data_type stringclasses 2 values | dog_whistle stringlengths 2 26 | dog_whistle_root stringlengths 2 98 ⌀ | ingroup stringclasses 17 values | content stringlengths 2 83.3k | date stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | speaker stringlengths 4 62 ⌀ | chamber stringclasses 2 values | reference stringlengths 24 31 ⌀ | community stringclasses 11 values | __index_level_0__ int64 0 35.6k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Now, Madam President, on judges and nominations, last week, the Senate confirmed seven--seven--more judges to serve lifetime appointments on the Federal bench. Just about all of them were people of color; all but two were women. Among them were more Federal defenders, civil rights lawyers, election experts. They will bring sorely needed diversity to the judiciary--not just personal diversity or demographic diversity, as important as that is, but professional diversity as well, adding to the breadth and width and depth of knowledge possessed by the courts. It is no longer a bench that we are appointing that is simply prosecutors or partners in large law firms, but many, many others from walks of life with different and needed perspectives on the Federal bench. Today, we are going to pick up right where we left off. Later this afternoon, we will vote to confirm Beth Robinson, of Vermont, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Toby Heytens to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A former clerk to the late Justice Ginsburg, Mr. Heytens is a veteran of the Justice Department and is the current Solicitor General of the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is regarded by both sides of the aisle as a superbly skilled lawyer and an impartial thinker. In Justice Robinson, who has spent 10 distinguished years on the Vermont State Supreme Court, the Senate is presented with another experienced, dedicated, and historic nominee. She would be the very first openly gay woman to serve not just in the Second Circuit, but in any Federal circuit court in the country--another barrier torn down in the halls of justice. We are proud of tearing down those barriers and making the bench more inclusive and more like America. I look forward to her confirmation today. In the weeks and months to come, Senate Democrats will continue pressing ahead to bring balance back to our Federal courts with diverse, mainstream, qualified, and impartial jurists. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7524 | null | 3,400 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | The Economy Madam President, on a related matter, when I listen to our Republican colleagues' rail on the economy, I am reminded of the old saying, attributed to H.L. Mencken, that: ``For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simply easy--and wrong.'' Four years ago, Republicans used the Senate's reconciliation rules to pass the Trump tax cuts. They didn't get a single Democratic vote. Why? Because those tax cuts benefited the wealthiest people in America and the most profitable corporations. So did it cost us anything? Did we make money on that as a nation? It cost us $1.9 trillion over 10 years. That was Republican reconciliation 4 years ago. That is more than President Biden is now proposing for his entire slate of programs to ease the financial squeeze on working families and create millions of good jobs and protect our Nation from the dangers of climate change. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth we are hearing from Republicans about deficits and debt? Where in the heck were they during the Trump years, when the debt went up 36 percent? They were all voting for it. Of course, now that President Biden is onboard, they are really deficit hawks. They have changed overnight. Well, you should have heard them during the Trump years, if they are sincere and honest. Our Republican colleagues moan on and on about inflation. All Americans are concerned about that. The Senator from Kentucky pointed out the reality. I filled my truck up with gas over the weekend. It is more expensive. What is causing all that? Well, part of it is we have no control over the price. The OPEC nations and others are determining what the price levels will be. And other things are part of it as well, yes. Heating bills are going to go up this winter. When I talk to the people in the natural gas industry, they talk about the problems that they had. When the economy slumped during the pandemic, the production of natural gas went down, the storage of it went down, the price went up, and that is what we are paying for today. So the pandemic itself has had an impact on our economy, which we cannot and should not ignore. The pandemic closed down the global economy and sent demand for many products soaring. Getting back to normal is just going to take some time, and it will take thoughtful action, not political potshots. To our Republican friends: If you are really concerned about the economic strain on middle-class and working families, you have got an opportunity to prove it this week. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is moving forward. A vote to give 35 million families enhanced child tax credits will help them meet the cost of living and save them hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars a year. A vote for good, free, early childhood education for every kid in America will put hundreds, even thousands of dollars more back in the hands of parents. And unlike the Trump tax cuts, the Build Back Better agenda is paid for. That is right. We pay for it. We are not adding to the deficit, and no one earning less than $400,000 a year will face higher taxes to pay for the Build Back Better agenda. And then there is the issue of climate change. I am joining a group that hopes we can go to Glasgow, Scotland, for this climate conference the President is attending today, and we hope that a bipartisan group delegation from the Senate can go at the end of this week, and I am looking forward to that possibility. We are paying so much money out, almost on a weekly basis, for weather-related disasters. Hurricane Ida, this year, cost us $100 billion in damage. One storm cost roughly twice as much as we proposed to spend the whole year in reducing the harm of climate change for all America. We need to work together to create a win for the American people and for our planet, and wouldn't it be nice if it were bipartisan for a change? | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7526 | null | 3,401 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | The Economy Madam President, on a related matter, when I listen to our Republican colleagues' rail on the economy, I am reminded of the old saying, attributed to H.L. Mencken, that: ``For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simply easy--and wrong.'' Four years ago, Republicans used the Senate's reconciliation rules to pass the Trump tax cuts. They didn't get a single Democratic vote. Why? Because those tax cuts benefited the wealthiest people in America and the most profitable corporations. So did it cost us anything? Did we make money on that as a nation? It cost us $1.9 trillion over 10 years. That was Republican reconciliation 4 years ago. That is more than President Biden is now proposing for his entire slate of programs to ease the financial squeeze on working families and create millions of good jobs and protect our Nation from the dangers of climate change. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth we are hearing from Republicans about deficits and debt? Where in the heck were they during the Trump years, when the debt went up 36 percent? They were all voting for it. Of course, now that President Biden is onboard, they are really deficit hawks. They have changed overnight. Well, you should have heard them during the Trump years, if they are sincere and honest. Our Republican colleagues moan on and on about inflation. All Americans are concerned about that. The Senator from Kentucky pointed out the reality. I filled my truck up with gas over the weekend. It is more expensive. What is causing all that? Well, part of it is we have no control over the price. The OPEC nations and others are determining what the price levels will be. And other things are part of it as well, yes. Heating bills are going to go up this winter. When I talk to the people in the natural gas industry, they talk about the problems that they had. When the economy slumped during the pandemic, the production of natural gas went down, the storage of it went down, the price went up, and that is what we are paying for today. So the pandemic itself has had an impact on our economy, which we cannot and should not ignore. The pandemic closed down the global economy and sent demand for many products soaring. Getting back to normal is just going to take some time, and it will take thoughtful action, not political potshots. To our Republican friends: If you are really concerned about the economic strain on middle-class and working families, you have got an opportunity to prove it this week. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is moving forward. A vote to give 35 million families enhanced child tax credits will help them meet the cost of living and save them hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars a year. A vote for good, free, early childhood education for every kid in America will put hundreds, even thousands of dollars more back in the hands of parents. And unlike the Trump tax cuts, the Build Back Better agenda is paid for. That is right. We pay for it. We are not adding to the deficit, and no one earning less than $400,000 a year will face higher taxes to pay for the Build Back Better agenda. And then there is the issue of climate change. I am joining a group that hopes we can go to Glasgow, Scotland, for this climate conference the President is attending today, and we hope that a bipartisan group delegation from the Senate can go at the end of this week, and I am looking forward to that possibility. We are paying so much money out, almost on a weekly basis, for weather-related disasters. Hurricane Ida, this year, cost us $100 billion in damage. One storm cost roughly twice as much as we proposed to spend the whole year in reducing the harm of climate change for all America. We need to work together to create a win for the American people and for our planet, and wouldn't it be nice if it were bipartisan for a change? | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7526 | null | 3,402 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | The Economy Madam President, on a related matter, when I listen to our Republican colleagues' rail on the economy, I am reminded of the old saying, attributed to H.L. Mencken, that: ``For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simply easy--and wrong.'' Four years ago, Republicans used the Senate's reconciliation rules to pass the Trump tax cuts. They didn't get a single Democratic vote. Why? Because those tax cuts benefited the wealthiest people in America and the most profitable corporations. So did it cost us anything? Did we make money on that as a nation? It cost us $1.9 trillion over 10 years. That was Republican reconciliation 4 years ago. That is more than President Biden is now proposing for his entire slate of programs to ease the financial squeeze on working families and create millions of good jobs and protect our Nation from the dangers of climate change. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth we are hearing from Republicans about deficits and debt? Where in the heck were they during the Trump years, when the debt went up 36 percent? They were all voting for it. Of course, now that President Biden is onboard, they are really deficit hawks. They have changed overnight. Well, you should have heard them during the Trump years, if they are sincere and honest. Our Republican colleagues moan on and on about inflation. All Americans are concerned about that. The Senator from Kentucky pointed out the reality. I filled my truck up with gas over the weekend. It is more expensive. What is causing all that? Well, part of it is we have no control over the price. The OPEC nations and others are determining what the price levels will be. And other things are part of it as well, yes. Heating bills are going to go up this winter. When I talk to the people in the natural gas industry, they talk about the problems that they had. When the economy slumped during the pandemic, the production of natural gas went down, the storage of it went down, the price went up, and that is what we are paying for today. So the pandemic itself has had an impact on our economy, which we cannot and should not ignore. The pandemic closed down the global economy and sent demand for many products soaring. Getting back to normal is just going to take some time, and it will take thoughtful action, not political potshots. To our Republican friends: If you are really concerned about the economic strain on middle-class and working families, you have got an opportunity to prove it this week. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is moving forward. A vote to give 35 million families enhanced child tax credits will help them meet the cost of living and save them hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars a year. A vote for good, free, early childhood education for every kid in America will put hundreds, even thousands of dollars more back in the hands of parents. And unlike the Trump tax cuts, the Build Back Better agenda is paid for. That is right. We pay for it. We are not adding to the deficit, and no one earning less than $400,000 a year will face higher taxes to pay for the Build Back Better agenda. And then there is the issue of climate change. I am joining a group that hopes we can go to Glasgow, Scotland, for this climate conference the President is attending today, and we hope that a bipartisan group delegation from the Senate can go at the end of this week, and I am looking forward to that possibility. We are paying so much money out, almost on a weekly basis, for weather-related disasters. Hurricane Ida, this year, cost us $100 billion in damage. One storm cost roughly twice as much as we proposed to spend the whole year in reducing the harm of climate change for all America. We need to work together to create a win for the American people and for our planet, and wouldn't it be nice if it were bipartisan for a change? | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7526 | null | 3,403 |
formal | working families | null | racist | The Economy Madam President, on a related matter, when I listen to our Republican colleagues' rail on the economy, I am reminded of the old saying, attributed to H.L. Mencken, that: ``For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simply easy--and wrong.'' Four years ago, Republicans used the Senate's reconciliation rules to pass the Trump tax cuts. They didn't get a single Democratic vote. Why? Because those tax cuts benefited the wealthiest people in America and the most profitable corporations. So did it cost us anything? Did we make money on that as a nation? It cost us $1.9 trillion over 10 years. That was Republican reconciliation 4 years ago. That is more than President Biden is now proposing for his entire slate of programs to ease the financial squeeze on working families and create millions of good jobs and protect our Nation from the dangers of climate change. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth we are hearing from Republicans about deficits and debt? Where in the heck were they during the Trump years, when the debt went up 36 percent? They were all voting for it. Of course, now that President Biden is onboard, they are really deficit hawks. They have changed overnight. Well, you should have heard them during the Trump years, if they are sincere and honest. Our Republican colleagues moan on and on about inflation. All Americans are concerned about that. The Senator from Kentucky pointed out the reality. I filled my truck up with gas over the weekend. It is more expensive. What is causing all that? Well, part of it is we have no control over the price. The OPEC nations and others are determining what the price levels will be. And other things are part of it as well, yes. Heating bills are going to go up this winter. When I talk to the people in the natural gas industry, they talk about the problems that they had. When the economy slumped during the pandemic, the production of natural gas went down, the storage of it went down, the price went up, and that is what we are paying for today. So the pandemic itself has had an impact on our economy, which we cannot and should not ignore. The pandemic closed down the global economy and sent demand for many products soaring. Getting back to normal is just going to take some time, and it will take thoughtful action, not political potshots. To our Republican friends: If you are really concerned about the economic strain on middle-class and working families, you have got an opportunity to prove it this week. President Biden's Build Back Better agenda is moving forward. A vote to give 35 million families enhanced child tax credits will help them meet the cost of living and save them hundreds, maybe thousands, of dollars a year. A vote for good, free, early childhood education for every kid in America will put hundreds, even thousands of dollars more back in the hands of parents. And unlike the Trump tax cuts, the Build Back Better agenda is paid for. That is right. We pay for it. We are not adding to the deficit, and no one earning less than $400,000 a year will face higher taxes to pay for the Build Back Better agenda. And then there is the issue of climate change. I am joining a group that hopes we can go to Glasgow, Scotland, for this climate conference the President is attending today, and we hope that a bipartisan group delegation from the Senate can go at the end of this week, and I am looking forward to that possibility. We are paying so much money out, almost on a weekly basis, for weather-related disasters. Hurricane Ida, this year, cost us $100 billion in damage. One storm cost roughly twice as much as we proposed to spend the whole year in reducing the harm of climate change for all America. We need to work together to create a win for the American people and for our planet, and wouldn't it be nice if it were bipartisan for a change? | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7526 | null | 3,404 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise today to honor all of the brave Michigan veterans who have served in our Nation's military. When the scourge of slavery threatened to tear our Nation in two, Michiganders selflessly marched to war. When fascism rose in Europe, Michiganders built an Arsenal of Democracy and kept freedom alive. And when terrorists attacked our own country 20 years ago, Michiganders stood up and signed up. Over and over again, Michigan men and women have served our country to protect our freedoms. These veterans all fought different battles and had different missions. But all of them were patriots. All of them--and their families--made incredible sacrifices. And all of them were willing to lay down their own lives to protect their fellow Americans and this Nation we love. Perhaps there's no better Michigan example of this than Charles S. Kettles. Charles was born in Ypsilanti in 1930 and fell in love with flying while attending Edison Institute High School in Dearborn. Aviation was in his blood; his dad was a military pilot. In 1951, Charles was drafted into the Army. He attended Army Aviation School and served tours in Korea, Japan, and Thailand. He retired from Active Duty in 1956 and continued to serve in the Army Reserves. During the Vietnam war, the Army was in desperate need of helicopter pilots. So in 1963, Charlie volunteered for active duty and learned to fly the UH-1D, ``Huey.'' Those skills would save lives on May 15, 1967. Then-Major Kettles volunteered to lead a flight of six Hueys on a rescue mission. Charles's helicopter came under fire, but he kept on flying. After the second rescue flight, his helicopter was leaking fuel, and his gunner was severely wounded. He found a helicopter that wasn't leaking and went back to rescue the stranded men. On the way back to the base, he learned that eight troops had been left behind. Without a second thought, he returned to the landing zone. His helicopter was hit by gunfire and a mortar round. Yet somehow, Charles made it back to the landing zone, picked up the stranded troops, and brought them safely back to the base. In total, he saved 44 lives that day. Typically, the Medal of Honor must be awarded within 5 years of the heroic act. But this kind of heroism has no expiration date. In 2015, I introduced legislation with Senator Gary Peters and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell to allow Charles to receive the Medal of Honor. In 2016, he did. And earlier this year, it was an incredible honor to be there when the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Ann Arbor was renamed after Charles. Lieutenant Colonel Kettles saved lives back in 1967, and the Lieutenant Colonel Charles S. Kettles VA Medical Center is saving lives today. ``We got the 44 out,'' he said during his Medal of Honor ceremony in 2016. ``None of those names appear on the wall in Washington. There's nothing more important than that.'' Humility, a spirit of service, and the willingness to sacrifice. Michigan's veterans have done so much for us. It is our solemn duty to keep each and every promise we have made to them. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. STABENOW | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7536-3 | null | 3,405 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Enrolled Bill Signed At 3:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bill: 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. The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy). Enrolled Bills Signed At 7:51 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 921. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to further protect officers and employees of the United States, and for other purposes. S. 1502. An act to make Federal law enforcement officer peer support communications confidential, 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 | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7538-2 | null | 3,406 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Enrolled Bill Signed At 3:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bill: 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. The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy). Enrolled Bills Signed At 7:51 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 921. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to further protect officers and employees of the United States, and for other purposes. S. 1502. An act to make Federal law enforcement officer peer support communications confidential, 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 | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7538-2 | null | 3,407 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-2438. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report certifying for fiscal year 2021 that no United Nations agency or United Nations affiliated agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes and condones or seeks the legalization of pedophilia; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-2439. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021-0111 - 2021-0124); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-2440. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medical Device De Novo Classification Process'' (RIN0910-AH53) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2441. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Content and Format of Substantial Equivalence Reports; Food and Drug Administration Actions on Substantial Equivalence Reports'' (RIN0910-AH89) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2442. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Premarket Tobacco Product Applications and Recordkeeping Requirements'' (RIN0910-AH44) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2443. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-Saving Medications; Rescission of Regulation'' (RIN0906-AB30) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2444. A communication from the President and Chief Executive Officer, National Institute for Children's Health Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Sickle Cell Disease Treatment Demonstration Regional Collaboratives Program''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2445. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part II'' (RIN1210-AC00) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2446. A communication from the Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's annual submission regarding agency compliance with the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and revised Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2447. A communication from the Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Privacy Act Exemptions'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 19, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2448. A communication from the Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to thirteen audit reports issued during fiscal year 2021 regarding the Agency and the Thrift Savings Plan; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2449. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 25, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2450. A communication from the Director of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Indian Land Title and Records'' (RIN1076-AF56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 18, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-2451. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021-0125 - 2021-0138); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7538-3 | null | 3,408 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of Dexter Randall of Newport Center, VT. In Dexter's passing, Vermont and the Nation has lost a great champion for farmers. Dexter was born in Lyndon, VT, in 1945 but spent most of his life with his family on their farm in Troy, VT. On September 3, 1971, he married Alice Gilman, who we sadly lost a year ago, on June 2, 2020. Along with their five children--Lisa, Justin, Jordan, Irene, and Jason--Randall and Alice ran their small organic dairy farm for 37 years before Justin and Irene took over operations. While Dexter was first and foremost a farmer, he was also a public servant. In the Northeast Kingdom, an area of the State often known for more conservative points of view, Dexter charted a unique political path, serving as a Progressive State representative with a strong independent streak. Dexter felt that his political philosophy was not all that different from that of his father, who had been a Republican, but that the Vermont Republican Party of earlier generations had undergone significant change. During his time in and out of the Vermont Statehouse, he was an unwavering voice for farmers and small family farms, fighting for fair milk prices and to safeguard Vermont's agricultural heritage. Both in elected office and during his 30 years on the board of Rural Vermont, Dexter showed a fearlessness in advocating for bold policy change. He understood that in order to save family farms and ensure the future of agriculture in Vermont, we needed to fundamentally rethink agricultural policy and fight against corporation consolidation. He was at the center of some of the biggest agricultural debates of his time, including the creation of the New England Dairy Compact and fighting to protect farmers from the corporate greed of companies producing genetically modified organism--GMO--seeds. Dexter's work was not limited to Vermont. In 2006, he traveled to Mali to learn how U.S. policies impact Africa's agricultural sector. On this and many other topics, Dexter demonstrated an ability to translate complex policy issues into plain language, making it easy for his constituents to understand and relate to. Caring for the land was at the heart of Dexter's work. Despite farming being more than a full-time job, he was active with the Missisquoi Basin Association, the American Devon Cattle Association, the Orleans County Natural Resources Conservation District, and the Vermont Center for Sustainable Agriculture. At a time when agriculture and environmental protection were often pitted against one another, Dexter showed that farmers can and often are strong conservationists and excellent stewards of the land. When I first met Dexter 35 years ago, his reputation as a fearless champion for rural Vermonters and farmers preceded him. Some probably would have considered us to be unlikely friends; he was a dairy farmer in a remote part of the State, and I was the first Independent mayor of the State's biggest city of Burlington. Those people, of course, were wrong. It was 1986, milk prices were low, and both Dexter and I understood that farmers were suffering. To raise spirits and money, Rural Vermont held a fundraiser near Dexter and Alice's farm. For my part, I drove the 2 hours to the Northeast Kingdom because not only did I understand the importance of the issue, I was impressed by the grassroots advocacy of Dexter, Alice, and the organizers. From that day on, Dexter and I enjoyed a long friendship that included a pig roast on his farm each year. At the heart, these events were very much about good food, comradery, bringing people together, and appreciating the pastoral landscape of Vermont. These events were also where good, old-fashioned democracy took place. People could talk about the issues that were important to them and feel like politicians were actually listening. I learned a great deal at these events about the struggles of working people, especially in rural Vermont, and for that, I am eternally grateful to Dexter. I was sad not to be able to join Dexter on the farm this year, and I will miss traveling there and seeing Dexter each year, but I am thankful for our many years of friendship. To my mind, Dexter represented the best of Vermont; he was not only deeply engaged in the issues, but he also genuinely cared about the wellbeing of his friends, family, neighbors, fellow farmers, and his rural constituents. He believed everyone deserves a fair shot, and he tirelessly advocated for Vermonters at every opportunity he could, whether by supporting universal healthcare or milk prices that enabled farmers to keep the lights on and live in dignity. Ultimately, Dexter brought his ethos about farming--that ``if you take care of the land it will take care of you, so you can leave it a little bit better than you found it''--to his community and his State. Vermont is indeed a better place, and Vermonters are better off, thanks to Dexter Randall. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7537 | null | 3,409 |
