raging fire quickly started, and suddenly, bystanders realized two toddlers--a 4-year-old and 2-year-old--were stuck in one of the cars caught in the accident. Without a second thought, Deputy Miner performed his duty to protect and serve by leaping straight into the whipping fire to rescue those two children. With just a pocketknife, he was able to cut through the seatbelts trapping them and pulled them out miraculously unharmed. Deputy Miner, however, suffered second- and third-degree burns which required skin grafts. Thankfully, he has since recovered from his injuries. This valiant story caught the attention of many in Kansas and, now, around the Nation, as Deputy Miner has been awarded the Carnegie medal for an extraordinary act of heroism. This award is bestowed on a select few each year for showing true bravery and courage in the face of danger. Deputy Miner is absolutely deserving of this award after rescuing those two children last year from certain death. I want to thank this brave officer for being so courageous to dive headfirst into peril. As the son of a police chief, I know the risks our men and women in blue take on each day, and they are the most admirable citizens for continually working to ensure our safety. Deputy Miner has shown what true valor looks like, and Phillipsburg is safer because of him. I ask now that my colleagues show this same admiration and recognition for Deputy Miner and that he may stay safe protecting his community. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARSHALL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7123 | null | 3,325 |
formal | balance the budget | null | conservative | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: 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-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7124 | null | 3,326 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: 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-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7124 | null | 3,327 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, you know, I think Americans must look at what is happening up here in Washington, DC, and think that the Democrats look like squirrels dodging cars in traffic. This is Biden's America, one where the party in power is throwing policy spaghetti at the wall in hopes that one of their harebrained ideas will stick. It would be almost funny if our country wasn't staring down multiple problems as a result of the Biden administration's policy failures. And it is time the Democrats faced the facts. But after 10 months of President Biden running the country, how are ordinary Americans doing? Let's just take a look. Take the border crisis: a complete, predictable, self-inflicted disaster. On his first day in office, President Biden made the radical decision to open our borders by undoing many successful policies put in place by the Trump administration. They were working, and we changed them. You can draw a straight line from those ill-advised policy decisions to where we are as we speak. Two million illegal immigrants will have been apprehended by the end of this year, and those are just the ones that we caught. Oddly enough, this is one issue that the mainstream media and conservative media agree on. Here are a few recent headlines. From CNN: ``12,000 migrants have been waiting in makeshift camps under the Del Rio bridge in Texas.'' That is from CNN. And this from the Daily Caller: ``Migrants Illegally Crossing U.S.-Mexico Border Thank''--they thank--President ``[Biden's] Administration.'' Do those headlines sound like the southwest border is under control? Here is another headline for you. In a remarkable about-face, the Biden administration announced that it would reimplement the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy after doing away with it on election day. They are going to reinstate it only because of a Federal judge. It is clear President Biden could have prevented this border crisis if he had not been focused on playing politics from his first day in office. This is Biden's America. How about the fact that President Biden didn't listen to the best military advice his top commanders gave him when it came to withdrawing troops in Afghanistan? America's best experts--GEN Mark Milley, GEN Frank McKenzie, and GEN Scott Miller--all advised the President to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan to remain stable. Basically, at the end of the day, this was a State Department and President's decision. Instead, the President's strategy turned into billions in American equipment handed over to the Taliban; our most valuable airfield, Bagram--maybe one of the most valuable in the world--abandoned in dead of the night; Americans left behind in enemy lines that are still there; and a complete abandonment of our allies in Afghanistan. What a disaster. President Biden was more concerned about a good September 11 headline than a great strategy, more concerned about his press than saving American lives. The President's withdrawal will continue to be a stain on his legacy. Joe Biden created the worst American military foreign policy disaster in recent history, and the United States will be haunted by this decision for many years to come. Another fact about this is Biden's America: President Biden's policies have undercut economic growth and derailed rapid recovery that was taking place under the Trump administration. And this was even during a pandemic. Now prices are skyrocketing, businesses can't find people to work, and the United States is facing an unprecedented disruption in the supply chain. And this administration didn't know it was coming. Incredibly, the White House and its defenders continue to say that all of these deeply concerning realities are due to the fact that President Biden has been so successful in his economic policy. They are using the ``everything is so bad because President Biden is doing so good'' argument. Where in the world are they getting that from? This month, the President's own Chief of Staff promoted the idea that inflation is only a ``high-class problem,'' the 1 percent. Where has this guy been hiding? Try telling that to the middle-class families in Alabama who are seeing hard-earned money cover less at the grocery store and at the pump. The fact is, prices are rising--not just for the wealthy but for everybody. Consumer prices are at the highest point in 13 years, and inflation is costing American taxpayers $175 a month. Somebody is screwed up. Again, you can draw a straight line from the President's decisions to where we are now. It is what happens when you pay people to not rejoin the workforce, force vaccine mandates on workers, stifle growth with regulations, and waste trillions and trillions of dollars as our country attempts to recover from a pandemic. And it will only get worse with this $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend spree--not if when we raise taxes but when we raise taxes to pay for this socialist package. The American people aren't going to buy into it. The fact is that this is Biden's America. His agenda has led to the border crisis, foreign policy disasters, and a financial strain on American families. This is Biden's America, where Democrats are focused on finger-pointing and scoring political points instead of paying attention to the cold, hard facts of their policy failures. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7133-2 | null | 3,328 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, you know, I think Americans must look at what is happening up here in Washington, DC, and think that the Democrats look like squirrels dodging cars in traffic. This is Biden's America, one where the party in power is throwing policy spaghetti at the wall in hopes that one of their harebrained ideas will stick. It would be almost funny if our country wasn't staring down multiple problems as a result of the Biden administration's policy failures. And it is time the Democrats faced the facts. But after 10 months of President Biden running the country, how are ordinary Americans doing? Let's just take a look. Take the border crisis: a complete, predictable, self-inflicted disaster. On his first day in office, President Biden made the radical decision to open our borders by undoing many successful policies put in place by the Trump administration. They were working, and we changed them. You can draw a straight line from those ill-advised policy decisions to where we are as we speak. Two million illegal immigrants will have been apprehended by the end of this year, and those are just the ones that we caught. Oddly enough, this is one issue that the mainstream media and conservative media agree on. Here are a few recent headlines. From CNN: ``12,000 migrants have been waiting in makeshift camps under the Del Rio bridge in Texas.'' That is from CNN. And this from the Daily Caller: ``Migrants Illegally Crossing U.S.-Mexico Border Thank''--they thank--President ``[Biden's] Administration.'' Do those headlines sound like the southwest border is under control? Here is another headline for you. In a remarkable about-face, the Biden administration announced that it would reimplement the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy after doing away with it on election day. They are going to reinstate it only because of a Federal judge. It is clear President Biden could have prevented this border crisis if he had not been focused on playing politics from his first day in office. This is Biden's America. How about the fact that President Biden didn't listen to the best military advice his top commanders gave him when it came to withdrawing troops in Afghanistan? America's best experts--GEN Mark Milley, GEN Frank McKenzie, and GEN Scott Miller--all advised the President to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan to remain stable. Basically, at the end of the day, this was a State Department and President's decision. Instead, the President's strategy turned into billions in American equipment handed over to the Taliban; our most valuable airfield, Bagram--maybe one of the most valuable in the world--abandoned in dead of the night; Americans left behind in enemy lines that are still there; and a complete abandonment of our allies in Afghanistan. What a disaster. President Biden was more concerned about a good September 11 headline than a great strategy, more concerned about his press than saving American lives. The President's withdrawal will continue to be a stain on his legacy. Joe Biden created the worst American military foreign policy disaster in recent history, and the United States will be haunted by this decision for many years to come. Another fact about this is Biden's America: President Biden's policies have undercut economic growth and derailed rapid recovery that was taking place under the Trump administration. And this was even during a pandemic. Now prices are skyrocketing, businesses can't find people to work, and the United States is facing an unprecedented disruption in the supply chain. And this administration didn't know it was coming. Incredibly, the White House and its defenders continue to say that all of these deeply concerning realities are due to the fact that President Biden has been so successful in his economic policy. They are using the ``everything is so bad because President Biden is doing so good'' argument. Where in the world are they getting that from? This month, the President's own Chief of Staff promoted the idea that inflation is only a ``high-class problem,'' the 1 percent. Where has this guy been hiding? Try telling that to the middle-class families in Alabama who are seeing hard-earned money cover less at the grocery store and at the pump. The fact is, prices are rising--not just for the wealthy but for everybody. Consumer prices are at the highest point in 13 years, and inflation is costing American taxpayers $175 a month. Somebody is screwed up. Again, you can draw a straight line from the President's decisions to where we are now. It is what happens when you pay people to not rejoin the workforce, force vaccine mandates on workers, stifle growth with regulations, and waste trillions and trillions of dollars as our country attempts to recover from a pandemic. And it will only get worse with this $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend spree--not if when we raise taxes but when we raise taxes to pay for this socialist package. The American people aren't going to buy into it. The fact is that this is Biden's America. His agenda has led to the border crisis, foreign policy disasters, and a financial strain on American families. This is Biden's America, where Democrats are focused on finger-pointing and scoring political points instead of paying attention to the cold, hard facts of their policy failures. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7133-2 | null | 3,329 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today with a warning for Kansans and all Americans that the inflation we are seeing, Bidenflation, as I call it, is here to stay so long as those on the left continue to jam through reckless tax-and-spend bills. Unfortunately, the inflation we are seeing is a double whammy. You have less money to spend, and the things you want to buy cost more. It is hurting every hard-working American but none more than our seniors and young families living paycheck to paycheck. No, President Biden, inflation is not a problem of just the high class. Indeed, there is no equity in Bidenflation. Make no mistake, inflation and all of its lingering effects rest squarely on the shoulders of President Biden's failed social policies. It is yet another crisis created by this administration. Having personally lived through the seventies and eighties, I have seen inflation happen firsthand. I have seen it bring so many businesses down. And to put it in simpler terms, inflation is a vicious cycle, like a dog chasing its own tail and the tail is on fire. And, of course, the Biden administration has been throwing gasoline on this fire since the moment they took office. Today's inflation crisis began with Joe Biden's boondoggle stimulus bill and the proceeding labor shortages. For months now, we are seeing ``Help Wanted'' signs everywhere, from the small mom-and-pop shops on Main Street to big hotel chains and fast-food restaurants. Employers are struggling to fill the open jobs they have despite raising wages and offering return-to-work bonuses. This labor shortage is having a rippling effect across our economy, from slowing down the supply and logistics chains to putting an unfair burden on employees who choose to show up. This ripple has turned into a tidal wave of inflation and now a full-blown tsunami. But the storm waves don't stop there. The cost of living has increased as a result of production delays caused by labor shortages. Higher costs at home, such as the cost of gasoline, vehicles, groceries, and energy costs caused workers to go on strike asking for higher wages just to make ends meet. Folks, I have got news for you: Wages never keep up with inflation. All this, in turn, drives up the cost of goods and services even more. You get the point.Inflation is a vicious cycle. This is the dog chasing its own tail. But Bidenflation doesn't stop there now. Why? Because President Biden is throwing more gasoline on the fire with his unconstitutional vaccine mandate. I, too, have seen this firsthand. Just last week, I was in Kansas to meet with union members who are facing the difficult choice of keeping their jobs or getting the COVID vaccine. These folks aren't just mad; they are panicked. And it is literally job or jab for them. In fact, the unions I spoke with estimate they will lose 30 to 50 percent of their workforce due to Joe Biden's vaccine mandate. This will make both our supply chain shortages as well as inflation even worse. Mr. President, while I support the COVID vaccine and encourage folks to talk to their doctor about whether to get it, there is no doubt that President Biden's vaccination decree is an all-out assault on our private businesses, our civil liberties, and our entire constitutional system of limited government. And it is a slap in the face to so many people who stood on the frontlines of the COVID battle last year and never stopped working: nurses, doctors, first responders, and those union workers I met with last week. Trust me, I have heard loud and clear these few weeks from Kansans about what they want, and it is not an unconstitutional vaccine mandate. It is not the socialism that is born out of trillions of dollars' worth of spending and taxing that has led to reckless inflation, hampered our economy, and killed our jobs. The question is, Do Americans want Big Government socialism or do we want economic freedom and prosperity? Kansans agree that if you want strong roads, bridges, high-speed internet, good schools, and a strong military, we need a strong economy. That should be our focus right now, not continuing down this administration's socialist economic policies. Pre-COVID, we had the greatest economy in my lifetime. That came about because we lowered people's taxes; we lowered regulations; and we lowered energy prices. We need smart, targeted investments, not radical spending that leaves the country at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, in the meantime, everyone better buckle up and grab your wallets. Bidenflation is here to stay as long as this administration continues its reckless taxing, reckless borrowing, and reckless spending agenda. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARSHALL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7133-3 | null | 3,330 |
formal | economic freedom | null | anti-GMO | Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor today with a warning for Kansans and all Americans that the inflation we are seeing, Bidenflation, as I call it, is here to stay so long as those on the left continue to jam through reckless tax-and-spend bills. Unfortunately, the inflation we are seeing is a double whammy. You have less money to spend, and the things you want to buy cost more. It is hurting every hard-working American but none more than our seniors and young families living paycheck to paycheck. No, President Biden, inflation is not a problem of just the high class. Indeed, there is no equity in Bidenflation. Make no mistake, inflation and all of its lingering effects rest squarely on the shoulders of President Biden's failed social policies. It is yet another crisis created by this administration. Having personally lived through the seventies and eighties, I have seen inflation happen firsthand. I have seen it bring so many businesses down. And to put it in simpler terms, inflation is a vicious cycle, like a dog chasing its own tail and the tail is on fire. And, of course, the Biden administration has been throwing gasoline on this fire since the moment they took office. Today's inflation crisis began with Joe Biden's boondoggle stimulus bill and the proceeding labor shortages. For months now, we are seeing ``Help Wanted'' signs everywhere, from the small mom-and-pop shops on Main Street to big hotel chains and fast-food restaurants. Employers are struggling to fill the open jobs they have despite raising wages and offering return-to-work bonuses. This labor shortage is having a rippling effect across our economy, from slowing down the supply and logistics chains to putting an unfair burden on employees who choose to show up. This ripple has turned into a tidal wave of inflation and now a full-blown tsunami. But the storm waves don't stop there. The cost of living has increased as a result of production delays caused by labor shortages. Higher costs at home, such as the cost of gasoline, vehicles, groceries, and energy costs caused workers to go on strike asking for higher wages just to make ends meet. Folks, I have got news for you: Wages never keep up with inflation. All this, in turn, drives up the cost of goods and services even more. You get the point.Inflation is a vicious cycle. This is the dog chasing its own tail. But Bidenflation doesn't stop there now. Why? Because President Biden is throwing more gasoline on the fire with his unconstitutional vaccine mandate. I, too, have seen this firsthand. Just last week, I was in Kansas to meet with union members who are facing the difficult choice of keeping their jobs or getting the COVID vaccine. These folks aren't just mad; they are panicked. And it is literally job or jab for them. In fact, the unions I spoke with estimate they will lose 30 to 50 percent of their workforce due to Joe Biden's vaccine mandate. This will make both our supply chain shortages as well as inflation even worse. Mr. President, while I support the COVID vaccine and encourage folks to talk to their doctor about whether to get it, there is no doubt that President Biden's vaccination decree is an all-out assault on our private businesses, our civil liberties, and our entire constitutional system of limited government. And it is a slap in the face to so many people who stood on the frontlines of the COVID battle last year and never stopped working: nurses, doctors, first responders, and those union workers I met with last week. Trust me, I have heard loud and clear these few weeks from Kansans about what they want, and it is not an unconstitutional vaccine mandate. It is not the socialism that is born out of trillions of dollars' worth of spending and taxing that has led to reckless inflation, hampered our economy, and killed our jobs. The question is, Do Americans want Big Government socialism or do we want economic freedom and prosperity? Kansans agree that if you want strong roads, bridges, high-speed internet, good schools, and a strong military, we need a strong economy. That should be our focus right now, not continuing down this administration's socialist economic policies. Pre-COVID, we had the greatest economy in my lifetime. That came about because we lowered people's taxes; we lowered regulations; and we lowered energy prices. We need smart, targeted investments, not radical spending that leaves the country at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, in the meantime, everyone better buckle up and grab your wallets. Bidenflation is here to stay as long as this administration continues its reckless taxing, reckless borrowing, and reckless spending agenda. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARSHALL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7133-3 | null | 3,331 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the harmful impacts that President Biden's policies are having on the global supply chain and consumer energy prices. Americans today are facing the highest increase in costs for goods and services in over a decade, with inflation now more than 5 percent and rising. Similarly, our workforce participation rate is stagnant. There are still 4.3 million fewer workers today than there were in February of 2020. Nationally, there are more than 10 million job openings--more than in any other year. Record high job openings, coupled with rapidly increasing consumer demand, is causing disruptions to global supply chains and further increasing costs, increasing inflation. Rather than working to spur economic growth, encourage workforce participation, and return our economy to growth, as we saw with the last administration, President Biden and the Democrats in Congress are focused on raising taxes and enacting harmful, job-killing policies. A prime example of what I am talking about--harmful policies being pushed by the Biden administration--is the Green New Deal that will hinder domestic energy production and increase the expense for every American household. Affordable and reliable energy is foundational to our economy, quality of life, and national security. Across the country and in my home State of North Dakota, we are seeing energy prices rise across the board. Drivers are paying more for fuel at the pump, and homes and businesses are prepared for record high heating costs as we go into the winter months. Because the cost of energy is built into virtually every product we consume, we are seeing the inflationary pressures of higher prices on goods across the entire economy, all the way to the dinner table. For an energy-rich nation such as ours, the situation we find ourselves in is unacceptable, and it is certainly avoidable. In the first week of his administration, President Biden yanked the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and halted new oil and gas leases on Federal lands and offshore. President Biden's party has also called for new taxes and fees on American energy production. In addition, the Biden administration is promoting foreign energy production as he stifles energy production here at home. He has allowed completion of Russia's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline while calling on Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations to increase more oil production. Think about that. At a time when he is holding back energy production in our country--oil production in our country, he is asking OPEC, Saudi Arabia, and Russia to increase oil? It defies common sense. Think about it. If the Biden administration continues down this path, it will not only cause further increased prices for consumers, but it will undermine our energy independence and harm our national security by forcing reliance on foreign energy production. It is time we recognized the fact that our country's vast oil, gas, and coal resources are a strategic national security and economic asset. As we have seen over the past decade, greater U.S. energy production has strengthened our national security and lowered energy prices for hard-working American families. The fact is, we should be focused on increasing economic growth, encouraging workforce participation, and restoring our economy to its prepandemic highs. Support for our domestic energy production is a vital step to bringing down prices for consumers, and we need to do it. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HOEVEN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-20-pt1-PgS7134-2 | null | 3,332 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Well, Mr. President, today is going to be a busy day on the floor of the Senate. Last week, I filed cloture on five of President Biden's nominees to serve as U.S. district judges, and today, we are going to begin working on these nominees. Even as Senate Democrats proceed on our agenda to help working and middle-class families and tackle the climate crisis, we will not relent on speedily filling the vacancies in our Federal judiciary with qualified, mainstream, and diverse jurists. Yesterday, we took a big step forward towards achieving that goal by confirming Myrna Perez to serve on the Second Circuit, one of the most important courts in the land, and the judges we will begin considering today continue that effort: more civil rights lawyers, more diverse candidates, more Federal defenders. To date, the Senate has now confirmed 13 nominees to serve on our district courts, with 20 overall lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. Many of these individuals are knocking down longstanding barriers to the halls of justice: the first Native American judge, the first Muslim-American district judge. And among all of the President's nominees to date, over half--over half--are women. We are proud of that. In a broader sense, President Biden's judicial nominees are also expanding and rewriting the rules of who merits consideration for the bench. Our Federal courts have long been presided over by former corporate lawyers and prosecutors and men. To be sure, many of these individuals have served admirably as judges, and I have been proud to support many of them over the years. But our Federal judges, more than ever--more than ever--are an essential component of our democracy, and they should better reflect the richness and diversity of our Nation--not just demographic and cultural diversity, as important as that is, but professional diversity, too. We need more judges who know what it is like to defend people who normally can't afford attorneys. We need more judges who have fought for those who have faced discrimination in the workplace or because of the color of their skin. We need more judges who understand the economic hardship that so many people have and when they are forced to sign documents and other things that will hurt them economically. And we need judges who have been in the fight against these efforts--stronger than they have ever been, unfortunately--to undermine our democracy. We need our Federal bench, in other words, to mirror our country as a whole. That is how we restore balance to the bench and strengthen people's trust in the Federal judiciary. So, as a Democratic majority, we are going to keep working this week to make sure these nominees are confirmed by this Chamber. I hope both sides can work in good faith to move the process along quickly and in a bipartisan fashion. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7349-6 | null | 3,333 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, this week, Democrats are continuing to make important progress toward finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan, and we remain confident that a final deal is within reach. When Democrats first set out to pass historic legislation to boost our economy and invest in everyday Americans, we knew that the task wouldn't be easy. The challenges that our country faces are manifold and they are severe--from the hardship of raising a family to securing a good-paying job, to affording something as basic as healthcare and the cost of prescription drugs. Tackling these issues head-on was sure to be an immense challenge. Doing big things in Congress is always hard. But we didn't choose elected office just to pursue the easy things. We came here to do the hard things, the important things, the things that will impact Americans--working-class Americans, middle-class Americans, those struggling to get into the middle class and those struggling to stay there--that will impact those people for generations. That is what these negotiations have been about: doing the hard work to deliver something big for the American people. Nobody--nobody--is going to get everything they want, but we all know we need to keep our promise to the American people. We need to tackle the climate crisis head-on, and the programs we are trying to enact will empower us to meet the President's emission goals. We need to help working parents and give every child in America a chance to succeed in school and in life, and programs being discussed will help improve countless of lives. And we need, I believe, to strengthen vital services, like Medicare--relied on by millions of Americans--and to make healthcare more affordable. I believe this is so important, and we are working to get it done. Democrats will continue fighting until we are able to pass this transformational legislation. The progress of last week illustrated how, if we stick together, work towards finding that legislative sweet spot, then we can succeed. That is worth a few hard days. In fact, it is worth many hard days. We have some more work to do, but we remain committed to forging ahead until we reward the trust the American people have placed in us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7349-7 | null | 3,334 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, this week, Democrats are continuing to make important progress toward finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan, and we remain confident that a final deal is within reach. When Democrats first set out to pass historic legislation to boost our economy and invest in everyday Americans, we knew that the task wouldn't be easy. The challenges that our country faces are manifold and they are severe--from the hardship of raising a family to securing a good-paying job, to affording something as basic as healthcare and the cost of prescription drugs. Tackling these issues head-on was sure to be an immense challenge. Doing big things in Congress is always hard. But we didn't choose elected office just to pursue the easy things. We came here to do the hard things, the important things, the things that will impact Americans--working-class Americans, middle-class Americans, those struggling to get into the middle class and those struggling to stay there--that will impact those people for generations. That is what these negotiations have been about: doing the hard work to deliver something big for the American people. Nobody--nobody--is going to get everything they want, but we all know we need to keep our promise to the American people. We need to tackle the climate crisis head-on, and the programs we are trying to enact will empower us to meet the President's emission goals. We need to help working parents and give every child in America a chance to succeed in school and in life, and programs being discussed will help improve countless of lives. And we need, I believe, to strengthen vital services, like Medicare--relied on by millions of Americans--and to make healthcare more affordable. I believe this is so important, and we are working to get it done. Democrats will continue fighting until we are able to pass this transformational legislation. The progress of last week illustrated how, if we stick together, work towards finding that legislative sweet spot, then we can succeed. That is worth a few hard days. In fact, it is worth many hard days. We have some more work to do, but we remain committed to forging ahead until we reward the trust the American people have placed in us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7349-7 | null | 3,335 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 1.7 million people, that is the record-shattering number of illegal immigrants detained along our southern border in just the last 12 months. In 1 year, 1.7 million people tried to take advantage of the Biden administration's intentionally unsecure border and come here illegally. This is the most ever recorded. There are 11 States whose populations are smaller than 1.7 million. Of the 1.7 million, more than 1 million were single adults. That is nearly two-thirds--not family units, not unaccompanied children, but adults on their own. In many cases, this is not about escaping disaster or persecution; this is about wanting a better job in America. It is less about emergency refugees and more about economics. Legal immigration in pursuit of a better future is a core part of our country. It reflects our values, and it makes us stronger. We are a generous country that wants to welcome ambitious new Americans who come here the right way. But it is beyond disingenuous for the Biden administration to pretend that huge numbers of people who simply want better jobs are emergency refugees. Those are two entirely different things. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. Think about that. The U.S. recognizes 195 countries in the entire world. Customs and Border Protection ran into people from all but 35 of the entire number of countries in the world. On numerous occasions, these people have told reporters they are coming specifically--specifically--because of President Biden. His campaign rhetoric and his policy decisions have directly--directly--created this crisis. Late last December, about a month before the President took office, he literally said ``the last thing we need'' would be if his administration pursued policy changes that caused us to ``end up with 2 million people on our border.'' That was the President last December. That is how President-elect Biden himself defined failure on our border last December: 2 million people showing up. Well, that is exactly what he has brought about, all because of the liberal misapprehension that a weak and porous border is a compassionate border. It is not. Even now, even as President Biden faces the exact definition of failure, which he himself laid out, the administration won't change course. A few weeks ago, Secretary Mayorkas released radical new guidance that essentially tries to create amnesty by executive fiat. This Mayorkas memo told ICE that, now, being in the country illegally ``should not alone be the basis'' for making arrests--a baseline policy of no enforcement, with exceptions for certain extenuating circumstances. Last week, before the Judiciary Committee, under questioning from Senator Cornyn, even the President's own nominee to CBP had to admit that nonenforcement policies are a magnet that make the problem worse. Even before the new Mayorkas memo, over the whole last 12 months, immigration arrests in the interior of the country fell--fell--to their lowest level in more than a decade. ICE arrested half as many people this past year as they did on average in previous years. Put two and two together: CBP encounters at the border are at historic highs, but ICE enforcement is down to a decade low--encounters at the border at a historic high, but enforcement down to a decade low. This doesn't make any sense, unless we are looking at functional amnesty through nonenforcement. But even now, Democrats keep pushing more new policies to incentivize illegal immigration. Their next reckless taxing-and-spending spree proposes to double down on Democrats' new monthly welfare deposits that can flow directly to people who are here illegally. This is a Democrat-created crisis from top to bottom. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-2 | null | 3,336 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 1.7 million people, that is the record-shattering number of illegal immigrants detained along our southern border in just the last 12 months. In 1 year, 1.7 million people tried to take advantage of the Biden administration's intentionally unsecure border and come here illegally. This is the most ever recorded. There are 11 States whose populations are smaller than 1.7 million. Of the 1.7 million, more than 1 million were single adults. That is nearly two-thirds--not family units, not unaccompanied children, but adults on their own. In many cases, this is not about escaping disaster or persecution; this is about wanting a better job in America. It is less about emergency refugees and more about economics. Legal immigration in pursuit of a better future is a core part of our country. It reflects our values, and it makes us stronger. We are a generous country that wants to welcome ambitious new Americans who come here the right way. But it is beyond disingenuous for the Biden administration to pretend that huge numbers of people who simply want better jobs are emergency refugees. Those are two entirely different things. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. Think about that. The U.S. recognizes 195 countries in the entire world. Customs and Border Protection ran into people from all but 35 of the entire number of countries in the world. On numerous occasions, these people have told reporters they are coming specifically--specifically--because of President Biden. His campaign rhetoric and his policy decisions have directly--directly--created this crisis. Late last December, about a month before the President took office, he literally said ``the last thing we need'' would be if his administration pursued policy changes that caused us to ``end up with 2 million people on our border.'' That was the President last December. That is how President-elect Biden himself defined failure on our border last December: 2 million people showing up. Well, that is exactly what he has brought about, all because of the liberal misapprehension that a weak and porous border is a compassionate border. It is not. Even now, even as President Biden faces the exact definition of failure, which he himself laid out, the administration won't change course. A few weeks ago, Secretary Mayorkas released radical new guidance that essentially tries to create amnesty by executive fiat. This Mayorkas memo told ICE that, now, being in the country illegally ``should not alone be the basis'' for making arrests--a baseline policy of no enforcement, with exceptions for certain extenuating circumstances. Last week, before the Judiciary Committee, under questioning from Senator Cornyn, even the President's own nominee to CBP had to admit that nonenforcement policies are a magnet that make the problem worse. Even before the new Mayorkas memo, over the whole last 12 months, immigration arrests in the interior of the country fell--fell--to their lowest level in more than a decade. ICE arrested half as many people this past year as they did on average in previous years. Put two and two together: CBP encounters at the border are at historic highs, but ICE enforcement is down to a decade low--encounters at the border at a historic high, but enforcement down to a decade low. This doesn't make any sense, unless we are looking at functional amnesty through nonenforcement. But even now, Democrats keep pushing more new policies to incentivize illegal immigration. Their next reckless taxing-and-spending spree proposes to double down on Democrats' new monthly welfare deposits that can flow directly to people who are here illegally. This is a Democrat-created crisis from top to bottom. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-2 | null | 3,337 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 1.7 million people, that is the record-shattering number of illegal immigrants detained along our southern border in just the last 12 months. In 1 year, 1.7 million people tried to take advantage of the Biden administration's intentionally unsecure border and come here illegally. This is the most ever recorded. There are 11 States whose populations are smaller than 1.7 million. Of the 1.7 million, more than 1 million were single adults. That is nearly two-thirds--not family units, not unaccompanied children, but adults on their own. In many cases, this is not about escaping disaster or persecution; this is about wanting a better job in America. It is less about emergency refugees and more about economics. Legal immigration in pursuit of a better future is a core part of our country. It reflects our values, and it makes us stronger. We are a generous country that wants to welcome ambitious new Americans who come here the right way. But it is beyond disingenuous for the Biden administration to pretend that huge numbers of people who simply want better jobs are emergency refugees. Those are two entirely different things. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. Think about that. The U.S. recognizes 195 countries in the entire world. Customs and Border Protection ran into people from all but 35 of the entire number of countries in the world. On numerous occasions, these people have told reporters they are coming specifically--specifically--because of President Biden. His campaign rhetoric and his policy decisions have directly--directly--created this crisis. Late last December, about a month before the President took office, he literally said ``the last thing we need'' would be if his administration pursued policy changes that caused us to ``end up with 2 million people on our border.'' That was the President last December. That is how President-elect Biden himself defined failure on our border last December: 2 million people showing up. Well, that is exactly what he has brought about, all because of the liberal misapprehension that a weak and porous border is a compassionate border. It is not. Even now, even as President Biden faces the exact definition of failure, which he himself laid out, the administration won't change course. A few weeks ago, Secretary Mayorkas released radical new guidance that essentially tries to create amnesty by executive fiat. This Mayorkas memo told ICE that, now, being in the country illegally ``should not alone be the basis'' for making arrests--a baseline policy of no enforcement, with exceptions for certain extenuating circumstances. Last week, before the Judiciary Committee, under questioning from Senator Cornyn, even the President's own nominee to CBP had to admit that nonenforcement policies are a magnet that make the problem worse. Even before the new Mayorkas memo, over the whole last 12 months, immigration arrests in the interior of the country fell--fell--to their lowest level in more than a decade. ICE arrested half as many people this past year as they did on average in previous years. Put two and two together: CBP encounters at the border are at historic highs, but ICE enforcement is down to a decade low--encounters at the border at a historic high, but enforcement down to a decade low. This doesn't make any sense, unless we are looking at functional amnesty through nonenforcement. But even now, Democrats keep pushing more new policies to incentivize illegal immigration. Their next reckless taxing-and-spending spree proposes to double down on Democrats' new monthly welfare deposits that can flow directly to people who are here illegally. This is a Democrat-created crisis from top to bottom. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-2 | null | 3,338 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 1.7 million people, that is the record-shattering number of illegal immigrants detained along our southern border in just the last 12 months. In 1 year, 1.7 million people tried to take advantage of the Biden administration's intentionally unsecure border and come here illegally. This is the most ever recorded. There are 11 States whose populations are smaller than 1.7 million. Of the 1.7 million, more than 1 million were single adults. That is nearly two-thirds--not family units, not unaccompanied children, but adults on their own. In many cases, this is not about escaping disaster or persecution; this is about wanting a better job in America. It is less about emergency refugees and more about economics. Legal immigration in pursuit of a better future is a core part of our country. It reflects our values, and it makes us stronger. We are a generous country that wants to welcome ambitious new Americans who come here the right way. But it is beyond disingenuous for the Biden administration to pretend that huge numbers of people who simply want better jobs are emergency refugees. Those are two entirely different things. