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 | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel Madam President, I rise to support President Biden's nomination to the FCC of Jessica Rosenworcel to be the Chair of a new term of Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. In selecting her, President Biden has picked someone with great experience and with great knowledge of the FCC in a moment where we need tremendous leadership. The FCC's oversight and scope touches just about every part of our domestic economy and our lives. And we know that in an information age, it can be an exciting time of a lot of change but also of many real challenges. So know that this FCC Chair will be challenged. There will be lots of things for every household. From affordable to reliability, to protecting consumers, to restoring an open and free internet, to driving new spectrum innovation policy, to safeguarding the public interest, there is a lot to do at the FCC. The policy decisions before the FCC are substantial, and Chairwoman Rosenworcel is committed to those priorities and, as I said, immensely qualified to lead at this critical moment. Before President Biden designated her to serve as Chair, Ms. Rosenworcel had spent nearly a decade at the FCC, and she knows how to get things done, furthering the Agency's work on important issues of helping to narrow the digital divide. When the pandemic hit, we obviously had a new challenge facing us: How to get students connected, how to get healthcare connected, how to help people living in disparity get access to affordable broadband. For the Tribal community of one nation, the Makah Nation--Madam President, I will yield to the majority leader for his motions. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-06-pt1-PgS8927 | null | 3,600 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I stand today to extend my heartiest congratulations to Ann Mathis--``Andi''--as she prepares to retire from the National Endowment for the Arts--NEA--after 42 years of dedicated service. A resident of Bethesda, MD, Andi has served as the NEA's program specialist for States and regions, using her expertise in arts management and best practices in grantmaking to support the work of 50 State arts agencies, six regional arts organizations, and six U.S. Territories. Andi first joined the NEA after graduating from Cornell University and then earning a master's degree in community arts management from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Andi began her career in the NEA's Grants Office and Office of Management Analysis before settling into her role with States and regions in the Partnership Division. During her distinguished tenure, Andi has nurtured partnerships with State arts agencies and regional arts organizations, building a network that has extended the reach of Federal support for the arts. As a guiding force in the NEA's Partnership Division and a font of institutional knowledge, Andi's expertise, dedication, and sense of humor have made her a beloved icon in national arts funding. Often, State and local officials would line up, literally, to obtain Andi's guidance and insight. Andi's efforts have included extensive work with both the Maryland Arts Council and Maryland's Mid Atlantic Arts Foundation. She was also instrumental in centering the role of arts and culture in Federal disaster relief and recovery efforts, representing the NEA on disaster preparedness task forces and Federal Government working groups. Her outstanding work at the NEA has earned her numerous Distinguished Service Awards and other commendations over the years. Andi's greatest pleasure has always been her beautiful family. While at the NEA, she married, had two daughters, Allison and Melinda, and now delights in her daughters' growing families, which enabled Andi to become ``Grandi.'' A devoted mother and grandmother, Andi is renowned for her sewing prowess and her own line of ``Grandi'' children's clothing. After more than four decades in the Federal Government, Andi plans to continue her legacy of service in retirement, working in the area of adult literacy, which will include tutoring through the Literacy Council of Montgomery County. We know that she will take seriously the Jewish tradition of tikkun olam, repairing the world, as she continues to make a difference in the lives of others. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our gratitude to Andi Mathis for her outstanding service to our Nation and in sending our best wishes to her as she begins her next adventure. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-06-pt1-PgS8930-3 | null | 3,601 |
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-2719. A communication from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other Related Amendments'' (RIN2137- AF38) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 4, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2720. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Enforcement Policy Statement Regarding Negative Option Marketing'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 4, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2721. A communication from the Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Rear Impact Guards and Rear Impact Protection'' (RIN2126-AC31) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 18, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2722. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment and Establishment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Concord, NC'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0520)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2723. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Marana, AZ'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0590)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2724. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Fort Leonard Wood, MO'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021- 0634)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2725. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Ardmore, OK'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0674)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2726. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Galesburg, IL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0554)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2727. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of J-107, J-515, and V-181; Establishment of T-407; and Revocation of the Humboldt, MN, Domestic Low Altitude Reporting Point; Northcentral United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0152)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2728. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Chester, SC, Lancaster, SC, Waxhaw, NC, and Lincolnton, NC'' ((RIN2120- AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0532)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2729. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021- 0648)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2730. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Portsmouth, NH'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0357)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2731. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mooresville, NC'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0537)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2732. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in Specified Areas of the Dnipro Flight Information Region (FIR) (UKDV)'' ((RIN2120-AL68) (Docket No. FAA-2014-0225)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2733. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 3976'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31392)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2734. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 3977'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31393)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2735. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 3975'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31391)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2736. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 3978'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31394)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2737. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 3980'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31396)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2738. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 3979'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31395)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2739. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters and Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Helicopters; Amendment 39-21700'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0496)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2740. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21744'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0460)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2741. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-21754'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0453)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2742. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21756'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0837)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2743. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-21757'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0099)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2744. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes; Amendment 39-21760'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0840)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2745. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Construzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.P.A. Airplanes; Amendment 39-21795'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0700)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2746. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21743'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0565)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2747. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21741'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0578)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2748. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21748'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0579)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2749. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21750'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0608)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2750. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-21755'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0612)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2751. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited) Helicopters; Amendment 39- 21749'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0575)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2752. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21767'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0876)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2753. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21745'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0260)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2754. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-21729'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0312)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2755. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes; Amendment 39-21752'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0569)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2756. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, inc., Airplanes; Amendment 39-21751'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0462)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2757. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21742'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0563)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2758. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21753'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0261)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2759. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-21746'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0350)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 16, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2760. A communication from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In the Matter of Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auction'' ((GN Docket No. 12- 268) (FCC 21-111)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 4, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2761. A communication from the Chief of the Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In the matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules'' ((FCC 21-106) (WP Docket No. 07-100)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on October 28, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-06-pt1-PgS8931-4 | null | 3,602 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | ``BOB'' J. DOLE, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Schumer, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Fischer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Paul, Mr. Peters, Mr. Portman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Risch, Mr. Romney, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Warnock, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 470 Whereas Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole (referred to in this preamble as ``Bob Dole'') was born in Russell, Kansas; Whereas Bob Dole enlisted in the United States Army while he was a student at the University of Kansas, served in World War II, was seriously wounded attempting to save a fellow soldier during a military offensive in Italy, and was awarded 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with an Oak Cluster for his service; Whereas Bob Dole continued his public service by serving in the Kansas State House of Representatives from 1951 to 1953, and he was then elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1961, where he served until 1969; Whereas Bob Dole began his United States Senate career in 1969, which would last until 1996, serving during this period