formal | Islamic extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,410 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,411 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,412 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,413 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,414 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,415 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,416 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,417 |
formal | right to know | null | anti-GMO | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,418 |
formal | echo | null | antisemitic | Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing threats to American national security and to the security of our friends and allies in the Middle East. Under President Obama and Vice President Biden, the policies put in place were a catastrophe for our allies in the Middle East and a boon to our enemies. They boosted the Muslim Brotherhood and criticized Arab governments that tried to crack down on religious extremists. They gave Palestinian groups tied to terrorism a veto over peace between our Israeli and Arab allies, and they elevated those groups. They pushed the catastrophic Obama-Iran nuclear deal, which dismantled pressure on Iran and put the Ayatollah on a path towards a nuclear arsenal, while sending pallets of cash in the dead of night as ransom for hostages. Of course, the Obama-Biden administration didn't tell the American people and didn't tell Congress what they were doing. Instead, they deliberately hid that information. They lied as long as they could about their policies, and they developed and built an echo chamber designed to drown out their critics. I rise today because history is repeating itself, because I am deeply worried that President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration are returning to the very worst policies and the very worst tactics of the Obama years and that the consequences are going to be far worse. Once again, the Biden-Harris administration is boosting the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremist groups in the Middle East. They are elevating the Palestinians at the expense of our Israeli and Arab allies, and they are dismantling pressure on Iran. And, once again, they are hiding those details from Congress. They do not want Congress to know, and they do not want the American people to know. And, in some cases, unfortunately, they are outright lying. I know that President Biden and his administration are refusing to answer, even lying about their Middle East policies, because I asked them. I asked them as part of questioning Barbara Leaf, the President's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs. Over the next several minutes, I will discuss the answers I got back. Ms. Leaf has been--and will continue to be--at the center of the Biden-Harris administration's Middle East policy. She was responsible for Middle East policy from the very beginning of this administration as the senior director for Middle East and North African Affairs at the National Security Council. In her new position to which she has been nominated, she would be America's most senior diplomat for the Middle East. I asked Ms. Leaf written questions about Biden's administration's policies in multiple areas of Middle East policy, as part of her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Her answers ranged from deliberately nonresponsive to simply false and, throughout, thoroughly, deeply distressing. For example, right now, today, the Biden-Harris administration is withholding $130 million of assistance for security and counterterrorism from our Egyptian allies, allegedly on human rights concerns. What we don't know is exactly why they are doing it and exactly what the Biden-Harris administration is asking for. Under the Obama administration, the United States repeatedly, inexplicably boosted the Muslim Brotherhood, which openly advocated terrorism against the United States. Those extremists were boosted at the expense of moderate Arab allies, and they consistently misled the public about their goals. Here, the only reason the American public found out in the first place about this $130 million is because the Washington Post revealed it. The Biden-Harris administration didn't explain to the American people what they were doing. It was only the reporting of journalists that revealed it, and we still don't know enough. We don't know the details. The Post reported that the administration is withholding the aid until Egypt addresses certain human rights concerns. We don't know what they are. They apparently include releasing 16 unnamed prisoners. We don't know who they are. So I asked Ms. Leaf about these details. I asked about the 16 people. I asked for their names, their institutional affiliations, what they were charged with. I also asked if they were American citizens. And if they were not, I asked whether they were involved in organizations that push Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism. Ms. Leaf is obviously very familiar with the case. She wrote back over 1,000 words of highly technical responses. Here is just a third of her answer. That is the part we could fit on the poster board. Lots of words, lots of numbers, but, as you can see, not a single detail that I requested was provided. Of the 16 people the Biden-Harris administration is demanding that Egypt release, you will see not a single name--not a one. Congress doesn't get to know who those 16 people are. The American people don't get to know who those 16 people are. The answer from Ms. Leaf to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is, to not put too fine a point on it, Go jump in a lake. How many of those 16 are affiliated with terrorist organizations? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. How many of them are American citizens? The answer from Ms. Leaf: Go jump in a lake. Why is that? Why is that--that the Biden-Harris administration is extorting Egypt to release 16 prisoners, and yet they are embarrassed to say who those prisoners are? Well, we do have some public hints about the sort of people that the White House and the congressional Democrats maybe tried to coerce our Egyptian allies into releasing. Buried inside a very recent Senate appropriations report, there is an instruction that seems very much like what we are seeing with these secret conditions. It came presumably from Senate Democrats, although we don't know who. No Senate Democrat has stood forward to own this language, but there is a Senate Democrat who authored this language. It says: In making the certification required by subsection (a)(3)(A), the Secretary of State shall consider the cases of Ola Al-Qaradawi, Hosam Khalaf, Salah Soltan, Abdulrahman Tarek, and Mohamed El-Baqer. The Committee urges that humane treatment and fair trials be afforded these and other prisoners in Egypt. So, apparently, for some unnamed Democrat who is unwilling to put his or her name to it, these names are people the United States should champion, and it suggests the sorts of people the Biden-Harris administration may be trying to extort Egypt into releasing. Who are they? Well, let's start with Salah Soltan. Who is Salah Soltan? He is a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist. He is a hate preacher. He is someone who goes on TV over and over again and preaches the most vicious sorts of libel against Jews. Why are Senate Democrats trying to release vicious anti-Semites? If you go back to the appropriation language, why are they suggesting in the appropriation language that the United States should be fighting to release that anti-Semite and hate preacher? We don't know because Senate Democrats aren't defending that position, and the administration refuses to answer. Who are some of the other people on that list? Well, you have Mohamed El-Baqer. He was a Salafist youth activist. He was part of the Revolutionary Youth who started the revolution, and he has been implicated in security violations. How about Ola al-Qaradawi? She is the daughter of Yosef al-Qaradawi, who is one of the major voices for jihad inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The paper trail on her is deliberately opaque from both sides. How about Hosam Khalaf? He is Ola al-Qaradawi's husband, and he has been allegedly connected to a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. How about Abdulrahman Tarek? Well, we don't know. His presence has not been accounted for publicly. And yet these names mysteriously appear in a Senate appropriations report. When I asked Ms. Leaf about it, she provided 1,000 words and not a single name. And I will tell you that, actually, the names on that list are not secrets from Congress. They have been provided to Congress in a classified form. So the Presiding Officer and I can go into a secure SCIF, and we can read it in the SCIF. We can read the names. You know what we are not allowed to do? Tell anyone what the names are. Why is it that those names are classified? They are classified because President Biden and Vice President Harris don't want the American people to know who it is they are trying to release. There is no reasonable justification for those names to be classified. They are extorting our friend and ally, Egypt, to get 16 people released from jail, and they refuse to tell us who. The American people have a right to know if the Biden administration is trying to pressure our allies to release Muslim Brotherhood extremists; if the Biden administration is trying to get our allies to release anti-Semites; and, if they are, to hear a justification for why. But Ms. Leaf, instead, simply defies the Senate and refuses to answer. Let's turn now to Israel. During the Trump administration, there was a decision to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, which led to an historic flowering of peace across the region. The name and framework for those peace agreements was the Abraham Accords. This was something that the Obama administration said would never happen and something, unfortunately, tragically, that they were actively hostile to. The Obama administration insisted that Israel would have to make massive concessions to the Palestinians on their sovereignty--on the security of Israel--before there could ever be peace deals between the Israelis and their Arab neighbors. When asked whether there could ever be peace like the Abraham Accords without a prior deal with the Palestinians, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said: ``There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. . . . No, no, no, and no.'' No ambiguity to what they thought--they don't want peace without massive concessions from Israel to the Palestinians. Well, turned out President Obama and Secretary Kerry were tragically wrong, as they were on so many issues, and President Trump demonstrated that to the world. And, sadly, President Biden and Vice President Harris have never forgiven our Israeli allies and our Arab allies for that--for demonstrating that with strong, resolute clarity from the United States' unequivocal support of Israel, that peace could be the result. That was an outcome anathema to the foreign policy objectives of the current administration. As a result, there are many in the Biden administration that are enormously, deeply, seethingly hostile to the Abraham Accords. At the beginning of the Biden administration, the State Department even issued internal guidance prohibiting the use of the phrase ``Abraham Accords.'' Those words were verboten. You may not say those words. The instructions were instead to call them the ``normalization agreements.'' George Orwell is, no doubt, looking down from Heaven and smiling at the power of language to be redefined. There are no Abraham Accords. Now, they are normalization agreements. Once again, the only reason that the public knows about this is because journalists revealed it. This time, it was the ``Washington Free Beacon,'' but the details have never been clarified. After those public reports, the Biden administration was forced to at least partially reverse that policy. They insisted they fully support the accords that must never be named. But it is not clear how true or how broad that reversal has been. On September 13, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Thomas-Greenfield, gave a speech about the Abraham Accords in which she stubbornly refused to utter the words ``Abraham Accords.'' Instead, following, apparently, the State Department guidance, she simply used the bland term ``normalization agreements.'' On October 13, Secretary Blinken met with Foreign Minister Lapid, and the spokesperson issued a formal readout from that meeting. Once again, the formal readout from the State Department carefully eschewed any mention of the Abraham Accords and used the bland term ``regional normalization efforts.'' This is conscious. This is deliberate. This is a pattern. It is a classic example of where congressional oversight is called for. Madam President, many Senate Democrats claim to support the Abraham Accords. Now, I would note, I was at the White House for the signing of the Abraham Accords. Not a single Senate Democrat showed up for that historic peace agreement--none. Presumably because of partisan loathing of President Trump. But, nonetheless, congressional Democrats say they support the accords today. If that is true, we need to see congressional oversight. So I asked Ms. Leaf for the specific guidance that was issued to the State Department. Give Congress--give the Senate--the written guidance prohibiting reference to the Abraham Accords. We know about it from public reports in the media. She and the State Department refused. They refused to provide that guidance to Congress. They refused to show it to the public. And, in doing it, it is not accidental. She refuses to answer this question because they want to hide it from the American people, just like the names of the 16 prisoners they are demanding that Egypt release. Presumably, if the American people knew those names, knew the affiliations, knew the backgrounds, they would be outraged. Likewise, if the American people read the written guidance issued by this State Department, prohibiting uttering of the words ``Abraham Accords,'' then the charade so many Democrats try to play in supporting those accords would be that much harder to maintain. A third example, turning to Iran, perhaps more than anything else, first and foremost, this administration wants to return to the catastrophic Obama-Biden-Iran nuclear deal and to dismantle meaningful sanctions against the theocratic regime in Iran. From the earliest hours of the administration, the effort began to do exactly that. As part of that push, the administration has quietly, and sometimes secretly, reduced pressure on Iran and released frozen Iranian funds. But the Ayatollah wants to see just how much he can get, and he may not think that President Biden will ever do anything meaningful. If the United States isn't going to impose pressure on Iran, there is no reason for the Ayatollah to return to the deal at all. He doesn't need to take ``yes'' for an answer for a deal because he is getting everything anyway. And so since very early in the administration, the Biden-Harris officials have contemplated what has been called a ``less for less'' agreement in which they would reduce some pressure on Iran for something less than full compliance. You will only nuke some of us. Once again, we only know about the existence of these considerations from public reports. In February and again over the summer, Reuters reported on administration officials contemplating these deals, the so-called ``less for less'' deals. We here in Congress know a little more but not much. Congress and the public deserve to know what is being contemplated to reduce pressure on the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and a regime that seeks--and, I believe, may well be willing--to use nuclear weapons to murder millions of Americans and millions of our allies. I believe that if the Ayatollah had the ability to murder millions of Americans or millions of Israelis in the blink of an eye, the odds are far too high that this theocratic zealot, who glories in death and suicide, would be willing to do so. And so I asked Ms. Leaf for the details of such agreements. Here is what she said in response: There have been no such arrangements, deals, or agreements contemplated to reduce pressure on Iran. That statement is false. It is categorically, directly, unequivocally false. It is false testimony in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ms. Leaf knows it is false, and the State Department handlers who transmitted her written answer to the Senate know that it is false. What is the Biden administration trying to hide? What deep details don't they want us to know? This isn't just about policy disagreements, although I disagree vehemently with many of this administration's policies. I understand some people, some Democrats, will disagree. But even more fundamentally, this is about transparency and oversight. On that, there should be no disagreement. And these questions are ones that go to the very core of this administration's Middle East foreign policy and of American national security. What extremists are President Biden and Vice President Harris trying to empower? Whom do they view as allies worth supporting in the region? What deals are being contemplated with the Iranian regime? I asked Ms. Leaf for these details. She has, after all, been working right in the center of Middle East issues for this administration. She and the Biden-Harris administration are refusing to answer. The public has a right to know. Let me also point out that President Biden, in recent days, said publicly that if Iran enters into a new nuclear deal, the United States would stay bound by it in perpetuity as long as Iran didn't renege on that deal. I want to be absolutely clear on something: President Biden has zero constitutional authority to make that commitment. The Ayatollah in Iran could be forgiven for misunderstanding that. The Ayatollah, after all, is a total dictator with the ability to line up anyone who disagrees and execute them on the spot. But, thankfully, the President of the United States does not enjoy such dictatorial powers. Under our Constitution, there are two ways, and two ways only, that a President can make a binding commitment on the United States of America. The first is through passing a law that passes the Senate, passes the House, and is signed into law by the President. If President Biden wishes to do so with any Iran deal, he is welcome to do so. The second and the way, traditionally, that foreign policies agreements are handled is through a treaty--a treaty that is submitted to the Senate and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The chances that the Biden-Harris whatever disastrous nuclear deal they work out with Iran, the chances that that would be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate I can quantify exactly. There is 0.00 percent. President Biden knows that. He knows that because the Senate has been unequivocal that this deal is disastrous and harmful for American national security, harmful for Israel, and harmful for our allies. And so, instead, President Biden makes an empty promise that he cannot commit. In that, he is following in the footsteps of President Obama. President Obama made a similar promise, and President Obama knew it was a lie when he said it, and President Biden knows it is a lie when he says it. History demonstrated that President Obama told a falsehood because the next Republican President, Donald J. Trump, ripped the Obama-Iran deal to shreds and withdrew from the deal, which was the right decision. I urged President Trump to do that. Our allies and our enemies should mark my words on this: Regardless of whatever empty promises President Biden makes, he lacks constitutional authority to bind a subsequent administration. And I believe it is 100 percent certain that the next Republican President who is sworn into office will once again rip to shreds any disastrous deal negotiated with the Ayatollah and Iran. So President Biden has 3 more years to try to give away the store, to try to send billions of dollars, perhaps on pallets in the dead of night like Barack Obama did, to fund theocratic terrorists who want to murder Americans and murder Israelis. But the Ayatollah needs to know, Europe needs to know, our friends need to know, our enemies need to know that President Biden's promises are empty words that will expire the instant his Presidency is over. We don't have a dictator in this country. We have a constitutional republic. If President Biden wants to bind subsequent administrations, he can negotiate a treaty, submit a treaty to the Senate, and get it ratified. But he doesn't have the votes, and so instead he makes empty promises. If President Biden and Vice President Harris were proud of the policies they are pursuing in the Middle East, they would give the American people the list of the 16 prisoners they are trying to force Egypt to release. We know that multiple of the names Senate Democrats have put in the appropriations language are affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. We know one is an anti-Semitic hate preacher. And we suspect that the administration knows full well that if it released those names, it couldn't defend them to the American people. It is counting on darkness and secrecy to hide their conduct. I believe the Senate--both Republicans and Democrats--have an obligation to the American people to shine a light. If you are going to extort our allies to release prisoners, tell us now: Are they affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood? Are they anti-Semites? Are they a national security threat to the United States or our allies? The American people deserve to know. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CRUZ | Senate | CREC-2021-11-01-pt1-PgS7572-2 | null | 3,419 |
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-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6084-5 | null | 3,420 |
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. 1975) 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6094 | null | 3,421 |
formal | urban | null | racist | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kelly of Illinois). 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. 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kelly of Illinois) | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6095 | null | 3,422 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kelly of Illinois). 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. 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kelly of Illinois) | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6095 | null | 3,423 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Levin of Michigan). 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. 4881) 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Levin of Michigan) | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6097-2 | null | 3,424 |
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. 3616) 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6096 | null | 3,425 |
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. 2088) to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6098 | null | 3,426 |
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. 3469) to amend the Small Business Act to codify the Boots to Business Program, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6099 | null | 3,427 |
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. 3462) to require an annual report on the cybersecurity of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6100-2 | null | 3,428 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). 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. 4256) to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small business investment companies, subject to the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee) | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6100 | null | 3,429 |