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. In this 12-month span, authorities arrested people from 160 different countries. Think about that. The U.S. recognizes 195 countries in the entire world. Customs and Border Protection ran into people from all but 35 of the entire number of countries in the world. On numerous occasions, these people have told reporters they are coming specifically--specifically--because of President Biden. His campaign rhetoric and his policy decisions have directly--directly--created this crisis. Late last December, about a month before the President took office, he literally said ``the last thing we need'' would be if his administration pursued policy changes that caused us to ``end up with 2 million people on our border.'' That was the President last December. That is how President-elect Biden himself defined failure on our border last December: 2 million people showing up. Well, that is exactly what he has brought about, all because of the liberal misapprehension that a weak and porous border is a compassionate border. It is not. Even now, even as President Biden faces the exact definition of failure, which he himself laid out, the administration won't change course. A few weeks ago, Secretary Mayorkas released radical new guidance that essentially tries to create amnesty by executive fiat. This Mayorkas memo told ICE that, now, being in the country illegally ``should not alone be the basis'' for making arrests--a baseline policy of no enforcement, with exceptions for certain extenuating circumstances. Last week, before the Judiciary Committee, under questioning from Senator Cornyn, even the President's own nominee to CBP had to admit that nonenforcement policies are a magnet that make the problem worse. Even before the new Mayorkas memo, over the whole last 12 months, immigration arrests in the interior of the country fell--fell--to their lowest level in more than a decade. ICE arrested half as many people this past year as they did on average in previous years. Put two and two together: CBP encounters at the border are at historic highs, but ICE enforcement is down to a decade low--encounters at the border at a historic high, but enforcement down to a decade low. This doesn't make any sense, unless we are looking at functional amnesty through nonenforcement. But even now, Democrats keep pushing more new policies to incentivize illegal immigration. Their next reckless taxing-and-spending spree proposes to double down on Democrats' new monthly welfare deposits that can flow directly to people who are here illegally. This is a Democrat-created crisis from top to bottom. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-2 | null | 3,339 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter. On the whole, the taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help China. But when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. There are specific special interests that Democrats take great pains to look after. Let me give you an example. A whole chunk of money the Democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient healthcare would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful leftwing union, the SEIU. The Big Labor bonanza doesn't stop there. Democrats' tax plans would allow the expiration of Americans' above-the-line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. But in its place, they want to create a brandnew subsidy for--listen to this--union dues. Tough luck for the Red Cross and your church collection plate; Washington Democrats say Big Labor bosses come first. Democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants--environmental and climate justice block grants. That sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activist groups that seemingly exist to grift off of government grants. They would spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize luxury purchases that are overwhelmingly madeby wealthy people, like electric cars and $8,000 electric bicycles. Then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans for the next generation of Solyndras. The gravy train doesn't stop there. When the Biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior Senator from New York urged them to double down and spend $40 billion exclusively on his hometown--exclusively on his hometown. That is $40 billion to a housing authority that is apparently well known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the Democratic leader requested it. Meanwhile, in Speaker Pelosi's backyard of San Francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project--oh, boy, they are licking their chops. The Speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money, so they can focus on ``environmental and social justice.'' The Democrats' spree would also tear down longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars. Today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send Planned Parenthood a new slush fund. Then there is the Democrats' obsession with the so-called SALT cap. Even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue States. They want to reintroduce the Federal tax subsidy for living in high-tax States. One outside analysis found that a 2-year repeal of the SALT cap would send more than--listen to this--more than $300,000 to the average household in the top 0.1 percent of our country. The average household in the bottom 60 percent would get $15. This isn't a joke; this is literally the SALT policy that Democrats want--300 grand for the richest folks on the coast and 15 bucks for normal families. It is the same setup everywhere you look. Special interests who are connected to the Democratic Party would make out like bandits, and middle-class families, they will get the bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-3 | null | 3,340 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter. On the whole, the taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help China. But when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. There are specific special interests that Democrats take great pains to look after. Let me give you an example. A whole chunk of money the Democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient healthcare would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful leftwing union, the SEIU. The Big Labor bonanza doesn't stop there. Democrats' tax plans would allow the expiration of Americans' above-the-line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. But in its place, they want to create a brandnew subsidy for--listen to this--union dues. Tough luck for the Red Cross and your church collection plate; Washington Democrats say Big Labor bosses come first. Democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants--environmental and climate justice block grants. That sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activist groups that seemingly exist to grift off of government grants. They would spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize luxury purchases that are overwhelmingly madeby wealthy people, like electric cars and $8,000 electric bicycles. Then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans for the next generation of Solyndras. The gravy train doesn't stop there. When the Biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior Senator from New York urged them to double down and spend $40 billion exclusively on his hometown--exclusively on his hometown. That is $40 billion to a housing authority that is apparently well known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the Democratic leader requested it. Meanwhile, in Speaker Pelosi's backyard of San Francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project--oh, boy, they are licking their chops. The Speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money, so they can focus on ``environmental and social justice.'' The Democrats' spree would also tear down longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars. Today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send Planned Parenthood a new slush fund. Then there is the Democrats' obsession with the so-called SALT cap. Even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue States. They want to reintroduce the Federal tax subsidy for living in high-tax States. One outside analysis found that a 2-year repeal of the SALT cap would send more than--listen to this--more than $300,000 to the average household in the top 0.1 percent of our country. The average household in the bottom 60 percent would get $15. This isn't a joke; this is literally the SALT policy that Democrats want--300 grand for the richest folks on the coast and 15 bucks for normal families. It is the same setup everywhere you look. Special interests who are connected to the Democratic Party would make out like bandits, and middle-class families, they will get the bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-3 | null | 3,341 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter. On the whole, the taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help China. But when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. There are specific special interests that Democrats take great pains to look after. Let me give you an example. A whole chunk of money the Democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient healthcare would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful leftwing union, the SEIU. The Big Labor bonanza doesn't stop there. Democrats' tax plans would allow the expiration of Americans' above-the-line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. But in its place, they want to create a brandnew subsidy for--listen to this--union dues. Tough luck for the Red Cross and your church collection plate; Washington Democrats say Big Labor bosses come first. Democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants--environmental and climate justice block grants. That sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activist groups that seemingly exist to grift off of government grants. They would spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize luxury purchases that are overwhelmingly madeby wealthy people, like electric cars and $8,000 electric bicycles. Then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans for the next generation of Solyndras. The gravy train doesn't stop there. When the Biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior Senator from New York urged them to double down and spend $40 billion exclusively on his hometown--exclusively on his hometown. That is $40 billion to a housing authority that is apparently well known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the Democratic leader requested it. Meanwhile, in Speaker Pelosi's backyard of San Francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project--oh, boy, they are licking their chops. The Speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money, so they can focus on ``environmental and social justice.'' The Democrats' spree would also tear down longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars. Today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send Planned Parenthood a new slush fund. Then there is the Democrats' obsession with the so-called SALT cap. Even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue States. They want to reintroduce the Federal tax subsidy for living in high-tax States. One outside analysis found that a 2-year repeal of the SALT cap would send more than--listen to this--more than $300,000 to the average household in the top 0.1 percent of our country. The average household in the bottom 60 percent would get $15. This isn't a joke; this is literally the SALT policy that Democrats want--300 grand for the richest folks on the coast and 15 bucks for normal families. It is the same setup everywhere you look. Special interests who are connected to the Democratic Party would make out like bandits, and middle-class families, they will get the bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-3 | null | 3,342 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter. On the whole, the taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help China. But when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. There are specific special interests that Democrats take great pains to look after. Let me give you an example. A whole chunk of money the Democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient healthcare would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful leftwing union, the SEIU. The Big Labor bonanza doesn't stop there. Democrats' tax plans would allow the expiration of Americans' above-the-line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. But in its place, they want to create a brandnew subsidy for--listen to this--union dues. Tough luck for the Red Cross and your church collection plate; Washington Democrats say Big Labor bosses come first. Democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants--environmental and climate justice block grants. That sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activist groups that seemingly exist to grift off of government grants. They would spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize luxury purchases that are overwhelmingly madeby wealthy people, like electric cars and $8,000 electric bicycles. Then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans for the next generation of Solyndras. The gravy train doesn't stop there. When the Biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior Senator from New York urged them to double down and spend $40 billion exclusively on his hometown--exclusively on his hometown. That is $40 billion to a housing authority that is apparently well known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the Democratic leader requested it. Meanwhile, in Speaker Pelosi's backyard of San Francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project--oh, boy, they are licking their chops. The Speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money, so they can focus on ``environmental and social justice.'' The Democrats' spree would also tear down longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars. Today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send Planned Parenthood a new slush fund. Then there is the Democrats' obsession with the so-called SALT cap. Even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue States. They want to reintroduce the Federal tax subsidy for living in high-tax States. One outside analysis found that a 2-year repeal of the SALT cap would send more than--listen to this--more than $300,000 to the average household in the top 0.1 percent of our country. The average household in the bottom 60 percent would get $15. This isn't a joke; this is literally the SALT policy that Democrats want--300 grand for the richest folks on the coast and 15 bucks for normal families. It is the same setup everywhere you look. Special interests who are connected to the Democratic Party would make out like bandits, and middle-class families, they will get the bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-3 | null | 3,343 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter. On the whole, the taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help China. But when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. There are specific special interests that Democrats take great pains to look after. Let me give you an example. A whole chunk of money the Democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient healthcare would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful leftwing union, the SEIU. The Big Labor bonanza doesn't stop there. Democrats' tax plans would allow the expiration of Americans' above-the-line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. But in its place, they want to create a brandnew subsidy for--listen to this--union dues. Tough luck for the Red Cross and your church collection plate; Washington Democrats say Big Labor bosses come first. Democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants--environmental and climate justice block grants. That sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activist groups that seemingly exist to grift off of government grants. They would spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize luxury purchases that are overwhelmingly madeby wealthy people, like electric cars and $8,000 electric bicycles. Then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans for the next generation of Solyndras. The gravy train doesn't stop there. When the Biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior Senator from New York urged them to double down and spend $40 billion exclusively on his hometown--exclusively on his hometown. That is $40 billion to a housing authority that is apparently well known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the Democratic leader requested it. Meanwhile, in Speaker Pelosi's backyard of San Francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project--oh, boy, they are licking their chops. The Speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money, so they can focus on ``environmental and social justice.'' The Democrats' spree would also tear down longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars. Today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send Planned Parenthood a new slush fund. Then there is the Democrats' obsession with the so-called SALT cap. Even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue States. They want to reintroduce the Federal tax subsidy for living in high-tax States. One outside analysis found that a 2-year repeal of the SALT cap would send more than--listen to this--more than $300,000 to the average household in the top 0.1 percent of our country. The average household in the bottom 60 percent would get $15. This isn't a joke; this is literally the SALT policy that Democrats want--300 grand for the richest folks on the coast and 15 bucks for normal families. It is the same setup everywhere you look. Special interests who are connected to the Democratic Party would make out like bandits, and middle-class families, they will get the bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-3 | null | 3,344 |
formal | special interests | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on another matter. On the whole, the taxing-and-spending spree the Democrats want to ram through will hurt families and help China. But when you take a close look, there are some special groups of people here at home who would make out like bandits. There are specific special interests that Democrats take great pains to look after. Let me give you an example. A whole chunk of money the Democrats' proposal supposedly sets aside for patient healthcare would actually finance ultragenerous benefits for members of the powerful leftwing union, the SEIU. The Big Labor bonanza doesn't stop there. Democrats' tax plans would allow the expiration of Americans' above-the-line deduction for charitable and nonprofit donations. But in its place, they want to create a brandnew subsidy for--listen to this--union dues. Tough luck for the Red Cross and your church collection plate; Washington Democrats say Big Labor bosses come first. Democrats also propose lavishing billions of dollars on something they call environmental and climate justice block grants--environmental and climate justice block grants. That sounds like a gift-wrapped giveaway to the universe of nonprofits and activist groups that seemingly exist to grift off of government grants. They would spend billions more on tax credits to subsidize luxury purchases that are overwhelmingly madeby wealthy people, like electric cars and $8,000 electric bicycles. Then there are billions more in special subsidies and loans for the next generation of Solyndras. The gravy train doesn't stop there. When the Biden administration proposed spending $40 billion on public housing renovations, the senior Senator from New York urged them to double down and spend $40 billion exclusively on his hometown--exclusively on his hometown. That is $40 billion to a housing authority that is apparently well known for bribery and mismanagement simply because the Democratic leader requested it. Meanwhile, in Speaker Pelosi's backyard of San Francisco, the elite trustees of a massive park and development project--oh, boy, they are licking their chops. The Speaker plans to set aside $200 million of the spending spree for this park that is specifically not meant to receive taxpayer money, so they can focus on ``environmental and social justice.'' The Democrats' spree would also tear down longstanding, bipartisan Hyde amendment protections so they can directly fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars. Today's left cannot miss an opportunity to send Planned Parenthood a new slush fund. Then there is the Democrats' obsession with the so-called SALT cap. Even as our colleagues draft the biggest tax hikes in half a century, they cannot resist the concept of special tax cuts for high earners in blue States. They want to reintroduce the Federal tax subsidy for living in high-tax States. One outside analysis found that a 2-year repeal of the SALT cap would send more than--listen to this--more than $300,000 to the average household in the top 0.1 percent of our country. The average household in the bottom 60 percent would get $15. This isn't a joke; this is literally the SALT policy that Democrats want--300 grand for the richest folks on the coast and 15 bucks for normal families. It is the same setup everywhere you look. Special interests who are connected to the Democratic Party would make out like bandits, and middle-class families, they will get the bill. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7350-3 | null | 3,345 |
formal | Janet Yellen | null | antisemitic | Government Spending Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose what the Democrats are trying to do with their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Right now, prices are rising all across America. The price of gas has gone up by nearly $1 since the day Joe Biden took the oath of office. One in five families has had to cut down on their spending, their other spending to pay for energy this year, and it is going to get worse this winter. In total, the typical American family is paying about $175 more every month, month after month, because of inflation. And the front page story of the New York Times today talked about the upcoming Thanksgiving as the most expensive Thanksgiving dinner of all, and they called it a wallop to the wallet. That is the front page of the New York Times. I would say, when you see that kind of a story, you know that inflation is here, and it looks like it is here to stay. And it is connected directly to the policies of this President, this administration, and the Democrats in Congress who are trying to make it worse with this tax-and-spending spree. Democrats ought to be working with Republicans to reduce inflation and to cut the spending, but that is not what is happening. No, we see just the opposite. The Democrats are completely focused on the most expensive spending bill in American history. Right now, the cost is at least $3.5 trillion. With interest payments, the pricetag rises to $4.2 trillion. The bill is 2,500 pages in length. You do the math. That is $1,400,000,000 for each and every page. You divide the cost of the bill by the number of people in America, it is over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child. The amount that is being proposed to spend is larger than the entire economy of Japan, which is the third largest economy in the world. And the bill is a towering list of radical liberal priorities: permanent welfare programs, free money for electric vehicle owners, earmarks for New York City and San Francisco, including Nancy Pelosi's special park for the privileged. Now Democrats are playing a shell game, trying to hide from the American people how they are going to pay for this whole thing. Well, they continue to try to hide the ball. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it some of both? Let's be clear: No matter which one they decide to do, prices for the American consumer is going to continue to go up. No matter which one they choose, the American people are going to end up paying one way or the other. So, last week, the President went to Pennsylvania and said he didn't want to talk about the cost of the bill. He said: We shouldn't talk about the numbers. We shouldn't even talk about the numbers. Now, I can understand why President Biden doesn't want to talk about the numbers because the American people are getting sticker shock. But people all around this country, at the kitchen table, when they sit down and try to figure out how much money they have and what kind of bills are coming in and see the price of food going up and the price of fuel going up and the price of gasoline going up and the price of one thing after another and housing going up--people at the kitchen table are talking about the numbers. President Biden would rather tell all of us that the bill costs zero dollars. His Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff, and Nancy Pelosi have all repeated the same big lie. They say the largest spending bill in history costs zero dollars. This isn't just false; it is absurd. If it costs zero dollars, why are they having such a hard time trying to get it passed? Answer that. The American people aren't falling for this. The American people know. They know that when Democrats spend more, they pay more, one way or the other. So why do Democrats keep repeating the big lie? Because they know that people don't want a big spending bill. They are against it. Tax revenues are already at record highs in this country. Our problem isn't that we are taxed too little; it is that we spend too much. Yet Democrats' spending bill contains more than 40 new tax increases. If these taxes become law, everyone will have to pay one way or the other. They will pay more in taxes. They will suffer with lower wages, in terms of spending capacity, and pay higher prices. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the taxes Democrats are proposing for businesses would be paid by the middle class. Now, that is not what the President wants you to believe--paid by the middle class, no question about it. Democrats know the American people don't want higher taxes. A Gallup poll showed recently fewer than one in five Americans wants more government if it is paid for by tax increases. The American people don't want more spending, which they know we can't, as a nation, afford with the kind of debt we have. That is why Democrats, each and every one, seem to be trying to hide the cost of the bill through accounting gimmicks. The gimmicks are so blatant even their own Democrat experts are telling them to stop it. President Obama's ``auto czar,'' Steve Rattner, a major critic of these accounting tactics and tricks, he actually wrote an editorial in the New York Times about it. He said: [W]ith worrisome inflation signs evident, we certainly don't need any more stimulus. Democrats are trying to find new ways to take more money from the American people. They are proposing to supersize the IRS, and the IRS is already the least accountable and most powerful Agency in the entire government. Right now, the annual IRS budget is about $13 billion. Democrats want another $80 billion to hire an army of IRS agents to rifle through the bank records of the American people. Even President Obama's IRS Commissioner is against a budget that big. This proposal just shows how desperate Democrats are to get every last penny they can so they can spend it. For weeks, Democrats said they wanted to force banks to tell the IRS about any account with $600 in deposits or withdrawals. Well, the American people found out, and they were outraged. I received more calls and more letters on this single topic than on any other topic during the entire years I have been in the U.S. Senate. But yet Democrats defended the plan for weeks, including Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, on national television. It has been fascinating to watch her argue back and forth with Larry Summers, a former economic adviser to both Bill Clinton, who was Secretary of the Treasury for him, as well as to Barack Obama. Well, now Democrats finally realize how angry the American people are at this Big Brother proposal. So what is their solution? More gimmicks, more sleight at hand. Now Janet Yellen says the policy will only apply to accounts with total transactions of more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Well, that new proposal and that gimmick would still affect nearly every American in this country who has a bank account. It is essentially the same proposal. The American people aren't buying it. So the Democrats are now on the horns of a dilemma. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it both? All three options mean more inflation hitting families across America and hitting things like the front page of the New York Times, where they talk about it as a wallop to the wallet. The last thing the American people need right now are higher taxes, more debt, and higher prices. Yet this is all that today's Democrat Party has to offer. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7361 | null | 3,346 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Government Spending Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose what the Democrats are trying to do with their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Right now, prices are rising all across America. The price of gas has gone up by nearly $1 since the day Joe Biden took the oath of office. One in five families has had to cut down on their spending, their other spending to pay for energy this year, and it is going to get worse this winter. In total, the typical American family is paying about $175 more every month, month after month, because of inflation. And the front page story of the New York Times today talked about the upcoming Thanksgiving as the most expensive Thanksgiving dinner of all, and they called it a wallop to the wallet. That is the front page of the New York Times. I would say, when you see that kind of a story, you know that inflation is here, and it looks like it is here to stay. And it is connected directly to the policies of this President, this administration, and the Democrats in Congress who are trying to make it worse with this tax-and-spending spree. Democrats ought to be working with Republicans to reduce inflation and to cut the spending, but that is not what is happening. No, we see just the opposite. The Democrats are completely focused on the most expensive spending bill in American history. Right now, the cost is at least $3.5 trillion. With interest payments, the pricetag rises to $4.2 trillion. The bill is 2,500 pages in length. You do the math. That is $1,400,000,000 for each and every page. You divide the cost of the bill by the number of people in America, it is over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child. The amount that is being proposed to spend is larger than the entire economy of Japan, which is the third largest economy in the world. And the bill is a towering list of radical liberal priorities: permanent welfare programs, free money for electric vehicle owners, earmarks for New York City and San Francisco, including Nancy Pelosi's special park for the privileged. Now Democrats are playing a shell game, trying to hide from the American people how they are going to pay for this whole thing. Well, they continue to try to hide the ball. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it some of both? Let's be clear: No matter which one they decide to do, prices for the American consumer is going to continue to go up. No matter which one they choose, the American people are going to end up paying one way or the other. So, last week, the President went to Pennsylvania and said he didn't want to talk about the cost of the bill. He said: We shouldn't talk about the numbers. We shouldn't even talk about the numbers. Now, I can understand why President Biden doesn't want to talk about the numbers because the American people are getting sticker shock. But people all around this country, at the kitchen table, when they sit down and try to figure out how much money they have and what kind of bills are coming in and see the price of food going up and the price of fuel going up and the price of gasoline going up and the price of one thing after another and housing going up--people at the kitchen table are talking about the numbers. President Biden would rather tell all of us that the bill costs zero dollars. His Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff, and Nancy Pelosi have all repeated the same big lie. They say the largest spending bill in history costs zero dollars. This isn't just false; it is absurd. If it costs zero dollars, why are they having such a hard time trying to get it passed? Answer that. The American people aren't falling for this. The American people know. They know that when Democrats spend more, they pay more, one way or the other. So why do Democrats keep repeating the big lie? Because they know that people don't want a big spending bill. They are against it. Tax revenues are already at record highs in this country. Our problem isn't that we are taxed too little; it is that we spend too much. Yet Democrats' spending bill contains more than 40 new tax increases. If these taxes become law, everyone will have to pay one way or the other. They will pay more in taxes. They will suffer with lower wages, in terms of spending capacity, and pay higher prices. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the taxes Democrats are proposing for businesses would be paid by the middle class. Now, that is not what the President wants you to believe--paid by the middle class, no question about it. Democrats know the American people don't want higher taxes. A Gallup poll showed recently fewer than one in five Americans wants more government if it is paid for by tax increases. The American people don't want more spending, which they know we can't, as a nation, afford with the kind of debt we have. That is why Democrats, each and every one, seem to be trying to hide the cost of the bill through accounting gimmicks. The gimmicks are so blatant even their own Democrat experts are telling them to stop it. President Obama's ``auto czar,'' Steve Rattner, a major critic of these accounting tactics and tricks, he actually wrote an editorial in the New York Times about it. He said: [W]ith worrisome inflation signs evident, we certainly don't need any more stimulus. Democrats are trying to find new ways to take more money from the American people. They are proposing to supersize the IRS, and the IRS is already the least accountable and most powerful Agency in the entire government. Right now, the annual IRS budget is about $13 billion. Democrats want another $80 billion to hire an army of IRS agents to rifle through the bank records of the American people. Even President Obama's IRS Commissioner is against a budget that big. This proposal just shows how desperate Democrats are to get every last penny they can so they can spend it. For weeks, Democrats said they wanted to force banks to tell the IRS about any account with $600 in deposits or withdrawals. Well, the American people found out, and they were outraged. I received more calls and more letters on this single topic than on any other topic during the entire years I have been in the U.S. Senate. But yet Democrats defended the plan for weeks, including Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, on national television. It has been fascinating to watch her argue back and forth with Larry Summers, a former economic adviser to both Bill Clinton, who was Secretary of the Treasury for him, as well as to Barack Obama. Well, now Democrats finally realize how angry the American people are at this Big Brother proposal. So what is their solution? More gimmicks, more sleight at hand. Now Janet Yellen says the policy will only apply to accounts with total transactions of more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Well, that new proposal and that gimmick would still affect nearly every American in this country who has a bank account. It is essentially the same proposal. The American people aren't buying it. So the Democrats are now on the horns of a dilemma. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it both? All three options mean more inflation hitting families across America and hitting things like the front page of the New York Times, where they talk about it as a wallop to the wallet. The last thing the American people need right now are higher taxes, more debt, and higher prices. Yet this is all that today's Democrat Party has to offer. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7361 | null | 3,347 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Government Spending Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose what the Democrats are trying to do with their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Right now, prices are rising all across America. The price of gas has gone up by nearly $1 since the day Joe Biden took the oath of office. One in five families has had to cut down on their spending, their other spending to pay for energy this year, and it is going to get worse this winter. In total, the typical American family is paying about $175 more every month, month after month, because of inflation. And the front page story of the New York Times today talked about the upcoming Thanksgiving as the most expensive Thanksgiving dinner of all, and they called it a wallop to the wallet. That is the front page of the New York Times. I would say, when you see that kind of a story, you know that inflation is here, and it looks like it is here to stay. And it is connected directly to the policies of this President, this administration, and the Democrats in Congress who are trying to make it worse with this tax-and-spending spree. Democrats ought to be working with Republicans to reduce inflation and to cut the spending, but that is not what is happening. No, we see just the opposite. The Democrats are completely focused on the most expensive spending bill in American history. Right now, the cost is at least $3.5 trillion. With interest payments, the pricetag rises to $4.2 trillion. The bill is 2,500 pages in length. You do the math. That is $1,400,000,000 for each and every page. You divide the cost of the bill by the number of people in America, it is over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child. The amount that is being proposed to spend is larger than the entire economy of Japan, which is the third largest economy in the world. And the bill is a towering list of radical liberal priorities: permanent welfare programs, free money for electric vehicle owners, earmarks for New York City and San Francisco, including Nancy Pelosi's special park for the privileged. Now Democrats are playing a shell game, trying to hide from the American people how they are going to pay for this whole thing. Well, they continue to try to hide the ball. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it some of both? Let's be clear: No matter which one they decide to do, prices for the American consumer is going to continue to go up. No matter which one they choose, the American people are going to end up paying one way or the other. So, last week, the President went to Pennsylvania and said he didn't want to talk about the cost of the bill. He said: We shouldn't talk about the numbers. We shouldn't even talk about the numbers. Now, I can understand why President Biden doesn't want to talk about the numbers because the American people are getting sticker shock. But people all around this country, at the kitchen table, when they sit down and try to figure out how much money they have and what kind of bills are coming in and see the price of food going up and the price of fuel going up and the price of gasoline going up and the price of one thing after another and housing going up--people at the kitchen table are talking about the numbers. President Biden would rather tell all of us that the bill costs zero dollars. His Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff, and Nancy Pelosi have all repeated the same big lie. They say the largest spending bill in history costs zero dollars. This isn't just false; it is absurd. If it costs zero dollars, why are they having such a hard time trying to get it passed? Answer that. The American people aren't falling for this. The American people know. They know that when Democrats spend more, they pay more, one way or the other. So why do Democrats keep repeating the big lie? Because they know that people don't want a big spending bill. They are against it. Tax revenues are already at record highs in this country. Our problem isn't that we are taxed too little; it is that we spend too much. Yet Democrats' spending bill contains more than 40 new tax increases. If these taxes become law, everyone will have to pay one way or the other. They will pay more in taxes. They will suffer with lower wages, in terms of spending capacity, and pay higher prices. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the taxes Democrats are proposing for businesses would be paid by the middle class. Now, that is not what the President wants you to believe--paid by the middle class, no question about it. Democrats know the American people don't want higher taxes. A Gallup poll showed recently fewer than one in five Americans wants more government if it is paid for by tax increases. The American people don't want more spending, which they know we can't, as a nation, afford with the kind of debt we have. That is why Democrats, each and every one, seem to be trying to hide the cost of the bill through accounting gimmicks. The gimmicks are so blatant even their own Democrat experts are telling them to stop it. President Obama's ``auto czar,'' Steve Rattner, a major critic of these accounting tactics and tricks, he actually wrote an editorial in the New York Times about it. He said: [W]ith worrisome inflation signs evident, we certainly don't need any more stimulus. Democrats are trying to find new ways to take more money from the American people. They are proposing to supersize the IRS, and the IRS is already the least accountable and most powerful Agency in the entire government. Right now, the annual IRS budget is about $13 billion. Democrats want another $80 billion to hire an army of IRS agents to rifle through the bank records of the American people. Even President Obama's IRS Commissioner is against a budget that big. This proposal just shows how desperate Democrats are to get every last penny they can so they can spend it. For weeks, Democrats said they wanted to force banks to tell the IRS about any account with $600 in deposits or withdrawals. Well, the American people found out, and they were outraged. I received more calls and more letters on this single topic than on any other topic during the entire years I have been in the U.S. Senate. But yet Democrats defended the plan for weeks, including Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, on national television. It has been fascinating to watch her argue back and forth with Larry Summers, a former economic adviser to both Bill Clinton, who was Secretary of the Treasury for him, as well as to Barack Obama. Well, now Democrats finally realize how angry the American people are at this Big Brother proposal. So what is their solution? More gimmicks, more sleight at hand. Now Janet Yellen says the policy will only apply to accounts with total transactions of more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Well, that new proposal and that gimmick would still affect nearly every American in this country who has a bank account. It is essentially the same proposal. The American people aren't buying it. So the Democrats are now on the horns of a dilemma. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it both? All three options mean more inflation hitting families across America and hitting things like the front page of the New York Times, where they talk about it as a wallop to the wallet. The last thing the American people need right now are higher taxes, more debt, and higher prices. Yet this is all that today's Democrat Party has to offer. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7361 | null | 3,348 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Government Spending Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose what the Democrats are trying to do with their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Right now, prices are rising all across America. The price of gas has gone up by nearly $1 since the day Joe Biden took the oath of office. One in five families has had to cut down on their spending, their other spending to pay for energy this year, and it is going to get worse this winter. In total, the typical American family is paying about $175 more every month, month after month, because of inflation. And the front page story of the New York Times today talked about the upcoming Thanksgiving as the most expensive Thanksgiving dinner of all, and they called it a wallop to the wallet. That is the front page of the New York Times. I would say, when you see that kind of a story, you know that inflation is here, and it looks like it is here to stay. And it is connected directly to the policies of this President, this administration, and the Democrats in Congress who are trying to make it worse with this tax-and-spending spree. Democrats ought to be working with Republicans to reduce inflation and to cut the spending, but that is not what is happening. No, we see just the opposite. The Democrats are completely focused on the most expensive spending bill in American history. Right now, the cost is at least $3.5 trillion. With interest payments, the pricetag rises to $4.2 trillion. The bill is 2,500 pages in length. You do the math. That is $1,400,000,000 for each and every page. You divide the cost of the bill by the number of people in America, it is over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child. The amount that is being proposed to spend is larger than the entire economy of Japan, which is the third largest economy in the world. And the bill is a towering list of radical liberal priorities: permanent welfare programs, free money for electric vehicle owners, earmarks for New York City and San Francisco, including Nancy Pelosi's special park for the privileged. Now Democrats are playing a shell game, trying to hide from the American people how they are going to pay for this whole thing. Well, they continue to try to hide the ball. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it some of both? Let's be clear: No matter which one they decide to do, prices for the American consumer is going to continue to go up. No matter which one they choose, the American people are going to end up paying one way or the other. So, last week, the President went to Pennsylvania and said he didn't want to talk about the cost of the bill. He said: We shouldn't talk about the numbers. We shouldn't even talk about the numbers. Now, I can understand why President Biden doesn't want to talk about the numbers because the American people are getting sticker shock. But people all around this country, at the kitchen table, when they sit down and try to figure out how much money they have and what kind of bills are coming in and see the price of food going up and the price of fuel going up and the price of gasoline going up and the price of one thing after another and housing going up--people at the kitchen table are talking about the numbers. President Biden would rather tell all of us that the bill costs zero dollars. His Press Secretary, his Chief of Staff, and Nancy Pelosi have all repeated the same big lie. They say the largest spending bill in history costs zero dollars. This isn't just false; it is absurd. If it costs zero dollars, why are they having such a hard time trying to get it passed? Answer that. The American people aren't falling for this. The American people know. They know that when Democrats spend more, they pay more, one way or the other. So why do Democrats keep repeating the big lie? Because they know that people don't want a big spending bill. They are against it. Tax revenues are already at record highs in this country. Our problem isn't that we are taxed too little; it is that we spend too much. Yet Democrats' spending bill contains more than 40 new tax increases. If these taxes become law, everyone will have to pay one way or the other. They will pay more in taxes. They will suffer with lower wages, in terms of spending capacity, and pay higher prices. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, two-thirds of the taxes Democrats are proposing for businesses would be paid by the middle class. Now, that is not what the President wants you to believe--paid by the middle class, no question about it. Democrats know the American people don't want higher taxes. A Gallup poll showed recently fewer than one in five Americans wants more government if it is paid for by tax increases. The American people don't want more spending, which they know we can't, as a nation, afford with the kind of debt we have. That is why Democrats, each and every one, seem to be trying to hide the cost of the bill through accounting gimmicks. The gimmicks are so blatant even their own Democrat experts are telling them to stop it. President Obama's ``auto czar,'' Steve Rattner, a major critic of these accounting tactics and tricks, he actually wrote an editorial in the New York Times about it. He said: [W]ith worrisome inflation signs evident, we certainly don't need any more stimulus. Democrats are trying to find new ways to take more money from the American people. They are proposing to supersize the IRS, and the IRS is already the least accountable and most powerful Agency in the entire government. Right now, the annual IRS budget is about $13 billion. Democrats want another $80 billion to hire an army of IRS agents to rifle through the bank records of the American people. Even President Obama's IRS Commissioner is against a budget that big. This proposal just shows how desperate Democrats are to get every last penny they can so they can spend it. For weeks, Democrats said they wanted to force banks to tell the IRS about any account with $600 in deposits or withdrawals. Well, the American people found out, and they were outraged. I received more calls and more letters on this single topic than on any other topic during the entire years I have been in the U.S. Senate. But yet Democrats defended the plan for weeks, including Janet Yellen, the Treasury Secretary, on national television. It has been fascinating to watch her argue back and forth with Larry Summers, a former economic adviser to both Bill Clinton, who was Secretary of the Treasury for him, as well as to Barack Obama. Well, now Democrats finally realize how angry the American people are at this Big Brother proposal. So what is their solution? More gimmicks, more sleight at hand. Now Janet Yellen says the policy will only apply to accounts with total transactions of more than $10,000 over the course of a year. Well, that new proposal and that gimmick would still affect nearly every American in this country who has a bank account. It is essentially the same proposal. The American people aren't buying it. So the Democrats are now on the horns of a dilemma. Is it more taxes? Is it more debt? Is it both? All three options mean more inflation hitting families across America and hitting things like the front page of the New York Times, where they talk about it as a wallop to the wallet. The last thing the American people need right now are higher taxes, more debt, and higher prices. Yet this is all that today's Democrat Party has to offer. Thank you. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7361 | null | 3,349 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BURR. Madam President, October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month. I would like to take a moment to honor IFB Solutions, headquartered in my hometown of Winston-Salem, NC. IFB Solutions has been operating in North Carolina for over 85 years and over that time has provided employment to thousands of blind and visually impaired individuals. Over their many decades of operation, IFB has helped fill the needs of the Federal Government with high quality products, delivered on time, and at a fair market value. As we celebrate National Disability Employment Awareness month, I applaud IFB Solutions for their commitment to offering employment opportunities for the blind and visually impaired. It is my hope that more employers will understand the value of having a diverse workforce and follow suit. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BURR | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7365-2 | null | 3,350 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations to DaySpring on 50 years of sharing God's love through creativity and expression. DaySpring, a Christian cards and e-cards, boxed cards, inspirational gifts, home decor, and art company, calls Siloam Springs, AR, home to its world headquarters. We are tremendously proud to host this faith-based industry in the Natural State and benefit from all the stirring and encouraging work it does. The commitment and continued dedication DaySpring and its employees display in sharing their Christian faith through uplifting, inspirational, and prayerful formats is a testament to the role faith plays in their mission. In a time where deep divisions exist within our country, its hopeful messages are a powerful and effective reminder to choose kindness. The work it does brings Americans together and prompts us to recall that we are all created in God's image and loved by our Creator. I am so appreciative for its passion to spread God's love as well as the beauty and sincerity that characterizes the products it so thoughtfully creates to deliver that message. We are very pleased to have witnessed what DaySpring has accomplished over the last five decades. Because of its hard, intentional work to reach people with God's word, I am certain more people are leading a life devoted to Christ. With a vision to ``see every person experience and express the life-changing message of God's love,'' the company has charted a path that has kept it focused, relevant, and undeniably impactful. As Colossians 3:23 says, ``Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.'' DaySpring's staff has certainly followed that admonition each and every day for 50 years. In the years ahead, I encourage them to continue inspiring us to look to our Heavenly Father, and to love and help one another along the way. Americans, now more than ever, are in need of this hopeful and sincere message. I am confident the guidance and direction consistently provided by DaySpring will be instrumental as we continue teaching and sharing God's word in the years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BOOZMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-26-pt1-PgS7366-3 | null | 3,351 |
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-2021-10-27-pt1-PgH5937-6 | null | 3,352 |
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 (S. 1502) to make Federal law enforcement officer peer support communications confidential, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgH5953 | null | 3,353 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Strickland). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1511) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 with respect to payments to certain public safety officers who have become permanently and totally disabled as a result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Strickland) | House | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgH5954 | null | 3,354 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, the Senate is going to continue focusing on confirming even more of President Biden's highly qualified nominees, both to serve in his administration and for lifetime appointments on the Federal bench. Yesterday, we confirmed three more district judges through this Chamber, each with bipartisan support. We are going to continue today with two more nominees, and I hope we can see continued bipartisan cooperation. In less than a year, Senate Democrats have worked swiftly and decisively to fill vacancies on the Federal bench with qualified, mainstream, and dedicated jurists. We are well on our way to making today's Federal bench the most diverse in a long, long time. Through September, at least three-quarters of President Biden's circuit-level nominees have been people of color. Let me say that again because that makes me proud. Through September, at least three-quarters of President Biden's circuit-level nominees have been people of color. Nearly a third of all of President Biden's nominees are former public defenders, and several of them have impressive backgrounds as civil rights lawyers, voting rights champions, and experience outside the well-trodden path of corporate law or Federal prosecution. By focusing intentionally on confirming judges that bring both personal and professional experience to the judiciary, we are expanding the possibilities of who merits consideration to the bench at all. Judges, obviously, are an essential component of a healthy democracy. We will strengthen the public's trust in a fair, independent judiciary if the bench better reflects the rich diversity of this country, while adhering to the rule of law. One confirmation at a time, Democrats are swiftly restoring balance to our courts, and we are full steam ahead to confirm more mainstream and qualified and diverse judges as they become available. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-6 | null | 3,355 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on Build Back Better, Mr. President. Yesterday was another productive day as we make progress towards finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. After another vigorous, spirited caucus lunch, meetings continue with Senate colleagues and members of the White House, as well as with the President. An agreement is within arm's length, and we are hopeful that we can come to a framework agreement by the end of today; but we must--we must--continue working a little more to make sure it is the best deal possible for the American people. I am working especially hard to strengthen Medicare and make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Sanders has worked hard to push for many of these Medicare provisions, and I support them. At its core, the goals of Build Back Better are about restoring the middle class in the 21st century; helping people who are in the middle class stay there; helping people who are struggling to get to the middle class to get there; and give more Americans the opportunity for good, fulfilling lives and better lives for their kids. And, of course, we must take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, which could overwhelm our globe all too quickly if we don't act. It is an agenda that favors not those at the very top, but everyday Americans who are struggling to achieve the American dream in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the past 20 years in America have been a story of middle-class decline. Even before COVID, the Federal Reserve estimated that over 40 percent of Americans in this day and age would still--still--have trouble covering an emergency expense of just $400, which you can easily incur if you have to fix your car, make repairs at home, or visit a doctor. A few decades ago, the story was very different. For much of the post-war era, most Americans had confidence that if you were willing to work hard, you could save a little and you could leave something behind for your loved ones. Nobody was guaranteed riches, but the basic bargain in America was that those who put in an honest day's work would be able to make ends meet. Build Back Better is precisely--precisely--about rekindling that faith in the American dream. That is no easy task. Americans face serious, severe challenges today that did not exist in the past. Raising a family is more difficult than ever. The challenges of finding and affording childcare and pre-K have grown exponentially. Seniors are struggling to afford basic drug care and basic drugs. These are not luxury items. These aren't handouts or entitlements. These are essentials. They are essentials that families need in order to work and get ahead, and they are oftentimes much, much harder to afford than they were in the past. That is what we mean by providing ladders to the middle class and helping families stay in the middle class. That is what we mean by reviving that sunny American optimism, which this country has lost in the last few decades. We have got to get it back, and the only way we can get it back is by bold action that gives people renewed hope in their futures and the future of their children. The work we do right now will echo far into the 21st century. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make sure that the decades to come will offer the same--or even greater--opportunities that Americans enjoyed in the past. And if Democrats keep working together, if we keep our eye on the ultimate goal, and we keep negotiating to find that legislative sweet spot, then we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed on us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-7 | null | 3,356 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on Build Back Better, Mr. President. Yesterday was another productive day as we make progress towards finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. After another vigorous, spirited caucus lunch, meetings continue with Senate colleagues and members of the White House, as well as with the President. An agreement is within arm's length, and we are hopeful that we can come to a framework agreement by the end of today; but we must--we must--continue working a little more to make sure it is the best deal possible for the American people. I am working especially hard to strengthen Medicare and make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Sanders has worked hard to push for many of these Medicare provisions, and I support them. At its core, the goals of Build Back Better are about restoring the middle class in the 21st century; helping people who are in the middle class stay there; helping people who are struggling to get to the middle class to get there; and give more Americans the opportunity for good, fulfilling lives and better lives for their kids. And, of course, we must take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, which could overwhelm our globe all too quickly if we don't act. It is an agenda that favors not those at the very top, but everyday Americans who are struggling to achieve the American dream in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the past 20 years in America have been a story of middle-class decline. Even before COVID, the Federal Reserve estimated that over 40 percent of Americans in this day and age would still--still--have trouble covering an emergency expense of just $400, which you can easily incur if you have to fix your car, make repairs at home, or visit a doctor. A few decades ago, the story was very different. For much of the post-war era, most Americans had confidence that if you were willing to work hard, you could save a little and you could leave something behind for your loved ones. Nobody was guaranteed riches, but the basic bargain in America was that those who put in an honest day's work would be able to make ends meet. Build Back Better is precisely--precisely--about rekindling that faith in the American dream. That is no easy task. Americans face serious, severe challenges today that did not exist in the past. Raising a family is more difficult than ever. The challenges of finding and affording childcare and pre-K have grown exponentially. Seniors are struggling to afford basic drug care and basic drugs. These are not luxury items. These aren't handouts or entitlements. These are essentials. They are essentials that families need in order to work and get ahead, and they are oftentimes much, much harder to afford than they were in the past. That is what we mean by providing ladders to the middle class and helping families stay in the middle class. That is what we mean by reviving that sunny American optimism, which this country has lost in the last few decades. We have got to get it back, and the only way we can get it back is by bold action that gives people renewed hope in their futures and the future of their children. The work we do right now will echo far into the 21st century. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make sure that the decades to come will offer the same--or even greater--opportunities that Americans enjoyed in the past. And if Democrats keep working together, if we keep our eye on the ultimate goal, and we keep negotiating to find that legislative sweet spot, then we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed on us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-7 | null | 3,357 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on Build Back Better, Mr. President. Yesterday was another productive day as we make progress towards finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. After another vigorous, spirited caucus lunch, meetings continue with Senate colleagues and members of the White House, as well as with the President. An agreement is within arm's length, and we are hopeful that we can come to a framework agreement by the end of today; but we must--we must--continue working a little more to make sure it is the best deal possible for the American people. I am working especially hard to strengthen Medicare and make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Sanders has worked hard to push for many of these Medicare provisions, and I support them. At its core, the goals of Build Back Better are about restoring the middle class in the 21st century; helping people who are in the middle class stay there; helping people who are struggling to get to the middle class to get there; and give more Americans the opportunity for good, fulfilling lives and better lives for their kids. And, of course, we must take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, which could overwhelm our globe all too quickly if we don't act. It is an agenda that favors not those at the very top, but everyday Americans who are struggling to achieve the American dream in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the past 20 years in America have been a story of middle-class decline. Even before COVID, the Federal Reserve estimated that over 40 percent of Americans in this day and age would still--still--have trouble covering an emergency expense of just $400, which you can easily incur if you have to fix your car, make repairs at home, or visit a doctor. A few decades ago, the story was very different. For much of the post-war era, most Americans had confidence that if you were willing to work hard, you could save a little and you could leave something behind for your loved ones. Nobody was guaranteed riches, but the basic bargain in America was that those who put in an honest day's work would be able to make ends meet. Build Back Better is precisely--precisely--about rekindling that faith in the American dream. That is no easy task. Americans face serious, severe challenges today that did not exist in the past. Raising a family is more difficult than ever. The challenges of finding and affording childcare and pre-K have grown exponentially. Seniors are struggling to afford basic drug care and basic drugs. These are not luxury items. These aren't handouts or entitlements. These are essentials. They are essentials that families need in order to work and get ahead, and they are oftentimes much, much harder to afford than they were in the past. That is what we mean by providing ladders to the middle class and helping families stay in the middle class. That is what we mean by reviving that sunny American optimism, which this country has lost in the last few decades. We have got to get it back, and the only way we can get it back is by bold action that gives people renewed hope in their futures and the future of their children. The work we do right now will echo far into the 21st century. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make sure that the decades to come will offer the same--or even greater--opportunities that Americans enjoyed in the past. And if Democrats keep working together, if we keep our eye on the ultimate goal, and we keep negotiating to find that legislative sweet spot, then we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed on us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-7 | null | 3,358 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on Build Back Better, Mr. President. Yesterday was another productive day as we make progress towards finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. After another vigorous, spirited caucus lunch, meetings continue with Senate colleagues and members of the White House, as well as with the President. An agreement is within arm's length, and we are hopeful that we can come to a framework agreement by the end of today; but we must--we must--continue working a little more to make sure it is the best deal possible for the American people. I am working especially hard to strengthen Medicare and make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Sanders has worked hard to push for many of these Medicare provisions, and I support them. At its core, the goals of Build Back Better are about restoring the middle class in the 21st century; helping people who are in the middle class stay there; helping people who are struggling to get to the middle class to get there; and give more Americans the opportunity for good, fulfilling lives and better lives for their kids. And, of course, we must take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, which could overwhelm our globe all too quickly if we don't act. It is an agenda that favors not those at the very top, but everyday Americans who are struggling to achieve the American dream in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the past 20 years in America have been a story of middle-class decline. Even before COVID, the Federal Reserve estimated that over 40 percent of Americans in this day and age would still--still--have trouble covering an emergency expense of just $400, which you can easily incur if you have to fix your car, make repairs at home, or visit a doctor. A few decades ago, the story was very different. For much of the post-war era, most Americans had confidence that if you were willing to work hard, you could save a little and you could leave something behind for your loved ones. Nobody was guaranteed riches, but the basic bargain in America was that those who put in an honest day's work would be able to make ends meet. Build Back Better is precisely--precisely--about rekindling that faith in the American dream. That is no easy task. Americans face serious, severe challenges today that did not exist in the past. Raising a family is more difficult than ever. The challenges of finding and affording childcare and pre-K have grown exponentially. Seniors are struggling to afford basic drug care and basic drugs. These are not luxury items. These aren't handouts or entitlements. These are essentials. They are essentials that families need in order to work and get ahead, and they are oftentimes much, much harder to afford than they were in the past. That is what we mean by providing ladders to the middle class and helping families stay in the middle class. That is what we mean by reviving that sunny American optimism, which this country has lost in the last few decades. We have got to get it back, and the only way we can get it back is by bold action that gives people renewed hope in their futures and the future of their children. The work we do right now will echo far into the 21st century. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make sure that the decades to come will offer the same--or even greater--opportunities that Americans enjoyed in the past. And if Democrats keep working together, if we keep our eye on the ultimate goal, and we keep negotiating to find that legislative sweet spot, then we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed on us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-7 | null | 3,359 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on Build Back Better, Mr. President. Yesterday was another productive day as we make progress towards finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. After another vigorous, spirited caucus lunch, meetings continue with Senate colleagues and members of the White House, as well as with the President. An agreement is within arm's length, and we are hopeful that we can come to a framework agreement by the end of today; but we must--we must--continue working a little more to make sure it is the best deal possible for the American people. I am working especially hard to strengthen Medicare and make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Sanders has worked hard to push for many of these Medicare provisions, and I support them. At its core, the goals of Build Back Better are about restoring the middle class in the 21st century; helping people who are in the middle class stay there; helping people who are struggling to get to the middle class to get there; and give more Americans the opportunity for good, fulfilling lives and better lives for their kids. And, of course, we must take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, which could overwhelm our globe all too quickly if we don't act. It is an agenda that favors not those at the very top, but everyday Americans who are struggling to achieve the American dream in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the past 20 years in America have been a story of middle-class decline. Even before COVID, the Federal Reserve estimated that over 40 percent of Americans in this day and age would still--still--have trouble covering an emergency expense of just $400, which you can easily incur if you have to fix your car, make repairs at home, or visit a doctor. A few decades ago, the story was very different. For much of the post-war era, most Americans had confidence that if you were willing to work hard, you could save a little and you could leave something behind for your loved ones. Nobody was guaranteed riches, but the basic bargain in America was that those who put in an honest day's work would be able to make ends meet. Build Back Better is precisely--precisely--about rekindling that faith in the American dream. That is no easy task. Americans face serious, severe challenges today that did not exist in the past. Raising a family is more difficult than ever. The challenges of finding and affording childcare and pre-K have grown exponentially. Seniors are struggling to afford basic drug care and basic drugs. These are not luxury items. These aren't handouts or entitlements. These are essentials. They are essentials that families need in order to work and get ahead, and they are oftentimes much, much harder to afford than they were in the past. That is what we mean by providing ladders to the middle class and helping families stay in the middle class. That is what we mean by reviving that sunny American optimism, which this country has lost in the last few decades. We have got to get it back, and the only way we can get it back is by bold action that gives people renewed hope in their futures and the future of their children. The work we do right now will echo far into the 21st century. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make sure that the decades to come will offer the same--or even greater--opportunities that Americans enjoyed in the past. And if Democrats keep working together, if we keep our eye on the ultimate goal, and we keep negotiating to find that legislative sweet spot, then we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed on us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-7 | null | 3,360 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, on Build Back Better, Mr. President. Yesterday was another productive day as we make progress towards finalizing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. After another vigorous, spirited caucus lunch, meetings continue with Senate colleagues and members of the White House, as well as with the President. An agreement is within arm's length, and we are hopeful that we can come to a framework agreement by the end of today; but we must--we must--continue working a little more to make sure it is the best deal possible for the American people. I am working especially hard to strengthen Medicare and make prescription drugs more affordable. Senator Sanders has worked hard to push for many of these Medicare provisions, and I support them. At its core, the goals of Build Back Better are about restoring the middle class in the 21st century; helping people who are in the middle class stay there; helping people who are struggling to get to the middle class to get there; and give more Americans the opportunity for good, fulfilling lives and better lives for their kids. And, of course, we must take bold action to tackle the climate crisis, which could overwhelm our globe all too quickly if we don't act. It is an agenda that favors not those at the very top, but everyday Americans who are struggling to achieve the American dream in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the past 20 years in America have been a story of middle-class decline. Even before COVID, the Federal Reserve estimated that over 40 percent of Americans in this day and age would still--still--have trouble covering an emergency expense of just $400, which you can easily incur if you have to fix your car, make repairs at home, or visit a doctor. A few decades ago, the story was very different. For much of the post-war era, most Americans had confidence that if you were willing to work hard, you could save a little and you could leave something behind for your loved ones. Nobody was guaranteed riches, but the basic bargain in America was that those who put in an honest day's work would be able to make ends meet. Build Back Better is precisely--precisely--about rekindling that faith in the American dream. That is no easy task. Americans face serious, severe challenges today that did not exist in the past. Raising a family is more difficult than ever. The challenges of finding and affording childcare and pre-K have grown exponentially. Seniors are struggling to afford basic drug care and basic drugs. These are not luxury items. These aren't handouts or entitlements. These are essentials. They are essentials that families need in order to work and get ahead, and they are oftentimes much, much harder to afford than they were in the past. That is what we mean by providing ladders to the middle class and helping families stay in the middle class. That is what we mean by reviving that sunny American optimism, which this country has lost in the last few decades. We have got to get it back, and the only way we can get it back is by bold action that gives people renewed hope in their futures and the future of their children. The work we do right now will echo far into the 21st century. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make sure that the decades to come will offer the same--or even greater--opportunities that Americans enjoyed in the past. And if Democrats keep working together, if we keep our eye on the ultimate goal, and we keep negotiating to find that legislative sweet spot, then we will succeed in rewarding the trust that the American people have placed on us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7393-7 | null | 3,361 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in a few days, President Biden is set to gas up Air Force One and jet to Scotland for a global conference about the climate. According to press coverage, the President's agenda is clear: ``Biden Wants to Show the World He's Serious About Cutting Emissions.'' ``Joe Biden gets real on climate change.'' What we are talking about here is a meeting to review a plan that failed to get its own signatories to meet its unenforceable ``commitments;'' a deal that couldn't compel the world's largest carbon producer, China, to commit to any less than another 9 years of rising emissions before it starts--starts--to turn things around. This is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. Let me say that again. China is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. And all the while, the United States, from outside the deal, cut our emissions more than any major country inside the deal. We cut our emissions more outside the deal than any of the countries inside the deal. The Biden administration is desperately chasing bad deals to win applause from foreign leaders. That is what this is about: signing the American people up for self-inflicted pain for no meaningful gain. The only thing that is serious about President Biden's environmental agenda is the trouble that it is already causing right here at home. Our adversaries like Russia are salivating over big windfalls while working American families are already feeling the pain. Remember, on day one, this administration put a freeze on crucial development of domestic energy and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, along with over 1,000 jobs. Combined with Democrats' flood of inflationary spending, it is no wonder consumers are facing the highest prices at the pump in 7 years, the most expensive home heating forecast in more than 12 years, and soaring prices on the household goods that are costing U.S. manufacturers more to make. Ah, but wait. There is more. When President Biden jets off to next week's summit, his fellow Democrats will be busy plotting yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would compound the pain with more anti-energy policies. They want to create new taxes on the most affordable and reliable forms of American energy that would put producers out of business, workers out of jobs, and make home heating even pricier this winter. They want to put billions more into ``environmental and social justice block grants,'' whatever that means. They want to subsidize the favorite products of blue State elites, like electric cars and even--listen to this--electric bicycles. Democrats also want to pour billions of dollars into a made-up government work program they are calling the Civilian Climate Corps--Civilian Climate Corps. This is pure socialist wish-fulfillment. We already have a worker shortage and record numbers of open jobs, but Democrats want taxpayers to put aside $8 billion for make-work programs for young, liberal activists that they admit ``[wouldn't] measurably reduce emissions.'' Under their latest batch of proposed regulations, States that fail to keep pace with heavyhanded emissions targets would face ``consequences''--consequences like freezes on funds for major transportation projects that employ lots of American workers. They want to bully every State to become more and more like California. Washington Democrats are plowing ahead with all this precisely as the Ghost of Christmas Future is providing us with a cautionary tale from across the Atlantic. All across Europe, natural gas prices have jumped 400 percent since the start of the year. Countries are scrambling to rediscover and reactivate the reliable systems they had left behind to follow the latest fads. Thanks in part to the Biden administration's own inaction, Putin's Russia has turned his controlling share of European gas production into a political weapon. But instead of heeding this cautionary tale, President Biden seems to want to follow suit. His regulations have squandered the energy independence we enjoyed before he took office. U.S. imports of Russian oil have doubled. As gas prices soar, his administration is reportedly--listen to this--asking OPEC to cut us some slack. As one academic summed it up, ``Biden policy promotes a multiyear, multitrillion-dollar windfall'' for adversaries--you heard it--like Russia. To raise energy prices while enabling Moscow to tighten its grip over Europe's energy supply is to turbocharge a Russian regime that was staggering and showing its age. Pain for the American people. Payoffs for our adversaries so that President Biden can receive cheers from the crowd in Glasgow. Small comfort for his own citizens. Energy policy isn't the only place where the Biden administration's decisions are hurting Americans. The President's retreat from Afghanistan continues to have dangerous and disastrous consequences. Yesterday, one Pentagon official gave Senators a new estimate of how many Americans the administration has left behind. The count Secretary Austin claimed last month--last month--was less than 100. That has now risen to 450 Americans left behind enemy lines. The Biden administration spent weeks insisting they only left about 100 Americans behind in Afghanistan when the truth was multiple times that. The administration has also continued to fail to keep its promises to brave Afghan allies. Meanwhile, as many warned, the terrorist threat is growing in the wake of our retreat. The same Pentagon officialacknowledged that Afghanistan-based ISIS-K and al-Qaida terrorists have the intent and are acquiring the capability to strike the United States. ISIS-K could threaten our homeland in as little as 6 months. The Biden administration still doesn't have basing or access agreements in neighboring countries for its supposed plan to hit terrorists from ``over the horizon.'' No wonder our adversaries are testing this President's resolve to protect American personnel and American interests. A complex attack against U.S. forces in Syria last week may well have been carried out at the behest of Iran. The administration isn't saying. They need to come clean about who is responsible and how they intend to respond. We know Tehran badly wants the United States and its partners out of Syria and Iraq and to continue to threaten Israel and other U.S. partners. What we don't know is what the Biden administration plans to do about it. Even where progress should be easy, this administration finds ways to actually mess things up. For example, there is strong, bipartisan agreement about the threat the People's Republic of China poses to international security and specifically to American interests--case in point: Beijing's recent publicly reported efforts to test hypersonic weapons and advance their nuclear capabilities. China is also dramatically expanding the naval capabilities that they openly use to harass other nations. Both Republicans and Democrats would welcome a clear and coherent China strategy from this administration, but all we are getting is a muddled mess. A few days ago, no sooner did President Biden offer comments on his own Taiwan policy then the White House staff rapidly walked it back. So it makes you want to ask, who is in charge over there--the President or the Press Secretary? American administrations have a tradition of handling Taiwan with something called strategic ambiguity. I am afraid the Biden team is taking that a little too literally. Even they themselves seem to have no idea what they are doing. President Biden likes to say something like: Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value. But President Biden's own request for the defense budget didn't even keep up with President Biden's inflation. The White House proposed to cut defense funding after inflation. And here in the Senate, Democrats' partisan appropriations process seems to shortchange defense in favor of runaway domestic spending. Even their ostensibly China-focused bill from earlier this year would not have included any funding for the kinds of advanced defense capabilities that we need to keep pace if it weren't for an amendment offered by Senator Sasse. Even the NDAA is stuck in limbo. The defense authorization bill is our most basic opportunity to shape security policy. It is a core duty for the Senate majority, the bare minimum, but Democrats have completely neglected the NDAA and the traditional robust and real floor process that it will need. They are too busy debating how much socialism to unleash on the country to look out for our troops, our veterans, and our national security. This unseriousness will leave Americans less safe. It is just that simple. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7394-2 | null | 3,362 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in a few days, President Biden is set to gas up Air Force One and jet to Scotland for a global conference about the climate. According to press coverage, the President's agenda is clear: ``Biden Wants to Show the World He's Serious About Cutting Emissions.'' ``Joe Biden gets real on climate change.'' What we are talking about here is a meeting to review a plan that failed to get its own signatories to meet its unenforceable ``commitments;'' a deal that couldn't compel the world's largest carbon producer, China, to commit to any less than another 9 years of rising emissions before it starts--starts--to turn things around. This is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. Let me say that again. China is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. And all the while, the United States, from outside the deal, cut our emissions more than any major country inside the deal. We cut our emissions more outside the deal than any of the countries inside the deal. The Biden administration is desperately chasing bad deals to win applause from foreign leaders. That is what this is about: signing the American people up for self-inflicted pain for no meaningful gain. The only thing that is serious about President Biden's environmental agenda is the trouble that it is already causing right here at home. Our adversaries like Russia are salivating over big windfalls while working American families are already feeling the pain. Remember, on day one, this administration put a freeze on crucial development of domestic energy and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, along with over 1,000 jobs. Combined with Democrats' flood of inflationary spending, it is no wonder consumers are facing the highest prices at the pump in 7 years, the most expensive home heating forecast in more than 12 years, and soaring prices on the household goods that are costing U.S. manufacturers more to make. Ah, but wait. There is more. When President Biden jets off to next week's summit, his fellow Democrats will be busy plotting yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would compound the pain with more anti-energy policies. They want to create new taxes on the most affordable and reliable forms of American energy that would put producers out of business, workers out of jobs, and make home heating even pricier this winter. They want to put billions more into ``environmental and social justice block grants,'' whatever that means. They want to subsidize the favorite products of blue State elites, like electric cars and even--listen to this--electric bicycles. Democrats also want to pour billions of dollars into a made-up government work program they are calling the Civilian Climate Corps--Civilian Climate Corps. This is pure socialist wish-fulfillment. We already have a worker shortage and record numbers of open jobs, but Democrats want taxpayers to put aside $8 billion for make-work programs for young, liberal activists that they admit ``[wouldn't] measurably reduce emissions.'' Under their latest batch of proposed regulations, States that fail to keep pace with heavyhanded emissions targets would face ``consequences''--consequences like freezes on funds for major transportation projects that employ lots of American workers. They want to bully every State to become more and more like California. Washington Democrats are plowing ahead with all this precisely as the Ghost of Christmas Future is providing us with a cautionary tale from across the Atlantic. All across Europe, natural gas prices have jumped 400 percent since the start of the year. Countries are scrambling to rediscover and reactivate the reliable systems they had left behind to follow the latest fads. Thanks in part to the Biden administration's own inaction, Putin's Russia has turned his controlling share of European gas production into a political weapon. But instead of heeding this cautionary tale, President Biden seems to want to follow suit. His regulations have squandered the energy independence we enjoyed before he took office. U.S. imports of Russian oil have doubled. As gas prices soar, his administration is reportedly--listen to this--asking OPEC to cut us some slack. As one academic summed it up, ``Biden policy promotes a multiyear, multitrillion-dollar windfall'' for adversaries--you heard it--like Russia. To raise energy prices while enabling Moscow to tighten its grip over Europe's energy supply is to turbocharge a Russian regime that was staggering and showing its age. Pain for the American people. Payoffs for our adversaries so that President Biden can receive cheers from the crowd in Glasgow. Small comfort for his own citizens. Energy policy isn't the only place where the Biden administration's decisions are hurting Americans. The President's retreat from Afghanistan continues to have dangerous and disastrous consequences. Yesterday, one Pentagon official gave Senators a new estimate of how many Americans the administration has left behind. The count Secretary Austin claimed last month--last month--was less than 100. That has now risen to 450 Americans left behind enemy lines. The Biden administration spent weeks insisting they only left about 100 Americans behind in Afghanistan when the truth was multiple times that. The administration has also continued to fail to keep its promises to brave Afghan allies. Meanwhile, as many warned, the terrorist threat is growing in the wake of our retreat. The same Pentagon officialacknowledged that Afghanistan-based ISIS-K and al-Qaida terrorists have the intent and are acquiring the capability to strike the United States. ISIS-K could threaten our homeland in as little as 6 months. The Biden administration still doesn't have basing or access agreements in neighboring countries for its supposed plan to hit terrorists from ``over the horizon.'' No wonder our adversaries are testing this President's resolve to protect American personnel and American interests. A complex attack against U.S. forces in Syria last week may well have been carried out at the behest of Iran. The administration isn't saying. They need to come clean about who is responsible and how they intend to respond. We know Tehran badly wants the United States and its partners out of Syria and Iraq and to continue to threaten Israel and other U.S. partners. What we don't know is what the Biden administration plans to do about it. Even where progress should be easy, this administration finds ways to actually mess things up. For example, there is strong, bipartisan agreement about the threat the People's Republic of China poses to international security and specifically to American interests--case in point: Beijing's recent publicly reported efforts to test hypersonic weapons and advance their nuclear capabilities. China is also dramatically expanding the naval capabilities that they openly use to harass other nations. Both Republicans and Democrats would welcome a clear and coherent China strategy from this administration, but all we are getting is a muddled mess. A few days ago, no sooner did President Biden offer comments on his own Taiwan policy then the White House staff rapidly walked it back. So it makes you want to ask, who is in charge over there--the President or the Press Secretary? American administrations have a tradition of handling Taiwan with something called strategic ambiguity. I am afraid the Biden team is taking that a little too literally. Even they themselves seem to have no idea what they are doing. President Biden likes to say something like: Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value. But President Biden's own request for the defense budget didn't even keep up with President Biden's inflation. The White House proposed to cut defense funding after inflation. And here in the Senate, Democrats' partisan appropriations process seems to shortchange defense in favor of runaway domestic spending. Even their ostensibly China-focused bill from earlier this year would not have included any funding for the kinds of advanced defense capabilities that we need to keep pace if it weren't for an amendment offered by Senator Sasse. Even the NDAA is stuck in limbo. The defense authorization bill is our most basic opportunity to shape security policy. It is a core duty for the Senate majority, the bare minimum, but Democrats have completely neglected the NDAA and the traditional robust and real floor process that it will need. They are too busy debating how much socialism to unleash on the country to look out for our troops, our veterans, and our national security. This unseriousness will leave Americans less safe. It is just that simple. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7394-2 | null | 3,363 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in a few days, President Biden is set to gas up Air Force One and jet to Scotland for a global conference about the climate. According to press coverage, the President's agenda is clear: ``Biden Wants to Show the World He's Serious About Cutting Emissions.'' ``Joe Biden gets real on climate change.'' What we are talking about here is a meeting to review a plan that failed to get its own signatories to meet its unenforceable ``commitments;'' a deal that couldn't compel the world's largest carbon producer, China, to commit to any less than another 9 years of rising emissions before it starts--starts--to turn things around. This is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. Let me say that again. China is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. And all the while, the United States, from outside the deal, cut our emissions more than any major country inside the deal. We cut our emissions more outside the deal than any of the countries inside the deal. The Biden administration is desperately chasing bad deals to win applause from foreign leaders. That is what this is about: signing the American people up for self-inflicted pain for no meaningful gain. The only thing that is serious about President Biden's environmental agenda is the trouble that it is already causing right here at home. Our adversaries like Russia are salivating over big windfalls while working American families are already feeling the pain. Remember, on day one, this administration put a freeze on crucial development of domestic energy and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, along with over 1,000 jobs. Combined with Democrats' flood of inflationary spending, it is no wonder consumers are facing the highest prices at the pump in 7 years, the most expensive home heating forecast in more than 12 years, and soaring prices on the household goods that are costing U.S. manufacturers more to make. Ah, but wait. There is more. When President Biden jets off to next week's summit, his fellow Democrats will be busy plotting yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would compound the pain with more anti-energy policies. They want to create new taxes on the most affordable and reliable forms of American energy that would put producers out of business, workers out of jobs, and make home heating even pricier this winter. They want to put billions more into ``environmental and social justice block grants,'' whatever that means. They want to subsidize the favorite products of blue State elites, like electric cars and even--listen to this--electric bicycles. Democrats also want to pour billions of dollars into a made-up government work program they are calling the Civilian Climate Corps--Civilian Climate Corps. This is pure socialist wish-fulfillment. We already have a worker shortage and record numbers of open jobs, but Democrats want taxpayers to put aside $8 billion for make-work programs for young, liberal activists that they admit ``[wouldn't] measurably reduce emissions.'' Under their latest batch of proposed regulations, States that fail to keep pace with heavyhanded emissions targets would face ``consequences''--consequences like freezes on funds for major transportation projects that employ lots of American workers. They want to bully every State to become more and more like California. Washington Democrats are plowing ahead with all this precisely as the Ghost of Christmas Future is providing us with a cautionary tale from across the Atlantic. All across Europe, natural gas prices have jumped 400 percent since the start of the year. Countries are scrambling to rediscover and reactivate the reliable systems they had left behind to follow the latest fads. Thanks in part to the Biden administration's own inaction, Putin's Russia has turned his controlling share of European gas production into a political weapon. But instead of heeding this cautionary tale, President Biden seems to want to follow suit. His regulations have squandered the energy independence we enjoyed before he took office. U.S. imports of Russian oil have doubled. As gas prices soar, his administration is reportedly--listen to this--asking OPEC to cut us some slack. As one academic summed it up, ``Biden policy promotes a multiyear, multitrillion-dollar windfall'' for adversaries--you heard it--like Russia. To raise energy prices while enabling Moscow to tighten its grip over Europe's energy supply is to turbocharge a Russian regime that was staggering and showing its age. Pain for the American people. Payoffs for our adversaries so that President Biden can receive cheers from the crowd in Glasgow. Small comfort for his own citizens. Energy policy isn't the only place where the Biden administration's decisions are hurting Americans. The President's retreat from Afghanistan continues to have dangerous and disastrous consequences. Yesterday, one Pentagon official gave Senators a new estimate of how many Americans the administration has left behind. The count Secretary Austin claimed last month--last month--was less than 100. That has now risen to 450 Americans left behind enemy lines. The Biden administration spent weeks insisting they only left about 100 Americans behind in Afghanistan when the truth was multiple times that. The administration has also continued to fail to keep its promises to brave Afghan allies. Meanwhile, as many warned, the terrorist threat is growing in the wake of our retreat. The same Pentagon officialacknowledged that Afghanistan-based ISIS-K and al-Qaida terrorists have the intent and are acquiring the capability to strike the United States. ISIS-K could threaten our homeland in as little as 6 months. The Biden administration still doesn't have basing or access agreements in neighboring countries for its supposed plan to hit terrorists from ``over the horizon.'' No wonder our adversaries are testing this President's resolve to protect American personnel and American interests. A complex attack against U.S. forces in Syria last week may well have been carried out at the behest of Iran. The administration isn't saying. They need to come clean about who is responsible and how they intend to respond. We know Tehran badly wants the United States and its partners out of Syria and Iraq and to continue to threaten Israel and other U.S. partners. What we don't know is what the Biden administration plans to do about it. Even where progress should be easy, this administration finds ways to actually mess things up. For example, there is strong, bipartisan agreement about the threat the People's Republic of China poses to international security and specifically to American interests--case in point: Beijing's recent publicly reported efforts to test hypersonic weapons and advance their nuclear capabilities. China is also dramatically expanding the naval capabilities that they openly use to harass other nations. Both Republicans and Democrats would welcome a clear and coherent China strategy from this administration, but all we are getting is a muddled mess. A few days ago, no sooner did President Biden offer comments on his own Taiwan policy then the White House staff rapidly walked it back. So it makes you want to ask, who is in charge over there--the President or the Press Secretary? American administrations have a tradition of handling Taiwan with something called strategic ambiguity. I am afraid the Biden team is taking that a little too literally. Even they themselves seem to have no idea what they are doing. President Biden likes to say something like: Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value. But President Biden's own request for the defense budget didn't even keep up with President Biden's inflation. The White House proposed to cut defense funding after inflation. And here in the Senate, Democrats' partisan appropriations process seems to shortchange defense in favor of runaway domestic spending. Even their ostensibly China-focused bill from earlier this year would not have included any funding for the kinds of advanced defense capabilities that we need to keep pace if it weren't for an amendment offered by Senator Sasse. Even the NDAA is stuck in limbo. The defense authorization bill is our most basic opportunity to shape security policy. It is a core duty for the Senate majority, the bare minimum, but Democrats have completely neglected the NDAA and the traditional robust and real floor process that it will need. They are too busy debating how much socialism to unleash on the country to look out for our troops, our veterans, and our national security. This unseriousness will leave Americans less safe. It is just that simple. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7394-2 | null | 3,364 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in a few days, President Biden is set to gas up Air Force One and jet to Scotland for a global conference about the climate. According to press coverage, the President's agenda is clear: ``Biden Wants to Show the World He's Serious About Cutting Emissions.'' ``Joe Biden gets real on climate change.'' What we are talking about here is a meeting to review a plan that failed to get its own signatories to meet its unenforceable ``commitments;'' a deal that couldn't compel the world's largest carbon producer, China, to commit to any less than another 9 years of rising emissions before it starts--starts--to turn things around. This is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. Let me say that again. China is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. And all the while, the United States, from outside the deal, cut our emissions more than any major country inside the deal. We cut our emissions more outside the deal than any of the countries inside the deal. The Biden administration is desperately chasing bad deals to win applause from foreign leaders. That is what this is about: signing the American people up for self-inflicted pain for no meaningful gain. The only thing that is serious about President Biden's environmental agenda is the trouble that it is already causing right here at home. Our adversaries like Russia are salivating over big windfalls while working American families are already feeling the pain. Remember, on day one, this administration put a freeze on crucial development of domestic energy and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, along with over 1,000 jobs. Combined with Democrats' flood of inflationary spending, it is no wonder consumers are facing the highest prices at the pump in 7 years, the most expensive home heating forecast in more than 12 years, and soaring prices on the household goods that are costing U.S. manufacturers more to make. Ah, but wait. There is more. When President Biden jets off to next week's summit, his fellow Democrats will be busy plotting yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would compound the pain with more anti-energy policies. They want to create new taxes on the most affordable and reliable forms of American energy that would put producers out of business, workers out of jobs, and make home heating even pricier this winter. They want to put billions more into ``environmental and social justice block grants,'' whatever that means. They want to subsidize the favorite products of blue State elites, like electric cars and even--listen to this--electric bicycles. Democrats also want to pour billions of dollars into a made-up government work program they are calling the Civilian Climate Corps--Civilian Climate Corps. This is pure socialist wish-fulfillment. We already have a worker shortage and record numbers of open jobs, but Democrats want taxpayers to put aside $8 billion for make-work programs for young, liberal activists that they admit ``[wouldn't] measurably reduce emissions.'' Under their latest batch of proposed regulations, States that fail to keep pace with heavyhanded emissions targets would face ``consequences''--consequences like freezes on funds for major transportation projects that employ lots of American workers. They want to bully every State to become more and more like California. Washington Democrats are plowing ahead with all this precisely as the Ghost of Christmas Future is providing us with a cautionary tale from across the Atlantic. All across Europe, natural gas prices have jumped 400 percent since the start of the year. Countries are scrambling to rediscover and reactivate the reliable systems they had left behind to follow the latest fads. Thanks in part to the Biden administration's own inaction, Putin's Russia has turned his controlling share of European gas production into a political weapon. But instead of heeding this cautionary tale, President Biden seems to want to follow suit. His regulations have squandered the energy independence we enjoyed before he took office. U.S. imports of Russian oil have doubled. As gas prices soar, his administration is reportedly--listen to this--asking OPEC to cut us some slack. As one academic summed it up, ``Biden policy promotes a multiyear, multitrillion-dollar windfall'' for adversaries--you heard it--like Russia. To raise energy prices while enabling Moscow to tighten its grip over Europe's energy supply is to turbocharge a Russian regime that was staggering and showing its age. Pain for the American people. Payoffs for our adversaries so that President Biden can receive cheers from the crowd in Glasgow. Small comfort for his own citizens. Energy policy isn't the only place where the Biden administration's decisions are hurting Americans. The President's retreat from Afghanistan continues to have dangerous and disastrous consequences. Yesterday, one Pentagon official gave Senators a new estimate of how many Americans the administration has left behind. The count Secretary Austin claimed last month--last month--was less than 100. That has now risen to 450 Americans left behind enemy lines. The Biden administration spent weeks insisting they only left about 100 Americans behind in Afghanistan when the truth was multiple times that. The administration has also continued to fail to keep its promises to brave Afghan allies. Meanwhile, as many warned, the terrorist threat is growing in the wake of our retreat. The same Pentagon officialacknowledged that Afghanistan-based ISIS-K and al-Qaida terrorists have the intent and are acquiring the capability to strike the United States. ISIS-K could threaten our homeland in as little as 6 months. The Biden administration still doesn't have basing or access agreements in neighboring countries for its supposed plan to hit terrorists from ``over the horizon.'' No wonder our adversaries are testing this President's resolve to protect American personnel and American interests. A complex attack against U.S. forces in Syria last week may well have been carried out at the behest of Iran. The administration isn't saying. They need to come clean about who is responsible and how they intend to respond. We know Tehran badly wants the United States and its partners out of Syria and Iraq and to continue to threaten Israel and other U.S. partners. What we don't know is what the Biden administration plans to do about it. Even where progress should be easy, this administration finds ways to actually mess things up. For example, there is strong, bipartisan agreement about the threat the People's Republic of China poses to international security and specifically to American interests--case in point: Beijing's recent publicly reported efforts to test hypersonic weapons and advance their nuclear capabilities. China is also dramatically expanding the naval capabilities that they openly use to harass other nations. Both Republicans and Democrats would welcome a clear and coherent China strategy from this administration, but all we are getting is a muddled mess. A few days ago, no sooner did President Biden offer comments on his own Taiwan policy then the White House staff rapidly walked it back. So it makes you want to ask, who is in charge over there--the President or the Press Secretary? American administrations have a tradition of handling Taiwan with something called strategic ambiguity. I am afraid the Biden team is taking that a little too literally. Even they themselves seem to have no idea what they are doing. President Biden likes to say something like: Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value. But President Biden's own request for the defense budget didn't even keep up with President Biden's inflation. The White House proposed to cut defense funding after inflation. And here in the Senate, Democrats' partisan appropriations process seems to shortchange defense in favor of runaway domestic spending. Even their ostensibly China-focused bill from earlier this year would not have included any funding for the kinds of advanced defense capabilities that we need to keep pace if it weren't for an amendment offered by Senator Sasse. Even the NDAA is stuck in limbo. The defense authorization bill is our most basic opportunity to shape security policy. It is a core duty for the Senate majority, the bare minimum, but Democrats have completely neglected the NDAA and the traditional robust and real floor process that it will need. They are too busy debating how much socialism to unleash on the country to look out for our troops, our veterans, and our national security. This unseriousness will leave Americans less safe. It is just that simple. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7394-2 | null | 3,365 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in a few days, President Biden is set to gas up Air Force One and jet to Scotland for a global conference about the climate. According to press coverage, the President's agenda is clear: ``Biden Wants to Show the World He's Serious About Cutting Emissions.'' ``Joe Biden gets real on climate change.'' What we are talking about here is a meeting to review a plan that failed to get its own signatories to meet its unenforceable ``commitments;'' a deal that couldn't compel the world's largest carbon producer, China, to commit to any less than another 9 years of rising emissions before it starts--starts--to turn things around. This is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. Let me say that again. China is a country with single companies that emit more carbon than nations the size of Canada. And all the while, the United States, from outside the deal, cut our emissions more than any major country inside the deal. We cut our emissions more outside the deal than any of the countries inside the deal. The Biden administration is desperately chasing bad deals to win applause from foreign leaders. That is what this is about: signing the American people up for self-inflicted pain for no meaningful gain. The only thing that is serious about President Biden's environmental agenda is the trouble that it is already causing right here at home. Our adversaries like Russia are salivating over big windfalls while working American families are already feeling the pain. Remember, on day one, this administration put a freeze on crucial development of domestic energy and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, along with over 1,000 jobs. Combined with Democrats' flood of inflationary spending, it is no wonder consumers are facing the highest prices at the pump in 7 years, the most expensive home heating forecast in more than 12 years, and soaring prices on the household goods that are costing U.S. manufacturers more to make. Ah, but wait. There is more. When President Biden jets off to next week's summit, his fellow Democrats will be busy plotting yet another reckless taxing-and-spending spree that would compound the pain with more anti-energy policies. They want to create new taxes on the most affordable and reliable forms of American energy that would put producers out of business, workers out of jobs, and make home heating even pricier this winter. They want to put billions more into ``environmental and social justice block grants,'' whatever that means. They want to subsidize the favorite products of blue State elites, like electric cars and even--listen to this--electric bicycles. Democrats also want to pour billions of dollars into a made-up government work program they are calling the Civilian Climate Corps--Civilian Climate Corps. This is pure socialist wish-fulfillment. We already have a worker shortage and record numbers of open jobs, but Democrats want taxpayers to put aside $8 billion for make-work programs for young, liberal activists that they admit ``[wouldn't] measurably reduce emissions.'' Under their latest batch of proposed regulations, States that fail to keep pace with heavyhanded emissions targets would face ``consequences''--consequences like freezes on funds for major transportation projects that employ lots of American workers. They want to bully every State to become more and more like California. Washington Democrats are plowing ahead with all this precisely as the Ghost of Christmas Future is providing us with a cautionary tale from across the Atlantic. All across Europe, natural gas prices have jumped 400 percent since the start of the year. Countries are scrambling to rediscover and reactivate the reliable systems they had left behind to follow the latest fads. Thanks in part to the Biden administration's own inaction, Putin's Russia has turned his controlling share of European gas production into a political weapon. But instead of heeding this cautionary tale, President Biden seems to want to follow suit. His regulations have squandered the energy independence we enjoyed before he took office. U.S. imports of Russian oil have doubled. As gas prices soar, his administration is reportedly--listen to this--asking OPEC to cut us some slack. As one academic summed it up, ``Biden policy promotes a multiyear, multitrillion-dollar windfall'' for adversaries--you heard it--like Russia. To raise energy prices while enabling Moscow to tighten its grip over Europe's energy supply is to turbocharge a Russian regime that was staggering and showing its age. Pain for the American people. Payoffs for our adversaries so that President Biden can receive cheers from the crowd in Glasgow. Small comfort for his own citizens. Energy policy isn't the only place where the Biden administration's decisions are hurting Americans. The President's retreat from Afghanistan continues to have dangerous and disastrous consequences. Yesterday, one Pentagon official gave Senators a new estimate of how many Americans the administration has left behind. The count Secretary Austin claimed last month--last month--was less than 100. That has now risen to 450 Americans left behind enemy lines. The Biden administration spent weeks insisting they only left about 100 Americans behind in Afghanistan when the truth was multiple times that. The administration has also continued to fail to keep its promises to brave Afghan allies. Meanwhile, as many warned, the terrorist threat is growing in the wake of our retreat. The same Pentagon officialacknowledged that Afghanistan-based ISIS-K and al-Qaida terrorists have the intent and are acquiring the capability to strike the United States. ISIS-K could threaten our homeland in as little as 6 months. The Biden administration still doesn't have basing or access agreements in neighboring countries for its supposed plan to hit terrorists from ``over the horizon.'' No wonder our adversaries are testing this President's resolve to protect American personnel and American interests. A complex attack against U.S. forces in Syria last week may well have been carried out at the behest of Iran. The administration isn't saying. They need to come clean about who is responsible and how they intend to respond. We know Tehran badly wants the United States and its partners out of Syria and Iraq and to continue to threaten Israel and other U.S. partners. What we don't know is what the Biden administration plans to do about it. Even where progress should be easy, this administration finds ways to actually mess things up. For example, there is strong, bipartisan agreement about the threat the People's Republic of China poses to international security and specifically to American interests--case in point: Beijing's recent publicly reported efforts to test hypersonic weapons and advance their nuclear capabilities. China is also dramatically expanding the naval capabilities that they openly use to harass other nations. Both Republicans and Democrats would welcome a clear and coherent China strategy from this administration, but all we are getting is a muddled mess. A few days ago, no sooner did President Biden offer comments on his own Taiwan policy then the White House staff rapidly walked it back. So it makes you want to ask, who is in charge over there--the President or the Press Secretary? American administrations have a tradition of handling Taiwan with something called strategic ambiguity. I am afraid the Biden team is taking that a little too literally. Even they themselves seem to have no idea what they are doing. President Biden likes to say something like: Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value. But President Biden's own request for the defense budget didn't even keep up with President Biden's inflation. The White House proposed to cut defense funding after inflation. And here in the Senate, Democrats' partisan appropriations process seems to shortchange defense in favor of runaway domestic spending. Even their ostensibly China-focused bill from earlier this year would not have included any funding for the kinds of advanced defense capabilities that we need to keep pace if it weren't for an amendment offered by Senator Sasse. Even the NDAA is stuck in limbo. The defense authorization bill is our most basic opportunity to shape security policy. It is a core duty for the Senate majority, the bare minimum, but Democrats have completely neglected the NDAA and the traditional robust and real floor process that it will need. They are too busy debating how much socialism to unleash on the country to look out for our troops, our veterans, and our national security. This unseriousness will leave Americans less safe. It is just that simple. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7394-2 | null | 3,366 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nominations Mr. President, on a separate topic, as we round out the week, we continue to vote on a number of very important executive and judicial nominations. I want to start by speaking quickly about four critical positions in the Justice Department: Matt Olsen, to head the DOJ National Security Division; Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel; Hampton Dellinger, Office of Legal Counsel; Elizabeth Prelogar, to serve as the Nation's next Solicitor General. All of them are eminently qualified, have deep experience and strong credentials, and they understand the importance of DOJ independence. Let me say a few words about them. Matt Olsen has dedicated the bulk of his career to helping keep our Nation safe, and he will continue do that same thing as Assistant Attorney General for National Security. From his time at the Justice Department to his work at the National Security Agency, to his tenure as the confirmed Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he has been a leader when it comes to security in America. Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--or OLC--has significant experience, including serving as counselor to the Assistant Attorney General and as Deputy Assistant himself. He has a deep understanding of the office and is ready to provide the kind of skill and experience we need. Hampton Dellinger, nominated to serve as Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Policy, has bipartisan support in our committee and has decades of public and private service. He oversaw the judicial vetting process for State judges in North Carolina. I am confident he will enable the Department of Justice to continue its track record of processing President Biden's highly qualified nominees. Elizabeth Prelogar, nominated to be the U.S. Solicitor General, is an accomplished appellate advocate. She argued nine cases before the Supreme Court and filed hundreds of amicus briefs and other petitions. She knows this job, and she knows it well, and it is time that she is given this opportunity to serve. Let me conclude by saying that these nominees are the kind of experienced people we need. We have good nominees for the court as well. The Senate will also be voting soon on two highly qualified nominees for the Federal judiciary: Omar Williams for the District of Connecticut and Beth Robinson for the Second Circuit. These nominees have received strong support from their home State senators. They both currently serve as State court judges, and both have been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Their records show that they have an even-handed approach to administering justice and that they are guided by one principle above all else: fidelity to the rule of law. Judge Omar Williams, nominated to the District of Connecticut, is an accomplished State court judge and former public defender who has earned wide acclaim from the Connecticut legal community. In recognition of his work on the State bench, Judge Williams was appointed to several important judicial bodies by the Connecticut Supreme Court, including the New England Regional Judicial Opioid Initiative. He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. As I mentioned, we will also be voting on Vermont Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson, nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Robinson is an experienced litigator with a proven track record of impartial, even-handed judicial decision-making. She attended Dartmouth College and the University of Chicago Law School. After graduating, she clerked for Judge David Sentelle--a President Reagan appointee--on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In private practice, Justice Robinson specialized in civil litigation. She also developed a large practice representing LGBTQ clients in civil rights and family law issues. Justice Robinson was a proponent of LGBTQ rights at a time when most were not. She championed same-sex couples' freedom to marry and participate in, as Justice Kennedy said in Obergefell, the ``highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.'' As an advocate, she always understood and respected the important intersection between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty. She worked with Vermont State representatives on a marriage equality bill to ``affirm[] what the Constitution required-that no clergy would be forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' Since her appointment to the bench, Justice Robinson has proven that she respects the difference between being an advocate and a judge. Over the last 10 years, she has participated in nearly 1,800 decisions. And she has done so without a hint of bias. One of her former colleagues on the Vermont Supreme Court wrote to the committee to emphasize that Justice Robinson was a ``fair, unbiased'' jurist. So it certainly came as a surprise when some of our colleagues on the other side suggested that Justice Robinson opposes religious liberty. Let me be clear: This is a baseless claim. And it is a claim that was made by distorting Justice Robinson's record. So let's set the record straight. In private practice, she represented a Catholic woman who believed that she had been discriminated against because of her religious views. Remarkably, committee Republicans offered this as proof of Justice Robinson's hostility toward religious liberty. In private practice, Justice Robinson was also instrumental in ensuring that a Vermont marriage equality bill included protections desired by religious leaders, such as a provision specifying that clergy would never be ``forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' In 2003, she stated: ``I've always said that if somebody tried to force the Catholic Church to do a gay wedding, I would represent the Church pro bono.'' So these claims that she is biased have no basis in reality. Justice Robinson is an outstanding nominee with impeccable credentials. She has a proven even-handed approach to justice. And she would be the first openly LGBTQ woman to serve on a circuit court. I look forward to supporting both Judge Williams and Justice Robinson, and I urge my colleagues to join me. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7410 | null | 3,367 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Nominations Mr. President, on a separate topic, as we round out the week, we continue to vote on a number of very important executive and judicial nominations. I want to start by speaking quickly about four critical positions in the Justice Department: Matt Olsen, to head the DOJ National Security Division; Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel; Hampton Dellinger, Office of Legal Counsel; Elizabeth Prelogar, to serve as the Nation's next Solicitor General. All of them are eminently qualified, have deep experience and strong credentials, and they understand the importance of DOJ independence. Let me say a few words about them. Matt Olsen has dedicated the bulk of his career to helping keep our Nation safe, and he will continue do that same thing as Assistant Attorney General for National Security. From his time at the Justice Department to his work at the National Security Agency, to his tenure as the confirmed Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he has been a leader when it comes to security in America. Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--or OLC--has significant experience, including serving as counselor to the Assistant Attorney General and as Deputy Assistant himself. He has a deep understanding of the office and is ready to provide the kind of skill and experience we need. Hampton Dellinger, nominated to serve as Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Policy, has bipartisan support in our committee and has decades of public and private service. He oversaw the judicial vetting process for State judges in North Carolina. I am confident he will enable the Department of Justice to continue its track record of processing President Biden's highly qualified nominees. Elizabeth Prelogar, nominated to be the U.S. Solicitor General, is an accomplished appellate advocate. She argued nine cases before the Supreme Court and filed hundreds of amicus briefs and other petitions. She knows this job, and she knows it well, and it is time that she is given this opportunity to serve. Let me conclude by saying that these nominees are the kind of experienced people we need. We have good nominees for the court as well. The Senate will also be voting soon on two highly qualified nominees for the Federal judiciary: Omar Williams for the District of Connecticut and Beth Robinson for the Second Circuit. These nominees have received strong support from their home State senators. They both currently serve as State court judges, and both have been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Their records show that they have an even-handed approach to administering justice and that they are guided by one principle above all else: fidelity to the rule of law. Judge Omar Williams, nominated to the District of Connecticut, is an accomplished State court judge and former public defender who has earned wide acclaim from the Connecticut legal community. In recognition of his work on the State bench, Judge Williams was appointed to several important judicial bodies by the Connecticut Supreme Court, including the New England Regional Judicial Opioid Initiative. He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. As I mentioned, we will also be voting on Vermont Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson, nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Robinson is an experienced litigator with a proven track record of impartial, even-handed judicial decision-making. She attended Dartmouth College and the University of Chicago Law School. After graduating, she clerked for Judge David Sentelle--a President Reagan appointee--on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In private practice, Justice Robinson specialized in civil litigation. She also developed a large practice representing LGBTQ clients in civil rights and family law issues. Justice Robinson was a proponent of LGBTQ rights at a time when most were not. She championed same-sex couples' freedom to marry and participate in, as Justice Kennedy said in Obergefell, the ``highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.'' As an advocate, she always understood and respected the important intersection between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty. She worked with Vermont State representatives on a marriage equality bill to ``affirm[] what the Constitution required-that no clergy would be forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' Since her appointment to the bench, Justice Robinson has proven that she respects the difference between being an advocate and a judge. Over the last 10 years, she has participated in nearly 1,800 decisions. And she has done so without a hint of bias. One of her former colleagues on the Vermont Supreme Court wrote to the committee to emphasize that Justice Robinson was a ``fair, unbiased'' jurist. So it certainly came as a surprise when some of our colleagues on the other side suggested that Justice Robinson opposes religious liberty. Let me be clear: This is a baseless claim. And it is a claim that was made by distorting Justice Robinson's record. So let's set the record straight. In private practice, she represented a Catholic woman who believed that she had been discriminated against because of her religious views. Remarkably, committee Republicans offered this as proof of Justice Robinson's hostility toward religious liberty. In private practice, Justice Robinson was also instrumental in ensuring that a Vermont marriage equality bill included protections desired by religious leaders, such as a provision specifying that clergy would never be ``forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' In 2003, she stated: ``I've always said that if somebody tried to force the Catholic Church to do a gay wedding, I would represent the Church pro bono.'' So these claims that she is biased have no basis in reality. Justice Robinson is an outstanding nominee with impeccable credentials. She has a proven even-handed approach to justice. And she would be the first openly LGBTQ woman to serve on a circuit court. I look forward to supporting both Judge Williams and Justice Robinson, and I urge my colleagues to join me. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7410 | null | 3,368 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Nominations Mr. President, on a separate topic, as we round out the week, we continue to vote on a number of very important executive and judicial nominations. I want to start by speaking quickly about four critical positions in the Justice Department: Matt Olsen, to head the DOJ National Security Division; Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel; Hampton Dellinger, Office of Legal Counsel; Elizabeth Prelogar, to serve as the Nation's next Solicitor General. All of them are eminently qualified, have deep experience and strong credentials, and they understand the importance of DOJ independence. Let me say a few words about them. Matt Olsen has dedicated the bulk of his career to helping keep our Nation safe, and he will continue do that same thing as Assistant Attorney General for National Security. From his time at the Justice Department to his work at the National Security Agency, to his tenure as the confirmed Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he has been a leader when it comes to security in America. Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--or OLC--has significant experience, including serving as counselor to the Assistant Attorney General and as Deputy Assistant himself. He has a deep understanding of the office and is ready to provide the kind of skill and experience we need. Hampton Dellinger, nominated to serve as Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Policy, has bipartisan support in our committee and has decades of public and private service. He oversaw the judicial vetting process for State judges in North Carolina. I am confident he will enable the Department of Justice to continue its track record of processing President Biden's highly qualified nominees. Elizabeth Prelogar, nominated to be the U.S. Solicitor General, is an accomplished appellate advocate. She argued nine cases before the Supreme Court and filed hundreds of amicus briefs and other petitions. She knows this job, and she knows it well, and it is time that she is given this opportunity to serve. Let me conclude by saying that these nominees are the kind of experienced people we need. We have good nominees for the court as well. The Senate will also be voting soon on two highly qualified nominees for the Federal judiciary: Omar Williams for the District of Connecticut and Beth Robinson for the Second Circuit. These nominees have received strong support from their home State senators. They both currently serve as State court judges, and both have been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Their records show that they have an even-handed approach to administering justice and that they are guided by one principle above all else: fidelity to the rule of law. Judge Omar Williams, nominated to the District of Connecticut, is an accomplished State court judge and former public defender who has earned wide acclaim from the Connecticut legal community. In recognition of his work on the State bench, Judge Williams was appointed to several important judicial bodies by the Connecticut Supreme Court, including the New England Regional Judicial Opioid Initiative. He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. As I mentioned, we will also be voting on Vermont Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson, nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Robinson is an experienced litigator with a proven track record of impartial, even-handed judicial decision-making. She attended Dartmouth College and the University of Chicago Law School. After graduating, she clerked for Judge David Sentelle--a President Reagan appointee--on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In private practice, Justice Robinson specialized in civil litigation. She also developed a large practice representing LGBTQ clients in civil rights and family law issues. Justice Robinson was a proponent of LGBTQ rights at a time when most were not. She championed same-sex couples' freedom to marry and participate in, as Justice Kennedy said in Obergefell, the ``highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.'' As an advocate, she always understood and respected the important intersection between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty. She worked with Vermont State representatives on a marriage equality bill to ``affirm[] what the Constitution required-that no clergy would be forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' Since her appointment to the bench, Justice Robinson has proven that she respects the difference between being an advocate and a judge. Over the last 10 years, she has participated in nearly 1,800 decisions. And she has done so without a hint of bias. One of her former colleagues on the Vermont Supreme Court wrote to the committee to emphasize that Justice Robinson was a ``fair, unbiased'' jurist. So it certainly came as a surprise when some of our colleagues on the other side suggested that Justice Robinson opposes religious liberty. Let me be clear: This is a baseless claim. And it is a claim that was made by distorting Justice Robinson's record. So let's set the record straight. In private practice, she represented a Catholic woman who believed that she had been discriminated against because of her religious views. Remarkably, committee Republicans offered this as proof of Justice Robinson's hostility toward religious liberty. In private practice, Justice Robinson was also instrumental in ensuring that a Vermont marriage equality bill included protections desired by religious leaders, such as a provision specifying that clergy would never be ``forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' In 2003, she stated: ``I've always said that if somebody tried to force the Catholic Church to do a gay wedding, I would represent the Church pro bono.'' So these claims that she is biased have no basis in reality. Justice Robinson is an outstanding nominee with impeccable credentials. She has a proven even-handed approach to justice. And she would be the first openly LGBTQ woman to serve on a circuit court. I look forward to supporting both Judge Williams and Justice Robinson, and I urge my colleagues to join me. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7410 | null | 3,369 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | Nominations Mr. President, on a separate topic, as we round out the week, we continue to vote on a number of very important executive and judicial nominations. I want to start by speaking quickly about four critical positions in the Justice Department: Matt Olsen, to head the DOJ National Security Division; Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Office of Legal Counsel; Hampton Dellinger, Office of Legal Counsel; Elizabeth Prelogar, to serve as the Nation's next Solicitor General. All of them are eminently qualified, have deep experience and strong credentials, and they understand the importance of DOJ independence. Let me say a few words about them. Matt Olsen has dedicated the bulk of his career to helping keep our Nation safe, and he will continue do that same thing as Assistant Attorney General for National Security. From his time at the Justice Department to his work at the National Security Agency, to his tenure as the confirmed Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, he has been a leader when it comes to security in America. Chris Schroeder, nominated to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--or OLC--has significant experience, including serving as counselor to the Assistant Attorney General and as Deputy Assistant himself. He has a deep understanding of the office and is ready to provide the kind of skill and experience we need. Hampton Dellinger, nominated to serve as Assistant AG for the Office of Legal Policy, has bipartisan support in our committee and has decades of public and private service. He oversaw the judicial vetting process for State judges in North Carolina. I am confident he will enable the Department of Justice to continue its track record of processing President Biden's highly qualified nominees. Elizabeth Prelogar, nominated to be the U.S. Solicitor General, is an accomplished appellate advocate. She argued nine cases before the Supreme Court and filed hundreds of amicus briefs and other petitions. She knows this job, and she knows it well, and it is time that she is given this opportunity to serve. Let me conclude by saying that these nominees are the kind of experienced people we need. We have good nominees for the court as well. The Senate will also be voting soon on two highly qualified nominees for the Federal judiciary: Omar Williams for the District of Connecticut and Beth Robinson for the Second Circuit. These nominees have received strong support from their home State senators. They both currently serve as State court judges, and both have been rated ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. Their records show that they have an even-handed approach to administering justice and that they are guided by one principle above all else: fidelity to the rule of law. Judge Omar Williams, nominated to the District of Connecticut, is an accomplished State court judge and former public defender who has earned wide acclaim from the Connecticut legal community. In recognition of his work on the State bench, Judge Williams was appointed to several important judicial bodies by the Connecticut Supreme Court, including the New England Regional Judicial Opioid Initiative. He also received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. As I mentioned, we will also be voting on Vermont Supreme Court Justice Beth Robinson, nominated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Robinson is an experienced litigator with a proven track record of impartial, even-handed judicial decision-making. She attended Dartmouth College and the University of Chicago Law School. After graduating, she clerked for Judge David Sentelle--a President Reagan appointee--on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In private practice, Justice Robinson specialized in civil litigation. She also developed a large practice representing LGBTQ clients in civil rights and family law issues. Justice Robinson was a proponent of LGBTQ rights at a time when most were not. She championed same-sex couples' freedom to marry and participate in, as Justice Kennedy said in Obergefell, the ``highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.'' As an advocate, she always understood and respected the important intersection between LGBTQ rights and religious liberty. She worked with Vermont State representatives on a marriage equality bill to ``affirm[] what the Constitution required-that no clergy would be forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' Since her appointment to the bench, Justice Robinson has proven that she respects the difference between being an advocate and a judge. Over the last 10 years, she has participated in nearly 1,800 decisions. And she has done so without a hint of bias. One of her former colleagues on the Vermont Supreme Court wrote to the committee to emphasize that Justice Robinson was a ``fair, unbiased'' jurist. So it certainly came as a surprise when some of our colleagues on the other side suggested that Justice Robinson opposes religious liberty. Let me be clear: This is a baseless claim. And it is a claim that was made by distorting Justice Robinson's record. So let's set the record straight. In private practice, she represented a Catholic woman who believed that she had been discriminated against because of her religious views. Remarkably, committee Republicans offered this as proof of Justice Robinson's hostility toward religious liberty. In private practice, Justice Robinson was also instrumental in ensuring that a Vermont marriage equality bill included protections desired by religious leaders, such as a provision specifying that clergy would never be ``forced to perform a same-sex marriage against their will.'' In 2003, she stated: ``I've always said that if somebody tried to force the Catholic Church to do a gay wedding, I would represent the Church pro bono.'' So these claims that she is biased have no basis in reality. Justice Robinson is an outstanding nominee with impeccable credentials. She has a proven even-handed approach to justice. And she would be the first openly LGBTQ woman to serve on a circuit court. I look forward to supporting both Judge Williams and Justice Robinson, and I urge my colleagues to join me. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7410 | null | 3,370 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Ms. Warren, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Graham, Mr. King, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Warnock) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 430 Whereas dyslexia is-- (1) defined as an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader; and (2) most commonly caused by a difficulty in phonological processing (the appreciation of the individual sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, spell, and, often, the ability to learn a second language; Whereas the First Step Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-391; 132 Stat. 5194 et seq.) included a definition of dyslexia as part of the requirement of the Act to screen inmates for dyslexia upon intake in Federal prisons; Whereas the definition of dyslexia in section 3635 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of the First Step Act of 2018, is the first and only definition of dyslexia in a Federal statute; Whereas dyslexia is the most common learning disability and affects 80 to 90 percent of all individuals with a learning disability; Whereas dyslexia is persistent and highly prevalent, affecting as many as 1 out of every 5 individuals; Whereas dyslexia is a paradox, in that an individual with dyslexia may have both-- (1) weaknesses in decoding that result in difficulties with accurate or fluent word recognition; and (2) strengths in higher-level cognitive functions, such as reasoning, critical thinking, concept formation, and problem solving; Whereas great progress has been made in understanding dyslexia on a scientific level, including the epidemiology and cognitive and neurobiological bases of dyslexia; Whereas the achievement gap between typical readers and dyslexic readers occurs as early as first grade; and Whereas early screening for, and early diagnosis of, dyslexia are critical for ensuring that individuals with dyslexia receive focused, evidence-based intervention that leads to fluent reading, the promotion of self-awareness and self-empowerment, and the provision of necessary accommodations that ensure success in school and in life: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) calls on Congress, schools, and State and local educational agencies to recognize that dyslexia has significant educational implications that must be addressed; and (2) designates October 2021 as ``National Dyslexia Awareness Month''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-27-pt1-PgS7419 | null | 3,371 |
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 the postponed question at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgH5962-8 | null | 3,372 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Government Spending Madam President, now on a totally different matter, in recent years, Washington Democrats have shown an alarming willingness to invent crises to justify radical ideas. They have tried to vilify our independent judiciary and exhume the concept of court-packing from the ash heap of history. They have tried to sell a 50-State Federal takeover of election laws by fearmongering about mainstream and reasonable State decisions. When it came to an actual crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic, Democrats didn't even try to conceal their intentions. As the House majority whip put it back in March of 2020, it was all ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' With unified control of government, they bragged this spring about passing the most progressive legislation in American history. This first spending spree expanded Federal supplements to unemployment insurance so massively that the best choice for huge numbers of skilled American workers was simply to stay home--stay home. The whole thing was an avalanche of cash that stunted our economic recovery and, of course, accelerated inflation. Now Washington Democrats are behind closed doors again, assembling an even bigger reckless taxing-and-spending spree. It is meant to be a Trojan horse for permanent socialism--conclusive proof that the radical left is calling the shots in today's Democratic Party. I have talked about the laundry list of leftwing boondoggles that our colleagues are packing into this plan. At the heart of it all is one simple and dangerous assumption: that American families ought to be more reliant on the Federal Government. Democrats' plans would chase more Americans off of the private health insurance plans they chose and onto government rolls. They would shred a decades-old consensus about the importance of work and massively expand cash grants to families without any employment requirements--without any employment requirements. They want to reinvent welfare without welfare reform. There is giveaway after giveaway that isn't even means tested. Their plans have literally proposed to have taxpayers fund free school lunch for the kids of millionaires and billionaires--no means testing whatsoever. None. In addition, Washington Democrats want to insert themselves into the middle of the most personal family decisions about childcare and family structure, redistributing huge amounts of money only to households that arrange their lives the way Democrats want. In area after area, Democrats want to implement far-left policies that would make the economy worse for working families and then clumsily try to make it up to citizens with socialism that is disconnected from work. This is a frontal assault on the nature of employment and work itself in American life. They are out to, as one economist put it, ``fundamentally change the relationship between the state and its citizens.'' Even the New York Times last month called what Democrats are hammering out ``a cradle-to-grave reweaving'' of the government's role. Lower wages. Fewer jobs. At least American workers will have cradle-to-grave socialism. It is one vision for the future, all right, but it is not one that Americans want, and it is one that Senate Republicans will fight every step of the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7438 | null | 3,373 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Government Spending Madam President, now on a totally different matter, in recent years, Washington Democrats have shown an alarming willingness to invent crises to justify radical ideas. They have tried to vilify our independent judiciary and exhume the concept of court-packing from the ash heap of history. They have tried to sell a 50-State Federal takeover of election laws by fearmongering about mainstream and reasonable State decisions. When it came to an actual crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic, Democrats didn't even try to conceal their intentions. As the House majority whip put it back in March of 2020, it was all ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' With unified control of government, they bragged this spring about passing the most progressive legislation in American history. This first spending spree expanded Federal supplements to unemployment insurance so massively that the best choice for huge numbers of skilled American workers was simply to stay home--stay home. The whole thing was an avalanche of cash that stunted our economic recovery and, of course, accelerated inflation. Now Washington Democrats are behind closed doors again, assembling an even bigger reckless taxing-and-spending spree. It is meant to be a Trojan horse for permanent socialism--conclusive proof that the radical left is calling the shots in today's Democratic Party. I have talked about the laundry list of leftwing boondoggles that our colleagues are packing into this plan. At the heart of it all is one simple and dangerous assumption: that American families ought to be more reliant on the Federal Government. Democrats' plans would chase more Americans off of the private health insurance plans they chose and onto government rolls. They would shred a decades-old consensus about the importance of work and massively expand cash grants to families without any employment requirements--without any employment requirements. They want to reinvent welfare without welfare reform. There is giveaway after giveaway that isn't even means tested. Their plans have literally proposed to have taxpayers fund free school lunch for the kids of millionaires and billionaires--no means testing whatsoever. None. In addition, Washington Democrats want to insert themselves into the middle of the most personal family decisions about childcare and family structure, redistributing huge amounts of money only to households that arrange their lives the way Democrats want. In area after area, Democrats want to implement far-left policies that would make the economy worse for working families and then clumsily try to make it up to citizens with socialism that is disconnected from work. This is a frontal assault on the nature of employment and work itself in American life. They are out to, as one economist put it, ``fundamentally change the relationship between the state and its citizens.'' Even the New York Times last month called what Democrats are hammering out ``a cradle-to-grave reweaving'' of the government's role. Lower wages. Fewer jobs. At least American workers will have cradle-to-grave socialism. It is one vision for the future, all right, but it is not one that Americans want, and it is one that Senate Republicans will fight every step of the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7438 | null | 3,374 |
formal | welfare reform | null | racist | Government Spending Madam President, now on a totally different matter, in recent years, Washington Democrats have shown an alarming willingness to invent crises to justify radical ideas. They have tried to vilify our independent judiciary and exhume the concept of court-packing from the ash heap of history. They have tried to sell a 50-State Federal takeover of election laws by fearmongering about mainstream and reasonable State decisions. When it came to an actual crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic, Democrats didn't even try to conceal their intentions. As the House majority whip put it back in March of 2020, it was all ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' With unified control of government, they bragged this spring about passing the most progressive legislation in American history. This first spending spree expanded Federal supplements to unemployment insurance so massively that the best choice for huge numbers of skilled American workers was simply to stay home--stay home. The whole thing was an avalanche of cash that stunted our economic recovery and, of course, accelerated inflation. Now Washington Democrats are behind closed doors again, assembling an even bigger reckless taxing-and-spending spree. It is meant to be a Trojan horse for permanent socialism--conclusive proof that the radical left is calling the shots in today's Democratic Party. I have talked about the laundry list of leftwing boondoggles that our colleagues are packing into this plan. At the heart of it all is one simple and dangerous assumption: that American families ought to be more reliant on the Federal Government. Democrats' plans would chase more Americans off of the private health insurance plans they chose and onto government rolls. They would shred a decades-old consensus about the importance of work and massively expand cash grants to families without any employment requirements--without any employment requirements. They want to reinvent welfare without welfare reform. There is giveaway after giveaway that isn't even means tested. Their plans have literally proposed to have taxpayers fund free school lunch for the kids of millionaires and billionaires--no means testing whatsoever. None. In addition, Washington Democrats want to insert themselves into the middle of the most personal family decisions about childcare and family structure, redistributing huge amounts of money only to households that arrange their lives the way Democrats want. In area after area, Democrats want to implement far-left policies that would make the economy worse for working families and then clumsily try to make it up to citizens with socialism that is disconnected from work. This is a frontal assault on the nature of employment and work itself in American life. They are out to, as one economist put it, ``fundamentally change the relationship between the state and its citizens.'' Even the New York Times last month called what Democrats are hammering out ``a cradle-to-grave reweaving'' of the government's role. Lower wages. Fewer jobs. At least American workers will have cradle-to-grave socialism. It is one vision for the future, all right, but it is not one that Americans want, and it is one that Senate Republicans will fight every step of the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7438 | null | 3,375 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Government Spending Madam President, now on a totally different matter, in recent years, Washington Democrats have shown an alarming willingness to invent crises to justify radical ideas. They have tried to vilify our independent judiciary and exhume the concept of court-packing from the ash heap of history. They have tried to sell a 50-State Federal takeover of election laws by fearmongering about mainstream and reasonable State decisions. When it came to an actual crisis, a once-in-a-century pandemic, Democrats didn't even try to conceal their intentions. As the House majority whip put it back in March of 2020, it was all ``a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.'' With unified control of government, they bragged this spring about passing the most progressive legislation in American history. This first spending spree expanded Federal supplements to unemployment insurance so massively that the best choice for huge numbers of skilled American workers was simply to stay home--stay home. The whole thing was an avalanche of cash that stunted our economic recovery and, of course, accelerated inflation. Now Washington Democrats are behind closed doors again, assembling an even bigger reckless taxing-and-spending spree. It is meant to be a Trojan horse for permanent socialism--conclusive proof that the radical left is calling the shots in today's Democratic Party. I have talked about the laundry list of leftwing boondoggles that our colleagues are packing into this plan. At the heart of it all is one simple and dangerous assumption: that American families ought to be more reliant on the Federal Government. Democrats' plans would chase more Americans off of the private health insurance plans they chose and onto government rolls. They would shred a decades-old consensus about the importance of work and massively expand cash grants to families without any employment requirements--without any employment requirements. They want to reinvent welfare without welfare reform. There is giveaway after giveaway that isn't even means tested. Their plans have literally proposed to have taxpayers fund free school lunch for the kids of millionaires and billionaires--no means testing whatsoever. None. In addition, Washington Democrats want to insert themselves into the middle of the most personal family decisions about childcare and family structure, redistributing huge amounts of money only to households that arrange their lives the way Democrats want. In area after area, Democrats want to implement far-left policies that would make the economy worse for working families and then clumsily try to make it up to citizens with socialism that is disconnected from work. This is a frontal assault on the nature of employment and work itself in American life. They are out to, as one economist put it, ``fundamentally change the relationship between the state and its citizens.'' Even the New York Times last month called what Democrats are hammering out ``a cradle-to-grave reweaving'' of the government's role. Lower wages. Fewer jobs. At least American workers will have cradle-to-grave socialism. It is one vision for the future, all right, but it is not one that Americans want, and it is one that Senate Republicans will fight every step of the way. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7438 | null | 3,376 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Southern Border Mr. President, then there is the crisis at the southern border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 192,000 individuals attempting to cross our southern border in September, a 233-percent increase from the previous September--233 percent. Customs and Border Protection apprehended more than 1.7 million individuals attempting to cross our southern border in fiscal year 2021--the highest number ever. We have a security, enforcement, and humanitarian crisis at our southern border, and there is no sign that things are getting any better. Yet you could be forgiven for wondering if Democrats have even noticed. I am pretty sure the President and his administration spent more time earlier this year fighting against the use of the word ``crisis'' to describe the situation at the border than they did actually thinking about how they might deal with the influx. The President's main response to the situation seems to be ignoring it in hopes that it will go away. He is happy to travel all over the place, whether to a campaign rally in Virginia or a climate change summit overseas, but he can't seem to find a minute to visit the southern border. The border crisis is not the only crisis the President is ignoring. The President's disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal was a real low point for this country. Thirteen of our military men and women died in the terrorist attack. We abandoned thousands of individuals who had worked with us in Afghanistan and whom we had promised to protect, not to mention hundreds of Americans still working to find a way home. The President, who was supposed to restore our standing on the world stage, left our allies wondering if our word can be relied upon. Most of all, the disastrous withdrawal has left our country in a much more precarious national security position. Afghanistan is ripe to once again become a terrorist haven. Just this week, a Pentagon official testified that ISIS-K, the ISIS Afghanistan affiliate, could be ready to launch terrorist attacks on our homeland in as little as 6 months--6 months. Al-Qaida, which looks set to once again find a safe haven in Afghanistan, could be ready to launch attacks in a year. Yet, once again, this barely seems to register on the Biden administration's radar. We still have no agreements with neighboring countries to establish or make use of bases to launch counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan. The administration is apparentlyworking on the situation. Well, quite frankly, this is something the administration should have figured out before--before--withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and destroying our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations within the country. Unfortunately, the President was more focused on meeting his predetermined, arbitrary deadline than on dealing with the actual situation on the ground, with predictably catastrophic consequences. A lot of priorities have had to take a back seat to Democrats' tax-and-spending spree. I only wish the bill were worth it. Unfortunately, Democrats' massive spending bill is likely to worsen our inflation crisis, weaken our economy, and increase government intrusion into Americans' lives. Meanwhile, I guess our border crisis and national security priorities will have to continue to wait until Democrats find the time to address them. I am not holding my breath. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7439-2 | null | 3,377 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor tonight to talk about the growing epidemic of drug addiction and the issue that is occurring in my home State of Ohio and, really, all the States represented here in this Chamber and how we need to redouble our efforts. It is a heartbreaking story because we were making so much progress prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but, now, underneath the pandemic, we have this epidemic that is growing. But before I get into that, I must talk first about what is going on this evening in the U.S. House of Representatives. Almost 3 months ago, at the beginning of August, we passed in this Chamber bipartisan legislation to finally address our infrastructure shortfalls in this country. Presidents of both parties had been proposing it for many years. Congress had talked about it a lot, but we had never been able to figure out a way forward. So a group of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats got together and said: We are going to grow this from the middle out and figure out how to address our infrastructure challenges and do so in a bipartisan way. We did that. The President of the United States, President Biden, supported our effort, and we were able to get that legislation across the floor here in the U.S. Senate--not without some challenges and some changes and modifications. But we were able to do it because it was great for America, great for every State represented here, because it was repairing roads and bridges but also our ports, our waterways, our water infrastructure, our infrastructure that is considered digital, which would be high-speed internet, to make sure it is available to all of our citizens. So there are a lot of things that people had talked about for a long time and said they were for, but finally we were able to actually put it into writing and get it done. And it passed this Chamber with a big vote: 69 votes. Rarely does something so significant pass this Chamber with that kind of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it has languished in the House of Representatives for almost 3 months, since early August. And the reason it has languished over there isn't because it doesn't have the votes. It is really more because people would like to use it as a hostage for something they want even more, and that is just wrong. So, tonight, I urge my House colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to put aside the partisanship and focus on the substance of the bill and pass it. It has been held political hostage to something that House Democrats, particularly progressives in the House, want even more. It is not that they are opposed to infrastructure. They know this is needed. They know it is good for their constituents and it is good for our country. It is because they want even more to pass a massive, new spending bill called sometimes the Build Back Better bill, sometimes the reconciliation bill, sometimes the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. That is totally separate from infrastructure, but that is really what they want to pass. So they know that a lot of moderate Democrats support the infrastructure bill. They need those moderate Democrats to support the massive tax-and-spend bill. So, in effect, they have held it hostage. They have not allowed the infrastructure bill to move unless they get commitments on the bill they really want, which is the tax-and-spend bill. I think that is just wrong. So I urge the Speaker of the House and my colleagues in the House to go ahead and vote on that legislation this evening. I know there has been back-and-forth all day about what will happen. All I can say is it is the right thing to do for our country. When you think about it, the infrastructure bill is exactly what we need right now. Not only do we have a long-term challenge that everybody knows about and that we have been talking about for literally decades, but for the problems we face right now in our economy, it is very effective. Inflation: Everybody is concerned about it, and they should be. The cost of gasoline at the pump is up about 42 percent this year compared to last year. It is really tough on middle-class families because, although paychecks may have gone up a little bit, inflation has gone up higher. So it is essentially a tax on so many of our working families in this country. But everything is up: food, clothing, furniture, everything. So inflation is driven, in part, by the stimulus spending. You remember that, back in March, there was a big bill, $1.9 trillion. And many of us said, including some Democrats and including, famously, Larry Summers, who is the former Democratic Secretary of the Treasury for President Obama and in the Clinton administration: If you do this massive amount of spending, an unprecedented amount of stimulus spending, you will drive up inflation because you are putting many more dollars into people's pockets, into the economy, at a time when the economyis already beginning to improve, and it will be chasing fewer and fewer goods, and that will raise inflation. And that is exactly what has happened, which is bad for everybody, particularly, again, lower and middle-income families who are seeing this hidden tax, really, on everything they buy and, again, taking away the power of their slight increase in wages that we have seen. In fact, when you look at the data, it looks like wages have actually gone down in the past year. They have gone down because, after inflation, wages are worth less. So that is where we are right now. And the infrastructure bill is actually counterinflationary. Why do I say that? Because it doesn't invest in the way that the tax-and-spend bill invests. It is not about stimulus. It is about longer term investments in hard capital assets. So the economists look at that--including conservative economists at the American Enterprise Institute, including Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is a former CBO Director here and a more conservative economist--and they say: Now, this actually will be counterinflationary because you are investing long term in these capital assets, creating jobs, making our economy more efficient, making it more productive; and, therefore, in this instance now where we have this high inflation, it is a good thing to do. No. 2, we have had a lot of natural disasters in this country, particularly in the last year. About one out of every three Americans, apparently, lives in an area that has been subject to one of these natural disasters. It is the hurricanes. It is the floods. It is the wildfires. It is something that is affecting our country in a major way right now, and we hear about it virtually every week. This legislation, the infrastructure bill, actually has provisions for resiliency to mitigate the damage from these natural disasters. So it is a well-timed bill in that sense as well. There is an historic commitment to ensuring that we are not just talking about climate change and natural disasters but actually putting in place things that will protect communities from these natural disasters--whether it is forest fires, whether it is hurricanes, whether it is tornadoes, or other natural disasters. That is in this legislation, the infrastructure bill. And, finally, what is one of the biggest issues we face right now in terms of our economy? The supply chain crisis. Go to a store in your community, as many of you have, and you will see that the shelves are a lot more bare than they used to be. And there is not much on the shelves because we have this supply chain problem, kind of a bottleneck. Well, this legislation helps in that regard because it provides funding for infrastructure, including our ports: our ports of entry, our land ports, but also our seaports that are now in a situation where they are jammed with more and more container ships, and, yet, they can't process them quickly enough. So what the experts tell me is that the $2 billion in the infrastructure bill will help to improve those facilities, improve their operation, improve the intermodal connections--in other words, the truck connections, the train connections--to our ports and help move along this supply chain issue that we are currently facing. The legislation helps with regard to freight, rail. It helps with regard to our waterways, which carry a lot of freight in our country. So it is something that would be helpful in all three of these areas: inflation, natural disasters, and also our supply chain issues. At the same time, again, it is just needed because our infrastructure has fallen behind, particularly fallen behind other countries. And, therefore, making our economy more efficient and more productive is a good thing. Again, that is why it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate and why we need to pass it. It is totally different from the tax-and-spend reconciliation bill, which, again, is massive new spending, massive tax increases, which will add to inflation; and at a time when we have such high debts and deficits, it will add to our record level of debt and deficit. Its large tax increases will hurt our economy at a time when we cannot afford it. We just got the numbers in from the economic growth in the last quarter. They just came in today: 0.5-percent growth. Very disappointing. Well below expectations. So we know economic growth is slowing. We know inflation is rising. We know that this is not the time for us to put forward this kind of legislation because it will aggravate the inflationary pressures, but it also causes us, at a time of debt and deficits, to see big increases in spending. And, finally, again, at a time when our economy is, unfortunately, not performing the way we would like to see it--it is slowing down; it has been the worst economic quarter we have seen since 2000--we need to make sure we were not adding new taxes to our economy at this time. So the timing is bad. By the way, the infrastructure bill has no new tax increases. The infrastructure bill is not about immediate spending. It is about long-term spending over 5, 10, 15 years for capital assets--again, counterinflationary. So they are very different proposals, aren't they? I call on my colleagues in the House tonight to pass this legislation, get the infrastructure bill done. Don't hold it hostage with something else. That is not how we operate. Do the right thing for your constituents and for our country. The other focus that I had tonight was on our opioid and, more broadly, drug addiction crisis we face in this country and, unfortunately, at a time with the pandemic, causing huge healthcare problems that has distracted a lot of our attention, understandably. But underneath that pandemic there has been this epidemic that has been growing, and that is, again, this addiction issue. Back in 2018, we saw a reduction in addiction and, specifically, in the way it is typically measured, which is the number of overdose deaths that occur in our States. It was great news: a 22-percent decrease in overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio, after decades of increases every single year--22 percent in 1 year. 2019 was also a good year, where we saw significant success in getting people into treatment, getting people into recovery, reducing the use of drugs through prevention--all the things that we have been wanting to do. So much of that came from work that was done in this Chamber because we did enact new legislation and provided billions of more dollars for prevention, for treatment, for recovery. And we had a lot of great activity going on at the State level, at our local levels as well, building on that. We had more Narcan being provided to our communities, which is this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. We had very good success in getting more people not just into treatment but into longer-term recovery, where there is a greater chance of them succeeding and not relapsing. We did that through some legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, bipartisan legislation passed here in this Chamber. Senator Whitehouse joined with me on that as a coauthor. And then we also passed additional legislation to get more money directly to the States. And we found that we were, again, making progress, and then the pandemic hit. Unfortunately, we now know from the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control--the CDC--that under the cover of this pandemic, the drug epidemic has not only not gone away, it has actually gotten much worse. Overdose deaths rose by nearly 30 percent between March 2020 and March 2021--the latest year for which we have data; 30-percent increase in overdose deaths. This is very discouraging and heartbreaking really because that means much more devastation for our communities, families being broken apart, people not being able to achieve their God-given ability in life. Thousands more being lost--96,779 more individuals--moms and dads, sons and daughters, friends and loved ones--lost their lives to overdose deaths during that yearlong period, the most recent year that we have data for. It is the worst year we have had in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths. Again, we have been rightfully focused on COVID-19. But, particularly,as the COVID pandemic is beginning to get better, the Delta variant finally beginning to affect our communities less, we have got to refocus ourselves on this addiction issue. If we don't do it, we are going to continue to see this tragic epidemic take away more lives. In 47 States and the District of Columbia, the overdose rate went up during this last year, including a 26-percent increase in my home State of Ohio. In some States, by the way, the increase was as high as 85 percent. And I know the Members of the Senate who represent those States are well aware of that and would join me in saying we have to figure out a way; we have got to figure out a way. So what is the way forward? Well, part of it is to getting back to what we know works. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the bill called the 21st Century Cures Act--both signed into law in 2016--again, provided billions of new dollars for prevention, for treatment, for longer-term recovery, for Narcan to help our first responders. And that worked, and we made progress. So let's get back to that and redouble our efforts there. But we need to do more. And we have new legislation we have introduced we think will do that. It is called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0--I am sorry, 3.0. We have already done the first bill and 2.0. Now, we are at 3.0. And it provides additional help but also has some new provisions in addition to funding those that we know work, and that is extremely important as well. By the way, in these overdose deaths, we know that, increasingly, it is synthetic opioids that is causing the deadly outcome. Fentanyl, in particular, which is a synthetic form of heroin or other opioids that, for a long time, was being produced in China and then sent to our shores, and this poison was coming into our communities by our own U.S. Postal Service. So several years ago, we wrote legislation to deal with that called the STOP Act, and it actually has been quite effective to keep these drugs from coming in through the United States mail system. At that time, our mail system didn't provide the kind of screening that the private carriers did, like FedEx or UPS or DHL, and so people who were traffickers chose to use our own Postal Service. Maddening. And they were doing it successfully. But it is kind of like whack-a-mole. Once we dealt with the STOP Act and dealt with the fentanyl coming in from China directly through the mail system, it started to show up where? Through our southern border. So, today, what the experts will tell you is this deadly fentanyl is coming in primarily through the U.S.