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. 4515) to amend the Small Business Act to require cyber certification for small business development center counselors, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgH6103 | null | 3,430 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Mr. President, on a very related issue, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, last night, I took the necessary procedural steps to set up a vote on Wednesday in the Senate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Tomorrow, the Senate is going to take a first vote on whether or not we debate--merely debate--a bill to reinstate the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which has long had bipartisan support in this Chamber--bipartisan support--in the past. Our democracy relies on the guarantee of free and fair elections to survive, but across the country, we are witnessing a coordinated assault on the right to vote and even on how elections are conducted, tallied, and potentially decided--a true threat to the ultimate foundation of our democracy. In the past, preclearance helped put a check on the worst abuses from the States, but a conservative majority on the Supreme Court in 2013, in one of the worst decisions in recent memory, effectively crippled preclearance, wrongly suggesting that it was no longer needed. We have seen how wrong that decision was in the years since 2013 and particularly now. Boy, were they wrong. In the years since that decision, the floodgates have opened for some of the most draconian restrictions to the franchise that we have seen since the era of segregation. The clock is ticking for the Senate to stop these attacks. Starting next year, State legislatures will return to session, and many will surely build on the flurry of restrictive laws we are already seeing in States like Georgia and Texas. So if there is any issue that deserves debate in this Chamber, it should be protecting voting rights. The Voting Rights Act has long enjoyed bipartisan support in this Chamber. Nixon, Reagan, and Bush all signed into law updates to the legislation. Infact, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle proudly previously worked on and supported passage of those updates, including preclearance provisions. It should be no different today. For months, Senate Democrats have bent over backwards to find common ground with Republicans on the critical issue of protecting the freedom to vote. We have urged Senate Republicans to engage, to offer their ideas, to come together to guarantee free and fair elections to all Americans. I have made clear time and time again: Democrats are open for business; we want Republicans to engage. I am prepared to offer an open and honest, full-fledged process here on the Senate floor tomorrow, where Republican amendments will be made in order and allowed and debated, but for that to happen, Republicans must come to the table when we vote tomorrow. We can't force so much as a debate if at least 10 Republicans don't join us and vote in favor of letting the Senate do its work on this most important, this most vital of issues. Senate Republicans shouldn't be afraid of merely starting debate on an issue we have long debated in this body and long supported in a bipartisan way in the past. If they have different ideas on how to achieve a stronger democracy, they owe it to the American people to come forward and debate their ideas. Simply standing silent with their arms crossed, refusing to allow the Senate to function, is unacceptable. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7577-10 | null | 3,431 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Build Back Better Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, today, Democrats in the House and Senate continue making progress on passing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. Last night, I held another round of talks with my leadership team, with the Speaker, with the White House. With many, we are discussing so many issues, including moving forward on prescription drugs. We are moving ahead, we are working through the outstanding details, and we remain committed to getting something big done for the American people. Nobody is getting everything they hoped for in the final deal, but Build Back Better will have things that everyone--everyone--wanted. Even as we continue finalizing the text, the President's framework already--already--has done very good and important things that will dramatically improve the lives of everyday Americans. It makes historic progress on childcare, pre-K, fighting climate change, providing tax cuts for the middle class, housing, and more. In years past, passing any one of these items would have been considered a huge step forward for the country. Now, we are working to get them all done at once, and we will continue making progress. The framework's provisions on childcare alone would be the largest in American history. Our country's need for childcare has grown dramatically since the 20th century. According to the Treasury Department, in fact, the average cost of caring for a young child hovers around $10,000 a year. Many people pay more for childcare than they pay for their mortgage. Ten thousand dollars a year is simply out of reach for far too many families. Not only do our kids suffer when they can't have somewhere safe to stay, our families suffer when they can't enter the workforce, and ultimately our country suffers as our economy's productivity is diminished. Build Back Better, with its unprecedented investments to help families better afford childcare, would finally provide parents the help they have needed for decades. That is just one example. American families under this framework will for the first time also have access to universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds across the country. It also extends the child tax credit passed earlier this year so parents can better afford things like groceries and diapers and utilities and other daily essentials. Since its enactment, this program alone has already cut poverty--child poverty--in half in this country. That is an amazing accomplishment and one that will continue to go forward under this proposal. So President Biden's Build Back Better framework is a historic step forward for families, but that is not all. The framework would also make bold investments to tackle the climate crisis. The consequences of climate change are already severe. Every time we face another major heat wave, it endangers the lives of Americans who work outdoors. Every time another hurricane hits the east coast or the South, it risks destroying people's homes and schools and churches and small businesses. Every time another wildfire rages in the West, it fills the air with poisonous smoke that entire cities breathe in, consequences yet unknown. Build Back Better would help our country fight this climate threat with unprecedented investments in clean manufacturing, clean transportation, clean electricity, and clean buildings, so we can cut our emissions, make our communities healthier, and lead the world by the power of our example. While there still would be much, much more work needed to protect our planet, this framework is a bold step in the right direction. Now, of course, even as we continue to negotiations, the President's Build Back Better framework contains many other good things. It will help Americans keep a safe and stable roof over their heads with long-sought investments in new affordable housing, as well as ensuring that we keep housing affordable for low- and moderate-income families. I have been working night and day with my colleagues in both Chambers and the White House to make progress on lowering the costs of prescription drugs. I am very hopeful there will be an agreement as early as today that will include landmark reforms sought by the American people and the Democratic Party for decades. For the first time, Medicare will be empowered to negotiate prescription drug prices in Part B and Part D. There will be an annual cap on out-of-pocket costs, a new monthly cap on the price of insulin, and an ``inflation'' rebate policy to protect consumers from egregious annual increases in prices. These policies are common sense and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. The deal will finally lower the costs of prescription drugs for seniors and working families. It doesn't do everything I would want or many of us would want, but it takes a big step forward. All the while, Build Back Better will be fully paid for and will ultimately relieve our Nation's inflationary pressures. Don't take my word for it. Many leading economists have made clear that this legislation would improve--not worsen--inflation in the country. There are a lot of good things in this framework, and Democrats are moving forward to get a final agreement and this bill over the finish line. Nobody said that transformative legislation of this scale would be easy, quick, or simple, but we remain committed to meeting our ultimate goal of helping working- and middle-class families achieve the American dream in the 21st century. We want to help those in the middle class stay there. They are worried about their future and the future of their children. We want to help those struggling to get to the middle class get there more easily by building ladders that they can climb. It is so important we get this done. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make that a reality, so we will continue marching ahead. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7578 | null | 3,432 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Build Back Better Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, today, Democrats in the House and Senate continue making progress on passing President Biden's Build Back Better plan. Last night, I held another round of talks with my leadership team, with the Speaker, with the White House. With many, we are discussing so many issues, including moving forward on prescription drugs. We are moving ahead, we are working through the outstanding details, and we remain committed to getting something big done for the American people. Nobody is getting everything they hoped for in the final deal, but Build Back Better will have things that everyone--everyone--wanted. Even as we continue finalizing the text, the President's framework already--already--has done very good and important things that will dramatically improve the lives of everyday Americans. It makes historic progress on childcare, pre-K, fighting climate change, providing tax cuts for the middle class, housing, and more. In years past, passing any one of these items would have been considered a huge step forward for the country. Now, we are working to get them all done at once, and we will continue making progress. The framework's provisions on childcare alone would be the largest in American history. Our country's need for childcare has grown dramatically since the 20th century. According to the Treasury Department, in fact, the average cost of caring for a young child hovers around $10,000 a year. Many people pay more for childcare than they pay for their mortgage. Ten thousand dollars a year is simply out of reach for far too many families. Not only do our kids suffer when they can't have somewhere safe to stay, our families suffer when they can't enter the workforce, and ultimately our country suffers as our economy's productivity is diminished. Build Back Better, with its unprecedented investments to help families better afford childcare, would finally provide parents the help they have needed for decades. That is just one example. American families under this framework will for the first time also have access to universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds across the country. It also extends the child tax credit passed earlier this year so parents can better afford things like groceries and diapers and utilities and other daily essentials. Since its enactment, this program alone has already cut poverty--child poverty--in half in this country. That is an amazing accomplishment and one that will continue to go forward under this proposal. So President Biden's Build Back Better framework is a historic step forward for families, but that is not all. The framework would also make bold investments to tackle the climate crisis. The consequences of climate change are already severe. Every time we face another major heat wave, it endangers the lives of Americans who work outdoors. Every time another hurricane hits the east coast or the South, it risks destroying people's homes and schools and churches and small businesses. Every time another wildfire rages in the West, it fills the air with poisonous smoke that entire cities breathe in, consequences yet unknown. Build Back Better would help our country fight this climate threat with unprecedented investments in clean manufacturing, clean transportation, clean electricity, and clean buildings, so we can cut our emissions, make our communities healthier, and lead the world by the power of our example. While there still would be much, much more work needed to protect our planet, this framework is a bold step in the right direction. Now, of course, even as we continue to negotiations, the President's Build Back Better framework contains many other good things. It will help Americans keep a safe and stable roof over their heads with long-sought investments in new affordable housing, as well as ensuring that we keep housing affordable for low- and moderate-income families. I have been working night and day with my colleagues in both Chambers and the White House to make progress on lowering the costs of prescription drugs. I am very hopeful there will be an agreement as early as today that will include landmark reforms sought by the American people and the Democratic Party for decades. For the first time, Medicare will be empowered to negotiate prescription drug prices in Part B and Part D. There will be an annual cap on out-of-pocket costs, a new monthly cap on the price of insulin, and an ``inflation'' rebate policy to protect consumers from egregious annual increases in prices. These policies are common sense and overwhelmingly supported by the American people. The deal will finally lower the costs of prescription drugs for seniors and working families. It doesn't do everything I would want or many of us would want, but it takes a big step forward. All the while, Build Back Better will be fully paid for and will ultimately relieve our Nation's inflationary pressures. Don't take my word for it. Many leading economists have made clear that this legislation would improve--not worsen--inflation in the country. There are a lot of good things in this framework, and Democrats are moving forward to get a final agreement and this bill over the finish line. Nobody said that transformative legislation of this scale would be easy, quick, or simple, but we remain committed to meeting our ultimate goal of helping working- and middle-class families achieve the American dream in the 21st century. We want to help those in the middle class stay there. They are worried about their future and the future of their children. We want to help those struggling to get to the middle class get there more easily by building ladders that they can climb. It is so important we get this done. This is the best opportunity we have had in a long time to make that a reality, so we will continue marching ahead. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7578 | null | 3,433 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | National Defense Authorization Act Mr. President, now, on another matter, each year, the National Defense Authorization Act represents the Senate's most consequential opportunity to help steer the course of defense and security policy. It is our chance to lay out our priorities for keeping America safe. For the past 60 years, without exception, Senate majorities have done the job and passed this crucial bill on a bipartisan vote, but, this year, our Democratic majority is sleepwalking toward yet another preventable problem. The process began with earnest deliberation among our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe presided over extensive discussions. They adopted 143 bipartisan amendments, and the committee reported out a final bill by a margin of 23 to 3. Our colleagues began a process that should end with broad support for clear, bipartisan priorities, like equipping us to keep up with China's military modernization and combat a new generation of terrorist threats, but the Democratic leader has left the NDAA trapped in limbo while Democrats toy with another reckless taxing-and-spending spree. Neglecting the NDAA denies our Armed Forces the certainty they need, and it denies the Senate a debate about the most consequential national security issues. This is especially misguided in light of the Biden administration's erratic, rudderless approach to foreign policy. Just last week, administration officials acknowledged that hundreds more Americans than they initially claimed remain trapped in Afghanistan, that terrorists in the country are just months away from being capable of conducting attacks on U.S. soil, and that no basing agreements to allow for over-the-horizon operations had yet been reached. Emboldened terrorists are already stepping up violence against Americans and our allies in the Middle East. The administration is failing to deter Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. The Russian threat has grown since President Biden took office, though you wouldn't know it by how quiet Senate Democrats have been on the subject. Putin is committed to modernizing his military to threaten U.S. and NATO forces, weaponizing his country's energy resources to pressure Europe, and escalating Russia's military pressure on Ukraine. Of course, the American military, American industries, and our allies and partners are also facing a communist China that is hell-bent--hell-bent--on dominating trade and repressing dissent. This is not a regional threat but a global one. China's comprehensive military modernization is stunning in its scope. The PRC is building weapons and capabilities to target U.S. forces at greater and greater range. We ignore this threat at our peril. So there is never a good time for Congress to abdicate its role in guiding and overseeing national security policy, but the Biden administration's muddled mess of a foreign policy makes this an especially terrible time for the Senate Democratic majority to neglect these issues. Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe have given us an opportunity to fulfill the Senate's role in a serious, consequential way. Now the majority needs to let the Senate work. We need the kind of serious and rigorous floor process that the NDAA deserves. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7579-6 | null | 3,434 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | National Defense Authorization Act Mr. President, now, on another matter, each year, the National Defense Authorization Act represents the Senate's most consequential opportunity to help steer the course of defense and security policy. It is our chance to lay out our priorities for keeping America safe. For the past 60 years, without exception, Senate majorities have done the job and passed this crucial bill on a bipartisan vote, but, this year, our Democratic majority is sleepwalking toward yet another preventable problem. The process began with earnest deliberation among our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe presided over extensive discussions. They adopted 143 bipartisan amendments, and the committee reported out a final bill by a margin of 23 to 3. Our colleagues began a process that should end with broad support for clear, bipartisan priorities, like equipping us to keep up with China's military modernization and combat a new generation of terrorist threats, but the Democratic leader has left the NDAA trapped in limbo while Democrats toy with another reckless taxing-and-spending spree. Neglecting the NDAA denies our Armed Forces the certainty they need, and it denies the Senate a debate about the most consequential national security issues. This is especially misguided in light of the Biden administration's erratic, rudderless approach to foreign policy. Just last week, administration officials acknowledged that hundreds more Americans than they initially claimed remain trapped in Afghanistan, that terrorists in the country are just months away from being capable of conducting attacks on U.S. soil, and that no basing agreements to allow for over-the-horizon operations had yet been reached. Emboldened terrorists are already stepping up violence against Americans and our allies in the Middle East. The administration is failing to deter Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. The Russian threat has grown since President Biden took office, though you wouldn't know it by how quiet Senate Democrats have been on the subject. Putin is committed to modernizing his military to threaten U.S. and NATO forces, weaponizing his country's energy resources to pressure Europe, and escalating Russia's military pressure on Ukraine. Of course, the American military, American industries, and our allies and partners are also facing a communist China that is hell-bent--hell-bent--on dominating trade and repressing dissent. This is not a regional threat but a global one. China's comprehensive military modernization is stunning in its scope. The PRC is building weapons and capabilities to target U.S. forces at greater and greater range. We ignore this threat at our peril. So there is never a good time for Congress to abdicate its role in guiding and overseeing national security policy, but the Biden administration's muddled mess of a foreign policy makes this an especially terrible time for the Senate Democratic majority to neglect these issues. Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe have given us an opportunity to fulfill the Senate's role in a serious, consequential way. Now the majority needs to let the Senate work. We need the kind of serious and rigorous floor process that the NDAA deserves. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7579-6 | null | 3,435 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Build Back Better Agenda Mr. President, on the topic of budget reconciliation, we are on the cusp of ahistoric accomplishment. This Build Back Better agenda is part of a great American tradition: marshaling our Nation's resources and ingenuity to build a better future for our country. This is the strategy that drove our victory in World War II or the Cold War and our dominance now in the Age of Information. Years of gridlock left us at risk of falling behind. Our competitors on the global stage, like China, sense an opportunity. They look at the same statistics we view. And those statistics tell a sobering story. For example, America used to lead the world in the best roads and bridges, but today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th. How is that for a slogan? Our Nation has also fallen behind when it comes to educational attainment. We rank 35th out of the 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood information and care. Our economy is the most unequal it has ever been since the Gilded Age, leaving behind millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills. The Build Back Better agenda, inspired by Joe Biden's administration, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the American promise. It will create millions of jobs and ensure every family has a chance to live in dignity and protect our children's and grandchildren's future. Sadly, like the American Rescue Plan, we still don't have a single Republican who will step up and join us. I hope that changes. In my home State of Illinois, the Build Back Better package would be life-changing. It will fund high-quality childcare for more than 750,000 children. I have told the story before of how--when my son Paul learned that his wife Tanja was going to have a baby, they called the grandparents right away. The next call was to a daycare center to enlist their little baby--they didn't know was a boy or girl--as early as possible in their neighborhood daycare center. That shows you the kind of demand there is in quality daycare. We also need to make preschool a reality for more than 250,000 additional children in Illinois with this package. That is a million children combined, between childcare and preschool, that will finally be able to access high-quality care and education. The Build Back Better package will also prevent hundreds of thousands of kids from going hungry. And it will give low-wage workers a tax cut of up to $1,500 a year. How is that for a change? Four years ago, in the Trump administration, the Republican priority was a tax cut for the highest income Americans. Our priority, the Democratic Biden priority, is a tax cut for working families and lower-income families to give them a fighting chance to make ends meet. These are just a few of the provisions included in the Build Back Better package. I might add something that is often mistaken. What I have just described to you is fully paid for. We pay for it by making certain that those who are making the highest incomes in America and the corporations that are the most profitable pay their fair share of taxes. This is policymaking at its best--fair and fiscally responsible. Yet when our Republican colleagues hear how these investments will ease the burdens of working families, they seem to have one takeaway. It is the one thing we hear from them over and over: ``Socialism1'' I mentioned that the Build Back Better agenda is part of the great American tradition. Well, that word ``socialism'' is part of the American tradition, too, on the Republican side, but one that hasn't stood the test of time. Let's look back at history, at how many times the word ``socialism'' has been thrown around. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security to protect the elderly from financial ruin. In response, one Republican lawmaker declared Roosevelt ``the first Communist President of the United States'' and accused him of advancing a ``Socialist platform.'' Sound familiar? Thirty years later, a similar debate played out over the creation of Medicare. The American Medical Association even recruited a future President, Ronald Reagan, to cut a television ad to record an album warning the public about the dangers of ``socialized medicine.'' Well, more than a century later, the vast majority of Americans are still covered by private health insurance. But Medicare is one of the most popular programs in America. Can you imagine where American seniors and families would be today if we had listened to those socialist denunciations of Social Security and Medicare? Here is one more example from the Great Depression: When joblessness in America reached 25 percent and Congress was considering the creation of America's first unemployment insurance system, a Congressman named Samuel Dickstein decried the idea of unemployment insurance as an ``out-and-out communist program.'' Now, you need to hear the rest of the story because, years after he made that declaration, it was discovered that Samuel Dickstein was a Soviet spy. Time and again, the claim of socialism has been bandied about to oppose commonsense policies that help working families get by. Now, as then, these claims have no basis in reality. It is a smear tactic that is, once again, being used to frighten Americans and distort and derail a meaningful debate. Let's get past the name-calling and get down to basics. Do you support yet another huge tax cut for massive corporations? Or is it time--at long last--to support working families? Our Republican colleagues answered that question when they were in charge. They took on nearly $2 trillion of debt in America to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. It seems they are happy with that brand of socialism, so long as it benefits major corporations and those who are well-off. Democrats believe in putting working families first, which is why the Build Back Better package includes the biggest tax cut--let me repeat that--it includes the biggest tax cut--for working and middle-class families in American history, and we believe in making smart investments in good-paying jobs. We have an opportunity to do all of this by enacting President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. Let's continue this great tradition and fight off the charges that we are somehow lapsing into socialism. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7585-2 | null | 3,436 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Build Back Better Agenda Mr. President, on the topic of budget reconciliation, we are on the cusp of ahistoric accomplishment. This Build Back Better agenda is part of a great American tradition: marshaling our Nation's resources and ingenuity to build a better future for our country. This is the strategy that drove our victory in World War II or the Cold War and our dominance now in the Age of Information. Years of gridlock left us at risk of falling behind. Our competitors on the global stage, like China, sense an opportunity. They look at the same statistics we view. And those statistics tell a sobering story. For example, America used to lead the world in the best roads and bridges, but today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th. How is that for a slogan? Our Nation has also fallen behind when it comes to educational attainment. We rank 35th out of the 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood information and care. Our economy is the most unequal it has ever been since the Gilded Age, leaving behind millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills. The Build Back Better agenda, inspired by Joe Biden's administration, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the American promise. It will create millions of jobs and ensure every family has a chance to live in dignity and protect our children's and grandchildren's future. Sadly, like the American Rescue Plan, we still don't have a single Republican who will step up and join us. I hope that changes. In my home State of Illinois, the Build Back Better package would be life-changing. It will fund high-quality childcare for more than 750,000 children. I have told the story before of how--when my son Paul learned that his wife Tanja was going to have a baby, they called the grandparents right away. The next call was to a daycare center to enlist their little baby--they didn't know was a boy or girl--as early as possible in their neighborhood daycare center. That shows you the kind of demand there is in quality daycare. We also need to make preschool a reality for more than 250,000 additional children in Illinois with this package. That is a million children combined, between childcare and preschool, that will finally be able to access high-quality care and education. The Build Back Better package will also prevent hundreds of thousands of kids from going hungry. And it will give low-wage workers a tax cut of up to $1,500 a year. How is that for a change? Four years ago, in the Trump administration, the Republican priority was a tax cut for the highest income Americans. Our priority, the Democratic Biden priority, is a tax cut for working families and lower-income families to give them a fighting chance to make ends meet. These are just a few of the provisions included in the Build Back Better package. I might add something that is often mistaken. What I have just described to you is fully paid for. We pay for it by making certain that those who are making the highest incomes in America and the corporations that are the most profitable pay their fair share of taxes. This is policymaking at its best--fair and fiscally responsible. Yet when our Republican colleagues hear how these investments will ease the burdens of working families, they seem to have one takeaway. It is the one thing we hear from them over and over: ``Socialism1'' I mentioned that the Build Back Better agenda is part of the great American tradition. Well, that word ``socialism'' is part of the American tradition, too, on the Republican side, but one that hasn't stood the test of time. Let's look back at history, at how many times the word ``socialism'' has been thrown around. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security to protect the elderly from financial ruin. In response, one Republican lawmaker declared Roosevelt ``the first Communist President of the United States'' and accused him of advancing a ``Socialist platform.'' Sound familiar? Thirty years later, a similar debate played out over the creation of Medicare. The American Medical Association even recruited a future President, Ronald Reagan, to cut a television ad to record an album warning the public about the dangers of ``socialized medicine.'' Well, more than a century later, the vast majority of Americans are still covered by private health insurance. But Medicare is one of the most popular programs in America. Can you imagine where American seniors and families would be today if we had listened to those socialist denunciations of Social Security and Medicare? Here is one more example from the Great Depression: When joblessness in America reached 25 percent and Congress was considering the creation of America's first unemployment insurance system, a Congressman named Samuel Dickstein decried the idea of unemployment insurance as an ``out-and-out communist program.'' Now, you need to hear the rest of the story because, years after he made that declaration, it was discovered that Samuel Dickstein was a Soviet spy. Time and again, the claim of socialism has been bandied about to oppose commonsense policies that help working families get by. Now, as then, these claims have no basis in reality. It is a smear tactic that is, once again, being used to frighten Americans and distort and derail a meaningful debate. Let's get past the name-calling and get down to basics. Do you support yet another huge tax cut for massive corporations? Or is it time--at long last--to support working families? Our Republican colleagues answered that question when they were in charge. They took on nearly $2 trillion of debt in America to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. It seems they are happy with that brand of socialism, so long as it benefits major corporations and those who are well-off. Democrats believe in putting working families first, which is why the Build Back Better package includes the biggest tax cut--let me repeat that--it includes the biggest tax cut--for working and middle-class families in American history, and we believe in making smart investments in good-paying jobs. We have an opportunity to do all of this by enacting President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. Let's continue this great tradition and fight off the charges that we are somehow lapsing into socialism. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7585-2 | null | 3,437 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Build Back Better Agenda Mr. President, on the topic of budget reconciliation, we are on the cusp of ahistoric accomplishment. This Build Back Better agenda is part of a great American tradition: marshaling our Nation's resources and ingenuity to build a better future for our country. This is the strategy that drove our victory in World War II or the Cold War and our dominance now in the Age of Information. Years of gridlock left us at risk of falling behind. Our competitors on the global stage, like China, sense an opportunity. They look at the same statistics we view. And those statistics tell a sobering story. For example, America used to lead the world in the best roads and bridges, but today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th. How is that for a slogan? Our Nation has also fallen behind when it comes to educational attainment. We rank 35th out of the 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood information and care. Our economy is the most unequal it has ever been since the Gilded Age, leaving behind millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills. The Build Back Better agenda, inspired by Joe Biden's administration, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the American promise. It will create millions of jobs and ensure every family has a chance to live in dignity and protect our children's and grandchildren's future. Sadly, like the American Rescue Plan, we still don't have a single Republican who will step up and join us. I hope that changes. In my home State of Illinois, the Build Back Better package would be life-changing. It will fund high-quality childcare for more than 750,000 children. I have told the story before of how--when my son Paul learned that his wife Tanja was going to have a baby, they called the grandparents right away. The next call was to a daycare center to enlist their little baby--they didn't know was a boy or girl--as early as possible in their neighborhood daycare center. That shows you the kind of demand there is in quality daycare. We also need to make preschool a reality for more than 250,000 additional children in Illinois with this package. That is a million children combined, between childcare and preschool, that will finally be able to access high-quality care and education. The Build Back Better package will also prevent hundreds of thousands of kids from going hungry. And it will give low-wage workers a tax cut of up to $1,500 a year. How is that for a change? Four years ago, in the Trump administration, the Republican priority was a tax cut for the highest income Americans. Our priority, the Democratic Biden priority, is a tax cut for working families and lower-income families to give them a fighting chance to make ends meet. These are just a few of the provisions included in the Build Back Better package. I might add something that is often mistaken. What I have just described to you is fully paid for. We pay for it by making certain that those who are making the highest incomes in America and the corporations that are the most profitable pay their fair share of taxes. This is policymaking at its best--fair and fiscally responsible. Yet when our Republican colleagues hear how these investments will ease the burdens of working families, they seem to have one takeaway. It is the one thing we hear from them over and over: ``Socialism1'' I mentioned that the Build Back Better agenda is part of the great American tradition. Well, that word ``socialism'' is part of the American tradition, too, on the Republican side, but one that hasn't stood the test of time. Let's look back at history, at how many times the word ``socialism'' has been thrown around. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security to protect the elderly from financial ruin. In response, one Republican lawmaker declared Roosevelt ``the first Communist President of the United States'' and accused him of advancing a ``Socialist platform.'' Sound familiar? Thirty years later, a similar debate played out over the creation of Medicare. The American Medical Association even recruited a future President, Ronald Reagan, to cut a television ad to record an album warning the public about the dangers of ``socialized medicine.'' Well, more than a century later, the vast majority of Americans are still covered by private health insurance. But Medicare is one of the most popular programs in America. Can you imagine where American seniors and families would be today if we had listened to those socialist denunciations of Social Security and Medicare? Here is one more example from the Great Depression: When joblessness in America reached 25 percent and Congress was considering the creation of America's first unemployment insurance system, a Congressman named Samuel Dickstein decried the idea of unemployment insurance as an ``out-and-out communist program.'' Now, you need to hear the rest of the story because, years after he made that declaration, it was discovered that Samuel Dickstein was a Soviet spy. Time and again, the claim of socialism has been bandied about to oppose commonsense policies that help working families get by. Now, as then, these claims have no basis in reality. It is a smear tactic that is, once again, being used to frighten Americans and distort and derail a meaningful debate. Let's get past the name-calling and get down to basics. Do you support yet another huge tax cut for massive corporations? Or is it time--at long last--to support working families? Our Republican colleagues answered that question when they were in charge. They took on nearly $2 trillion of debt in America to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. It seems they are happy with that brand of socialism, so long as it benefits major corporations and those who are well-off. Democrats believe in putting working families first, which is why the Build Back Better package includes the biggest tax cut--let me repeat that--it includes the biggest tax cut--for working and middle-class families in American history, and we believe in making smart investments in good-paying jobs. We have an opportunity to do all of this by enacting President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. Let's continue this great tradition and fight off the charges that we are somehow lapsing into socialism. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7585-2 | null | 3,438 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Build Back Better Agenda Mr. President, on the topic of budget reconciliation, we are on the cusp of ahistoric accomplishment. This Build Back Better agenda is part of a great American tradition: marshaling our Nation's resources and ingenuity to build a better future for our country. This is the strategy that drove our victory in World War II or the Cold War and our dominance now in the Age of Information. Years of gridlock left us at risk of falling behind. Our competitors on the global stage, like China, sense an opportunity. They look at the same statistics we view. And those statistics tell a sobering story. For example, America used to lead the world in the best roads and bridges, but today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th. How is that for a slogan? Our Nation has also fallen behind when it comes to educational attainment. We rank 35th out of the 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood information and care. Our economy is the most unequal it has ever been since the Gilded Age, leaving behind millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills. The Build Back Better agenda, inspired by Joe Biden's administration, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the American promise. It will create millions of jobs and ensure every family has a chance to live in dignity and protect our children's and grandchildren's future. Sadly, like the American Rescue Plan, we still don't have a single Republican who will step up and join us. I hope that changes. In my home State of Illinois, the Build Back Better package would be life-changing. It will fund high-quality childcare for more than 750,000 children. I have told the story before of how--when my son Paul learned that his wife Tanja was going to have a baby, they called the grandparents right away. The next call was to a daycare center to enlist their little baby--they didn't know was a boy or girl--as early as possible in their neighborhood daycare center. That shows you the kind of demand there is in quality daycare. We also need to make preschool a reality for more than 250,000 additional children in Illinois with this package. That is a million children combined, between childcare and preschool, that will finally be able to access high-quality care and education. The Build Back Better package will also prevent hundreds of thousands of kids from going hungry. And it will give low-wage workers a tax cut of up to $1,500 a year. How is that for a change? Four years ago, in the Trump administration, the Republican priority was a tax cut for the highest income Americans. Our priority, the Democratic Biden priority, is a tax cut for working families and lower-income families to give them a fighting chance to make ends meet. These are just a few of the provisions included in the Build Back Better package. I might add something that is often mistaken. What I have just described to you is fully paid for. We pay for it by making certain that those who are making the highest incomes in America and the corporations that are the most profitable pay their fair share of taxes. This is policymaking at its best--fair and fiscally responsible. Yet when our Republican colleagues hear how these investments will ease the burdens of working families, they seem to have one takeaway. It is the one thing we hear from them over and over: ``Socialism1'' I mentioned that the Build Back Better agenda is part of the great American tradition. Well, that word ``socialism'' is part of the American tradition, too, on the Republican side, but one that hasn't stood the test of time. Let's look back at history, at how many times the word ``socialism'' has been thrown around. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security to protect the elderly from financial ruin. In response, one Republican lawmaker declared Roosevelt ``the first Communist President of the United States'' and accused him of advancing a ``Socialist platform.'' Sound familiar? Thirty years later, a similar debate played out over the creation of Medicare. The American Medical Association even recruited a future President, Ronald Reagan, to cut a television ad to record an album warning the public about the dangers of ``socialized medicine.'' Well, more than a century later, the vast majority of Americans are still covered by private health insurance. But Medicare is one of the most popular programs in America. Can you imagine where American seniors and families would be today if we had listened to those socialist denunciations of Social Security and Medicare? Here is one more example from the Great Depression: When joblessness in America reached 25 percent and Congress was considering the creation of America's first unemployment insurance system, a Congressman named Samuel Dickstein decried the idea of unemployment insurance as an ``out-and-out communist program.'' Now, you need to hear the rest of the story because, years after he made that declaration, it was discovered that Samuel Dickstein was a Soviet spy. Time and again, the claim of socialism has been bandied about to oppose commonsense policies that help working families get by. Now, as then, these claims have no basis in reality. It is a smear tactic that is, once again, being used to frighten Americans and distort and derail a meaningful debate. Let's get past the name-calling and get down to basics. Do you support yet another huge tax cut for massive corporations? Or is it time--at long last--to support working families? Our Republican colleagues answered that question when they were in charge. They took on nearly $2 trillion of debt in America to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. It seems they are happy with that brand of socialism, so long as it benefits major corporations and those who are well-off. Democrats believe in putting working families first, which is why the Build Back Better package includes the biggest tax cut--let me repeat that--it includes the biggest tax cut--for working and middle-class families in American history, and we believe in making smart investments in good-paying jobs. We have an opportunity to do all of this by enacting President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. Let's continue this great tradition and fight off the charges that we are somehow lapsing into socialism. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7585-2 | null | 3,439 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Build Back Better Agenda Mr. President, on the topic of budget reconciliation, we are on the cusp of ahistoric accomplishment. This Build Back Better agenda is part of a great American tradition: marshaling our Nation's resources and ingenuity to build a better future for our country. This is the strategy that drove our victory in World War II or the Cold War and our dominance now in the Age of Information. Years of gridlock left us at risk of falling behind. Our competitors on the global stage, like China, sense an opportunity. They look at the same statistics we view. And those statistics tell a sobering story. For example, America used to lead the world in the best roads and bridges, but today, according to the World Economic Forum, we rank 13th. How is that for a slogan? Our Nation has also fallen behind when it comes to educational attainment. We rank 35th out of the 37 major countries when it comes to investing in early childhood information and care. Our economy is the most unequal it has ever been since the Gilded Age, leaving behind millions of American families who are struggling to pay their bills. The Build Back Better agenda, inspired by Joe Biden's administration, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the American promise. It will create millions of jobs and ensure every family has a chance to live in dignity and protect our children's and grandchildren's future. Sadly, like the American Rescue Plan, we still don't have a single Republican who will step up and join us. I hope that changes. In my home State of Illinois, the Build Back Better package would be life-changing. It will fund high-quality childcare for more than 750,000 children. I have told the story before of how--when my son Paul learned that his wife Tanja was going to have a baby, they called the grandparents right away. The next call was to a daycare center to enlist their little baby--they didn't know was a boy or girl--as early as possible in their neighborhood daycare center. That shows you the kind of demand there is in quality daycare. We also need to make preschool a reality for more than 250,000 additional children in Illinois with this package. That is a million children combined, between childcare and preschool, that will finally be able to access high-quality care and education. The Build Back Better package will also prevent hundreds of thousands of kids from going hungry. And it will give low-wage workers a tax cut of up to $1,500 a year. How is that for a change? Four years ago, in the Trump administration, the Republican priority was a tax cut for the highest income Americans. Our priority, the Democratic Biden priority, is a tax cut for working families and lower-income families to give them a fighting chance to make ends meet. These are just a few of the provisions included in the Build Back Better package. I might add something that is often mistaken. What I have just described to you is fully paid for. We pay for it by making certain that those who are making the highest incomes in America and the corporations that are the most profitable pay their fair share of taxes. This is policymaking at its best--fair and fiscally responsible. Yet when our Republican colleagues hear how these investments will ease the burdens of working families, they seem to have one takeaway. It is the one thing we hear from them over and over: ``Socialism1'' I mentioned that the Build Back Better agenda is part of the great American tradition. Well, that word ``socialism'' is part of the American tradition, too, on the Republican side, but one that hasn't stood the test of time. Let's look back at history, at how many times the word ``socialism'' has been thrown around. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed Social Security to protect the elderly from financial ruin. In response, one Republican lawmaker declared Roosevelt ``the first Communist President of the United States'' and accused him of advancing a ``Socialist platform.'' Sound familiar? Thirty years later, a similar debate played out over the creation of Medicare. The American Medical Association even recruited a future President, Ronald Reagan, to cut a television ad to record an album warning the public about the dangers of ``socialized medicine.'' Well, more than a century later, the vast majority of Americans are still covered by private health insurance. But Medicare is one of the most popular programs in America. Can you imagine where American seniors and families would be today if we had listened to those socialist denunciations of Social Security and Medicare? Here is one more example from the Great Depression: When joblessness in America reached 25 percent and Congress was considering the creation of America's first unemployment insurance system, a Congressman named Samuel Dickstein decried the idea of unemployment insurance as an ``out-and-out communist program.'' Now, you need to hear the rest of the story because, years after he made that declaration, it was discovered that Samuel Dickstein was a Soviet spy. Time and again, the claim of socialism has been bandied about to oppose commonsense policies that help working families get by. Now, as then, these claims have no basis in reality. It is a smear tactic that is, once again, being used to frighten Americans and distort and derail a meaningful debate. Let's get past the name-calling and get down to basics. Do you support yet another huge tax cut for massive corporations? Or is it time--at long last--to support working families? Our Republican colleagues answered that question when they were in charge. They took on nearly $2 trillion of debt in America to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy. It seems they are happy with that brand of socialism, so long as it benefits major corporations and those who are well-off. Democrats believe in putting working families first, which is why the Build Back Better package includes the biggest tax cut--let me repeat that--it includes the biggest tax cut--for working and middle-class families in American history, and we believe in making smart investments in good-paying jobs. We have an opportunity to do all of this by enacting President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. Let's continue this great tradition and fight off the charges that we are somehow lapsing into socialism. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7585-2 | null | 3,440 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on energy and natural resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting on nominations. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. subcommittee on state department and usaid management, international operations, and bilateral international development The Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development of the Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 2, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BENNET | Senate | CREC-2021-11-02-pt1-PgS7685-2 | null | 3,441 |
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-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6134-2 | null | 3,442 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3709) 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. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAPPAS | House | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6143 | null | 3,443 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4679) to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building''. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DeFAZIO | House | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6145-2 | null | 3,444 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PAPPAS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 390) to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAPPAS | House | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6145 | null | 3,445 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4660) 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''. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DeFAZIO | House | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6146 | null | 3,446 |
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. 1064) to advance the strategic alignment of United States diplomatic tools toward the realization of free, fair, and transparent elections in Nicaragua and to reaffirm the commitment of the United States to protect the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the people of Nicaragua, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6156-3 | null | 3,447 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tonko). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 760) expressing solidarity with Cuban citizens demonstrating peacefully for fundamental freedoms, condemning the Cuban regime's acts of repression, and calling for the immediate release of arbitrarily detained Cuban citizens, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tonko) | House | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgH6157 | null | 3,448 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,449 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,450 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,451 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,452 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,453 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,454 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Government Funding Mr. President, on a totally different matter, last night was a difficult evening for Democrats. The Democratic Party has wildly misread their mandate and let the radical left run the country. Local Democrats let teachers unions keep schools shut months longer than necessary and told parents they didn't get a say in what their kids were learning. Washington Democrats have supercharged inflation, recreated welfare without work requirements, and made America significantly less energy independent. President Biden was only given a 50-50 Senate and a tiny majority in the House, but he decided to let the radical left run the country. Citizens wanted a return to normalcy but have gotten a never-ending series of government-created crises. So, look, the American people will not stand for this. That is what voters told Democrats last night all across the country. The results from different parts of our country demonstrate that this was, in large part, a referendum on national issues. But it is not too late. Democrats should listen to the voters, drop this reckless taxing-and-spending spree, and stop trying to ram through a socialist transformation that the American people never asked for. The radical transformation that Democrats are writing behind closed doors would compound every mistake their party has made. Look at virtually any part of American families' lives, and Democrats' reckless taxing-and-spending spree would seize control of it and yank it way to the left. The same Democrats who don't want parents involved in schools want to take over daycare and pre-K, crowd out faith-based and family providers, and put this vast new system under the control of the culture warrior HHS Secretary, who sued the Little Sisters of the Poor. The same Democrats who pretend to defend working families are dead set on a massive tax cut that would overwhelmingly benefit rich people in blue States. One of the biggest pieces oftheir signature bill is now a huge tax cut for rich people. The same Democrats who say they support science and medicine want to slap arbitrary price controls on Americans' prescription drugs, reducing future innovation and, according to experts, literally costing Americans their lives who would have lived if not for this policy. The same Democrats who pretend they care about Social Security and Medicare want to stretch seniors' existing Medicare Program even thinner. Even though the trust fund is already just a few years away from running dry, they would do this in order to fund new giveaways. The same Democrats who talk a big game about competing with China want to raise taxes so high that our own American industries would face a higher tax rate than businesses have to pay in communist China. The same Democrats who are still trying to sneak forms of amnesty into this bill also want to make illegal immigrants eligible for new welfare. The same Democrats who pretend they are forward-thinking on energy issues want to hammer the U.S. economy with painful regulations while bigger emitters, like China, just keep on emitting--maximum pain for American families and no measurable gain for emissions or the climate. The bill our colleagues are writing behind closed doors is terrible from top to bottom--more debt, more taxes, more inflation, and fewer options for American families. This reckless taxing-and-spending spree would hurt families and help China. This radical social takeover is the last thing Americans need and the last thing Americans want. The voters of America just yesterday gave our colleagues a preview of that fact last night. It is not too late. They could still pull back from the brink while they can. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7689-4 | null | 3,455 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Elections Mr. President, there is a lot of interpretation about what happened in these off-year elections last night. Obviously, the results in two traditionally Democrat-leaning States are causing people to speculate about what it all means. And I listened to some of the analysis, and there are lots of armchair quarterbacks who are doing the analysis about what these--what we allshould interpret these results; and, certainly, depending on where you are, you probably, maybe, come to certain different interpretations. But some of what I heard this morning from a Democrat analyst was that this is evidence that the Democratic Party needs to double down on the big, reckless tax-and-spending bill because people who voted in Virginia and New Jersey last night didn't know what was in it, and when they find out all the good things that are in it, they are going to love this and they are going to want to support Democrats. And I have to say I think that completely misses the point. I think what people are saying is they don't want to hand the keys to their lives to Washington, DC. This massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree that is being contemplated here by Senate Democrats is historic in its sweep, its expansion, its growth of government, its cost, its pricetag, and it is historic in terms of the amount of taxation that will be put on the backs of the American people in order to pay for it. And I think what happened last night was a repudiation. It was repudiations of the nanny state and its belief that Washington knows best and that we should get people in this country more dependent upon Washington, DC. I think what the American people are saying is: We don't want to be more dependent on Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to let us live our lives and to focus on the things that are really important to us. And I think that the issues that were important yesterday had a lot to do with schools and kids and parents and whether or not they feel like they have control over their children's futures and what they learn in schools. I think it had to do with the economic future that people were looking out as they envision the future for them, for their kids and their grandkids, and they are looking at how stretched their incomes now are because of this growth and inflation. They are spending more on gasoline. They are spending more, as we head into the winter months, to heat their homes. They are spending more on food. They are spending more on housing. Literally everything in their world that they spend money on is going up, meaning their incomes are stretched thinner and thinner. So I believe that what people were saying last night is: We don't want more Washington government and less freedom. We want less Washington government and more freedom. And I think that resounded across the Commonwealth of Virginia and across New Jersey. And I would suggest that the takeaway for Democrats here in Washington should be not we are going to double down, we are going to spend--we are going to ram through in a partisan way this massive tax-and-spending bill; but, rather, let's pull back. Let's see what is happening out there in the economy. Let's see how it is affecting the average American worker and the average American family and the average American small business, and perhaps head in a slightly different direction that doesn't involve taking more taxes out of our economy and increasing inflation by flooding the zone with more government spending and, therefore, creating higher and higher inflation and ultimately making things more expensive for the American people to where they look at their personal financial situation and realize how much just the cost of inflation is impacting their family budgets on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis. That, to me, should be the takeaway coming out of this because I certainly don't believe in any respect that it wasn't that the American people didn't know what is in this massive tax-and-spending bill; rather, it is that they do know. They are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out that these are a lot of--there is a whole ton of spending in here. And, honestly, you have to be pretty darn creative to figure out how to spend $3\1/2\ to $4 trillion, and there is a ton of taxing that goes with it. And there was a study that came out yesterday from Penn Wharton, which suggested that this massive and reckless tax-and-spending bill actually runs over a $2 trillion deficit over the 10-year period. If you look at the window, what it says is it is going to cost $3.9 trillion. This is based on the text that is currently available. And the taxes that are proposed to be raised generate about $1.5 trillion in revenue; therefore, a $2.4 trillion addition to the Federal debt, which is already, as we know, at the $30 trillion range and growing, literally, by the day. So I would simply suggest to my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle that the message coming out of these elections is not ``We want more government for the American people. We want more dependence upon Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to do more things for us;'' but, rather, ``We want Washington, DC, to get out of the way, quit trying to run our lives, and create the conditions that are favorable for economic growth and job creation and higher wages so that we can take care of our families, rather than having to depend upon Washington, DC, to do it.'' I hope that this will be the resounding message we need to defeat this massive tax-and-spending bill and allow the American people the freedom they need to lead their lives and to have better opportunities for them, for their kids, and for their grandkids--and better wages. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote coming up here, so I will yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7690-3 | null | 3,456 |
formal | government spending | null | racist | Elections Mr. President, there is a lot of interpretation about what happened in these off-year elections last night. Obviously, the results in two traditionally Democrat-leaning States are causing people to speculate about what it all means. And I listened to some of the analysis, and there are lots of armchair quarterbacks who are doing the analysis about what these--what we allshould interpret these results; and, certainly, depending on where you are, you probably, maybe, come to certain different interpretations. But some of what I heard this morning from a Democrat analyst was that this is evidence that the Democratic Party needs to double down on the big, reckless tax-and-spending bill because people who voted in Virginia and New Jersey last night didn't know what was in it, and when they find out all the good things that are in it, they are going to love this and they are going to want to support Democrats. And I have to say I think that completely misses the point. I think what people are saying is they don't want to hand the keys to their lives to Washington, DC. This massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree that is being contemplated here by Senate Democrats is historic in its sweep, its expansion, its growth of government, its cost, its pricetag, and it is historic in terms of the amount of taxation that will be put on the backs of the American people in order to pay for it. And I think what happened last night was a repudiation. It was repudiations of the nanny state and its belief that Washington knows best and that we should get people in this country more dependent upon Washington, DC. I think what the American people are saying is: We don't want to be more dependent on Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to let us live our lives and to focus on the things that are really important to us. And I think that the issues that were important yesterday had a lot to do with schools and kids and parents and whether or not they feel like they have control over their children's futures and what they learn in schools. I think it had to do with the economic future that people were looking out as they envision the future for them, for their kids and their grandkids, and they are looking at how stretched their incomes now are because of this growth and inflation. They are spending more on gasoline. They are spending more, as we head into the winter months, to heat their homes. They are spending more on food. They are spending more on housing. Literally everything in their world that they spend money on is going up, meaning their incomes are stretched thinner and thinner. So I believe that what people were saying last night is: We don't want more Washington government and less freedom. We want less Washington government and more freedom. And I think that resounded across the Commonwealth of Virginia and across New Jersey. And I would suggest that the takeaway for Democrats here in Washington should be not we are going to double down, we are going to spend--we are going to ram through in a partisan way this massive tax-and-spending bill; but, rather, let's pull back. Let's see what is happening out there in the economy. Let's see how it is affecting the average American worker and the average American family and the average American small business, and perhaps head in a slightly different direction that doesn't involve taking more taxes out of our economy and increasing inflation by flooding the zone with more government spending and, therefore, creating higher and higher inflation and ultimately making things more expensive for the American people to where they look at their personal financial situation and realize how much just the cost of inflation is impacting their family budgets on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis. That, to me, should be the takeaway coming out of this because I certainly don't believe in any respect that it wasn't that the American people didn't know what is in this massive tax-and-spending bill; rather, it is that they do know. They are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out that these are a lot of--there is a whole ton of spending in here. And, honestly, you have to be pretty darn creative to figure out how to spend $3\1/2\ to $4 trillion, and there is a ton of taxing that goes with it. And there was a study that came out yesterday from Penn Wharton, which suggested that this massive and reckless tax-and-spending bill actually runs over a $2 trillion deficit over the 10-year period. If you look at the window, what it says is it is going to cost $3.9 trillion. This is based on the text that is currently available. And the taxes that are proposed to be raised generate about $1.5 trillion in revenue; therefore, a $2.4 trillion addition to the Federal debt, which is already, as we know, at the $30 trillion range and growing, literally, by the day. So I would simply suggest to my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle that the message coming out of these elections is not ``We want more government for the American people. We want more dependence upon Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to do more things for us;'' but, rather, ``We want Washington, DC, to get out of the way, quit trying to run our lives, and create the conditions that are favorable for economic growth and job creation and higher wages so that we can take care of our families, rather than having to depend upon Washington, DC, to do it.'' I hope that this will be the resounding message we need to defeat this massive tax-and-spending bill and allow the American people the freedom they need to lead their lives and to have better opportunities for them, for their kids, and for their grandkids--and better wages. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote coming up here, so I will yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7690-3 | null | 3,457 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Elections Mr. President, there is a lot of interpretation about what happened in these off-year elections last night. Obviously, the results in two traditionally Democrat-leaning States are causing people to speculate about what it all means. And I listened to some of the analysis, and there are lots of armchair quarterbacks who are doing the analysis about what these--what we allshould interpret these results; and, certainly, depending on where you are, you probably, maybe, come to certain different interpretations. But some of what I heard this morning from a Democrat analyst was that this is evidence that the Democratic Party needs to double down on the big, reckless tax-and-spending bill because people who voted in Virginia and New Jersey last night didn't know what was in it, and when they find out all the good things that are in it, they are going to love this and they are going to want to support Democrats. And I have to say I think that completely misses the point. I think what people are saying is they don't want to hand the keys to their lives to Washington, DC. This massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree that is being contemplated here by Senate Democrats is historic in its sweep, its expansion, its growth of government, its cost, its pricetag, and it is historic in terms of the amount of taxation that will be put on the backs of the American people in order to pay for it. And I think what happened last night was a repudiation. It was repudiations of the nanny state and its belief that Washington knows best and that we should get people in this country more dependent upon Washington, DC. I think what the American people are saying is: We don't want to be more dependent on Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to let us live our lives and to focus on the things that are really important to us. And I think that the issues that were important yesterday had a lot to do with schools and kids and parents and whether or not they feel like they have control over their children's futures and what they learn in schools. I think it had to do with the economic future that people were looking out as they envision the future for them, for their kids and their grandkids, and they are looking at how stretched their incomes now are because of this growth and inflation. They are spending more on gasoline. They are spending more, as we head into the winter months, to heat their homes. They are spending more on food. They are spending more on housing. Literally everything in their world that they spend money on is going up, meaning their incomes are stretched thinner and thinner. So I believe that what people were saying last night is: We don't want more Washington government and less freedom. We want less Washington government and more freedom. And I think that resounded across the Commonwealth of Virginia and across New Jersey. And I would suggest that the takeaway for Democrats here in Washington should be not we are going to double down, we are going to spend--we are going to ram through in a partisan way this massive tax-and-spending bill; but, rather, let's pull back. Let's see what is happening out there in the economy. Let's see how it is affecting the average American worker and the average American family and the average American small business, and perhaps head in a slightly different direction that doesn't involve taking more taxes out of our economy and increasing inflation by flooding the zone with more government spending and, therefore, creating higher and higher inflation and ultimately making things more expensive for the American people to where they look at their personal financial situation and realize how much just the cost of inflation is impacting their family budgets on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis. That, to me, should be the takeaway coming out of this because I certainly don't believe in any respect that it wasn't that the American people didn't know what is in this massive tax-and-spending bill; rather, it is that they do know. They are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out that these are a lot of--there is a whole ton of spending in here. And, honestly, you have to be pretty darn creative to figure out how to spend $3\1/2\ to $4 trillion, and there is a ton of taxing that goes with it. And there was a study that came out yesterday from Penn Wharton, which suggested that this massive and reckless tax-and-spending bill actually runs over a $2 trillion deficit over the 10-year period. If you look at the window, what it says is it is going to cost $3.9 trillion. This is based on the text that is currently available. And the taxes that are proposed to be raised generate about $1.5 trillion in revenue; therefore, a $2.4 trillion addition to the Federal debt, which is already, as we know, at the $30 trillion range and growing, literally, by the day. So I would simply suggest to my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle that the message coming out of these elections is not ``We want more government for the American people. We want more dependence upon Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to do more things for us;'' but, rather, ``We want Washington, DC, to get out of the way, quit trying to run our lives, and create the conditions that are favorable for economic growth and job creation and higher wages so that we can take care of our families, rather than having to depend upon Washington, DC, to do it.'' I hope that this will be the resounding message we need to defeat this massive tax-and-spending bill and allow the American people the freedom they need to lead their lives and to have better opportunities for them, for their kids, and for their grandkids--and better wages. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote coming up here, so I will yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7690-3 | null | 3,458 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Elections Mr. President, there is a lot of interpretation about what happened in these off-year elections last night. Obviously, the results in two traditionally Democrat-leaning States are causing people to speculate about what it all means. And I listened to some of the analysis, and there are lots of armchair quarterbacks who are doing the analysis about what these--what we allshould interpret these results; and, certainly, depending on where you are, you probably, maybe, come to certain different interpretations. But some of what I heard this morning from a Democrat analyst was that this is evidence that the Democratic Party needs to double down on the big, reckless tax-and-spending bill because people who voted in Virginia and New Jersey last night didn't know what was in it, and when they find out all the good things that are in it, they are going to love this and they are going to want to support Democrats. And I have to say I think that completely misses the point. I think what people are saying is they don't want to hand the keys to their lives to Washington, DC. This massive, reckless tax-and-spending spree that is being contemplated here by Senate Democrats is historic in its sweep, its expansion, its growth of government, its cost, its pricetag, and it is historic in terms of the amount of taxation that will be put on the backs of the American people in order to pay for it. And I think what happened last night was a repudiation. It was repudiations of the nanny state and its belief that Washington knows best and that we should get people in this country more dependent upon Washington, DC. I think what the American people are saying is: We don't want to be more dependent on Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to let us live our lives and to focus on the things that are really important to us. And I think that the issues that were important yesterday had a lot to do with schools and kids and parents and whether or not they feel like they have control over their children's futures and what they learn in schools. I think it had to do with the economic future that people were looking out as they envision the future for them, for their kids and their grandkids, and they are looking at how stretched their incomes now are because of this growth and inflation. They are spending more on gasoline. They are spending more, as we head into the winter months, to heat their homes. They are spending more on food. They are spending more on housing. Literally everything in their world that they spend money on is going up, meaning their incomes are stretched thinner and thinner. So I believe that what people were saying last night is: We don't want more Washington government and less freedom. We want less Washington government and more freedom. And I think that resounded across the Commonwealth of Virginia and across New Jersey. And I would suggest that the takeaway for Democrats here in Washington should be not we are going to double down, we are going to spend--we are going to ram through in a partisan way this massive tax-and-spending bill; but, rather, let's pull back. Let's see what is happening out there in the economy. Let's see how it is affecting the average American worker and the average American family and the average American small business, and perhaps head in a slightly different direction that doesn't involve taking more taxes out of our economy and increasing inflation by flooding the zone with more government spending and, therefore, creating higher and higher inflation and ultimately making things more expensive for the American people to where they look at their personal financial situation and realize how much just the cost of inflation is impacting their family budgets on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis. That, to me, should be the takeaway coming out of this because I certainly don't believe in any respect that it wasn't that the American people didn't know what is in this massive tax-and-spending bill; rather, it is that they do know. They are finding out what is in it, and they are finding out that these are a lot of--there is a whole ton of spending in here. And, honestly, you have to be pretty darn creative to figure out how to spend $3\1/2\ to $4 trillion, and there is a ton of taxing that goes with it. And there was a study that came out yesterday from Penn Wharton, which suggested that this massive and reckless tax-and-spending bill actually runs over a $2 trillion deficit over the 10-year period. If you look at the window, what it says is it is going to cost $3.9 trillion. This is based on the text that is currently available. And the taxes that are proposed to be raised generate about $1.5 trillion in revenue; therefore, a $2.4 trillion addition to the Federal debt, which is already, as we know, at the $30 trillion range and growing, literally, by the day. So I would simply suggest to my colleagues here on the other side of the aisle that the message coming out of these elections is not ``We want more government for the American people. We want more dependence upon Washington, DC. We want Washington, DC, to do more things for us;'' but, rather, ``We want Washington, DC, to get out of the way, quit trying to run our lives, and create the conditions that are favorable for economic growth and job creation and higher wages so that we can take care of our families, rather than having to depend upon Washington, DC, to do it.'' I hope that this will be the resounding message we need to defeat this massive tax-and-spending bill and allow the American people the freedom they need to lead their lives and to have better opportunities for them, for their kids, and for their grandkids--and better wages. Mr. President, I understand we have a vote coming up here, so I will yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7690-3 | null | 3,459 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Voting Laws Mr. President, now on one final matter, practically every single week, Senate Democrats make another attempt at grabbing new power over America's elections. Remember, a giant partisan power grab over voting procedures in every county and State was Democrats' ceremonial first priority of this whole Congress. They revealed their mission from the very start. That first proposal would have sent Federal funds to political campaigns; overridden commonsense State rules, like voter ID; and even changed the Federal Election Commission itself from a neutral referee into a partisan body. It was so bad--so bad--that even the New York Times called it a flawed bill that was ``designed to fail.'' That is, of course, exactly what happened here in the Senate, but the Democrats tipped their hand right from the start. They gave away the entire game. So every time that Washington Democrats make a few changes around the margins and come back for more bites at the same apple, we know exactly what they are trying to do. Many of the go-nowhere bills that the Democratic leader has used for political theater had Congress essentially appointing itself--itself--the Board of Elections on steroids for every county and State in America. Congress was going to micromanage elections to a degree with no precedent. This new version, today's episode in this ongoing series, is only slightly different. Rather than congressional Democrats trying to grab all the power for themselves, they are instead trying to pull off the power grab on behalf of the Democratic Attorney General. Instead of Washington Democrats and the legislative branch seizing power over elections in the country, it will be Washington Democrats and the executive branch doing the same thing--a slightly different twist on the same concept, but for the same partisan reasons, with the same basic problems. In order to let Attorney General Garland dictate voting procedures, Democrats want to overturn Supreme Court precedent. Our colleagues' flimsy arguments keep losing in court, so they are now trying to overturn the courts. When States cracked down on the absurd practice of ballot harvesting, Democrats ran to the courts, claiming discrimination, and lost. When liberals wanted to kill voter ID laws--which are popular with majorities of Black Americans and Hispanic Americans, by the way--they ran to the courts. What happened? They lost. When the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that one part--just one part--of the 40-year-old Voting Rights Act needed updating, the radical left said the sky was falling and voter turnout would collapse. Well, of course, the opposite happened. Turnout in 2020 was the highest since 1900. In one recent poll--listen to this--94 percent of voters say voting is easy. Ninety-four percent of voters say voting is easy, and, of course, it is. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act is still in effect. The courts haven't struck down that law. It is simply false to suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court simply ruled that there was no evidence--no evidence--supporting the continuation of 40-year-old practices that were designed in the mid-1960s to address the specific challenges back then. There is nothing--nothing--to suggest a sprawling Federal takeover is necessary. Nationalizing our elections is just a multidecade Democratic Party goal in constant search of a justification. Their rationales change constantly, but the end goal never does. Americans don't need Attorney General Garland ruling over their States' and their counties' elections any more than they need congressional Democrats doing it themselves. So the Senate will reject this go-nowhere bill today, like we have rejected every other piece of fruit from the same poisonous tree. This body has real business we should be tackling. The Defense authorization bill is months behind schedule. The majority has been derelict in allowing bipartisan progress on appropriations. These are things we need to be doing. Every designed-to-fail political showboat comes at the expense of the things that we ought to be working on. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7690 | null | 3,460 |