-Mexico border; it is cheaper than ever, very inexpensive. Sometimes it is produced in Mexico using precursors that come from China. It is being pressed into pills, often, so people don't know it is fentanyl. The pill may be Xanax. The pill may be Percocet. People think they are getting pain relief or anxiety relief when, in fact, they are getting fentanyl; and the tragic result of that is, again, more and more overdose deaths. We had a roundtable discussion recently where we talked about the issue of the border and what was happening and the fact that so many people now are coming across the border, but also so much contraband, including these drugs. And we had a witness whose name was Virginia Krieger. This was last week: Virginia told us her very tragic story about her daughter, who thought she was taking a Percocet for pain because that is what the pill said. And she died of an overdose. And it was determined after the fact that, in fact, she had died of fentanyl because some evil scientist--perhaps in Mexico--had pressed these pills, made these pills, probably to try to get her addicted to this powerful drug fentanyl, and, in fact, she had ingested it, taken it, and it had caused her to overdose and die. Virginia--God bless her--has taken the death of her daughter, Tiffany Leigh Robertson, and channeled that grief into something positive. She is going out to the schools now and talking to young people--I see our pages are here tonight--and saying: Every drug, every pill that is not from a pharmacy that you might find on the streets is potentially deadly. It can kill you. So be cautious. Don't ever take a pill if you don't know that it is coming from a pharmacy, that it is what it says it is. My heart goes out to Virginia, her family, and all those who have lost loved ones to these deadly substances. We need to be sure that we reduce the supply of these drugs, and we also do much more in terms of the demand reduction. One way we can start to address the supply of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids is to make sure that they are illegal. That might seem obvious to you, but we have had a hard time here in this country dealing with this issue because--think about it--if the synthetic form of an opioid, which can be changed by one of these evil scientists fairly easily--maybe just one molecule changes--and suddenly it is not on the list of controlled substances and not illegal. So in order to avoid this problem and be sure that people are properly prosecuted for illegal drugs, we are putting together legislation and trying to pass it, that ensures that there is a permanent classification of these drugs as being illegal. The Drug Enforcement Agency, back in 2018, used its authority to temporarily classify all fentanyl-related drugs--all of them--as schedule I substances, meaning illegal at the highest level, which allows law enforcement to aggressively intercept and destroy those substances. Unfortunately, that was only temporary. So that designation needs to be made permanent. We have successfully extended the temporary extension a few times here, but it is going to expire again at the end of January. So in just a couple of months, once again, we will have an expiration of that designation. Until we make these fentanyl-related drugs permanently illegal, law enforcement will not have the certainty they need to go after the criminals moving these deadly substances, and fewer lives will be lost. The legislation is called the FIGHT Fentanyl Act. It is bipartisan. I introduced it with Senator Manchin. Again, it fixes this problem by permanently classifying these drugs that are fentanyl-related as schedule I. It also gives our law enforcement the certainty they need to go after synthetic opioids in all forms and show we are committed to addressing the threat posed by this particularly dangerous class of drugs. So my hope is my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to get this done before the end of January. There is no reason we should do it at the last minute. We should provide that certainty and predictability. At the same time, I continue to believe that the most progress can be made on the demand side. So, yes, we need to do a better job at the southern border. It is outrageous what is happening now. So many drugs are coming across at record levels. The apprehensions of fentanyl are at record levels. In fact, enough fentanyl has been apprehended this year alone to kill every man, woman, and child in America. That is how deadly the drug is. But, ultimately, we have to deal with the demand for that drug in this country. As long as we have this insatiable demand, it is going to be difficult to stop it through the supply side or even making these drugs illegal. So that is why I think we need new legislation to build on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, to build on what we have done previously, and this CARA 3.0 that we have introduced with Senator Whitehouse can help on that. It does so by addressing three important areas: research and education, treatment and recovery, and criminal justice reform. First, it will bolster our work to prevent drug abuse before it happens, through funding, through research and education. To me, it is time for a national awareness campaign. It would be money well spent. And I believe we could use the money that we would appropriate here to leverage a lot more private interest in this, to get the private companies--like the pharmaceutical companies--to step forward and to help us in a true national drug awareness campaign. Second, research and development. We need to have better pain relief drugs in this country. We are still relying on things like Percocet, as I mentioned, and other opioids, prescription forms, that we have been relying on for decades. It is time to actually moveforward with the research and development of alternative pain treatments that don't lead to addiction as opioids do. There has been some progress there, but not nearly enough, and it needs more help. Third, in terms of treating substance abuse, our bill builds on what works by doubling down on proven evidence-based addiction treatment methods while expanding treatment options for groups particularly vulnerable to addiction, including young people, new and expecting moms, rural communities, communities of color. And it will make permanent the expanded telehealth options for addiction treatment that were temporarily created in response to the social distancing required by COVID-19. This is an exciting opportunity because it turns out, during COVID-19, when we had to rely more on telehealth, there was actually a lot of success in getting people into treatment. Now, it wasn't as good as having your recovery coach there with you and your, perhaps, other recovering addicts with you to give you the support you need, but for some people who couldn't travel because of the COVID-19 restrictions and, now, perhaps can't travel for other reasons, telehealth is something that was determined to be quite successful in many cases. We should continue that. We have to change laws to do that because it is about whether that would be reimbursed, particularly under Medicaid and Medicare. CARA 3.0 will also bolster the recovery options for individuals working to put addiction behind them through funding to support recovery support networks. It will enable physicians to provide medication-assisted treatment, like Methadone, to a greater number of patients and change the law to allow those drugs to be prescribed via telehealth for greater use of access. Part of the telehealth we are looking for is if you have a medication-assisted treatment plan, then you can use telehealth--in other words, over the internet--to be able to get your prescription. There needs to be safeguards in that. We need to be sure the first time a prescription is given, there is a face-to-face contact and make sure that it is not being abused, but this can be quite helpful. Finally, CARA 3.0 reforms our criminal justice system to ensure that those struggling with addiction, including our veterans, are treated with fairness and compassion by the law, putting them on a path to recovery instead of a downward spiral of substance abuse. When someone comes out of one of our prisons or jails and comes out as an addict and there is not treatment provided, way too often that person, of course, relapses and begins to use again, gets back into criminal activity, and gets right back in the criminal justice system. That doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help the taxpayer because the cost is $30 to $35,000--probably more at the Federal level--to incarcerate someone. And when they get out, they are just creating more crimes in the community. It is worth putting some emphasis on treatment while someone is in prison if they are suffering from addiction and, certainly, when they get out, getting them into treatment and recovery programs to get them back on their feet. By the way, we need these people in our workforce right now. We have always needed them, but we particularly do now. This is a win-win for our economy and certainly for the addict. CARA and CARA 2.0 have given States and local communities new resources and authorities to make a real difference in our States. CARA 3.0, this new bill, renews and strengthens those programs and, given the recent spike in addiction, provides a significant boost in funding as well. When added with existing CARA programs authorized through 2023, we would be investing over $1 billion a year to address the epidemic, putting us on a path toward brighter future free from addiction. It is money well spent, in my view. It is necessary. Again, it is going to help to bring our families back together, get people back to work, and ensure that our communities are not being devastated by crime that is committed in relation to these drug issues. I believe these two bills--the FIGHT Fentanyl Act we talked about and CARA 3.0--will make a difference in addressing this crisis of addiction our country now faces that has been made even worse during the time of the pandemic. A lot of our victims of this addiction crisis are suffering in silence. I urge my colleagues: Let's act now. Let's bring this to the light. Let's allow mere people to get into treatment, longer-term recovery. Let's be sure we are making fentanyl illegal in all of its forms. Let's, without delay, go to work to once again do what we know works because we turned the tide on addiction. We began to turn it in 2018, 2019. Let's get back to that. We will save lives and give so many more Americans the ability to achieve their God-given potential. I yield the floor. (Mr. KAINE assumed the Chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7452 | null | 3,378 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor tonight to talk about the growing epidemic of drug addiction and the issue that is occurring in my home State of Ohio and, really, all the States represented here in this Chamber and how we need to redouble our efforts. It is a heartbreaking story because we were making so much progress prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but, now, underneath the pandemic, we have this epidemic that is growing. But before I get into that, I must talk first about what is going on this evening in the U.S. House of Representatives. Almost 3 months ago, at the beginning of August, we passed in this Chamber bipartisan legislation to finally address our infrastructure shortfalls in this country. Presidents of both parties had been proposing it for many years. Congress had talked about it a lot, but we had never been able to figure out a way forward. So a group of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats got together and said: We are going to grow this from the middle out and figure out how to address our infrastructure challenges and do so in a bipartisan way. We did that. The President of the United States, President Biden, supported our effort, and we were able to get that legislation across the floor here in the U.S. Senate--not without some challenges and some changes and modifications. But we were able to do it because it was great for America, great for every State represented here, because it was repairing roads and bridges but also our ports, our waterways, our water infrastructure, our infrastructure that is considered digital, which would be high-speed internet, to make sure it is available to all of our citizens. So there are a lot of things that people had talked about for a long time and said they were for, but finally we were able to actually put it into writing and get it done. And it passed this Chamber with a big vote: 69 votes. Rarely does something so significant pass this Chamber with that kind of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it has languished in the House of Representatives for almost 3 months, since early August. And the reason it has languished over there isn't because it doesn't have the votes. It is really more because people would like to use it as a hostage for something they want even more, and that is just wrong. So, tonight, I urge my House colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to put aside the partisanship and focus on the substance of the bill and pass it. It has been held political hostage to something that House Democrats, particularly progressives in the House, want even more. It is not that they are opposed to infrastructure. They know this is needed. They know it is good for their constituents and it is good for our country. It is because they want even more to pass a massive, new spending bill called sometimes the Build Back Better bill, sometimes the reconciliation bill, sometimes the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. That is totally separate from infrastructure, but that is really what they want to pass. So they know that a lot of moderate Democrats support the infrastructure bill. They need those moderate Democrats to support the massive tax-and-spend bill. So, in effect, they have held it hostage. They have not allowed the infrastructure bill to move unless they get commitments on the bill they really want, which is the tax-and-spend bill. I think that is just wrong. So I urge the Speaker of the House and my colleagues in the House to go ahead and vote on that legislation this evening. I know there has been back-and-forth all day about what will happen. All I can say is it is the right thing to do for our country. When you think about it, the infrastructure bill is exactly what we need right now. Not only do we have a long-term challenge that everybody knows about and that we have been talking about for literally decades, but for the problems we face right now in our economy, it is very effective. Inflation: Everybody is concerned about it, and they should be. The cost of gasoline at the pump is up about 42 percent this year compared to last year. It is really tough on middle-class families because, although paychecks may have gone up a little bit, inflation has gone up higher. So it is essentially a tax on so many of our working families in this country. But everything is up: food, clothing, furniture, everything. So inflation is driven, in part, by the stimulus spending. You remember that, back in March, there was a big bill, $1.9 trillion. And many of us said, including some Democrats and including, famously, Larry Summers, who is the former Democratic Secretary of the Treasury for President Obama and in the Clinton administration: If you do this massive amount of spending, an unprecedented amount of stimulus spending, you will drive up inflation because you are putting many more dollars into people's pockets, into the economy, at a time when the economyis already beginning to improve, and it will be chasing fewer and fewer goods, and that will raise inflation. And that is exactly what has happened, which is bad for everybody, particularly, again, lower and middle-income families who are seeing this hidden tax, really, on everything they buy and, again, taking away the power of their slight increase in wages that we have seen. In fact, when you look at the data, it looks like wages have actually gone down in the past year. They have gone down because, after inflation, wages are worth less. So that is where we are right now. And the infrastructure bill is actually counterinflationary. Why do I say that? Because it doesn't invest in the way that the tax-and-spend bill invests. It is not about stimulus. It is about longer term investments in hard capital assets. So the economists look at that--including conservative economists at the American Enterprise Institute, including Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is a former CBO Director here and a more conservative economist--and they say: Now, this actually will be counterinflationary because you are investing long term in these capital assets, creating jobs, making our economy more efficient, making it more productive; and, therefore, in this instance now where we have this high inflation, it is a good thing to do. No. 2, we have had a lot of natural disasters in this country, particularly in the last year. About one out of every three Americans, apparently, lives in an area that has been subject to one of these natural disasters. It is the hurricanes. It is the floods. It is the wildfires. It is something that is affecting our country in a major way right now, and we hear about it virtually every week. This legislation, the infrastructure bill, actually has provisions for resiliency to mitigate the damage from these natural disasters. So it is a well-timed bill in that sense as well. There is an historic commitment to ensuring that we are not just talking about climate change and natural disasters but actually putting in place things that will protect communities from these natural disasters--whether it is forest fires, whether it is hurricanes, whether it is tornadoes, or other natural disasters. That is in this legislation, the infrastructure bill. And, finally, what is one of the biggest issues we face right now in terms of our economy? The supply chain crisis. Go to a store in your community, as many of you have, and you will see that the shelves are a lot more bare than they used to be. And there is not much on the shelves because we have this supply chain problem, kind of a bottleneck. Well, this legislation helps in that regard because it provides funding for infrastructure, including our ports: our ports of entry, our land ports, but also our seaports that are now in a situation where they are jammed with more and more container ships, and, yet, they can't process them quickly enough. So what the experts tell me is that the $2 billion in the infrastructure bill will help to improve those facilities, improve their operation, improve the intermodal connections--in other words, the truck connections, the train connections--to our ports and help move along this supply chain issue that we are currently facing. The legislation helps with regard to freight, rail. It helps with regard to our waterways, which carry a lot of freight in our country. So it is something that would be helpful in all three of these areas: inflation, natural disasters, and also our supply chain issues. At the same time, again, it is just needed because our infrastructure has fallen behind, particularly fallen behind other countries. And, therefore, making our economy more efficient and more productive is a good thing. Again, that is why it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate and why we need to pass it. It is totally different from the tax-and-spend reconciliation bill, which, again, is massive new spending, massive tax increases, which will add to inflation; and at a time when we have such high debts and deficits, it will add to our record level of debt and deficit. Its large tax increases will hurt our economy at a time when we cannot afford it. We just got the numbers in from the economic growth in the last quarter. They just came in today: 0.5-percent growth. Very disappointing. Well below expectations. So we know economic growth is slowing. We know inflation is rising. We know that this is not the time for us to put forward this kind of legislation because it will aggravate the inflationary pressures, but it also causes us, at a time of debt and deficits, to see big increases in spending. And, finally, again, at a time when our economy is, unfortunately, not performing the way we would like to see it--it is slowing down; it has been the worst economic quarter we have seen since 2000--we need to make sure we were not adding new taxes to our economy at this time. So the timing is bad. By the way, the infrastructure bill has no new tax increases. The infrastructure bill is not about immediate spending. It is about long-term spending over 5, 10, 15 years for capital assets--again, counterinflationary. So they are very different proposals, aren't they? I call on my colleagues in the House tonight to pass this legislation, get the infrastructure bill done. Don't hold it hostage with something else. That is not how we operate. Do the right thing for your constituents and for our country. The other focus that I had tonight was on our opioid and, more broadly, drug addiction crisis we face in this country and, unfortunately, at a time with the pandemic, causing huge healthcare problems that has distracted a lot of our attention, understandably. But underneath that pandemic there has been this epidemic that has been growing, and that is, again, this addiction issue. Back in 2018, we saw a reduction in addiction and, specifically, in the way it is typically measured, which is the number of overdose deaths that occur in our States. It was great news: a 22-percent decrease in overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio, after decades of increases every single year--22 percent in 1 year. 2019 was also a good year, where we saw significant success in getting people into treatment, getting people into recovery, reducing the use of drugs through prevention--all the things that we have been wanting to do. So much of that came from work that was done in this Chamber because we did enact new legislation and provided billions of more dollars for prevention, for treatment, for recovery. And we had a lot of great activity going on at the State level, at our local levels as well, building on that. We had more Narcan being provided to our communities, which is this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. We had very good success in getting more people not just into treatment but into longer-term recovery, where there is a greater chance of them succeeding and not relapsing. We did that through some legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, bipartisan legislation passed here in this Chamber. Senator Whitehouse joined with me on that as a coauthor. And then we also passed additional legislation to get more money directly to the States. And we found that we were, again, making progress, and then the pandemic hit. Unfortunately, we now know from the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control--the CDC--that under the cover of this pandemic, the drug epidemic has not only not gone away, it has actually gotten much worse. Overdose deaths rose by nearly 30 percent between March 2020 and March 2021--the latest year for which we have data; 30-percent increase in overdose deaths. This is very discouraging and heartbreaking really because that means much more devastation for our communities, families being broken apart, people not being able to achieve their God-given ability in life. Thousands more being lost--96,779 more individuals--moms and dads, sons and daughters, friends and loved ones--lost their lives to overdose deaths during that yearlong period, the most recent year that we have data for. It is the worst year we have had in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths. Again, we have been rightfully focused on COVID-19. But, particularly,as the COVID pandemic is beginning to get better, the Delta variant finally beginning to affect our communities less, we have got to refocus ourselves on this addiction issue. If we don't do it, we are going to continue to see this tragic epidemic take away more lives. In 47 States and the District of Columbia, the overdose rate went up during this last year, including a 26-percent increase in my home State of Ohio. In some States, by the way, the increase was as high as 85 percent. And I know the Members of the Senate who represent those States are well aware of that and would join me in saying we have to figure out a way; we have got to figure out a way. So what is the way forward? Well, part of it is to getting back to what we know works. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the bill called the 21st Century Cures Act--both signed into law in 2016--again, provided billions of new dollars for prevention, for treatment, for longer-term recovery, for Narcan to help our first responders. And that worked, and we made progress. So let's get back to that and redouble our efforts there. But we need to do more. And we have new legislation we have introduced we think will do that. It is called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0--I am sorry, 3.0. We have already done the first bill and 2.0. Now, we are at 3.0. And it provides additional help but also has some new provisions in addition to funding those that we know work, and that is extremely important as well. By the way, in these overdose deaths, we know that, increasingly, it is synthetic opioids that is causing the deadly outcome. Fentanyl, in particular, which is a synthetic form of heroin or other opioids that, for a long time, was being produced in China and then sent to our shores, and this poison was coming into our communities by our own U.S. Postal Service. So several years ago, we wrote legislation to deal with that called the STOP Act, and it actually has been quite effective to keep these drugs from coming in through the United States mail system. At that time, our mail system didn't provide the kind of screening that the private carriers did, like FedEx or UPS or DHL, and so people who were traffickers chose to use our own Postal Service. Maddening. And they were doing it successfully. But it is kind of like whack-a-mole. Once we dealt with the STOP Act and dealt with the fentanyl coming in from China directly through the mail system, it started to show up where? Through our southern border. So, today, what the experts will tell you is this deadly fentanyl is coming in primarily through the U.S.-Mexico border; it is cheaper than ever, very inexpensive. Sometimes it is produced in Mexico using precursors that come from China. It is being pressed into pills, often, so people don't know it is fentanyl. The pill may be Xanax. The pill may be Percocet. People think they are getting pain relief or anxiety relief when, in fact, they are getting fentanyl; and the tragic result of that is, again, more and more overdose deaths. We had a roundtable discussion recently where we talked about the issue of the border and what was happening and the fact that so many people now are coming across the border, but also so much contraband, including these drugs. And we had a witness whose name was Virginia Krieger. This was last week: Virginia told us her very tragic story about her daughter, who thought she was taking a Percocet for pain because that is what the pill said. And she died of an overdose. And it was determined after the fact that, in fact, she had died of fentanyl because some evil scientist--perhaps in Mexico--had pressed these pills, made these pills, probably to try to get her addicted to this powerful drug fentanyl, and, in fact, she had ingested it, taken it, and it had caused her to overdose and die. Virginia--God bless her--has taken the death of her daughter, Tiffany Leigh Robertson, and channeled that grief into something positive. She is going out to the schools now and talking to young people--I see our pages are here tonight--and saying: Every drug, every pill that is not from a pharmacy that you might find on the streets is potentially deadly. It can kill you. So be cautious. Don't ever take a pill if you don't know that it is coming from a pharmacy, that it is what it says it is. My heart goes out to Virginia, her family, and all those who have lost loved ones to these deadly substances. We need to be sure that we reduce the supply of these drugs, and we also do much more in terms of the demand reduction. One way we can start to address the supply of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids is to make sure that they are illegal. That might seem obvious to you, but we have had a hard time here in this country dealing with this issue because--think about it--if the synthetic form of an opioid, which can be changed by one of these evil scientists fairly easily--maybe just one molecule changes--and suddenly it is not on the list of controlled substances and not illegal. So in order to avoid this problem and be sure that people are properly prosecuted for illegal drugs, we are putting together legislation and trying to pass it, that ensures that there is a permanent classification of these drugs as being illegal. The Drug Enforcement Agency, back in 2018, used its authority to temporarily classify all fentanyl-related drugs--all of them--as schedule I substances, meaning illegal at the highest level, which allows law enforcement to aggressively intercept and destroy those substances. Unfortunately, that was only temporary. So that designation needs to be made permanent. We have successfully extended the temporary extension a few times here, but it is going to expire again at the end of January. So in just a couple of months, once again, we will have an expiration of that designation. Until we make these fentanyl-related drugs permanently illegal, law enforcement will not have the certainty they need to go after the criminals moving these deadly substances, and fewer lives will be lost. The legislation is called the FIGHT Fentanyl Act. It is bipartisan. I introduced it with Senator Manchin. Again, it fixes this problem by permanently classifying these drugs that are fentanyl-related as schedule I. It also gives our law enforcement the certainty they need to go after synthetic opioids in all forms and show we are committed to addressing the threat posed by this particularly dangerous class of drugs. So my hope is my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to get this done before the end of January. There is no reason we should do it at the last minute. We should provide that certainty and predictability. At the same time, I continue to believe that the most progress can be made on the demand side. So, yes, we need to do a better job at the southern border. It is outrageous what is happening now. So many drugs are coming across at record levels. The apprehensions of fentanyl are at record levels. In fact, enough fentanyl has been apprehended this year alone to kill every man, woman, and child in America. That is how deadly the drug is. But, ultimately, we have to deal with the demand for that drug in this country. As long as we have this insatiable demand, it is going to be difficult to stop it through the supply side or even making these drugs illegal. So that is why I think we need new legislation to build on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, to build on what we have done previously, and this CARA 3.0 that we have introduced with Senator Whitehouse can help on that. It does so by addressing three important areas: research and education, treatment and recovery, and criminal justice reform. First, it will bolster our work to prevent drug abuse before it happens, through funding, through research and education. To me, it is time for a national awareness campaign. It would be money well spent. And I believe we could use the money that we would appropriate here to leverage a lot more private interest in this, to get the private companies--like the pharmaceutical companies--to step forward and to help us in a true national drug awareness campaign. Second, research and development. We need to have better pain relief drugs in this country. We are still relying on things like Percocet, as I mentioned, and other opioids, prescription forms, that we have been relying on for decades. It is time to actually moveforward with the research and development of alternative pain treatments that don't lead to addiction as opioids do. There has been some progress there, but not nearly enough, and it needs more help. Third, in terms of treating substance abuse, our bill builds on what works by doubling down on proven evidence-based addiction treatment methods while expanding treatment options for groups particularly vulnerable to addiction, including young people, new and expecting moms, rural communities, communities of color. And it will make permanent the expanded telehealth options for addiction treatment that were temporarily created in response to the social distancing required by COVID-19. This is an exciting opportunity because it turns out, during COVID-19, when we had to rely more on telehealth, there was actually a lot of success in getting people into treatment. Now, it wasn't as good as having your recovery coach there with you and your, perhaps, other recovering addicts with you to give you the support you need, but for some people who couldn't travel because of the COVID-19 restrictions and, now, perhaps can't travel for other reasons, telehealth is something that was determined to be quite successful in many cases. We should continue that. We have to change laws to do that because it is about whether that would be reimbursed, particularly under Medicaid and Medicare. CARA 3.0 will also bolster the recovery options for individuals working to put addiction behind them through funding to support recovery support networks. It will enable physicians to provide medication-assisted treatment, like Methadone, to a greater number of patients and change the law to allow those drugs to be prescribed via telehealth for greater use of access. Part of the telehealth we are looking for is if you have a medication-assisted treatment plan, then you can use telehealth--in other words, over the internet--to be able to get your prescription. There needs to be safeguards in that. We need to be sure the first time a prescription is given, there is a face-to-face contact and make sure that it is not being abused, but this can be quite helpful. Finally, CARA 3.0 reforms our criminal justice system to ensure that those struggling with addiction, including our veterans, are treated with fairness and compassion by the law, putting them on a path to recovery instead of a downward spiral of substance abuse. When someone comes out of one of our prisons or jails and comes out as an addict and there is not treatment provided, way too often that person, of course, relapses and begins to use again, gets back into criminal activity, and gets right back in the criminal justice system. That doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help the taxpayer because the cost is $30 to $35,000--probably more at the Federal level--to incarcerate someone. And when they get out, they are just creating more crimes in the community. It is worth putting some emphasis on treatment while someone is in prison if they are suffering from addiction and, certainly, when they get out, getting them into treatment and recovery programs to get them back on their feet. By the way, we need these people in our workforce right now. We have always needed them, but we particularly do now. This is a win-win for our economy and certainly for the addict. CARA and CARA 2.0 have given States and local communities new resources and authorities to make a real difference in our States. CARA 3.0, this new bill, renews and strengthens those programs and, given the recent spike in addiction, provides a significant boost in funding as well. When added with existing CARA programs authorized through 2023, we would be investing over $1 billion a year to address the epidemic, putting us on a path toward brighter future free from addiction. It is money well spent, in my view. It is necessary. Again, it is going to help to bring our families back together, get people back to work, and ensure that our communities are not being devastated by crime that is committed in relation to these drug issues. I believe these two bills--the FIGHT Fentanyl Act we talked about and CARA 3.0--will make a difference in addressing this crisis of addiction our country now faces that has been made even worse during the time of the pandemic. A lot of our victims of this addiction crisis are suffering in silence. I urge my colleagues: Let's act now. Let's bring this to the light. Let's allow mere people to get into treatment, longer-term recovery. Let's be sure we are making fentanyl illegal in all of its forms. Let's, without delay, go to work to once again do what we know works because we turned the tide on addiction. We began to turn it in 2018, 2019. Let's get back to that. We will save lives and give so many more Americans the ability to achieve their God-given potential. I yield the floor. (Mr. KAINE assumed the Chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7452 | null | 3,379 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor tonight to talk about the growing epidemic of drug addiction and the issue that is occurring in my home State of Ohio and, really, all the States represented here in this Chamber and how we need to redouble our efforts. It is a heartbreaking story because we were making so much progress prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but, now, underneath the pandemic, we have this epidemic that is growing. But before I get into that, I must talk first about what is going on this evening in the U.S. House of Representatives. Almost 3 months ago, at the beginning of August, we passed in this Chamber bipartisan legislation to finally address our infrastructure shortfalls in this country. Presidents of both parties had been proposing it for many years. Congress had talked about it a lot, but we had never been able to figure out a way forward. So a group of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats got together and said: We are going to grow this from the middle out and figure out how to address our infrastructure challenges and do so in a bipartisan way. We did that. The President of the United States, President Biden, supported our effort, and we were able to get that legislation across the floor here in the U.S. Senate--not without some challenges and some changes and modifications. But we were able to do it because it was great for America, great for every State represented here, because it was repairing roads and bridges but also our ports, our waterways, our water infrastructure, our infrastructure that is considered digital, which would be high-speed internet, to make sure it is available to all of our citizens. So there are a lot of things that people had talked about for a long time and said they were for, but finally we were able to actually put it into writing and get it done. And it passed this Chamber with a big vote: 69 votes. Rarely does something so significant pass this Chamber with that kind of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it has languished in the House of Representatives for almost 3 months, since early August. And the reason it has languished over there isn't because it doesn't have the votes. It is really more because people would like to use it as a hostage for something they want even more, and that is just wrong. So, tonight, I urge my House colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to put aside the partisanship and focus on the substance of the bill and pass it. It has been held political hostage to something that House Democrats, particularly progressives in the House, want even more. It is not that they are opposed to infrastructure. They know this is needed. They know it is good for their constituents and it is good for our country. It is because they want even more to pass a massive, new spending bill called sometimes the Build Back Better bill, sometimes the reconciliation bill, sometimes the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. That is totally separate from infrastructure, but that is really what they want to pass. So they know that a lot of moderate Democrats support the infrastructure bill. They need those moderate Democrats to support the massive tax-and-spend bill. So, in effect, they have held it hostage. They have not allowed the infrastructure bill to move unless they get commitments on the bill they really want, which is the tax-and-spend bill. I think that is just wrong. So I urge the Speaker of the House and my colleagues in the House to go ahead and vote on that legislation this evening. I know there has been back-and-forth all day about what will happen. All I can say is it is the right thing to do for our country. When you think about it, the infrastructure bill is exactly what we need right now. Not only do we have a long-term challenge that everybody knows about and that we have been talking about for literally decades, but for the problems we face right now in our economy, it is very effective. Inflation: Everybody is concerned about it, and they should be. The cost of gasoline at the pump is up about 42 percent this year compared to last year. It is really tough on middle-class families because, although paychecks may have gone up a little bit, inflation has gone up higher. So it is essentially a tax on so many of our working families in this country. But everything is up: food, clothing, furniture, everything. So inflation is driven, in part, by the stimulus spending. You remember that, back in March, there was a big bill, $1.9 trillion. And many of us said, including some Democrats and including, famously, Larry Summers, who is the former Democratic Secretary of the Treasury for President Obama and in the Clinton administration: If you do this massive amount of spending, an unprecedented amount of stimulus spending, you will drive up inflation because you are putting many more dollars into people's pockets, into the economy, at a time when the economyis already beginning to improve, and it will be chasing fewer and fewer goods, and that will raise inflation. And that is exactly what has happened, which is bad for everybody, particularly, again, lower and middle-income families who are seeing this hidden tax, really, on everything they buy and, again, taking away the power of their slight increase in wages that we have seen. In fact, when you look at the data, it looks like wages have actually gone down in the past year. They have gone down because, after inflation, wages are worth less. So that is where we are right now. And the infrastructure bill is actually counterinflationary. Why do I say that? Because it doesn't invest in the way that the tax-and-spend bill invests. It is not about stimulus. It is about longer term investments in hard capital assets. So the economists look at that--including conservative economists at the American Enterprise Institute, including Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is a former CBO Director here and a more conservative economist--and they say: Now, this actually will be counterinflationary because you are investing long term in these capital assets, creating jobs, making our economy more efficient, making it more productive; and, therefore, in this instance now where we have this high inflation, it is a good thing to do. No. 2, we have had a lot of natural disasters in this country, particularly in the last year. About one out of every three Americans, apparently, lives in an area that has been subject to one of these natural disasters. It is the hurricanes. It is the floods. It is the wildfires. It is something that is affecting our country in a major way right now, and we hear about it virtually every week. This legislation, the infrastructure bill, actually has provisions for resiliency to mitigate the damage from these natural disasters. So it is a well-timed bill in that sense as well. There is an historic commitment to ensuring that we are not just talking about climate change and natural disasters but actually putting in place things that will protect communities from these natural disasters--whether it is forest fires, whether it is hurricanes, whether it is tornadoes, or other natural disasters. That is in this legislation, the infrastructure bill. And, finally, what is one of the biggest issues we face right now in terms of our economy? The supply chain crisis. Go to a store in your community, as many of you have, and you will see that the shelves are a lot more bare than they used to be. And there is not much on the shelves because we have this supply chain problem, kind of a bottleneck. Well, this legislation helps in that regard because it provides funding for infrastructure, including our ports: our ports of entry, our land ports, but also our seaports that are now in a situation where they are jammed with more and more container ships, and, yet, they can't process them quickly enough. So what the experts tell me is that the $2 billion in the infrastructure bill will help to improve those facilities, improve their operation, improve the intermodal connections--in other words, the truck connections, the train connections--to our ports and help move along this supply chain issue that we are currently facing. The legislation helps with regard to freight, rail. It helps with regard to our waterways, which carry a lot of freight in our country. So it is something that would be helpful in all three of these areas: inflation, natural disasters, and also our supply chain issues. At the same time, again, it is just needed because our infrastructure has fallen behind, particularly fallen behind other countries. And, therefore, making our economy more efficient and more productive is a good thing. Again, that is why it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate and why we need to pass it. It is totally different from the tax-and-spend reconciliation bill, which, again, is massive new spending, massive tax increases, which will add to inflation; and at a time when we have such high debts and deficits, it will add to our record level of debt and deficit. Its large tax increases will hurt our economy at a time when we cannot afford it. We just got the numbers in from the economic growth in the last quarter. They just came in today: 0.5-percent growth. Very disappointing. Well below expectations. So we know economic growth is slowing. We know inflation is rising. We know that this is not the time for us to put forward this kind of legislation because it will aggravate the inflationary pressures, but it also causes us, at a time of debt and deficits, to see big increases in spending. And, finally, again, at a time when our economy is, unfortunately, not performing the way we would like to see it--it is slowing down; it has been the worst economic quarter we have seen since 2000--we need to make sure we were not adding new taxes to our economy at this time. So the timing is bad. By the way, the infrastructure bill has no new tax increases. The infrastructure bill is not about immediate spending. It is about long-term spending over 5, 10, 15 years for capital assets--again, counterinflationary. So they are very different proposals, aren't they? I call on my colleagues in the House tonight to pass this legislation, get the infrastructure bill done. Don't hold it hostage with something else. That is not how we operate. Do the right thing for your constituents and for our country. The other focus that I had tonight was on our opioid and, more broadly, drug addiction crisis we face in this country and, unfortunately, at a time with the pandemic, causing huge healthcare problems that has distracted a lot of our attention, understandably. But underneath that pandemic there has been this epidemic that has been growing, and that is, again, this addiction issue. Back in 2018, we saw a reduction in addiction and, specifically, in the way it is typically measured, which is the number of overdose deaths that occur in our States. It was great news: a 22-percent decrease in overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio, after decades of increases every single year--22 percent in 1 year. 2019 was also a good year, where we saw significant success in getting people into treatment, getting people into recovery, reducing the use of drugs through prevention--all the things that we have been wanting to do. So much of that came from work that was done in this Chamber because we did enact new legislation and provided billions of more dollars for prevention, for treatment, for recovery. And we had a lot of great activity going on at the State level, at our local levels as well, building on that. We had more Narcan being provided to our communities, which is this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. We had very good success in getting more people not just into treatment but into longer-term recovery, where there is a greater chance of them succeeding and not relapsing. We did that through some legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, bipartisan legislation passed here in this Chamber. Senator Whitehouse joined with me on that as a coauthor. And then we also passed additional legislation to get more money directly to the States. And we found that we were, again, making progress, and then the pandemic hit. Unfortunately, we now know from the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control--the CDC--that under the cover of this pandemic, the drug epidemic has not only not gone away, it has actually gotten much worse. Overdose deaths rose by nearly 30 percent between March 2020 and March 2021--the latest year for which we have data; 30-percent increase in overdose deaths. This is very discouraging and heartbreaking really because that means much more devastation for our communities, families being broken apart, people not being able to achieve their God-given ability in life. Thousands more being lost--96,779 more individuals--moms and dads, sons and daughters, friends and loved ones--lost their lives to overdose deaths during that yearlong period, the most recent year that we have data for. It is the worst year we have had in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths. Again, we have been rightfully focused on COVID-19. But, particularly,as the COVID pandemic is beginning to get better, the Delta variant finally beginning to affect our communities less, we have got to refocus ourselves on this addiction issue. If we don't do it, we are going to continue to see this tragic epidemic take away more lives. In 47 States and the District of Columbia, the overdose rate went up during this last year, including a 26-percent increase in my home State of Ohio. In some States, by the way, the increase was as high as 85 percent. And I know the Members of the Senate who represent those States are well aware of that and would join me in saying we have to figure out a way; we have got to figure out a way. So what is the way forward? Well, part of it is to getting back to what we know works. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the bill called the 21st Century Cures Act--both signed into law in 2016--again, provided billions of new dollars for prevention, for treatment, for longer-term recovery, for Narcan to help our first responders. And that worked, and we made progress. So let's get back to that and redouble our efforts there. But we need to do more. And we have new legislation we have introduced we think will do that. It is called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0--I am sorry, 3.0. We have already done the first bill and 2.0. Now, we are at 3.0. And it provides additional help but also has some new provisions in addition to funding those that we know work, and that is extremely important as well. By the way, in these overdose deaths, we know that, increasingly, it is synthetic opioids that is causing the deadly outcome. Fentanyl, in particular, which is a synthetic form of heroin or other opioids that, for a long time, was being produced in China and then sent to our shores, and this poison was coming into our communities by our own U.S. Postal Service. So several years ago, we wrote legislation to deal with that called the STOP Act, and it actually has been quite effective to keep these drugs from coming in through the United States mail system. At that time, our mail system didn't provide the kind of screening that the private carriers did, like FedEx or UPS or DHL, and so people who were traffickers chose to use our own Postal Service. Maddening. And they were doing it successfully. But it is kind of like whack-a-mole. Once we dealt with the STOP Act and dealt with the fentanyl coming in from China directly through the mail system, it started to show up where? Through our southern border. So, today, what the experts will tell you is this deadly fentanyl is coming in primarily through the U.S.-Mexico border; it is cheaper than ever, very inexpensive. Sometimes it is produced in Mexico using precursors that come from China. It is being pressed into pills, often, so people don't know it is fentanyl. The pill may be Xanax. The pill may be Percocet. People think they are getting pain relief or anxiety relief when, in fact, they are getting fentanyl; and the tragic result of that is, again, more and more overdose deaths. We had a roundtable discussion recently where we talked about the issue of the border and what was happening and the fact that so many people now are coming across the border, but also so much contraband, including these drugs. And we had a witness whose name was Virginia Krieger. This was last week: Virginia told us her very tragic story about her daughter, who thought she was taking a Percocet for pain because that is what the pill said. And she died of an overdose. And it was determined after the fact that, in fact, she had died of fentanyl because some evil scientist--perhaps in Mexico--had pressed these pills, made these pills, probably to try to get her addicted to this powerful drug fentanyl, and, in fact, she had ingested it, taken it, and it had caused her to overdose and die. Virginia--God bless her--has taken the death of her daughter, Tiffany Leigh Robertson, and channeled that grief into something positive. She is going out to the schools now and talking to young people--I see our pages are here tonight--and saying: Every drug, every pill that is not from a pharmacy that you might find on the streets is potentially deadly. It can kill you. So be cautious. Don't ever take a pill if you don't know that it is coming from a pharmacy, that it is what it says it is. My heart goes out to Virginia, her family, and all those who have lost loved ones to these deadly substances. We need to be sure that we reduce the supply of these drugs, and we also do much more in terms of the demand reduction. One way we can start to address the supply of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids is to make sure that they are illegal. That might seem obvious to you, but we have had a hard time here in this country dealing with this issue because--think about it--if the synthetic form of an opioid, which can be changed by one of these evil scientists fairly easily--maybe just one molecule changes--and suddenly it is not on the list of controlled substances and not illegal. So in order to avoid this problem and be sure that people are properly prosecuted for illegal drugs, we are putting together legislation and trying to pass it, that ensures that there is a permanent classification of these drugs as being illegal. The Drug Enforcement Agency, back in 2018, used its authority to temporarily classify all fentanyl-related drugs--all of them--as schedule I substances, meaning illegal at the highest level, which allows law enforcement to aggressively intercept and destroy those substances. Unfortunately, that was only temporary. So that designation needs to be made permanent. We have successfully extended the temporary extension a few times here, but it is going to expire again at the end of January. So in just a couple of months, once again, we will have an expiration of that designation. Until we make these fentanyl-related drugs permanently illegal, law enforcement will not have the certainty they need to go after the criminals moving these deadly substances, and fewer lives will be lost. The legislation is called the FIGHT Fentanyl Act. It is bipartisan. I introduced it with Senator Manchin. Again, it fixes this problem by permanently classifying these drugs that are fentanyl-related as schedule I. It also gives our law enforcement the certainty they need to go after synthetic opioids in all forms and show we are committed to addressing the threat posed by this particularly dangerous class of drugs. So my hope is my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to get this done before the end of January. There is no reason we should do it at the last minute. We should provide that certainty and predictability. At the same time, I continue to believe that the most progress can be made on the demand side. So, yes, we need to do a better job at the southern border. It is outrageous what is happening now. So many drugs are coming across at record levels. The apprehensions of fentanyl are at record levels. In fact, enough fentanyl has been apprehended this year alone to kill every man, woman, and child in America. That is how deadly the drug is. But, ultimately, we have to deal with the demand for that drug in this country. As long as we have this insatiable demand, it is going to be difficult to stop it through the supply side or even making these drugs illegal. So that is why I think we need new legislation to build on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, to build on what we have done previously, and this CARA 3.0 that we have introduced with Senator Whitehouse can help on that. It does so by addressing three important areas: research and education, treatment and recovery, and criminal justice reform. First, it will bolster our work to prevent drug abuse before it happens, through funding, through research and education. To me, it is time for a national awareness campaign. It would be money well spent. And I believe we could use the money that we would appropriate here to leverage a lot more private interest in this, to get the private companies--like the pharmaceutical companies--to step forward and to help us in a true national drug awareness campaign. Second, research and development. We need to have better pain relief drugs in this country. We are still relying on things like Percocet, as I mentioned, and other opioids, prescription forms, that we have been relying on for decades. It is time to actually moveforward with the research and development of alternative pain treatments that don't lead to addiction as opioids do. There has been some progress there, but not nearly enough, and it needs more help. Third, in terms of treating substance abuse, our bill builds on what works by doubling down on proven evidence-based addiction treatment methods while expanding treatment options for groups particularly vulnerable to addiction, including young people, new and expecting moms, rural communities, communities of color. And it will make permanent the expanded telehealth options for addiction treatment that were temporarily created in response to the social distancing required by COVID-19. This is an exciting opportunity because it turns out, during COVID-19, when we had to rely more on telehealth, there was actually a lot of success in getting people into treatment. Now, it wasn't as good as having your recovery coach there with you and your, perhaps, other recovering addicts with you to give you the support you need, but for some people who couldn't travel because of the COVID-19 restrictions and, now, perhaps can't travel for other reasons, telehealth is something that was determined to be quite successful in many cases. We should continue that. We have to change laws to do that because it is about whether that would be reimbursed, particularly under Medicaid and Medicare. CARA 3.0 will also bolster the recovery options for individuals working to put addiction behind them through funding to support recovery support networks. It will enable physicians to provide medication-assisted treatment, like Methadone, to a greater number of patients and change the law to allow those drugs to be prescribed via telehealth for greater use of access. Part of the telehealth we are looking for is if you have a medication-assisted treatment plan, then you can use telehealth--in other words, over the internet--to be able to get your prescription. There needs to be safeguards in that. We need to be sure the first time a prescription is given, there is a face-to-face contact and make sure that it is not being abused, but this can be quite helpful. Finally, CARA 3.0 reforms our criminal justice system to ensure that those struggling with addiction, including our veterans, are treated with fairness and compassion by the law, putting them on a path to recovery instead of a downward spiral of substance abuse. When someone comes out of one of our prisons or jails and comes out as an addict and there is not treatment provided, way too often that person, of course, relapses and begins to use again, gets back into criminal activity, and gets right back in the criminal justice system. That doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help the taxpayer because the cost is $30 to $35,000--probably more at the Federal level--to incarcerate someone. And when they get out, they are just creating more crimes in the community. It is worth putting some emphasis on treatment while someone is in prison if they are suffering from addiction and, certainly, when they get out, getting them into treatment and recovery programs to get them back on their feet. By the way, we need these people in our workforce right now. We have always needed them, but we particularly do now. This is a win-win for our economy and certainly for the addict. CARA and CARA 2.0 have given States and local communities new resources and authorities to make a real difference in our States. CARA 3.0, this new bill, renews and strengthens those programs and, given the recent spike in addiction, provides a significant boost in funding as well. When added with existing CARA programs authorized through 2023, we would be investing over $1 billion a year to address the epidemic, putting us on a path toward brighter future free from addiction. It is money well spent, in my view. It is necessary. Again, it is going to help to bring our families back together, get people back to work, and ensure that our communities are not being devastated by crime that is committed in relation to these drug issues. I believe these two bills--the FIGHT Fentanyl Act we talked about and CARA 3.0--will make a difference in addressing this crisis of addiction our country now faces that has been made even worse during the time of the pandemic. A lot of our victims of this addiction crisis are suffering in silence. I urge my colleagues: Let's act now. Let's bring this to the light. Let's allow mere people to get into treatment, longer-term recovery. Let's be sure we are making fentanyl illegal in all of its forms. Let's, without delay, go to work to once again do what we know works because we turned the tide on addiction. We began to turn it in 2018, 2019. Let's get back to that. We will save lives and give so many more Americans the ability to achieve their God-given potential. I yield the floor. (Mr. KAINE assumed the Chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7452 | null | 3,380 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am here on the floor tonight to talk about the growing epidemic of drug addiction and the issue that is occurring in my home State of Ohio and, really, all the States represented here in this Chamber and how we need to redouble our efforts. It is a heartbreaking story because we were making so much progress prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but, now, underneath the pandemic, we have this epidemic that is growing. But before I get into that, I must talk first about what is going on this evening in the U.S. House of Representatives. Almost 3 months ago, at the beginning of August, we passed in this Chamber bipartisan legislation to finally address our infrastructure shortfalls in this country. Presidents of both parties had been proposing it for many years. Congress had talked about it a lot, but we had never been able to figure out a way forward. So a group of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats got together and said: We are going to grow this from the middle out and figure out how to address our infrastructure challenges and do so in a bipartisan way. We did that. The President of the United States, President Biden, supported our effort, and we were able to get that legislation across the floor here in the U.S. Senate--not without some challenges and some changes and modifications. But we were able to do it because it was great for America, great for every State represented here, because it was repairing roads and bridges but also our ports, our waterways, our water infrastructure, our infrastructure that is considered digital, which would be high-speed internet, to make sure it is available to all of our citizens. So there are a lot of things that people had talked about for a long time and said they were for, but finally we were able to actually put it into writing and get it done. And it passed this Chamber with a big vote: 69 votes. Rarely does something so significant pass this Chamber with that kind of bipartisan support. Unfortunately, it has languished in the House of Representatives for almost 3 months, since early August. And the reason it has languished over there isn't because it doesn't have the votes. It is really more because people would like to use it as a hostage for something they want even more, and that is just wrong. So, tonight, I urge my House colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to put aside the partisanship and focus on the substance of the bill and pass it. It has been held political hostage to something that House Democrats, particularly progressives in the House, want even more. It is not that they are opposed to infrastructure. They know this is needed. They know it is good for their constituents and it is good for our country. It is because they want even more to pass a massive, new spending bill called sometimes the Build Back Better bill, sometimes the reconciliation bill, sometimes the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. That is totally separate from infrastructure, but that is really what they want to pass. So they know that a lot of moderate Democrats support the infrastructure bill. They need those moderate Democrats to support the massive tax-and-spend bill. So, in effect, they have held it hostage. They have not allowed the infrastructure bill to move unless they get commitments on the bill they really want, which is the tax-and-spend bill. I think that is just wrong. So I urge the Speaker of the House and my colleagues in the House to go ahead and vote on that legislation this evening. I know there has been back-and-forth all day about what will happen. All I can say is it is the right thing to do for our country. When you think about it, the infrastructure bill is exactly what we need right now. Not only do we have a long-term challenge that everybody knows about and that we have been talking about for literally decades, but for the problems we face right now in our economy, it is very effective. Inflation: Everybody is concerned about it, and they should be. The cost of gasoline at the pump is up about 42 percent this year compared to last year. It is really tough on middle-class families because, although paychecks may have gone up a little bit, inflation has gone up higher. So it is essentially a tax on so many of our working families in this country. But everything is up: food, clothing, furniture, everything. So inflation is driven, in part, by the stimulus spending. You remember that, back in March, there was a big bill, $1.9 trillion. And many of us said, including some Democrats and including, famously, Larry Summers, who is the former Democratic Secretary of the Treasury for President Obama and in the Clinton administration: If you do this massive amount of spending, an unprecedented amount of stimulus spending, you will drive up inflation because you are putting many more dollars into people's pockets, into the economy, at a time when the economyis already beginning to improve, and it will be chasing fewer and fewer goods, and that will raise inflation. And that is exactly what has happened, which is bad for everybody, particularly, again, lower and middle-income families who are seeing this hidden tax, really, on everything they buy and, again, taking away the power of their slight increase in wages that we have seen. In fact, when you look at the data, it looks like wages have actually gone down in the past year. They have gone down because, after inflation, wages are worth less. So that is where we are right now. And the infrastructure bill is actually counterinflationary. Why do I say that? Because it doesn't invest in the way that the tax-and-spend bill invests. It is not about stimulus. It is about longer term investments in hard capital assets. So the economists look at that--including conservative economists at the American Enterprise Institute, including Doug Holtz-Eakin, who is a former CBO Director here and a more conservative economist--and they say: Now, this actually will be counterinflationary because you are investing long term in these capital assets, creating jobs, making our economy more efficient, making it more productive; and, therefore, in this instance now where we have this high inflation, it is a good thing to do. No. 2, we have had a lot of natural disasters in this country, particularly in the last year. About one out of every three Americans, apparently, lives in an area that has been subject to one of these natural disasters. It is the hurricanes. It is the floods. It is the wildfires. It is something that is affecting our country in a major way right now, and we hear about it virtually every week. This legislation, the infrastructure bill, actually has provisions for resiliency to mitigate the damage from these natural disasters. So it is a well-timed bill in that sense as well. There is an historic commitment to ensuring that we are not just talking about climate change and natural disasters but actually putting in place things that will protect communities from these natural disasters--whether it is forest fires, whether it is hurricanes, whether it is tornadoes, or other natural disasters. That is in this legislation, the infrastructure bill. And, finally, what is one of the biggest issues we face right now in terms of our economy? The supply chain crisis. Go to a store in your community, as many of you have, and you will see that the shelves are a lot more bare than they used to be. And there is not much on the shelves because we have this supply chain problem, kind of a bottleneck. Well, this legislation helps in that regard because it provides funding for infrastructure, including our ports: our ports of entry, our land ports, but also our seaports that are now in a situation where they are jammed with more and more container ships, and, yet, they can't process them quickly enough. So what the experts tell me is that the $2 billion in the infrastructure bill will help to improve those facilities, improve their operation, improve the intermodal connections--in other words, the truck connections, the train connections--to our ports and help move along this supply chain issue that we are currently facing. The legislation helps with regard to freight, rail. It helps with regard to our waterways, which carry a lot of freight in our country. So it is something that would be helpful in all three of these areas: inflation, natural disasters, and also our supply chain issues. At the same time, again, it is just needed because our infrastructure has fallen behind, particularly fallen behind other countries. And, therefore, making our economy more efficient and more productive is a good thing. Again, that is why it got 69 votes here in the U.S. Senate and why we need to pass it. It is totally different from the tax-and-spend reconciliation bill, which, again, is massive new spending, massive tax increases, which will add to inflation; and at a time when we have such high debts and deficits, it will add to our record level of debt and deficit. Its large tax increases will hurt our economy at a time when we cannot afford it. We just got the numbers in from the economic growth in the last quarter. They just came in today: 0.5-percent growth. Very disappointing. Well below expectations. So we know economic growth is slowing. We know inflation is rising. We know that this is not the time for us to put forward this kind of legislation because it will aggravate the inflationary pressures, but it also causes us, at a time of debt and deficits, to see big increases in spending. And, finally, again, at a time when our economy is, unfortunately, not performing the way we would like to see it--it is slowing down; it has been the worst economic quarter we have seen since 2000--we need to make sure we were not adding new taxes to our economy at this time. So the timing is bad. By the way, the infrastructure bill has no new tax increases. The infrastructure bill is not about immediate spending. It is about long-term spending over 5, 10, 15 years for capital assets--again, counterinflationary. So they are very different proposals, aren't they? I call on my colleagues in the House tonight to pass this legislation, get the infrastructure bill done. Don't hold it hostage with something else. That is not how we operate. Do the right thing for your constituents and for our country. The other focus that I had tonight was on our opioid and, more broadly, drug addiction crisis we face in this country and, unfortunately, at a time with the pandemic, causing huge healthcare problems that has distracted a lot of our attention, understandably. But underneath that pandemic there has been this epidemic that has been growing, and that is, again, this addiction issue. Back in 2018, we saw a reduction in addiction and, specifically, in the way it is typically measured, which is the number of overdose deaths that occur in our States. It was great news: a 22-percent decrease in overdose deaths in my home State of Ohio, after decades of increases every single year--22 percent in 1 year. 2019 was also a good year, where we saw significant success in getting people into treatment, getting people into recovery, reducing the use of drugs through prevention--all the things that we have been wanting to do. So much of that came from work that was done in this Chamber because we did enact new legislation and provided billions of more dollars for prevention, for treatment, for recovery. And we had a lot of great activity going on at the State level, at our local levels as well, building on that. We had more Narcan being provided to our communities, which is this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. We had very good success in getting more people not just into treatment but into longer-term recovery, where there is a greater chance of them succeeding and not relapsing. We did that through some legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, bipartisan legislation passed here in this Chamber. Senator Whitehouse joined with me on that as a coauthor. And then we also passed additional legislation to get more money directly to the States. And we found that we were, again, making progress, and then the pandemic hit. Unfortunately, we now know from the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control--the CDC--that under the cover of this pandemic, the drug epidemic has not only not gone away, it has actually gotten much worse. Overdose deaths rose by nearly 30 percent between March 2020 and March 2021--the latest year for which we have data; 30-percent increase in overdose deaths. This is very discouraging and heartbreaking really because that means much more devastation for our communities, families being broken apart, people not being able to achieve their God-given ability in life. Thousands more being lost--96,779 more individuals--moms and dads, sons and daughters, friends and loved ones--lost their lives to overdose deaths during that yearlong period, the most recent year that we have data for. It is the worst year we have had in the history of our country in terms of overdose deaths. Again, we have been rightfully focused on COVID-19. But, particularly,as the COVID pandemic is beginning to get better, the Delta variant finally beginning to affect our communities less, we have got to refocus ourselves on this addiction issue. If we don't do it, we are going to continue to see this tragic epidemic take away more lives. In 47 States and the District of Columbia, the overdose rate went up during this last year, including a 26-percent increase in my home State of Ohio. In some States, by the way, the increase was as high as 85 percent. And I know the Members of the Senate who represent those States are well aware of that and would join me in saying we have to figure out a way; we have got to figure out a way. So what is the way forward? Well, part of it is to getting back to what we know works. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act and the bill called the 21st Century Cures Act--both signed into law in 2016--again, provided billions of new dollars for prevention, for treatment, for longer-term recovery, for Narcan to help our first responders. And that worked, and we made progress. So let's get back to that and redouble our efforts there. But we need to do more. And we have new legislation we have introduced we think will do that. It is called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 2.0--I am sorry, 3.0. We have already done the first bill and 2.0. Now, we are at 3.0. And it provides additional help but also has some new provisions in addition to funding those that we know work, and that is extremely important as well. By the way, in these overdose deaths, we know that, increasingly, it is synthetic opioids that is causing the deadly outcome. Fentanyl, in particular, which is a synthetic form of heroin or other opioids that, for a long time, was being produced in China and then sent to our shores, and this poison was coming into our communities by our own U.S. Postal Service. So several years ago, we wrote legislation to deal with that called the STOP Act, and it actually has been quite effective to keep these drugs from coming in through the United States mail system. At that time, our mail system didn't provide the kind of screening that the private carriers did, like FedEx or UPS or DHL, and so people who were traffickers chose to use our own Postal Service. Maddening. And they were doing it successfully. But it is kind of like whack-a-mole. Once we dealt with the STOP Act and dealt with the fentanyl coming in from China directly through the mail system, it started to show up where? Through our southern border. So, today, what the experts will tell you is this deadly fentanyl is coming in primarily through the U.S.-Mexico border; it is cheaper than ever, very inexpensive. Sometimes it is produced in Mexico using precursors that come from China. It is being pressed into pills, often, so people don't know it is fentanyl. The pill may be Xanax. The pill may be Percocet. People think they are getting pain relief or anxiety relief when, in fact, they are getting fentanyl; and the tragic result of that is, again, more and more overdose deaths. We had a roundtable discussion recently where we talked about the issue of the border and what was happening and the fact that so many people now are coming across the border, but also so much contraband, including these drugs. And we had a witness whose name was Virginia Krieger. This was last week: Virginia told us her very tragic story about her daughter, who thought she was taking a Percocet for pain because that is what the pill said. And she died of an overdose. And it was determined after the fact that, in fact, she had died of fentanyl because some evil scientist--perhaps in Mexico--had pressed these pills, made these pills, probably to try to get her addicted to this powerful drug fentanyl, and, in fact, she had ingested it, taken it, and it had caused her to overdose and die. Virginia--God bless her--has taken the death of her daughter, Tiffany Leigh Robertson, and channeled that grief into something positive. She is going out to the schools now and talking to young people--I see our pages are here tonight--and saying: Every drug, every pill that is not from a pharmacy that you might find on the streets is potentially deadly. It can kill you. So be cautious. Don't ever take a pill if you don't know that it is coming from a pharmacy, that it is what it says it is. My heart goes out to Virginia, her family, and all those who have lost loved ones to these deadly substances. We need to be sure that we reduce the supply of these drugs, and we also do much more in terms of the demand reduction. One way we can start to address the supply of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids is to make sure that they are illegal. That might seem obvious to you, but we have had a hard time here in this country dealing with this issue because--think about it--if the synthetic form of an opioid, which can be changed by one of these evil scientists fairly easily--maybe just one molecule changes--and suddenly it is not on the list of controlled substances and not illegal. So in order to avoid this problem and be sure that people are properly prosecuted for illegal drugs, we are putting together legislation and trying to pass it, that ensures that there is a permanent classification of these drugs as being illegal. The Drug Enforcement Agency, back in 2018, used its authority to temporarily classify all fentanyl-related drugs--all of them--as schedule I substances, meaning illegal at the highest level, which allows law enforcement to aggressively intercept and destroy those substances. Unfortunately, that was only temporary. So that designation needs to be made permanent. We have successfully extended the temporary extension a few times here, but it is going to expire again at the end of January. So in just a couple of months, once again, we will have an expiration of that designation. Until we make these fentanyl-related drugs permanently illegal, law enforcement will not have the certainty they need to go after the criminals moving these deadly substances, and fewer lives will be lost. The legislation is called the FIGHT Fentanyl Act. It is bipartisan. I introduced it with Senator Manchin. Again, it fixes this problem by permanently classifying these drugs that are fentanyl-related as schedule I. It also gives our law enforcement the certainty they need to go after synthetic opioids in all forms and show we are committed to addressing the threat posed by this particularly dangerous class of drugs. So my hope is my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with us to get this done before the end of January. There is no reason we should do it at the last minute. We should provide that certainty and predictability. At the same time, I continue to believe that the most progress can be made on the demand side. So, yes, we need to do a better job at the southern border. It is outrageous what is happening now. So many drugs are coming across at record levels. The apprehensions of fentanyl are at record levels. In fact, enough fentanyl has been apprehended this year alone to kill every man, woman, and child in America. That is how deadly the drug is. But, ultimately, we have to deal with the demand for that drug in this country. As long as we have this insatiable demand, it is going to be difficult to stop it through the supply side or even making these drugs illegal. So that is why I think we need new legislation to build on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, to build on what we have done previously, and this CARA 3.0 that we have introduced with Senator Whitehouse can help on that. It does so by addressing three important areas: research and education, treatment and recovery, and criminal justice reform. First, it will bolster our work to prevent drug abuse before it happens, through funding, through research and education. To me, it is time for a national awareness campaign. It would be money well spent. And I believe we could use the money that we would appropriate here to leverage a lot more private interest in this, to get the private companies--like the pharmaceutical companies--to step forward and to help us in a true national drug awareness campaign. Second, research and development. We need to have better pain relief drugs in this country. We are still relying on things like Percocet, as I mentioned, and other opioids, prescription forms, that we have been relying on for decades. It is time to actually moveforward with the research and development of alternative pain treatments that don't lead to addiction as opioids do. There has been some progress there, but not nearly enough, and it needs more help. Third, in terms of treating substance abuse, our bill builds on what works by doubling down on proven evidence-based addiction treatment methods while expanding treatment options for groups particularly vulnerable to addiction, including young people, new and expecting moms, rural communities, communities of color. And it will make permanent the expanded telehealth options for addiction treatment that were temporarily created in response to the social distancing required by COVID-19. This is an exciting opportunity because it turns out, during COVID-19, when we had to rely more on telehealth, there was actually a lot of success in getting people into treatment. Now, it wasn't as good as having your recovery coach there with you and your, perhaps, other recovering addicts with you to give you the support you need, but for some people who couldn't travel because of the COVID-19 restrictions and, now, perhaps can't travel for other reasons, telehealth is something that was determined to be quite successful in many cases. We should continue that. We have to change laws to do that because it is about whether that would be reimbursed, particularly under Medicaid and Medicare. CARA 3.0 will also bolster the recovery options for individuals working to put addiction behind them through funding to support recovery support networks. It will enable physicians to provide medication-assisted treatment, like Methadone, to a greater number of patients and change the law to allow those drugs to be prescribed via telehealth for greater use of access. Part of the telehealth we are looking for is if you have a medication-assisted treatment plan, then you can use telehealth--in other words, over the internet--to be able to get your prescription. There needs to be safeguards in that. We need to be sure the first time a prescription is given, there is a face-to-face contact and make sure that it is not being abused, but this can be quite helpful. Finally, CARA 3.0 reforms our criminal justice system to ensure that those struggling with addiction, including our veterans, are treated with fairness and compassion by the law, putting them on a path to recovery instead of a downward spiral of substance abuse. When someone comes out of one of our prisons or jails and comes out as an addict and there is not treatment provided, way too often that person, of course, relapses and begins to use again, gets back into criminal activity, and gets right back in the criminal justice system. That doesn't help anybody. It certainly doesn't help the taxpayer because the cost is $30 to $35,000--probably more at the Federal level--to incarcerate someone. And when they get out, they are just creating more crimes in the community. It is worth putting some emphasis on treatment while someone is in prison if they are suffering from addiction and, certainly, when they get out, getting them into treatment and recovery programs to get them back on their feet. By the way, we need these people in our workforce right now. We have always needed them, but we particularly do now. This is a win-win for our economy and certainly for the addict. CARA and CARA 2.0 have given States and local communities new resources and authorities to make a real difference in our States. CARA 3.0, this new bill, renews and strengthens those programs and, given the recent spike in addiction, provides a significant boost in funding as well. When added with existing CARA programs authorized through 2023, we would be investing over $1 billion a year to address the epidemic, putting us on a path toward brighter future free from addiction. It is money well spent, in my view. It is necessary. Again, it is going to help to bring our families back together, get people back to work, and ensure that our communities are not being devastated by crime that is committed in relation to these drug issues. I believe these two bills--the FIGHT Fentanyl Act we talked about and CARA 3.0--will make a difference in addressing this crisis of addiction our country now faces that has been made even worse during the time of the pandemic. A lot of our victims of this addiction crisis are suffering in silence. I urge my colleagues: Let's act now. Let's bring this to the light. Let's allow mere people to get into treatment, longer-term recovery. Let's be sure we are making fentanyl illegal in all of its forms. Let's, without delay, go to work to once again do what we know works because we turned the tide on addiction. We began to turn it in 2018, 2019. Let's get back to that. We will save lives and give so many more Americans the ability to achieve their God-given potential. I yield the floor. (Mr. KAINE assumed the Chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7452 | null | 3,381 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as our students return to in-person instruction, they also will return to school sports. We encourage our students to be active and play schools sports to promote healthy habits, team-building skills, and socialization, which are especially important after a year of remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet every year, more than 140,000 estimated student athletes sustain a concussion, and that is just the reported count. We can be sure that many more go unreported and untreated. The health benefits of competing in school sports are undermined if students are staying out on the field after an injury, especially concussions. Unfortunately, many student athletes return to play prematurely, and there is growing evidence that untreated concussions can have detrimental, long term effects on their health and academic performance. That is why last week I reintroduced the Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act. My bill would direct states to develop concussion safety plans for public schools that include a concussion safety awareness component. Certain States, like Illinois, already have such procedures in place, but it is high time we make this true for all States. By equipping our schools and communities with evidence-based guidance for responding to concussions, we can keep our students and their futures safe. The bill also would require States to adopt a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy. If there is even the possibility that a student athlete has suffered a concussion, their health and safety ought to be the No. 1 priority. That means, if an athlete is suspected of having sustained a concussion, they should sit out and not be allowed to return to play the same day. They should return to play only once evaluated and cleared by a qualified healthcare professional. Let's be clear: A concussion is a traumatic brain injury that affects brain function. It is, by no means, something we can simply shake or walk off. Getting your ``bell rung,'' like they used to say in my day, is a serious threat to a young person. The still-developing brains of students make them more susceptible to injury, making concussions all the more dangerous. A ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy, endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology, will put the decision to return to the game in the hands of qualified healthcare professionals. It will prevent student athletes from experiencing successive injuries by staying in the game when they are not fit. It will give student athletes time to heal and help ensure that short-term symptoms do not become long-term effects. As we return to in-person instruction, we must use common-sense and evidence-based approaches to ensure student safety. For school sports, this means we have to put the necessary procedures for preventing, detecting, responding to, and treating concussions in place. This bill would help do that. It is why my bill is endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine; American Academy of Neurology; National Football League (NFL); National Basketball Association (NBA); Major League Baseball (MLB); National Hockey League (NHL); National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy; Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; American Physical Therapy Association; Easterseals; Illinois High School Association; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Disability Rights Network; National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association; National Parent Teacher Association; Pop Warner Little Scholars; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cheer; USA Football; Safe Kids World Wide; and Sports & Fitness Industry Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in this common-sense, evidence-based approach to protecting student athletes. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7456-2 | null | 3,382 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as our students return to in-person instruction, they also will return to school sports. We encourage our students to be active and play schools sports to promote healthy habits, team-building skills, and socialization, which are especially important after a year of remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet every year, more than 140,000 estimated student athletes sustain a concussion, and that is just the reported count. We can be sure that many more go unreported and untreated. The health benefits of competing in school sports are undermined if students are staying out on the field after an injury, especially concussions. Unfortunately, many student athletes return to play prematurely, and there is growing evidence that untreated concussions can have detrimental, long term effects on their health and academic performance. That is why last week I reintroduced the Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act. My bill would direct states to develop concussion safety plans for public schools that include a concussion safety awareness component. Certain States, like Illinois, already have such procedures in place, but it is high time we make this true for all States. By equipping our schools and communities with evidence-based guidance for responding to concussions, we can keep our students and their futures safe. The bill also would require States to adopt a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy. If there is even the possibility that a student athlete has suffered a concussion, their health and safety ought to be the No. 1 priority. That means, if an athlete is suspected of having sustained a concussion, they should sit out and not be allowed to return to play the same day. They should return to play only once evaluated and cleared by a qualified healthcare professional. Let's be clear: A concussion is a traumatic brain injury that affects brain function. It is, by no means, something we can simply shake or walk off. Getting your ``bell rung,'' like they used to say in my day, is a serious threat to a young person. The still-developing brains of students make them more susceptible to injury, making concussions all the more dangerous. A ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy, endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology, will put the decision to return to the game in the hands of qualified healthcare professionals. It will prevent student athletes from experiencing successive injuries by staying in the game when they are not fit. It will give student athletes time to heal and help ensure that short-term symptoms do not become long-term effects. As we return to in-person instruction, we must use common-sense and evidence-based approaches to ensure student safety. For school sports, this means we have to put the necessary procedures for preventing, detecting, responding to, and treating concussions in place. This bill would help do that. It is why my bill is endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine; American Academy of Neurology; National Football League (NFL); National Basketball Association (NBA); Major League Baseball (MLB); National Hockey League (NHL); National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy; Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; American Physical Therapy Association; Easterseals; Illinois High School Association; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Disability Rights Network; National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association; National Parent Teacher Association; Pop Warner Little Scholars; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cheer; USA Football; Safe Kids World Wide; and Sports & Fitness Industry Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in this common-sense, evidence-based approach to protecting student athletes. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7456-2 | null | 3,383 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as our students return to in-person instruction, they also will return to school sports. We encourage our students to be active and play schools sports to promote healthy habits, team-building skills, and socialization, which are especially important after a year of remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet every year, more than 140,000 estimated student athletes sustain a concussion, and that is just the reported count. We can be sure that many more go unreported and untreated. The health benefits of competing in school sports are undermined if students are staying out on the field after an injury, especially concussions. Unfortunately, many student athletes return to play prematurely, and there is growing evidence that untreated concussions can have detrimental, long term effects on their health and academic performance. That is why last week I reintroduced the Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act. My bill would direct states to develop concussion safety plans for public schools that include a concussion safety awareness component. Certain States, like Illinois, already have such procedures in place, but it is high time we make this true for all States. By equipping our schools and communities with evidence-based guidance for responding to concussions, we can keep our students and their futures safe. The bill also would require States to adopt a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy. If there is even the possibility that a student athlete has suffered a concussion, their health and safety ought to be the No. 1 priority. That means, if an athlete is suspected of having sustained a concussion, they should sit out and not be allowed to return to play the same day. They should return to play only once evaluated and cleared by a qualified healthcare professional. Let's be clear: A concussion is a traumatic brain injury that affects brain function. It is, by no means, something we can simply shake or walk off. Getting your ``bell rung,'' like they used to say in my day, is a serious threat to a young person. The still-developing brains of students make them more susceptible to injury, making concussions all the more dangerous. A ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy, endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology, will put the decision to return to the game in the hands of qualified healthcare professionals. It will prevent student athletes from experiencing successive injuries by staying in the game when they are not fit. It will give student athletes time to heal and help ensure that short-term symptoms do not become long-term effects. As we return to in-person instruction, we must use common-sense and evidence-based approaches to ensure student safety. For school sports, this means we have to put the necessary procedures for preventing, detecting, responding to, and treating concussions in place. This bill would help do that. It is why my bill is endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine; American Academy of Neurology; National Football League (NFL); National Basketball Association (NBA); Major League Baseball (MLB); National Hockey League (NHL); National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy; Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; American Physical Therapy Association; Easterseals; Illinois High School Association; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Disability Rights Network; National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association; National Parent Teacher Association; Pop Warner Little Scholars; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cheer; USA Football; Safe Kids World Wide; and Sports & Fitness Industry Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in this common-sense, evidence-based approach to protecting student athletes. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-10-28-pt1-PgS7456-2 | null | 3,384 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:To the Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to Sudan declared in Executive Order 13067 of November 3, 1997, is to continue in effect beyond November 3, 2021. Sudan made strides in its transition toward democracy since 2019, but the military takeover of the government and arrest of civilian leaders now threaten those positive gains. The crisis that led to the declaration of a national emergency in Executive Order 13067; the expansion of that emergency in Executive Order 13400 of April 26, 2006; and the taking of additional steps with respect to that emergency in Executive Order 13412 of October 13, 2006, Executive Order 13761 of January 13, 2017, and Executive Order 13804 of July 11, 2017, has not been resolved. The situation in Darfur continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, Ihave determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13067, as expanded by Executive Order 13400, with respect to Sudan. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, October 28, 2021. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6038-10 | null | 3,385 |
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-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6039-3 | null | 3,386 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5221) to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6044 | null | 3,387 |
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. 1619) to clarify the status of gaming conducted by the Catawba Indian Nation, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6053-4 | null | 3,388 |
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. 2758) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6054 | null | 3,389 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Gloria J. Lett, Deputy Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker on Thursday, October 28, 2021: H.R. 5763. An act to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, further reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker on Monday, November 1, 2021: H.R. 1899. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the modification, transfer, and termination of a registration to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances or list I chemicals, and for other purposes. H.R. 2911. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for obligating and expending Coronavirus pandemic funding made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. H.R. 3475. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Columbus, Georgia, as the ``Robert S. Poydasheff VA Clinic''. H.R. 3919. An act to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission prohibits authorization of radio frequency devices that pose a national security risk. H.R. 4172. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Aurora, Colorado, as the ``Lieutenant Colonel John W. Mosley VA Clinic''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6068 | null | 3,390 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Gloria J. Lett, Deputy Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker on Thursday, October 28, 2021: H.R. 5763. An act to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, further reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker on Monday, November 1, 2021: H.R. 1899. An act to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the modification, transfer, and termination of a registration to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances or list I chemicals, and for other purposes. H.R. 2911. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for obligating and expending Coronavirus pandemic funding made available to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. H.R. 3475. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Columbus, Georgia, as the ``Robert S. Poydasheff VA Clinic''. H.R. 3919. An act to ensure that the Federal Communications Commission prohibits authorization of radio frequency devices that pose a national security risk. H.R. 4172. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Aurora, Colorado, as the ``Lieutenant Colonel John W. Mosley VA Clinic''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6068 | null | 3,391 |
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. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 390. A bill to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building (Rept. 117- 157). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 1339. A bill to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility interagency working group, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-158). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 2220. A bill to amend title 40, United States Code, to modify the treatment of certain bargain-price options to purchase at less than fair market value, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-159). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 3709. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to submit to Congress a report on preliminary damage assessments and make necessary improvements to processes in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-160). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 4660. A bill to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ``Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse'' (Rept: 117-161). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 4679. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building'' (Rept. 117-162). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R 1975. A bill to take certain land located in San Diego County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-163). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 2088. A bill to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-164). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3616. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the Bear River National Heritage Area, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-165). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 4881. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona certain land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-166). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 5589. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program to award grants to eligible entities to carry out projects with the potential to reduce or sequester greenhouse emissions that convert and valorize tree nut harvest by-products into multiple higher value biocarbon products, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-167). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5221. A bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services (Rept. 117-168, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York: Committee on Oversight and Reform. H.R. 2043. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to establish and maintain a public directory of the individuals occupying Government policy and supporting positions, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-169, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6069-4 | null | 3,392 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 390. A bill to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building (Rept. 117- 157). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 1339. A bill to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility interagency working group, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-158). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 2220. A bill to amend title 40, United States Code, to modify the treatment of certain bargain-price options to purchase at less than fair market value, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-159). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 3709. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to submit to Congress a report on preliminary damage assessments and make necessary improvements to processes in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-160). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 4660. A bill to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ``Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse'' (Rept: 117-161). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. DeFAZIO: Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H.R. 4679. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building'' (Rept. 117-162). Referred to the House Calendar. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R 1975. A bill to take certain land located in San Diego County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-163). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 2088. A bill to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-164). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 3616. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the Bear River National Heritage Area, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-165). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 4881. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to take into trust for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona certain land in Pima County, Arizona, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-166). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 5589. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a program to award grants to eligible entities to carry out projects with the potential to reduce or sequester greenhouse emissions that convert and valorize tree nut harvest by-products into multiple higher value biocarbon products, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-167). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5221. A bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services (Rept. 117-168, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York: Committee on Oversight and Reform. H.R. 2043. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to establish and maintain a public directory of the individuals occupying Government policy and supporting positions, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-169, Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgH6069-4 | null | 3,393 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, last week, President Biden unveiled a framework for his Build Back Better plan that will make historic investments to help millions of working- and middle-class families achieve the American dream in the 21st century while taking new and bold steps to tackle the climate crisis. Over the weekend, I continued diligent, assiduous negotiations with my Senate colleagues, the Speaker, and the White House as Congress prepares to take action on the President's proposals. We are still talking and working through important details and making good progress, and I want to thank all my colleagues for their diligence, their expertise, and their commitment to getting something done. As I have always said, nobody is going to get everything they want in the deal, but we will have some things that everyone wants. Even as legislative text continues to get finalized, the framework itself already contains very, very good and important things that will make a tremendous difference in the lives of the American people. It will help the middle class stay in the middle class. It will help those struggling to get to the middle class get there a little more easily. It will really help Americans in ways that Washington has not helped Americans in quite a few years. One way it will help is childcare. Tens of millions of American families struggle with the unaffordable cost of taking care of their children. For some families, childcare can cost over $10,000 a year, forcing parents to make the painful choice between going to work and looking after their kids. The consequences for our economy, with its shortage of workers, for parents, and for our kids are severe and long-lasting. The framework, with its historic investments in childcare and universal pre-K, would finally--finally--provide working- and middle-class families with the urgently needed help they need so parents, particularly women, can enter the workplace, earn a living, and not worry about whether their kids are being well taken care of. The President's framework also makes long-overdue progress in the fight against climate change. It contains the largest investment to address the climate crisis in American history. American families from one coast to the other are in desperate need of relief from the consequences of climate change. Wildfires in the West make it harder for people to breathe, especially those with conditions like asthma. Flooding in the Midwest destroys crops and homes and local economies and poisons fragile ecosystems and even the safety of drinking water. Extreme storms in the winter make it harder for those without proper heating to stay safe, as we saw tragically in Texas. Of course, the hurricanes and tropical storms on the east coast have caused regular flooding, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time occurring as recently in the Mid-Atlantic as this weekend. We have an opportunity--a real opportunity--to take unprecedented action to protect Americans against these threats. While there will be so much more to do, this is a bold step in the right direction. As the President spoke before the world today in Glasgow, his framework is proof the United States is ready to once again lead by example against the greatest existential crisis of our time. There is so much more to like in this framework. As I have said repeatedly, when this bill is passed, it will be fully paid for and reduce--reduce--inflationary pressures--something that hasbeen affirmed by many, many economists. It will be fully paid for and, at the same time, will reduce some of the bottlenecks and high costs that people have. It will lower people's costs in many ways. Particularly, we are making regular progress to lower prescription drug prices as we work to refine the agreement. The framework will also make healthcare more affordable, cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans, and most importantly, provide long-sought ladders for families to climb up to the middle class and give them the stability needed to stay in the middle class once they get there. It will lower costs for people in many different ways--one of our main goals. This will be just what the American people need, and it will not be--will not be--inflationary. So the announcement last week from the President brought us one step closer toward our goal of delivering help to the American people at every stage of their lives. We are going to keep working this week to get this legislation over the finish line. Democrats are committed to rewarding the trust that the American people have placed in us. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7523-6 | null | 3,394 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, last week, President Biden unveiled a framework for his Build Back Better plan that will make historic investments to help millions of working- and middle-class families achieve the American dream in the 21st century while taking new and bold steps to tackle the climate crisis. Over the weekend, I continued diligent, assiduous negotiations with my Senate colleagues, the Speaker, and the White House as Congress prepares to take action on the President's proposals. We are still talking and working through important details and making good progress, and I want to thank all my colleagues for their diligence, their expertise, and their commitment to getting something done. As I have always said, nobody is going to get everything they want in the deal, but we will have some things that everyone wants. Even as legislative text continues to get finalized, the framework itself already contains very, very good and important things that will make a tremendous difference in the lives of the American people. It will help the middle class stay in the middle class. It will help those struggling to get to the middle class get there a little more easily. It will really help Americans in ways that Washington has not helped Americans in quite a few years. One way it will help is childcare. Tens of millions of American families struggle with the unaffordable cost of taking care of their children. For some families, childcare can cost over $10,000 a year, forcing parents to make the painful choice between going to work and looking after their kids. The consequences for our economy, with its shortage of workers, for parents, and for our kids are severe and long-lasting. The framework, with its historic investments in childcare and universal pre-K, would finally--finally--provide working- and middle-class families with the urgently needed help they need so parents, particularly women, can enter the workplace, earn a living, and not worry about whether their kids are being well taken care of. The President's framework also makes long-overdue progress in the fight against climate change. It contains the largest investment to address the climate crisis in American history. American families from one coast to the other are in desperate need of relief from the consequences of climate change. Wildfires in the West make it harder for people to breathe, especially those with conditions like asthma. Flooding in the Midwest destroys crops and homes and local economies and poisons fragile ecosystems and even the safety of drinking water. Extreme storms in the winter make it harder for those without proper heating to stay safe, as we saw tragically in Texas. Of course, the hurricanes and tropical storms on the east coast have caused regular flooding, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time occurring as recently in the Mid-Atlantic as this weekend. We have an opportunity--a real opportunity--to take unprecedented action to protect Americans against these threats. While there will be so much more to do, this is a bold step in the right direction. As the President spoke before the world today in Glasgow, his framework is proof the United States is ready to once again lead by example against the greatest existential crisis of our time. There is so much more to like in this framework. As I have said repeatedly, when this bill is passed, it will be fully paid for and reduce--reduce--inflationary pressures--something that hasbeen affirmed by many, many economists. It will be fully paid for and, at the same time, will reduce some of the bottlenecks and high costs that people have. It will lower people's costs in many ways. Particularly, we are making regular progress to lower prescription drug prices as we work to refine the agreement. The framework will also make healthcare more affordable, cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans, and most importantly, provide long-sought ladders for families to climb up to the middle class and give them the stability needed to stay in the middle class once they get there. It will lower costs for people in many different ways--one of our main goals. This will be just what the American people need, and it will not be--will not be--inflationary. So the announcement last week from the President brought us one step closer toward our goal of delivering help to the American people at every stage of their lives. We are going to keep working this week to get this legislation over the finish line. Democrats are committed to rewarding the trust that the American people have placed in us. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7523-6 | null | 3,395 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, last week, President Biden unveiled a framework for his Build Back Better plan that will make historic investments to help millions of working- and middle-class families achieve the American dream in the 21st century while taking new and bold steps to tackle the climate crisis. Over the weekend, I continued diligent, assiduous negotiations with my Senate colleagues, the Speaker, and the White House as Congress prepares to take action on the President's proposals. We are still talking and working through important details and making good progress, and I want to thank all my colleagues for their diligence, their expertise, and their commitment to getting something done. As I have always said, nobody is going to get everything they want in the deal, but we will have some things that everyone wants. Even as legislative text continues to get finalized, the framework itself already contains very, very good and important things that will make a tremendous difference in the lives of the American people. It will help the middle class stay in the middle class. It will help those struggling to get to the middle class get there a little more easily. It will really help Americans in ways that Washington has not helped Americans in quite a few years. One way it will help is childcare. Tens of millions of American families struggle with the unaffordable cost of taking care of their children. For some families, childcare can cost over $10,000 a year, forcing parents to make the painful choice between going to work and looking after their kids. The consequences for our economy, with its shortage of workers, for parents, and for our kids are severe and long-lasting. The framework, with its historic investments in childcare and universal pre-K, would finally--finally--provide working- and middle-class families with the urgently needed help they need so parents, particularly women, can enter the workplace, earn a living, and not worry about whether their kids are being well taken care of. The President's framework also makes long-overdue progress in the fight against climate change. It contains the largest investment to address the climate crisis in American history. American families from one coast to the other are in desperate need of relief from the consequences of climate change. Wildfires in the West make it harder for people to breathe, especially those with conditions like asthma. Flooding in the Midwest destroys crops and homes and local economies and poisons fragile ecosystems and even the safety of drinking water. Extreme storms in the winter make it harder for those without proper heating to stay safe, as we saw tragically in Texas. Of course, the hurricanes and tropical storms on the east coast have caused regular flooding, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time occurring as recently in the Mid-Atlantic as this weekend. We have an opportunity--a real opportunity--to take unprecedented action to protect Americans against these threats. While there will be so much more to do, this is a bold step in the right direction. As the President spoke before the world today in Glasgow, his framework is proof the United States is ready to once again lead by example against the greatest existential crisis of our time. There is so much more to like in this framework. As I have said repeatedly, when this bill is passed, it will be fully paid for and reduce--reduce--inflationary pressures--something that hasbeen affirmed by many, many economists. It will be fully paid for and, at the same time, will reduce some of the bottlenecks and high costs that people have. It will lower people's costs in many ways. Particularly, we are making regular progress to lower prescription drug prices as we work to refine the agreement. The framework will also make healthcare more affordable, cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans, and most importantly, provide long-sought ladders for families to climb up to the middle class and give them the stability needed to stay in the middle class once they get there. It will lower costs for people in many different ways--one of our main goals. This will be just what the American people need, and it will not be--will not be--inflationary. So the announcement last week from the President brought us one step closer toward our goal of delivering help to the American people at every stage of their lives. We are going to keep working this week to get this legislation over the finish line. Democrats are committed to rewarding the trust that the American people have placed in us. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7523-6 | null | 3,396 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, well, the American people are hurting. Inflation just hit another 30-year record high. Families are paying skyrocketing prices for everyday needs. The murder rate across the country just recorded its biggest jump ever. But here is what the Biden administration has focused on: handing out six-figure and seven-figure payments to illegal immigrants. A few years back, liberal interest groups started trying to sue the U.S. Government on behalf of illegal immigrants. They wanted American taxpayers to pay out legal damages because of the conditions some people faced as they tried to break into our country illegally. As a legal matter, these lawsuits were borderline frivolous. Our government was all but certain to win the suits, but this administration wants to stand down and voluntarily pay out massive damages: ``The U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family''--$1 million a family, about a half a million dollars per adult, and about a half a million dollars more per child. American families are having to anxiously budget for gas and groceries, butPresident Biden wants to literally make millionaires out of people who have violated Federal law. What could be more unfair and unjust to law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens? And talk about yet another massive incentive for more and more people to come here illegally: On President Biden's watch, we have already seen an alltime high in illegal border crossings, combined with a decade low in arrests in the interior. So Democrats have already created a major border crisis, and now they want to cut seven-figure checks to illegal border crossers? Democrats are already trying to send monthly welfare payments to people who are here illegally. That is in the reckless taxing-and-spending spree they are putting together behind closed doors. But who needs $300 a month when President Biden wants to send these folks $450,000 per person? That is four and a half times the payment that the Department of Defense sends to the survivors of servicemembers who were killed in action. Fallen troops' families get $100,000 from the Pentagon. But the Biden administration wants to give illegal immigrants $450,000? This is an especially extreme example of a big error that Democrats continue to make over and over again. The left mistakenly thinks that a compassionate border means a weak border. They think compassion requires weakness--weak security, weak enforcement, weak on upholding the rule of law. And now, apparently, we are a cruel country unless we hand out a million dollars per family to illegal immigrants who sue America. But the entire concept is dead wrong. It is not compassion to lure people from all over the world through dangerous journeys with the promise of open-borders socialism. In fact, the government paying out six-figure sums that multiply with every additional child in tow will only incentivize the riskiest and most dangerous kinds of illegal immigration. We will be guaranteeing that even more children are dragged along the dangerous journey. Honestly, this absurd idea feels like a satirical policy proposal that Republicans would have invented to make a parody out of the radical left. Oh, and the next thing you know, they will be sending out million-dollar checks to illegal immigrants. But this is literally what the Biden administration wants to do, according to reports that they have not denied. Out in the real world, American families already have enough reasons to worry about the administration's spending habits. The inflation kicked off by Democrats' springtime binge has wiped out wage gains and made family budgets even harder to square. One recent report on soaring food prices included this quote from a shopper out in Indiana: ``You have to pick and choose. Before, you didn't have to do that. You could just go in and buy a week or two's worth of food. Now, I can barely buy one week's worth.'' That is a sobering reality that too many Americans are dealing with, and it isn't limited to the grocery store. Folks in my hometown of Louisville have seen gas prices jump a full dollar in the past year. Feeding a family is getting harder. Filling up the tank is getting harder. Even heating a home this winter is shaping up to be 30 percent more expensive than last year. Even during a time of calm and prosperity, writing million-dollar checks to illegal immigrants would be an insult to American families, but it is 10 times more insulting at a time like this, when Democrats' policies are forcing so many households to tighten their belts. These are the same Democrats who are putting finishing touches on yet another multimillion dollar--multitrillion dollar reckless taxing-and-spending spree. So in the days and weeks ahead, when the far left tries to sell America on historic inflationary spending, historic tax hikes, and more micromanaging of American life by politicians, just remember, these are the same politicians who have proposed giving millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to people who broke Federal law to enter our country. The same people who think that is a great idea want license to transform our entire economy. Look around. I am not sure how much more of this transformation American families can stomach. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7524-4 | null | 3,397 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, well, the American people are hurting. Inflation just hit another 30-year record high. Families are paying skyrocketing prices for everyday needs. The murder rate across the country just recorded its biggest jump ever. But here is what the Biden administration has focused on: handing out six-figure and seven-figure payments to illegal immigrants. A few years back, liberal interest groups started trying to sue the U.S. Government on behalf of illegal immigrants. They wanted American taxpayers to pay out legal damages because of the conditions some people faced as they tried to break into our country illegally. As a legal matter, these lawsuits were borderline frivolous. Our government was all but certain to win the suits, but this administration wants to stand down and voluntarily pay out massive damages: ``The U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family''--$1 million a family, about a half a million dollars per adult, and about a half a million dollars more per child. American families are having to anxiously budget for gas and groceries, butPresident Biden wants to literally make millionaires out of people who have violated Federal law. What could be more unfair and unjust to law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens? And talk about yet another massive incentive for more and more people to come here illegally: On President Biden's watch, we have already seen an alltime high in illegal border crossings, combined with a decade low in arrests in the interior. So Democrats have already created a major border crisis, and now they want to cut seven-figure checks to illegal border crossers? Democrats are already trying to send monthly welfare payments to people who are here illegally. That is in the reckless taxing-and-spending spree they are putting together behind closed doors. But who needs $300 a month when President Biden wants to send these folks $450,000 per person? That is four and a half times the payment that the Department of Defense sends to the survivors of servicemembers who were killed in action. Fallen troops' families get $100,000 from the Pentagon. But the Biden administration wants to give illegal immigrants $450,000? This is an especially extreme example of a big error that Democrats continue to make over and over again. The left mistakenly thinks that a compassionate border means a weak border. They think compassion requires weakness--weak security, weak enforcement, weak on upholding the rule of law. And now, apparently, we are a cruel country unless we hand out a million dollars per family to illegal immigrants who sue America. But the entire concept is dead wrong. It is not compassion to lure people from all over the world through dangerous journeys with the promise of open-borders socialism. In fact, the government paying out six-figure sums that multiply with every additional child in tow will only incentivize the riskiest and most dangerous kinds of illegal immigration. We will be guaranteeing that even more children are dragged along the dangerous journey. Honestly, this absurd idea feels like a satirical policy proposal that Republicans would have invented to make a parody out of the radical left. Oh, and the next thing you know, they will be sending out million-dollar checks to illegal immigrants. But this is literally what the Biden administration wants to do, according to reports that they have not denied. Out in the real world, American families already have enough reasons to worry about the administration's spending habits. The inflation kicked off by Democrats' springtime binge has wiped out wage gains and made family budgets even harder to square. One recent report on soaring food prices included this quote from a shopper out in Indiana: ``You have to pick and choose. Before, you didn't have to do that. You could just go in and buy a week or two's worth of food. Now, I can barely buy one week's worth.'' That is a sobering reality that too many Americans are dealing with, and it isn't limited to the grocery store. Folks in my hometown of Louisville have seen gas prices jump a full dollar in the past year. Feeding a family is getting harder. Filling up the tank is getting harder. Even heating a home this winter is shaping up to be 30 percent more expensive than last year. Even during a time of calm and prosperity, writing million-dollar checks to illegal immigrants would be an insult to American families, but it is 10 times more insulting at a time like this, when Democrats' policies are forcing so many households to tighten their belts. These are the same Democrats who are putting finishing touches on yet another multimillion dollar--multitrillion dollar reckless taxing-and-spending spree. So in the days and weeks ahead, when the far left tries to sell America on historic inflationary spending, historic tax hikes, and more micromanaging of American life by politicians, just remember, these are the same politicians who have proposed giving millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to people who broke Federal law to enter our country. The same people who think that is a great idea want license to transform our entire economy. Look around. I am not sure how much more of this transformation American families can stomach. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7524-4 | null | 3,398 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, well, the American people are hurting. Inflation just hit another 30-year record high. Families are paying skyrocketing prices for everyday needs. The murder rate across the country just recorded its biggest jump ever. But here is what the Biden administration has focused on: handing out six-figure and seven-figure payments to illegal immigrants. A few years back, liberal interest groups started trying to sue the U.S. Government on behalf of illegal immigrants. They wanted American taxpayers to pay out legal damages because of the conditions some people faced as they tried to break into our country illegally. As a legal matter, these lawsuits were borderline frivolous. Our government was all but certain to win the suits, but this administration wants to stand down and voluntarily pay out massive damages: ``The U.S. Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services are considering payments that could amount to close to $1 million a family''--$1 million a family, about a half a million dollars per adult, and about a half a million dollars more per child. American families are having to anxiously budget for gas and groceries, butPresident Biden wants to literally make millionaires out of people who have violated Federal law. What could be more unfair and unjust to law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens? And talk about yet another massive incentive for more and more people to come here illegally: On President Biden's watch, we have already seen an alltime high in illegal border crossings, combined with a decade low in arrests in the interior. So Democrats have already created a major border crisis, and now they want to cut seven-figure checks to illegal border crossers? Democrats are already trying to send monthly welfare payments to people who are here illegally. That is in the reckless taxing-and-spending spree they are putting together behind closed doors. But who needs $300 a month when President Biden wants to send these folks $450,000 per person? That is four and a half times the payment that the Department of Defense sends to the survivors of servicemembers who were killed in action. Fallen troops' families get $100,000 from the Pentagon. But the Biden administration wants to give illegal immigrants $450,000? This is an especially extreme example of a big error that Democrats continue to make over and over again. The left mistakenly thinks that a compassionate border means a weak border. They think compassion requires weakness--weak security, weak enforcement, weak on upholding the rule of law. And now, apparently, we are a cruel country unless we hand out a million dollars per family to illegal immigrants who sue America. But the entire concept is dead wrong. It is not compassion to lure people from all over the world through dangerous journeys with the promise of open-borders socialism. In fact, the government paying out six-figure sums that multiply with every additional child in tow will only incentivize the riskiest and most dangerous kinds of illegal immigration. We will be guaranteeing that even more children are dragged along the dangerous journey. Honestly, this absurd idea feels like a satirical policy proposal that Republicans would have invented to make a parody out of the radical left. Oh, and the next thing you know, they will be sending out million-dollar checks to illegal immigrants. But this is literally what the Biden administration wants to do, according to reports that they have not denied. Out in the real world, American families already have enough reasons to worry about the administration's spending habits. The inflation kicked off by Democrats' springtime binge has wiped out wage gains and made family budgets even harder to square. One recent report on soaring food prices included this quote from a shopper out in Indiana: ``You have to pick and choose. Before, you didn't have to do that. You could just go in and buy a week or two's worth of food. Now, I can barely buy one week's worth.'' That is a sobering reality that too many Americans are dealing with, and it isn't limited to the grocery store. Folks in my hometown of Louisville have seen gas prices jump a full dollar in the past year. Feeding a family is getting harder. Filling up the tank is getting harder. Even heating a home this winter is shaping up to be 30 percent more expensive than last year. Even during a time of calm and prosperity, writing million-dollar checks to illegal immigrants would be an insult to American families, but it is 10 times more insulting at a time like this, when Democrats' policies are forcing so many households to tighten their belts. These are the same Democrats who are putting finishing touches on yet another multimillion dollar--multitrillion dollar reckless taxing-and-spending spree. So in the days and weeks ahead, when the far left tries to sell America on historic inflationary spending, historic tax hikes, and more micromanaging of American life by politicians, just remember, these are the same politicians who have proposed giving millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to people who broke Federal law to enter our country. The same people who think that is a great idea want license to transform our entire economy. Look around. I am not sure how much more of this transformation American families can stomach. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7524-4 | null | 3,399 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.