formal | steroids | null | transphobic | Voting Laws Mr. President, now on one final matter, practically every single week, Senate Democrats make another attempt at grabbing new power over America's elections. Remember, a giant partisan power grab over voting procedures in every county and State was Democrats' ceremonial first priority of this whole Congress. They revealed their mission from the very start. That first proposal would have sent Federal funds to political campaigns; overridden commonsense State rules, like voter ID; and even changed the Federal Election Commission itself from a neutral referee into a partisan body. It was so bad--so bad--that even the New York Times called it a flawed bill that was ``designed to fail.'' That is, of course, exactly what happened here in the Senate, but the Democrats tipped their hand right from the start. They gave away the entire game. So every time that Washington Democrats make a few changes around the margins and come back for more bites at the same apple, we know exactly what they are trying to do. Many of the go-nowhere bills that the Democratic leader has used for political theater had Congress essentially appointing itself--itself--the Board of Elections on steroids for every county and State in America. Congress was going to micromanage elections to a degree with no precedent. This new version, today's episode in this ongoing series, is only slightly different. Rather than congressional Democrats trying to grab all the power for themselves, they are instead trying to pull off the power grab on behalf of the Democratic Attorney General. Instead of Washington Democrats and the legislative branch seizing power over elections in the country, it will be Washington Democrats and the executive branch doing the same thing--a slightly different twist on the same concept, but for the same partisan reasons, with the same basic problems. In order to let Attorney General Garland dictate voting procedures, Democrats want to overturn Supreme Court precedent. Our colleagues' flimsy arguments keep losing in court, so they are now trying to overturn the courts. When States cracked down on the absurd practice of ballot harvesting, Democrats ran to the courts, claiming discrimination, and lost. When liberals wanted to kill voter ID laws--which are popular with majorities of Black Americans and Hispanic Americans, by the way--they ran to the courts. What happened? They lost. When the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that one part--just one part--of the 40-year-old Voting Rights Act needed updating, the radical left said the sky was falling and voter turnout would collapse. Well, of course, the opposite happened. Turnout in 2020 was the highest since 1900. In one recent poll--listen to this--94 percent of voters say voting is easy. Ninety-four percent of voters say voting is easy, and, of course, it is. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act is still in effect. The courts haven't struck down that law. It is simply false to suggest otherwise. The Supreme Court simply ruled that there was no evidence--no evidence--supporting the continuation of 40-year-old practices that were designed in the mid-1960s to address the specific challenges back then. There is nothing--nothing--to suggest a sprawling Federal takeover is necessary. Nationalizing our elections is just a multidecade Democratic Party goal in constant search of a justification. Their rationales change constantly, but the end goal never does. Americans don't need Attorney General Garland ruling over their States' and their counties' elections any more than they need congressional Democrats doing it themselves. So the Senate will reject this go-nowhere bill today, like we have rejected every other piece of fruit from the same poisonous tree. This body has real business we should be tackling. The Defense authorization bill is months behind schedule. The majority has been derelict in allowing bipartisan progress on appropriations. These are things we need to be doing. Every designed-to-fail political showboat comes at the expense of the things that we ought to be working on. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7690 | null | 3,461 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Madam President, I also rise today before this really crucial vote because I want to make it clear that Democrats are not done on the issue of voting rights. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, whose remarks we should all listen to because we do have some who are repeatedly preventing us from even debating voting rights legislation; most recently the Freedom to Vote Act. I want everybody to know we are not done fighting to ensure that every person in this country has equal and fair access to the ballot. We are not done because the cause we are fighting for here today is a just one and Americans want to see us protect their right to vote, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act does exactly that. This bill will restore and strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which is one of the most important bills in our Nation's history. It was a bipartisan rejection of racist attempts by States to deny the ballot to people of color, and it came after years of dedicated work by activists and lawmakers, including the late, honorable Congressman Lewis, who were and are intent on ensuring our country followed through on our Nation's most fundamental promise to its citizens: the promise that every United States citizen has an equal voice in our elections. For most of the decades following its passage, the provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act have enjoyed bipartisan support. But in recent years, the power and protections of this crucial law have been gutted, and far-right legislators in States across our country are now passing laws that make it harder for communities of color to vote, all based on baseless claims about voter fraud and rigged elections. It is shameful and it really is anti-democratic, and it should be bigger than partisan politics. We should be able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass a Federal prohibition on laws that restrict the right to vote based on race. Protecting each citizen's right to have a voice in our democracy should be as noncontroversial as naming post offices, because the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and attempts to weaken it weaken the foundation that we all depend on. Those are the stakes here: the foundation and future of our democracy. Without equal access to the ballot, how will people tell us what they want to see on most challenging questions of our time, like climate or healthcare or education or so much more? So even if many of my Republican colleagues disagree with me about the provisions included in this bill, they should at least allow us to move forward on a debate. If they have good-faith ideas how to protect every American's voice in our democracy, we are all ears. But we will need more than one or two Republicans in order to be able to have that debate on the floor and offer amendments. And if we can't get there, I think we need to be clear. As Congressman Lewis said: ``Nothing can stop the power of a committed and determined people to make a difference in our society.'' To the people of my home State of Washington and to the country: My Democratic colleagues and I are committed and determined to pass strong voting rights legislation. And we can't keep bringing these bills to the floor only for Republicans to block even a debate. We need to use every legislative tool needed to get the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to President Biden's desk. Whatever we have got to do to pass voting rights, if it means an exemption to the filibuster, then I believe we should do it. This cannot wait. Passing strong Federal voting rights protections into law will be the most important work this Congress does. We cannot let a Senate procedure stop us from protecting the right to vote in the United States of America. Let's make sure our democracy stays a democracy, and let's pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, whatever it takes. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7700-2 | null | 3,462 |
formal | rigged election | null | racist | John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Madam President, I also rise today before this really crucial vote because I want to make it clear that Democrats are not done on the issue of voting rights. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, whose remarks we should all listen to because we do have some who are repeatedly preventing us from even debating voting rights legislation; most recently the Freedom to Vote Act. I want everybody to know we are not done fighting to ensure that every person in this country has equal and fair access to the ballot. We are not done because the cause we are fighting for here today is a just one and Americans want to see us protect their right to vote, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act does exactly that. This bill will restore and strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which is one of the most important bills in our Nation's history. It was a bipartisan rejection of racist attempts by States to deny the ballot to people of color, and it came after years of dedicated work by activists and lawmakers, including the late, honorable Congressman Lewis, who were and are intent on ensuring our country followed through on our Nation's most fundamental promise to its citizens: the promise that every United States citizen has an equal voice in our elections. For most of the decades following its passage, the provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act have enjoyed bipartisan support. But in recent years, the power and protections of this crucial law have been gutted, and far-right legislators in States across our country are now passing laws that make it harder for communities of color to vote, all based on baseless claims about voter fraud and rigged elections. It is shameful and it really is anti-democratic, and it should be bigger than partisan politics. We should be able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass a Federal prohibition on laws that restrict the right to vote based on race. Protecting each citizen's right to have a voice in our democracy should be as noncontroversial as naming post offices, because the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and attempts to weaken it weaken the foundation that we all depend on. Those are the stakes here: the foundation and future of our democracy. Without equal access to the ballot, how will people tell us what they want to see on most challenging questions of our time, like climate or healthcare or education or so much more? So even if many of my Republican colleagues disagree with me about the provisions included in this bill, they should at least allow us to move forward on a debate. If they have good-faith ideas how to protect every American's voice in our democracy, we are all ears. But we will need more than one or two Republicans in order to be able to have that debate on the floor and offer amendments. And if we can't get there, I think we need to be clear. As Congressman Lewis said: ``Nothing can stop the power of a committed and determined people to make a difference in our society.'' To the people of my home State of Washington and to the country: My Democratic colleagues and I are committed and determined to pass strong voting rights legislation. And we can't keep bringing these bills to the floor only for Republicans to block even a debate. We need to use every legislative tool needed to get the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to President Biden's desk. Whatever we have got to do to pass voting rights, if it means an exemption to the filibuster, then I believe we should do it. This cannot wait. Passing strong Federal voting rights protections into law will be the most important work this Congress does. We cannot let a Senate procedure stop us from protecting the right to vote in the United States of America. Let's make sure our democracy stays a democracy, and let's pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, whatever it takes. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7700-2 | null | 3,463 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act Madam President, I also rise today before this really crucial vote because I want to make it clear that Democrats are not done on the issue of voting rights. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Murkowski, from Alaska, whose remarks we should all listen to because we do have some who are repeatedly preventing us from even debating voting rights legislation; most recently the Freedom to Vote Act. I want everybody to know we are not done fighting to ensure that every person in this country has equal and fair access to the ballot. We are not done because the cause we are fighting for here today is a just one and Americans want to see us protect their right to vote, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act does exactly that. This bill will restore and strengthen the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which is one of the most important bills in our Nation's history. It was a bipartisan rejection of racist attempts by States to deny the ballot to people of color, and it came after years of dedicated work by activists and lawmakers, including the late, honorable Congressman Lewis, who were and are intent on ensuring our country followed through on our Nation's most fundamental promise to its citizens: the promise that every United States citizen has an equal voice in our elections. For most of the decades following its passage, the provisions in the 1965 Voting Rights Act have enjoyed bipartisan support. But in recent years, the power and protections of this crucial law have been gutted, and far-right legislators in States across our country are now passing laws that make it harder for communities of color to vote, all based on baseless claims about voter fraud and rigged elections. It is shameful and it really is anti-democratic, and it should be bigger than partisan politics. We should be able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass a Federal prohibition on laws that restrict the right to vote based on race. Protecting each citizen's right to have a voice in our democracy should be as noncontroversial as naming post offices, because the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, and attempts to weaken it weaken the foundation that we all depend on. Those are the stakes here: the foundation and future of our democracy. Without equal access to the ballot, how will people tell us what they want to see on most challenging questions of our time, like climate or healthcare or education or so much more? So even if many of my Republican colleagues disagree with me about the provisions included in this bill, they should at least allow us to move forward on a debate. If they have good-faith ideas how to protect every American's voice in our democracy, we are all ears. But we will need more than one or two Republicans in order to be able to have that debate on the floor and offer amendments. And if we can't get there, I think we need to be clear. As Congressman Lewis said: ``Nothing can stop the power of a committed and determined people to make a difference in our society.'' To the people of my home State of Washington and to the country: My Democratic colleagues and I are committed and determined to pass strong voting rights legislation. And we can't keep bringing these bills to the floor only for Republicans to block even a debate. We need to use every legislative tool needed to get the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to President Biden's desk. Whatever we have got to do to pass voting rights, if it means an exemption to the filibuster, then I believe we should do it. This cannot wait. Passing strong Federal voting rights protections into law will be the most important work this Congress does. We cannot let a Senate procedure stop us from protecting the right to vote in the United States of America. Let's make sure our democracy stays a democracy, and let's pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, whatever it takes. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7700-2 | null | 3,464 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Community Health Centers of Burlington for 50 years of extraordinary service. Today, the Community Health Centers of Burlington--CHCB--is the second largest federally qualified health center--FQHC--in Vermont, serving over 30,000 patients at eight locations. Fifty years ago, when they opened their doors in 1971 as the People's Free Clinic in a small storefront in Burlington's Old North End, the center was run by volunteers and served just 50 patients each week. And while they have grown tremendously since those early days, CHCB has maintained a commitment to what the founders of the clinic at the time described as ``a new kind of health care,'' rooted in the understanding that people from all walks of life deserves high quality, affordable healthcare. In 1989, CHCB was designated as a federal Healthcare for the Homeless site and, in 1993, officially became an FQHC. Becoming an FQHC meant CHCB was able to access important grants from the Federal Government, improvement reimbursement rate for care, and offer a sliding fee scale, so no one would be turned away because they could not afford the care they needed. But let me be clear: Health centers like CHCB are not exclusively for those who have nowhere else to go. For many people living in the Burlington area and across Vermont, community health centers like CHCB are the provider of choice because they provide timely access to high-quality care in community-centered clinics. In fact, today, approximately one-third of all CHCB patients are covered by private health insurance. Another reason that FQHCs are so popular and used by so many people in Vermont and across the country is that they also offer dental care. CHCB first added dental services into its main site in 2004, and today, 7000 patients receive dental care at one of three CHCB locations. Further, in addition to offering primary care and oral healthcare, FQHCs also offer mental healthcare and substance use disorder treatment, as well as low-cost prescription drugs. It is clear why nearly one-in-three Vermonters rely on FQHCs like CHCB for their care. In 2012, the Community Health Centers of Burlington was able to utilize funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to renovate its main location, known as the Riverside Health Center, allowing for updated patient care rooms; laboratory space; dental operatories; and integrated psychiatry, counseling, and substance usedisorder treatment. Understanding that many Vermonters outside of the Burlington area struggled to access affordable care, CHCB established a rural practice in the Champlain Islands. The health center also expanded into Winooski in 2017, in partnership with Winooski Family Health. But CHCB's expansion is not simply about growing the number of locations. They have also continued to expand the services offered, including ensuring they can offer culturally competent care to the growing New American community. Today, CHCB offers translation services to over 45 languages at their sites, making care not just affordable but understandable to all who need it. The Community Health Centers of Burlington is an excellent example of why federally qualified health centers are so important. To my mind, there is no question that healthcare is a human right and health centers like CHCB play an enormously important role in making sure that no one is denied care because of their income. That is why I have continually fought to protect and expand Federal funding for community health centers throughout my time in Congress. I am proud that during the negotiations of the Affordable Care Act, I was successful in securing mandatory funding for these health centers, knowing that they would be better served by knowing that they could rely on funding for the Federal Government for years to come. I have continued to fight for funding for FHQCs during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, knowing how critical they are to keeping patients healthy and connected to their communities during these extremely challenging times. I am grateful to all of my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives who have joined me in this effort throughout the years. To the staff of CHCB, I want to say that I know that your hard work and dedication is at the heart of CHCB's success. I know it is not always easy to work in primary care, and I am grateful for your efforts. And to the patients who rely on CHCB each year, know that I am glad you have entrusted your care to them and that I will do everything in my power to ensure they are there to care for you for decades to come. And as you take time to celebrate your many successes over the past 50 years, I know you are also looking toward the opportunities and challenges that lay ahead for the future. I look forward to continuing to work with you to tackle the challenges, like further expanding access and care, reducing costs, and recruiting and retaining a talented workforce dedicated to primary care. I will also stand with you as you find new opportunities for success and growth. While the issues we face are enormous, I know that community health centers like CHCB are a key to solving them. I sincerely congratulate the entire Community Health Centers of Burlington family on this momentous occasion and wish you another 50 years of delivering compassionate, professional, and innovative healthcare services to your fellow Vermonters. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7716-2 | null | 3,465 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 108. An act to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain land, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House--has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1975. An act 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. H.R. 2088. An act to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes. H.R. 3462. An act to require an annual report on the cybersecurity of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. H.R. 3469. An act to amend the Small Business Act to codify the Boots to Business Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 3616. An act 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. H.R. 4256. An act to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small business investment companies, subject to the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes. H.R. 4481. An act to amend the Small Business Act to establish requirements for 7(a) agents, and for other purposes. H.R. 4515. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require cyber certification for small business development center counselors, and for other purposes. H.R. 4531. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require a report on 7(a) agents, and for other purposes. H.R. 4881. An act 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. H.R. 5221. An act to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services, and for other purposes. enrolled bills signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy) announced that on today, November 3, 2021, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker of the House: S. 921. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to further protect officers and employees of the United States, and for other purposes. S. 1502. An act to make Federal law enforcement officer peer support communications confidential, 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 | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7717-3 | null | 3,466 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 108. An act to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain land, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House--has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1975. An act 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. H.R. 2088. An act to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes. H.R. 3462. An act to require an annual report on the cybersecurity of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. H.R. 3469. An act to amend the Small Business Act to codify the Boots to Business Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 3616. An act 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. H.R. 4256. An act to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small business investment companies, subject to the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes. H.R. 4481. An act to amend the Small Business Act to establish requirements for 7(a) agents, and for other purposes. H.R. 4515. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require cyber certification for small business development center counselors, and for other purposes. H.R. 4531. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require a report on 7(a) agents, and for other purposes. H.R. 4881. An act 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. H.R. 5221. An act to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services, and for other purposes. enrolled bills signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy) announced that on today, November 3, 2021, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker of the House: S. 921. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to further protect officers and employees of the United States, and for other purposes. S. 1502. An act to make Federal law enforcement officer peer support communications confidential, 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 | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7717-3 | null | 3,467 |
formal | urban | null | racist | At 11:08 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 108. An act to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain land, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House--has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1975. An act 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. H.R. 2088. An act to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes. H.R. 3462. An act to require an annual report on the cybersecurity of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes. H.R. 3469. An act to amend the Small Business Act to codify the Boots to Business Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 3616. An act 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. H.R. 4256. An act to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small business investment companies, subject to the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes. H.R. 4481. An act to amend the Small Business Act to establish requirements for 7(a) agents, and for other purposes. H.R. 4515. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require cyber certification for small business development center counselors, and for other purposes. H.R. 4531. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require a report on 7(a) agents, and for other purposes. H.R. 4881. An act 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. H.R. 5221. An act to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services, and for other purposes. enrolled bills signed The President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy) announced that on today, November 3, 2021, he has signed the following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker of the House: S. 921. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to further protect officers and employees of the United States, and for other purposes. S. 1502. An act to make Federal law enforcement officer peer support communications confidential, 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 | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7717-3 | null | 3,468 |
formal | urban | null | racist | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1975. An act 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; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. H.R. 2088. An act to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. H.R. 3462. An act to require an annual report on the cybersecurity of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. H.R. 3469. An act to amend the Small Business Act to codify the Boots to Business Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. H.R. 3616. An act 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; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 4256. An act to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small business investment companies, subject to the approval of the appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 4481. An act to amend the Small Business Act to establish requirements for 7(a) agents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. H.R. 4515. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require cyber certification for small business development center counselors, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. H.R. 4531. An act to amend the Small Business Act to require a report on 7(a) agents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. H.R. 4881. An act 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; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. H.R. 5221. An act to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and Human Services; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7717-4 | null | 3,469 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on environment and public works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on a nomination. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a classified briefing. committee on homeland security and governmental affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on veterans' affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KAINE | Senate | CREC-2021-11-03-pt1-PgS7760-2 | null | 3,470 |
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. 1917) to modify eligibility requirements for certain hazard mitigation assistance programs, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6195 | null | 3,471 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentlewoman and the gentleman from Ohio, the whole number of the House is 434. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6197-2 | null | 3,472 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1339) to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility interagency working group, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6197-3 | null | 3,473 |
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. 3193) to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for a high-speed broadband deployment initiative, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6198 | null | 3,474 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schrier). 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. 3709) 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schrier) | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6199 | null | 3,475 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schrier). 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. 3709) 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Schrier) | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6199 | null | 3,476 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 390) to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6200-2 | null | 3,477 |
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. 390) to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6200-2 | null | 3,478 |
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. 2220) 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, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6200 | null | 3,479 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4679) to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6201 | null | 3,480 |
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. 4679) to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6201 | null | 3,481 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of Maryland). 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. 4660) 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'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown of Maryland) | House | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgH6202-2 | null | 3,482 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to expand on my tribute to former Iowa Congressman Neal Smith. As I said yesterday, he was a true public servant, interested in doing right by his State rather than seeking self-aggrandizement. He was a real legislator, not a would-be pundit seeking the spotlight. These are attributes that make him a role model, and I feel lucky to have been mentored by him. When I was elected, I was the only Republican in the Iowa delegation. He didn't care that I was of a different party. He knew we both had our political views, but we were both there to represent the state we love. I will never forget his kindness in taking me under wing. Neal Smith is a legend in Iowa, as evidenced by the fact that his name is attached to several Iowa institutions, including the Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge, which he was instrumental in establishing, the Neal Smith Trail, the Neal Smith Federal Building in Des Moines, which I helped to name after him with Senator Harkin, and the Neal and Bea Smith Law Center at their alma mater, Drake University. His legislative legacy includes a long stint as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. Neal Smith was instrumental in creating Lake Red Rock, Saylorville Lake, and Lake Rathbun, which help protect Iowans from flooding, serve as reservoirs, and provide recreational opportunities for Iowans. He also authored legislation to help small businesses after a disaster and legislation helping small businesses with federal government contracts. Perhaps his most prominent legislative accomplishment was passing legislation combatting nepotism in the Federal Government. Neal Smith served in World War II as a bomber pilot, was shot down, and received a Purple Heart, as well as other medals. He and his wife Bea attended Drake University Law School together. When they graduated, she was offered less than him for the same job with the same firm despite her having had better grades, so he turned down the job and opened a practice with her. He soon entered public service locally, serving as assistant Polk County attorney and as chairman of the Polk County Welfare Board. In 1958, Neal Smith was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served for 36 years, longer than any other Iowan has served in the U.S. House. Even though he represented Iowa's largest metropolitan area, he came from a farm background like me and continued to farm near Altoona during his time in office. I remember him as a strong defender of agriculture. I value the friendship I had with Neal Smith starting as a freshmen Congressman and continuing through his time after leaving Congress. Again, I pay tribute to this humble public servant. Barbara and I will continue to remember his family in our prayers. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgS7784-5 | null | 3,483 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the esteemed legacy of my friend, Arne Sorenson, who passed away earlier this year. Arne's many accomplishments in his personal and professional life continue to profoundly impact the lives of many. Most recently, Arne's Marriott family, numbering over 120,000 employees, witnessed his high-caliber leadership as he navigated the company through a turbulent period in the hospitality industry. Arne was a faithful and compassionate servant leader, and I will always cherish his friendship. Arne's contagious spirit of kindness and generosity sets a high standard for what success looks like, in both public and private life. As a business executive, he cared deeply for his employees and customers and continued to serve as president and CEO while privately persevering through extraordinary health challenges. His selfless leadership is an example we can all aspire to. The culture he helped build and foster at Marriott is unmatched. Arne's decades of experience in the hospitality industry yielded outstanding results for his enterprise, notably the acquisition of over 30 hotel groups, elevating Marriott to be the largest hotel chain in the world. His humility and wisdom often carried the day. He consistently praised and recognized the achievements of his employees and partners and always sought feedback from friends, family, colleagues, and customers. Above all, Arne was a faithful and loving husband, father, and friend. His integrity and values-based decision making extended from the business world to the benefit of everyone lucky enough to have known him, especially his wonderful family. Arne's wife and four children were his greatest pride, joy, and purpose, and while they now mourn his loss, I hope they may find comfort knowing Arne's light will shine on for eternity. May he rest in peace. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. ROMNEY | Senate | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgS7787 | null | 3,484 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Risch) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Con Res. 20 Whereas the people of the Republic of Sudan suffered for three decades under the despotic rule of President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, whose government was responsible for the suppression of civil liberties, grand corruption, support for international terrorism, and the commission of crimes against humanity and genocide; Whereas, throughout 2019, a coalition of Sudanese civic groups, including professional associations, labor unions, community groups, democracy activists, and opposition parties, led a mass protest movement to demand the end of Bashir's reign and the transition to democracy in Sudan; Whereas, on April 11, 2019, Sudanese military officers deposed Bashir, and, following continued protests, agreed to form a transitional government in partnership with a civilian pro-democracy coalition on July 17, 2019; Whereas, on June 3, 2019, Sudanese forces led by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), largely comprised of Janjaweed militia involved in genocidal campaigns across Darfur for decades, opened fire on protesters at an army command headquarters in Khartoum, killing at least 127 people, at least 40 of whom were found in the Nile River; Whereas the military and civilian elements agreed to a 39- month transition to democracy, with a Civilian-Led Transitional Government (CLTG) comprised of a predominantly civilian cabinet led by Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok, a Sovereign Council, an executive body with civilian and military members chaired for the first half of the transitional period by Lieutenant General Abdel Fattah al- Burhan, and a Transitional Legislative Council, which has yet to be formed; Whereas the United States and the international community supported Sudan's transition to democracy, with the United States identifying more than $1,000,000,000 in foreign assistance, and the multilateral Friends of Sudan group pledging $1,800,000,000 from roughly 50 countries and international organizations; Whereas the CLTG made progress in human rights reforms, including guaranteeing the people of Sudan freedom of religion and gender equality under the transitional constitution, banning female genital mutilation, and decriminalizing apostasy; Whereas, in August 2021, when the Sudanese Cabinet ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the CLTG made progress towards ending impunity for abusers of human rights, stating its intention to deliver Omar al-Bashir to the ICC to stand trial for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and formed civilian committees to investigate corruption and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Bashir regime; Whereas the transitional government negotiated a peace agreement with several rebel groups, a step towards ending decades of conflict in the regions of Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile, which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and left more than 3,000,000 people displaced within Sudan; Whereas Sudan continues to face a serious humanitarian situation, with an estimated 13,400,000 people, or 29 percent of the population, in need of humanitarian assistance in 2021; Whereas Sudan faces a severe economic crisis, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused the price of food and consumer goods to increase significantly, while austerity measures imposed to stabilize the economy resulted in the reduction or elimination of subsidies for commodities including wheat and fuel; Whereas the political tensions between the civilian and military elements and within factions of the civilian coalition undermined the CLTG and contributed to widespread unrest within the Sudanese population relating to a range of issues, including the economic crisis, ethnic and tribal conflict in peripheral regions, and the unsatisfactory pace of reforms; Whereas, on September 21, 2021, some members of the military reportedly attempted a coup d'etat against the transitional government, which failed to depose the government but succeeded in precipitating the most serious political crisis of the transition period; Whereas, on October 21, 2021, hundreds of thousands of people across Sudan demonstrated in support of democratic civilian rule, to counter a smaller protest days prior demanding the military take complete control of the government; Whereas, on October 25, 2021, Lieutenant General Burhan, with the support of General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as ``Hemedti'', seized control of the government, deployed the military to the streets of Khartoum and Omdurman, and arrested and detained Prime Minister Hamdok and other civilian officials; Whereas the African Union Peace and Security Council convened on October 27, 2021, strongly condemned the coup, reaffirmed the mandate of the CLTG, and subsequently suspended Sudan from the regional body ``with immediate effect. . . until the effective restoration'' of the CLTG; Whereas the actions of Lieutenant General Burhan and the Sudanese military violate Sudan's Constitutional Charter and threaten to plunge Sudan into isolation and instability; Whereas the United States Government publicly condemned the coup, suspended its foreign assistance to Sudan, and urged Lieutenant General Burhan and his accomplices to restore the CLTG and return Sudan to the path to democracy; and Whereas, the Troika (the United States, United Kingdom, Norway), the European Union, and Switzerland ``continue to recognize the Prime Minister and his cabinet as the constitutional leaders of the transitional government'' and ``confirm once again the international calls for the immediate return to the roadmap for democratic transition of Sudan'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) condemns the October 25, 2021, coup in Sudan; (2) stands with the people of Sudan in their democratic aspirations; (3) recognizes the Prime Minister and his cabinet as the constitutional leaders of Sudan's transitional government; (4) calls for Sudan's military junta to-- (A) immediately release all civilian government officials, civil society members, and other individuals detained in connection with the coup; (B) return to constitutional rule under the transitional constitution as the starting point for negotiations with civilians toward full civilian rule; (C) lift the state of emergency, including complete restoration of all means of communication; (D) remove all roadblocks and checkpoints, and order the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and RSF to stand down and comply with international recognized rules of engagement; (E) ensure security forces respect the right to peaceful protest and hold those who used excessive force and committed other abuses accountable in a transparent, credible process; (F) cease all attempts to change the civilian composition of the cabinet, Sovereign Council, and other government bodies; and (G) transfer leadership of the Sovereign Council to a civilian member of the Sovereign Council in keeping with the transitional constitution; (5) calls on the Secretary of State to-- (A) immediately identify coup leaders, their accomplices, and enablers for consideration for targeted sanctions; (B) urge junta leaders to return immediately to the rule of law as set forth by the transitional constitution; (C) monitor, discourage, and deter any effort by external parties to support the coup and the military junta; (D) coordinate with-- (i) the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development and other Federal Government agencies to pause all non-humanitarian bilateral assistance to Sudan until restoration of the transitional constitutional order; (ii) the Department of the Treasury to use the voice and vote of the United States in international financial institutions to suspend all actions related to non- humanitarian loans or debt relief to Sudan until restoration of the transitional constitutional order; and (iii) the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations to ensure the United Nations Security Council is seized of the matter on an ongoing basis; and (E) work with the Troika to engage members of the international community to join these United States actions; and (6) calls on international partners to-- (A) join United States efforts to impose targeted sanctions on the junta and other accomplices to the coup, monitor, discourage, and deter any effort by external parties to support the junta, and urge junta leaders to return to the rule of law as set forth by the transitional constitution; and (B) suspend Sudan's participation in all regional multilateral organizations until Sudan is returned to constitutional rule under the transitional constitution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgS7801 | null | 3,485 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the President's nominee to be Comptroller of the Currency and her recent comments on those of us who were asking questions about her background, because they are pretty outrageous, and I think it is time. In some ways, we need to put an end to this notion that you can't criticize someone for their ideas without being charged with things like, maybe, racism, which kind of gets me a little bit riled up, since I think I was one of the targets of her remarks. I have been down on the floor talking about some of the nominees that this administration has put forward. Some are so radical, far left. The ATF nominee was actually against the Second Amendment. He got withdrawn. The BLM Director was an ecoterrorist. She got voted in. Now she is in charge of 60 percent of my State--remarkable. I think a lot of Senators are going to regret that vote. And now we have a nominee to be the Comptroller of the Currency: Saule Omarova. She is charged with chartering, regulating, and supervising all national banks--a really important position, for a capitalist economy, in particular. There is a problem, though, Mr. President. It doesn't seem like she much likes banks or, for that matter, the free market or, for that matter, capitalism or the financial system in America. So Senators have been coming down to the floor and in committee, asking questions, doing our due diligence on this nominee. I want to commend Senator Toomey, in particular, who has been doing that, and I have been joining him. So I am going to talk a little bit more about her background and her ideas, which, by the way, have nothing to do with her race or her sex--nothing. I just want to know what her ideas are. So I am going to talk a little bit about that. A 1989 graduate of Moscow State University, where she received the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship--that is the Vladimir Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. And from what we know about her writings, yes, she was raised in a communist country. That is nothing against her. But sometimes you get notions of capitalism, socialism, communism, Marxism. And her writings are something that are of interest to the committee--certainly to me, certainly to Senator Toomey--about what she believes in terms of the financial system, socialism, communism. Here is what she tweeted in 2019, just 2 years ago: Until I came to the U.S., I couldn't imagine things like the gender pay gap still existed in today's world. Say what you want about the old USSR, but there was no pay gap there. Markets don't always work best. That is a tweet 2 years ago. Say what you want about the old USSR, about Stalin and Lenin and the roughly 100 million people killed during their reign. Say what you want about the old USSR, the famine, the human degradation, the ill-fated, violent attempts to snuff out freedom and liberty, there and all across the world. She clarified: I never claimed men and women were treated absolutely equal in every facet of the old Soviet Union. But people's salaries were set by the state in a gender-blind manner. Those things are still a pipe dream in American society. I mean, listen to her. This is just 2 years ago, still talking about the golden days of the USSR. There was gender equity, all right. Both sexes starved equally, and if you complained, you were sent to Siberia, regardless of if you were a man or a woman. But her nostalgia for socialist, communist policies doesn't end with pay disparities. She has advocated for expanding the Federal Reserve's mandate to include the Federal Reserve people's ledger she has written about--a people's ledger. By separating the lending function from the monetary function, the proposed reform that she has talked about will effectively ``end banking as we know it.'' This was written in 2014, as a professor. These are radical, radical ideas. These are ideas, and this person is supposed to be charged with being in charge of the financial system of America--capitalism. Some of us still believe in capitalism here. Some don't. But it is OK to question these ideas. She has put them out there. The ranking member of the banking committee has asked for a copy of her thesis. Now, every member going through confirmation in the Senate is supposed to give up any writings that she had. This used to be on her CV until a couple of years ago. Then she deleted it. It is called ``Karl Marx's Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital.'' So Senator Toomey has asked for that. She is required to give it. And, as of now--this is a letter I would like to have printed in the Record. This is October 5. Senator Toomey asked for this. She still hasn't responded and provided it. She is required to. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgS8055-4 | null | 3,486 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about the President's nominee to be Comptroller of the Currency and her recent comments on those of us who were asking questions about her background, because they are pretty outrageous, and I think it is time. In some ways, we need to put an end to this notion that you can't criticize someone for their ideas without being charged with things like, maybe, racism, which kind of gets me a little bit riled up, since I think I was one of the targets of her remarks. I have been down on the floor talking about some of the nominees that this administration has put forward. Some are so radical, far left. The ATF nominee was actually against the Second Amendment. He got withdrawn. The BLM Director was an ecoterrorist. She got voted in. Now she is in charge of 60 percent of my State--remarkable. I think a lot of Senators are going to regret that vote. And now we have a nominee to be the Comptroller of the Currency: Saule Omarova. She is charged with chartering, regulating, and supervising all national banks--a really important position, for a capitalist economy, in particular. There is a problem, though, Mr. President. It doesn't seem like she much likes banks or, for that matter, the free market or, for that matter, capitalism or the financial system in America. So Senators have been coming down to the floor and in committee, asking questions, doing our due diligence on this nominee. I want to commend Senator Toomey, in particular, who has been doing that, and I have been joining him. So I am going to talk a little bit more about her background and her ideas, which, by the way, have nothing to do with her race or her sex--nothing. I just want to know what her ideas are. So I am going to talk a little bit about that. A 1989 graduate of Moscow State University, where she received the Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship--that is the Vladimir Lenin Personal Academic Scholarship. And from what we know about her writings, yes, she was raised in a communist country. That is nothing against her. But sometimes you get notions of capitalism, socialism, communism, Marxism. And her writings are something that are of interest to the committee--certainly to me, certainly to Senator Toomey--about what she believes in terms of the financial system, socialism, communism. Here is what she tweeted in 2019, just 2 years ago: Until I came to the U.S., I couldn't imagine things like the gender pay gap still existed in today's world. Say what you want about the old USSR, but there was no pay gap there. Markets don't always work best. That is a tweet 2 years ago. Say what you want about the old USSR, about Stalin and Lenin and the roughly 100 million people killed during their reign. Say what you want about the old USSR, the famine, the human degradation, the ill-fated, violent attempts to snuff out freedom and liberty, there and all across the world. She clarified: I never claimed men and women were treated absolutely equal in every facet of the old Soviet Union. But people's salaries were set by the state in a gender-blind manner. Those things are still a pipe dream in American society. I mean, listen to her. This is just 2 years ago, still talking about the golden days of the USSR. There was gender equity, all right. Both sexes starved equally, and if you complained, you were sent to Siberia, regardless of if you were a man or a woman. But her nostalgia for socialist, communist policies doesn't end with pay disparities. She has advocated for expanding the Federal Reserve's mandate to include the Federal Reserve people's ledger she has written about--a people's ledger. By separating the lending function from the monetary function, the proposed reform that she has talked about will effectively ``end banking as we know it.'' This was written in 2014, as a professor. These are radical, radical ideas. These are ideas, and this person is supposed to be charged with being in charge of the financial system of America--capitalism. Some of us still believe in capitalism here. Some don't. But it is OK to question these ideas. She has put them out there. The ranking member of the banking committee has asked for a copy of her thesis. Now, every member going through confirmation in the Senate is supposed to give up any writings that she had. This used to be on her CV until a couple of years ago. Then she deleted it. It is called ``Karl Marx's Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in The Capital.'' So Senator Toomey has asked for that. She is required to give it. And, as of now--this is a letter I would like to have printed in the Record. This is October 5. Senator Toomey asked for this. She still hasn't responded and provided it. She is required to. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-11-04-pt1-PgS8055-4 | null | 3,487 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 774) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5376) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-11-05-pt1-PgH6232 | null | 3,488 |
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-2021-11-15-pt1-PgH6251-5 | null | 3,489 |
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-2649. A letter from the Amery Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Manufacture, Sale, Wear, and Quality Control of Heraldic Items [Docket ID: USA-2018-HQ-00160] (RIN: 0702-AA70) received November 4, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-2650. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Termination of Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Lead Acetate [Docket No. FDA-2017-C-1951] received November 1, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2651. A letter from the Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Office's interim final rule -- Access to Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) for Employees of Certain Tribally Controlled Schools (RIN: 3206-AO18) received September 28, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2652. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0263; Project Identifier AD-2020-01702-T; Amendment 39-21710; AD 2021-18- 09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2653. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0790; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01007-T; Amendment 39-21738; AD 2021-19- 20] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2654. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Rolls- Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA- 2021-0306; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01493-E; Amendment 39-21706; AD 2021-18-05] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2655. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0701; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00365-T; Amendment 39-21704; AD 2021-18-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2656. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Modification and Removal of Class E Airspace; South Lake Tahoe, CA [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0426; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AWP-14] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2657. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Courtland, AL [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0069; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-1] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2658. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Peebles and West Union, OH [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0471; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AGL-25] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2659. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Monroe, NC [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0529; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-18] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2660. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace: Port Huron, MI [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0235; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AGL-18] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2661. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Sac City, IA [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0160; Airspace Docket No.: 21- ACE-7] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2662. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Scott City, KS [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0159; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ACE-6] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2663. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment Class D and Class E Airspace; South Florida [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0169; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-3] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2664. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace: Standish, MI [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0277; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AGL-19] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2665. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Yoakum, TX [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0161; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASW-5] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received October 21, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-2666. A letter from the Federal Register Liaison Officer, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Modification of the Boundaries of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas [Docket No.: TTB-2020- 0007; T.D. TTB-172; Ref: Notice No. 192] (RIN: 1513-AC55) received September 28, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-2667. A letter from the Acting Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Gross receipts safe harbor under Sec. 448(c) and 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code for purposes of determining eligibility to claim the employee retention credit (Rev. Proc. 2021-33) received August 31, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgH6265-2 | null | 3,490 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Government Spending Madam President, last week, even more economic data continued to confirm that inflation is hammering working families all across America. In October, consumer prices saw their steepest spike in three decades, the worst inflation surge in more than 30 years. When I was back home last week, I heard constantly from Kentuckians who have watched their gas prices and grocery prices literally soar. This is happening in every single State. Last month was the fifth straight month in which national consumer prices rose at least 5 percent. The Democrats' inflation crisis has gotten so bad that Washington Democrats have stopped trying to pretend that it is just transitory and are starting to admit that it is on them to fix it. The same Democrats who spent months denying inflation was a lasting problem, the last people in America to wake up to this reality, are now convinced they are just the people to fix it. But their supposed solutions are more of the same absurd policies that helped dig this hole in the first place. After months of mostly ignoring the problem, President Biden finally responded to last week's inflation data by insisting that ``reversing this trend is a top priority for me.'' But--surprise--the President's preferred solution just so happens to be the exact same reckless taxing-and-spending spree his administration hasbeen pushing, literally, for months now. They cooked up this massive multitrillion-dollar spending spree back when they were saying inflation wasn't a major problem and it was still time to spend like crazy. But now, miraculously, that same spending binge happens to be their prescription to fight inflation. Give me a break. This is just a sweeping socialist wish list in search of a justification. This is another megadose of the same radical recklessness that Republicans have warned against all along, that American families are already paying dearly for, as we speak. But, so far, Democrats seem intent on grabbing the hot stove yet again, and its American families who stand to get burned. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8065-10 | null | 3,491 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Government Spending Madam President, last week, even more economic data continued to confirm that inflation is hammering working families all across America. In October, consumer prices saw their steepest spike in three decades, the worst inflation surge in more than 30 years. When I was back home last week, I heard constantly from Kentuckians who have watched their gas prices and grocery prices literally soar. This is happening in every single State. Last month was the fifth straight month in which national consumer prices rose at least 5 percent. The Democrats' inflation crisis has gotten so bad that Washington Democrats have stopped trying to pretend that it is just transitory and are starting to admit that it is on them to fix it. The same Democrats who spent months denying inflation was a lasting problem, the last people in America to wake up to this reality, are now convinced they are just the people to fix it. But their supposed solutions are more of the same absurd policies that helped dig this hole in the first place. After months of mostly ignoring the problem, President Biden finally responded to last week's inflation data by insisting that ``reversing this trend is a top priority for me.'' But--surprise--the President's preferred solution just so happens to be the exact same reckless taxing-and-spending spree his administration hasbeen pushing, literally, for months now. They cooked up this massive multitrillion-dollar spending spree back when they were saying inflation wasn't a major problem and it was still time to spend like crazy. But now, miraculously, that same spending binge happens to be their prescription to fight inflation. Give me a break. This is just a sweeping socialist wish list in search of a justification. This is another megadose of the same radical recklessness that Republicans have warned against all along, that American families are already paying dearly for, as we speak. But, so far, Democrats seem intent on grabbing the hot stove yet again, and its American families who stand to get burned. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8065-10 | null | 3,492 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Veterans Day Madam President, one final matter. Last week, I had the honor of spending Veterans Day at the groundbreaking ceremony for Louisville's new VA hospital. We are finally going to replace the city's original VA medical center that was built almost 70 years ago. Kentucky veterans are going to get new, expanded options for the cutting-edge treatment that they richly deserve. The long-awaited groundbreaking was a special day for Kentucky and our heroes. But for me, the celebration also underscored how unfortunate and unacceptable it is when it comes to our legislative duties here in Washington. This Democratic Senate majority is coming up short on supporting our servicemembers past, present, and future. Today is November 15. The full Senate should have considered, amended, and passed an annual defense authorization bill months ago. That is how it normally works. It is a major bipartisan priority that the Senate majority focuses on as a matter of basic governance. But this unified Democratic government has been distracted from the people's business. They have spent months behind closed doors putting together another reckless taxing-and-spending spree. And this obsession with party-line wish lists have led Democrats to drop the ball on basic duties. Keeping our servicemembers and our commanders waiting months for an NDAA is just one example. The Democratic majority has also completely dropped the ball on a bipartisan appropriations process. Oh, and by the way, President Biden's proposals for funding the government would have us cut defense spending after inflation. According to reports, China recently tested a hypersonic vehicle that is capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Just this morning, according to some early press reports, Russia may have tested some new anti-satellite weapon system. In the Middle East, President Biden's own advisors are saying that his rushed retreat from Afghanistan will open the door for a terrorist resurgence. It is against this dangerous backdrop that our Democratic majority does not move an NDAA until mid-November, and President Biden doesn't want defense spending to keep pace with President Biden's inflation. Madam President, better late than never. I am glad the Democratic leader says we will finally let the full Senate consider an NDAA in the coming days. The Senate will need to have the kind of robust bipartisan floor process that is customary for this important bill, and we will need to leave extraneous items on the sidelines. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8066 | null | 3,493 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Hunter Biden Now, Mr. President, on another shorter issue, I want to bring up something that deals with something I deal with a lot, what we call oversight, to make sure that we have transparency to our government, because transparency brings accountability, and this is something we are having a hard time getting answers on. On July 30 of this year, Senator Johnson of Wisconsin and I sent a letter to the White House Counsel. That letter was based on media reports--yes, media reports--that then-Vice President Biden used private emails for government business. If that happened, that is wrong, and we ought to know about it. As part of that use, he sent government information to his son Hunter Biden. The news reports provided details about then-Vice President Biden's email addresses at that time and the fake names that he used for that email. As one example from the reported emails, in 2016, an employee of the Office of the Vice President emailed Biden his schedule and copied Hunter Biden. In another email in 2016, the same employee reportedly emailed Vice President Biden about an early morning preparation for a 9 a.m. phone call with the Ukrainian President. Hunter Biden was again reportedly copied on that email. As we all know, Hunter Biden served on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company at the time of these emails. Certainly, Hunter Biden wouldhave been quite interested in any and all information relating to the U.S. Government's communication with the Ukrainian Government. Now, if these reports are accurate, it is unclear whether Vice President Biden forwarded related emails to a government account to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. It kind of sounds familiar, doesn't it? Just remember, the same issues came up with Hillary Clinton. Given Vice President Biden's apparent pattern and practice with government emails, Senator Johnson and I would like to know if this pattern and practice has continued as President of the United States. That is why, on July 30, as I indicated, Senator Johnson and I asked exactly that question. First, we asked, according to the letter: ``What steps did then-Vice President Biden take to ensure that all his government emails and related communications were properly stored and archived?'' In other words, did they follow the law? Second, we asked: ``Does President Biden use nongovernment email to communicate government business or email his family members government information? If so, what steps have been taken to ensure that those communications satisfy federal record-keeping and archival requirements?'' Now, these sound like pretty simple questions that President Biden can answer quickly. Moreover, it would be quite easy for the President to deny reports if these reports were not accurate. Our letter provided President Biden that opportunity. To date, we haven't received a response. In fact, as you can tell from July 30, it has been nearly 3 months. The fact that the White House Counsel's Office and President Biden can't find time to answer these threshold questions draws suspicion. One would think that the White House would gladly answer that the President isn't using government email to communicate government business with family members. Now, wouldn't one think that the White House would very gladly say that it is properly archiving email records? This is a matter of transparency, and it is a matter of transparency where the public deserves answers. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8067 | null | 3,494 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 3:04 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 390. An act to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''. H.R. 1339. An act to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility interagency working group, and for other purposes. H.R. 1917. An act to modify eligibility requirements for certain hazard mitigation assistance programs, and for other purposes. H.R. 2220. An act 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. H.R. 3193. An act to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for a high-speed broadband deployment initiative. H.R. 3709. An act 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. H.R. 3992. An act to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to prohibit employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying applicants for employment. H.R. 4660. An act 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''. H.R. 4679. An act to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building''. Enrolled Bills Signed The message further announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 108. An act to authorize the Seminole Tribe of Florida to lease or transfer certain land, and for other purposes. H.R. 1510. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a report on the use of cameras in medical facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 2093. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make all fact sheets of the Department of Veterans Affairs available in English, Spanish, and Tagalog, and other commonly spoken languages, and for other purposes.' The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8078-6 | null | 3,495 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 390. An act to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 1339. An act to require the Secretary of Transportation to establish an advanced air mobility interagency working group, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. H.R. 1917. An act to modify eligibility requirements for certain hazard mitigation assistance programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 2220. An act 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; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 3193. An act to amend the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide for a high-speed broadband deployment initiative; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 3709. An act 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; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3992. An act to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to prohibit employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying applicants for employment; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. H.R. 4660. An act 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''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. H.R. 4679. An act to designate the Federal building located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast in Washington, DC, as the ``Norman Yoshio Mineta Federal Building''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8078-7 | null | 3,496 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | SA 4643. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3867 submitted by Mr. Reed and intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 4350, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 566, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 570, line 6, and insert the following: (2) NATO remains the strongest and most successful political-military alliance in the world, founded on a commitment by its members to uphold the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law; (3) NATO's contributions to collective defense are indispensable to the security, prosperity, and freedom of its members; (4) the United States reaffirms its ironclad commitment to NATO as the foundation of transatlantic security and to upholding its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, including Article 5; (5) NATO is meant to be an alliance of countries with shared democratic values and the United States reaffirms its commitment to Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states the following: ``The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.''; (6) the commitment of NATO allies during 18 years of security, humanitarian, and stabilization operations in Afghanistan has been invaluable, and the sacrifices of NATO allies deserve the highest order of respect and gratitude; (7) the United States remains focused on long-term strategic competition with Russia, and a strong NATO alliance plays an essential role in addressing such competition and mitigating shared security concerns; (8) the United States should-- (A) deepen defense cooperation with non-NATO European partners, bilaterally and as part of the NATO alliance; and (B) encourage security sector cooperation between NATO and non-NATO defense partners that complements and strengthens collective defense, interoperability, and allies' commitment to Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty; (9) bolstering NATO cooperation and enhancing security relationships with non-NATO European partners to counter Russian aggression, including Russia's use of hybrid warfare tactics and its willingness to use military power to alter the status quo, strengthens the United States security interests for long-term strategic competition; (10) the European Deterrence Initiative, through investments to increase United States military presence, bolster exercises and training, enhance pre-positioning of equipment, improve infrastructure, and build partner capacity, and investments toward such efforts by NATO allies and other allies and partners, remain critical to ensuring collective defense in the future; (11) the United States should-- (A) continue to support efforts by NATO allies to replace Soviet-era military systems and equipment with systems that are interoperable among NATO members; and (B) work with NATO allies and other allies and partners to build permanent mechanisms to strengthen supply chains, enhance supply chain security, and fill supply chain gaps, including in critical sectors such as defense, energy, and health; (12) the United States and NATO allies should-- (A) continue-- (i) to carry out key initiatives to enhance readiness, military mobility, and national resilience in support of NATO's ongoing COVID-19 pandemic response efforts; (ii) to collaborate on ways to enhance collective security, with a focus on emerging and revolutionary technologies such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, fifth generation telecommunications networks, and machine learning; and (iii) to build on recent progress in achieving defense spending goals agreed to at the 2014 Wales Summit and reaffirmed at the 2016 Warsaw Summit and the 2021 Brussels Summit, and to build consensus to invest in the full range of defense capabilities necessary to deter and defend against potential adversaries; and (B) expand cooperation efforts on cybersecurity issues to prevent adversaries and criminals from compromising critical systems and infrastructure; and (13) [the United States should] encourage the development of a new NATO strategic concept that addresses the threats to NATO that have emerged since NATO's last strategic concept was published in 2010, including-- (A) a militarily resurgent Russia Federation, which is engaged in conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the Middle East; (B) the expansionist ambitions of the People's Republic of China, which increasingly threaten the economic and political integrity and physical security of NATO members; and (C) transnational threats from rogue entities, such as extremist terrorist groups and criminal hacker groups. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8163 | null | 3,497 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | SA 4643. Mr. RISCH submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3867 submitted by Mr. Reed and intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 4350, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 566, strike line 10 and all that follows through page 570, line 6, and insert the following: (2) NATO remains the strongest and most successful political-military alliance in the world, founded on a commitment by its members to uphold the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law; (3) NATO's contributions to collective defense are indispensable to the security, prosperity, and freedom of its members; (4) the United States reaffirms its ironclad commitment to NATO as the foundation of transatlantic security and to upholding its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, including Article 5; (5) NATO is meant to be an alliance of countries with shared democratic values and the United States reaffirms its commitment to Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states the following: ``The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.''; (6) the commitment of NATO allies during 18 years of security, humanitarian, and stabilization operations in Afghanistan has been invaluable, and the sacrifices of NATO allies deserve the highest order of respect and gratitude; (7) the United States remains focused on long-term strategic competition with Russia, and a strong NATO alliance plays an essential role in addressing such competition and mitigating shared security concerns; (8) the United States should-- (A) deepen defense cooperation with non-NATO European partners, bilaterally and as part of the NATO alliance; and (B) encourage security sector cooperation between NATO and non-NATO defense partners that complements and strengthens collective defense, interoperability, and allies' commitment to Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty; (9) bolstering NATO cooperation and enhancing security relationships with non-NATO European partners to counter Russian aggression, including Russia's use of hybrid warfare tactics and its willingness to use military power to alter the status quo, strengthens the United States security interests for long-term strategic competition; (10) the European Deterrence Initiative, through investments to increase United States military presence, bolster exercises and training, enhance pre-positioning of equipment, improve infrastructure, and build partner capacity, and investments toward such efforts by NATO allies and other allies and partners, remain critical to ensuring collective defense in the future; (11) the United States should-- (A) continue to support efforts by NATO allies to replace Soviet-era military systems and equipment with systems that are interoperable among NATO members; and (B) work with NATO allies and other allies and partners to build permanent mechanisms to strengthen supply chains, enhance supply chain security, and fill supply chain gaps, including in critical sectors such as defense, energy, and health; (12) the United States and NATO allies should-- (A) continue-- (i) to carry out key initiatives to enhance readiness, military mobility, and national resilience in support of NATO's ongoing COVID-19 pandemic response efforts; (ii) to collaborate on ways to enhance collective security, with a focus on emerging and revolutionary technologies such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, fifth generation telecommunications networks, and machine learning; and (iii) to build on recent progress in achieving defense spending goals agreed to at the 2014 Wales Summit and reaffirmed at the 2016 Warsaw Summit and the 2021 Brussels Summit, and to build consensus to invest in the full range of defense capabilities necessary to deter and defend against potential adversaries; and (B) expand cooperation efforts on cybersecurity issues to prevent adversaries and criminals from compromising critical systems and infrastructure; and (13) [the United States should] encourage the development of a new NATO strategic concept that addresses the threats to NATO that have emerged since NATO's last strategic concept was published in 2010, including-- (A) a militarily resurgent Russia Federation, which is engaged in conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and the Middle East; (B) the expansionist ambitions of the People's Republic of China, which increasingly threaten the economic and political integrity and physical security of NATO members; and (C) transnational threats from rogue entities, such as extremist terrorist groups and criminal hacker groups. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8163 | null | 3,498 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 4652. Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3951 submitted by Mrs. Blackburn and intended to be proposed to the amendment SA 3867 proposed by Mr. Reed to the bill H.R. 4350, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 2, line 1, strike ``controlled'' and insert ``partially owned''. On page 2, line 18, insert after ``subsection (a)'' the following: ``, publish the determination in the Federal Register, and submit that determination to the relevant Federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-11-15-pt1-PgS8201-3 | null | 3,499 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.