as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senate Minority Leader, and Senate Majority Leader; Whereas Bob Dole was a life-long advocate for the disabled and was instrumental in the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Dole-McGovern Food for Education program; Whereas Bob Dole was the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States in 1996; Whereas Bob Dole has been recognized by several presidents for his public service, including President Reagan awarding him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989 and President Clinton bestowing upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1997; Whereas Bob Dole left elected office but remained in public service, serving as-- (1) National Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign; (2) co-chair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund for families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; (3) co-chair of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors in 2007; and (4) Finance Chairman of the Campaign for the National Eisenhower Memorial; Whereas Bob Dole's bond with veterans remained unbroken, and he rarely missed an opportunity to greet veterans during their Honor Flights to the World War II Memorial, personally thanking each of them for their service; and Whereas Bob Dole exemplified the American spirit of service and leadership: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that-- (1) the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas; (2) the Senate respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate-- (A) communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives; and (B) transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole; and (3) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-06-pt1-PgS8935-2 | null | 3,603 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | ``BOB'' J. DOLE, FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Schumer, Mr. McConnell, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennet, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Mr. Burr, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cassidy, Ms. Collins, Mr. Coons, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Fischer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Paul, Mr. Peters, Mr. Portman, Mr. Reed, Mr. Risch, Mr. Romney, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sasse, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Shelby, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tester, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Mr. Warnock, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 470 Whereas Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole (referred to in this preamble as ``Bob Dole'') was born in Russell, Kansas; Whereas Bob Dole enlisted in the United States Army while he was a student at the University of Kansas, served in World War II, was seriously wounded attempting to save a fellow soldier during a military offensive in Italy, and was awarded 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with an Oak Cluster for his service; Whereas Bob Dole continued his public service by serving in the Kansas State House of Representatives from 1951 to 1953, and he was then elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1961, where he served until 1969; Whereas Bob Dole began his United States Senate career in 1969, which would last until 1996, serving during this period as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senate Minority Leader, and Senate Majority Leader; Whereas Bob Dole was a life-long advocate for the disabled and was instrumental in the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Dole-McGovern Food for Education program; Whereas Bob Dole was the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States in 1996; Whereas Bob Dole has been recognized by several presidents for his public service, including President Reagan awarding him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989 and President Clinton bestowing upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1997; Whereas Bob Dole left elected office but remained in public service, serving as-- (1) National Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign; (2) co-chair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund for families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; (3) co-chair of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors in 2007; and (4) Finance Chairman of the Campaign for the National Eisenhower Memorial; Whereas Bob Dole's bond with veterans remained unbroken, and he rarely missed an opportunity to greet veterans during their Honor Flights to the World War II Memorial, personally thanking each of them for their service; and Whereas Bob Dole exemplified the American spirit of service and leadership: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that-- (1) the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas; (2) the Senate respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate-- (A) communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives; and (B) transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole; and (3) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-06-pt1-PgS8935-2 | null | 3,604 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Eternal God, we remember. On this 80th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, that day lives in infamy, having left its indelible mark on countless individuals, families, and our American history. On that fateful Sunday morning, our country was alerted to the precariousness of our days and the certainty of our future. God, we remember. Call us back to the unity borne from that sudden insult on our liberty. Remind us how our country rallied as one to uphold our freedoms. God, we remember. Bring to our memory the sense of shared meaning and shared sacrifices that our forebears held onto fiercely as they rallied in response to fight our enemies and cling to the essential values of family and faith. God, we do remember. May we always tell of the innumerable acts of heroism in the face of the horrific acts that reached our country's shores and threatened our Nation's sense of security and welfare. Holy God, even as we remember the horror of that day, we yearn for those days when a country as diverse and divided as we are could rally against the ageless enemies of divisiveness, unbridled power, and injustice. Then as now, You prove to be the constant defender of our freedom and the source of our hope. In response to Your mercy, may we remember and once again seek to preserve and uphold our shared moral understandings and to demonstrate our mutual respect, that we would ever protect all that is good and holy, acceptable, and perfect. In Your saving name we pray. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgH6919-4 | null | 3,605 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (S. 610) to address behavioral health and well-being among health care professionals, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgH7222 | null | 3,606 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (S. 1605) to designate the National Pulse Memorial located at 1912 South Orange Avenue in Orlando, Florida, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgH7223 | null | 3,607 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, December 7, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Amended Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Amended Notice be published in the House version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Any inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20540; 202-724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Attachment. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval Modifications to the rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, as required by 2 U.S.C. 1384, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended (CAA). Background: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' Section 202 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1302 et seq.), applies the rights and protections of sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA to covered employees in the legislative branch. On June 22, 2016, the Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record amendments to its substantive regulations regarding the FMLA. 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). As set forth in the Board's accompanying Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval, the 2016 amendments provide needed clarity on certain aspects of the FMLA. Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of these amendments. The purpose of this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval is to announce adoption of additional modifications to the existing legislative branch FMLA substantive regulations. Specifically, on December 20, 2019, Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (subtitle A of title LXXVI of division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, December 20, 2019) (FEPLA). FEPLA amended the FMLA to allow most civilian Federal employees, including eligible employees in the legislative branch, to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) for unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the birth of an employee's son or daughter or for the placement of a son or daughter with an employee for adoption or foster care. These additional modifications are necessary in order to bring existing legislative branch FMLA regulations (issued April 19, 1996) in line with these recent statutory changes. What is the authority under the CAA for these substantive regulations? Section 202(a) of the CAA provides that the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. 2611-2615) shall apply to covered employees in the legislative branch. Section 202(d)(1) and (2) of the CAA require that the Board, pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, issue regulations implementing the rights and protections of the FMLA and that those regulations shall be ``the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in the subsection (a) [of section 202 of the CAA] except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown . . . that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.'' The modifications to the regulations proposed by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 202 of the CAA requires regulations to be issued. Are there currently FMLA regulations in effect? Yes. On January 22, 1996, the OCWR Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record the original FMLA final regulations implementing section 202 of the CAA, which applies certain rights and protections of the FMLA. On April 15, 1996, pursuant to section 304(c) of the CAA, the House and the Senate passed resolutions approving the final regulations. Specifically, the Senate passed S. Res. 242, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the Senate and the employees of the Senate; the House passed H. Res. 400 providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the House and the employees of the House; and the House and the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 51, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to employing offices and employees other than those offices and employees of the House and the Senate. After the Senate and the House passed these resolutions, the Board formally issued the FMLA regulations on April 19, 1996. What does the FMLA provide? In general, the FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons and for specified circumstances relating to a family member's military service. Employing offices in the legislative branch covered by FMLA provisions of the CAA must provide unpaid leave to eligible employees: (1) for the birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn son or daughter; or (2) for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; (3) to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; (4) because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; (5) because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty status; and (6) to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. How do the FEPLA amendments affect the FMLA as applied to the legislative branch? The FEPLA amendments to the FMLA include provisions expressly applicable to the legislative branch that both: (1) change the eligibility rules for employees to take protected leave for births or placements under the FMLA; and (2) permit employees to substitute PPL and other paid accrued leave for unpaid FMLA leave for such births or placements. The FEPLA amendments are summarized below. For purposes of FMLA leave with respect to any birth or placement, all covered employees in the legislative branch are eligible for job-protected leave under the FMLA immediately upon commencement of employment. ``Covered employee'' means any employee of: (1) the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate; (3) the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; (4) the Capitol Police; (5) the Congressional Budget Office; (6) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (7) the Office of the Attending Physician; (8) the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; (9) the Office of Technology Assessment; (10) the Library of Congress; (11) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development; (12) the China Review Commission; (13) the Congressional Executive China Commission; (14) the Helsinki Commission; or (14) the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. See 2 U.S.C. 1301(a). Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid leave. However, under certain circumstances, the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA, as made applicable by the CAA, permit an eligible employee to choose to substitute PPL and accrued paid leave (such as paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave) for unpaid FMLA leave. The term ``substitute'' means that paid leave will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave. Accordingly, the employee receives pay during the period of otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. For leave taken for a birth or placement, an employee may elect to substitute for unpaid FMLA leave--(1) up to 12 workweeks of PPL in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement; and (2) any additional paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave provided by the employing office to such employee. Paid parental leave may be used only ``in connection with the birth or placement involved.'' See 2 U.S.C. 1312(d)(2)(A). By law, unpaid FMLA leave is generally limited to a total of 12 weeks in any 12-month period. Accordingly, any use of unpaid FMLA leave for a purpose other than birth or placement may reduce an employee's ability to substitute PPL for a birth or placement. Thus, for example, if an employee has used 3 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave during the leave year before the birth or placement, that employee's entitlement to 12 weeks of PPL may be reduced to 9 weeks. Paid parental leave may be used no later than the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. There are no carryover provisions for unused PPL. An employee may not be paid for unused or expired PPL. Paid parental leave may not be considered annual leave for purposes of making a lump-sum payment for annual leave or for any other purpose. FEPLA expressly provides that legislative branch employees using parental leave under the FMLA are not subject to the limitations that apply in the executive branch whereby employees may be required to agree in writing to work for the executive branch agency for at least 12 weeks after returning from leave. FEPLA also expressly provides that PPL applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to the limitations that may apply in the executive branch, state and local governments, and private sector, whereby an employer may recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan if the employee fails to return from PPL. When are the Paid Parental Leave provisions of FEPLA effective? FEPLA provides that the amendments to the CAA concerning PPL are not effective with respect to any birth or placement for adoption or foster care occurring before October 1, 2020. Thus, by law, PPL is available to covered employees only in connection with a birth or placement that occurs on or after October 1, 2020. How does FEPLA address active duty service in the National Guard or Reserves? In addition to providing for PPL, effective December 20, 2019, FEPLA also amended the general eligibility provisions of the FMLA (as applied by the CAA) to provide that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(14)) by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. Why are these additional changes to the FMLA regulations necessary? The CAA requires that the FMLA regulations applicable to the legislative branch and promulgated by the OCWR be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement FMLA title I, except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under the CAA. 2 U.S.C. 1312(e). FMLA title I covers employees of most private sector employers, state and local governments, and certain quasi-governmental entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service. These employees are governed by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. 601 and part 825. The Secretary of Labor will not be promulgating FEPLA regulations because FEPLA does not extend PPL to private sector employees or other employees directly covered by FMLA title I. The Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for further modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. Procedural Summary: How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for proposing and approving substantive regulations provides that: (1) the Board of Directors proposes substantive regulations and publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, the Board adopts regulations and transmits notice of such action (together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for congressional approval of the regulations) to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) there be committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) there be final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. What is the approach taken by these adopted substantive regulations? The Board follows the procedures as enumerated above and as required by statute. This Amended Notice of Adopted Rulemaking is step (3) of the outline set forth above. The Board has reviewed and responded to the comments received under step (2) of the outline above, and it has made changes where necessary to ensure that the adopted regulations fully implement section 202 of the CAA, and reflect the practices and policies particular to the legislative branch. (Because the Board's 2016 amendments were adopted pursuant to the procedures for proposing and approving substantive regulations in section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, including providing a comment period of 60 days after publication of the proposed amendments in the Congressional Record, the Board did not seek additional comments on those adopted amendments.) Are there substantive differences in the adopted regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate and other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no ``good cause'' for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these regulations are approved as adopted, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees. See 2 U.S.C. 1331(e)(2). Are these adopted regulations also recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), these adopted regulations are also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. Are these adopted substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? In addition to being posted on the OCWR's website (www.ocwr.gov), this Notice is also available in alternative formats. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, at 202/724-9250 (voice). Am I allowed to view copies of comments submitted by others? Yes. Copies of submitted comments will be available for review on the OCWR's public website at www.ocwr.gov. Summary: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104- 1, was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. The CAA, as amended, applies the rights and protections of 13 federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees and employing offices within the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 202 of the CAA applies to employees covered by the CAA, the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2611-2615. The above provisions of section 202 became effective on January 1, 1997. 2 U.S.C. 1312. The Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) is now publishing adopted amended regulations to implement section 202 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438, as applied to covered employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and certain congressional instrumentalities listed below. The purpose of these amended regulations is to implement section 202 of the CAA. In this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, the Board proposes that virtually identical regulations be adopted for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and certain congressional instrumentalities. Accordingly: (1) Senate. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the Senate, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. (2) House of Representatives. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the House of Representatives, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. (3) Certain congressional instrumentalities. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; the Capitol Police; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending Physician; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Office of Technology Assessment; the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; as recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director. Section-by-Section Discussion of Adopted Changes to the FMLA Regulations As noted above, Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of its amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations that the Board adopted on June 22, 2016. The section-by-section discussion of those amendments appears at 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). The following is a section-by-section discussion of the additional adopted amendments related to FEPLA. The Board's adopted amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations provide more detail regarding the implementation of the statutory provisions summarized above. In order to implement FEPLA, the Board amends subparts A-C of part 825 of its substantive regulations (Family and Medical Leave) to establish how the FMLA provisions will now operate, since the appropriate substitution of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave hinges on the standards for granting unpaid FMLA leave. The Board also amends subpart D to omit obsolete references to the OCWR's administrative dispute resolution procedures, which were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-397. (Although the Board had also proposed to amend part 825 to add a new subpart E, for the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined not to do so.) Below we provide a section-by- section explanation of the adopted changes in subparts A-D. Where a change has been made to a regulatory section, that section is discussed below. However, as the DOL has significantly reorganized its FMLA regulations, which the Board's adopted regulations mirror, many of the sections are moved into other areas of the subpart. The Board as a result will use the adopted section and numbers to provide explanation and analysis of changes. In addition, even if a section is not discussed, there may be minor editorial changes or corrections that do not warrant discussion, such as the substitution of the Office's current name, the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' for its former name, the ``Office of Compliance.'' Note: The use of the terms ``Type A,'' ``Type B,'' ``Type C,'' etc., in this Notice corresponds to the subsections of the FMLA provision describing these types of FMLA leave. Thus, ``Type A'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(A). ``Type B'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(B). ``Type C'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C). ``Type D'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). ``Type E'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(E). Some commenters suggested that the Board modify the regulations to resolve potential ambiguities in the DOL regulation. However, the Board has long held that it will not opine on interpretive ambiguities in the regulations outside of the adjudicatory context of individual cases. The Board's rulemaking authority under the CAA is restricted to circumstances where there is ``good cause'' to depart from the Secretary of Labor's substantive regulations. Further, the Board's adjudicatory function would be undermined if it prejudged ambiguous or disputed interpretive matters. Therefore, the Board does not find ``good cause'' to modify a regulation where the request is based on an ostensible need for clarification. Section-by-Section Discussion and Board Consideration of Comments Part 825--Family and Medical Leave 825.1 Purpose and Scope. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.1 to add a new paragraph (c), which describes the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA provisions of the CAA; states that the Board is amending its substantive FMLA regulations pursuant to the CAA rulemaking procedures set forth at sections 202(d) and 304 of the CAA; and further states that because the Secretary of Labor has not promulgated FEPLA regulations under FMLA title I, the Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. The paragraphs in 825.1 that follow paragraph (c) have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e). One commenter expressed concerns that the term ``Federal civilian employees in the legislative branch'' in proposed paragraph (c) could be read to improperly exclude sworn employees (or police officers) from the scope of the new regulations. The new paragraph (c) omits this term, and instead uses the terms ``Federal employees in the legislative branch'' and ``covered employees.'' Subpart A--COVERAGE UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 825.100 The Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (b) of 825.100 to clarify that the authority of an employing office, disbursing or other financial office to recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan is subject to 825.208(k), which provides that paid parental leave applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to such limitations. One commenter suggested amending paragraph (d) of 825.100 to apprise employees that FMLA leave may be denied, and the employee designated as Absent Without Leave, for failing to comply with the notification requirements outlined in 825.301(b). The Board finds that 825.100(d) is consistent with the DOL's regulation, and that good cause has not been shown to modify the DOL's regulation. 825.102 Definitions. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.102 to add the following definition of Birth: ``Birth means the delivery of a child. When the term ``birth'' under this subpart is used in connection with the use of leave before birth, it refers to an anticipated birth.'' One commenter suggested that the definition of Birth in 825.102 should be revised to ensure that employees who intend to deliver a live child and through complications in the birthing process have a birth that results in a deceased child receive the same entitlements during the physical recovery process from the birth as those employees whose birthing process results in the birth of a living child. The Board declines to make the suggested change, as its proposed definition encompasses the circumstances that the commenter describes. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of Birth should be stricken from the regulation in its entirety on the ground that good cause does not exist for modifying the applicable DOL regulation at 29 CFR 825.120(a)(l) or (2) by adding a definition of Birth which the commenter believed to be in conflict with the existing FMLA regulations. It states that nothing in the FEPLA nor anything unique to the congressional workplace justifies varying from or adding a definition that conflicts with that regulation. The Board disagrees. First, as stated above, the Secretary's regulations do not define the term Birth. Thus, the Board's definition of Birth presents no conflict with the Secretary's regulations. Second, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA for Type A leave provides good cause for adding such a definition. That is, the definition provides the specificity necessary in the Board's regulations to implement the new paid leave provisions of FEPLA in the legislative branch in connection with births and placements. By contrast, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA does not apply to employers and employees covered by the Secretary's FMLA title I regulations. Thus, there is no apparent need for clear distinctions between leave for births, placements, serious health conditions, or other qualifying exigencies in the applicable DOL regulations at 29 CFR 825.120 and 29 CFR 825.121, because the benefit, i.e., 12 weeks of unpaid leave, is the same for any of these reasons. The commenter also suggests striking the second sentence of the Board's definition of Birth on the ground that FEPLA does not permit substitution of paid leave for anticipated births. For the reasons set forth below concerning proposed 825.208, we disagree. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Covered Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of Covered Employee includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Eligible Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of eligible employee adds a new paragraph (1), which clarifies that for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length of service requirements in paragraph (2). Paragraph (3) of that definition, which concerns eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements, is amended to clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. A commenter recommended that the Employee of the House of Representatives definition in 825.102 should be revised to conform with language updates made through amendments and reforms to the CAA. The 2018 CAA Reform Act changed the language in the definition of House employees to reference pay that is disbursed by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, rather than the Office of the Clerk. Similarly, although the term ``clerk-hire allowance'' was used in original CAA text in the 1990's, the appropriate reference is now the ``Members' Representational Allowance.'' The Board finds good cause to make the suggested changes. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Employing Office in 825.102. The amended definition of Employing Office includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Family and Medical Leave in 825.102. The revised definition includes new language addressing leave to care for covered servicemembers. One commenter suggested further revising the definition to clarify that it means an employee's entitlement of ``up to'' 12 workweeks (or 26 workweeks in the case of leave under 825.127) of unpaid leave. The Board agrees and has made the suggested change. A commenter suggested that the definition of Intermittent Leave in 825.102 should be revised to include paid leave that is now available under the FMLA FEPLA provisions for reasons of birth or placement of a child for foster care or adoption. The Board finds good cause to make the suggested revision. The Board had proposed to amend 825.102 to add a new definition of Placement that clarified that it refers to a new placement. Two commenters stated that the proposed definition was inconsistent with the DOL's regulations at 29 CFR 825.121, which does not limit placements to ``new'' placements. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, and the Board will not include a new definition of Placement in its adopted regulations. One commenter suggested that the definitions of Son or Daughter, Son or Daughter of a Covered Servicemember, and Son or Daughter on Covered Active Duty or Call to Covered Active Duty Status in 825.102 (and 825.126(a)(5)) should be defined to account for circumstances where a child is gender neutral or gender undetermined. The commenter suggests adding a provision to clarify that these definitions include a covered servicemember's biological, adopted, foster child, stepchild, legal ward, and child(ren) for whom the covered servicemember stood in loco parentis, who are of any age, and who identify as transgender, gender neutral, gender non-conforming, or non-binary. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. It notes, however, that both DOL and the Board interpret these terms to include any child. 825.104 Covered employing offices. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.104 to: (1) designate paragraphs (1)-(4) as paragraphs (a)-(d); and (2) amend paragraph (d) to include the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 825.110 Eligible employee, general rule. 825.111 Eligible employee, birth or placement. The Board finds good cause to: (1) amend 825.110 to create a general rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements; and (2) add a new 825.111 to create a rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for births or placements. The amendments to 825.110 clarify that its provisions are subject to the exceptions set forth at 825.111; and they provide that for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. The new 825.111 clarifies that, for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length or hours of service requirements in the general rule at 825.110. One commenter suggested deleting the cross-references in 825.111 to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 825.112. The Board agrees and has revised 825.111 accordingly. The Board has determined not to further revise 825.111 to delete the citation: ``See also 825.120-21.'' 825.112 Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) of 825.112 to clarify that employing offices are required to grant leave to eligible employees for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, including the care of such son or daughter. One commenter stated that the citation in subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.112 should be changed to 825.120(a)(1)-(6) in order to exclude citation to the Board's proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. As stated below, the Board has determined not to include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. Therefore, the Board declines to make this revision. 825.120 Leave for pregnancy or birth. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.120 to clarify that FMLA leave for pregnancy or the birth of a son or daughter includes leave for the care of the newborn child. The Board also finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) to add a sentence stating that leave for a birth or placement must be concluded by the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth. One commenter noted that subparagraph (a)(3) indicates that spouses who are employed by the same employing office ``may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave,'' which seemingly grants employing offices the discretion to determine whether spouses are entitled to 12 weeks of individual or combined FEPLA leave for births or placements. The commenter states that the final rule should plainly indicate whether this is the intent of the provision or identify the instances when spouses would otherwise be limited to a combined 12 weeks of FEPLA leave. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, which uses the term ``may.'' See 29 CFR 825.120(a)(3). The Board had proposed to add a new subparagraph (a)(7) to 825.120, to state that leave taken because of a birth includes leave necessary for an employee who is the birth mother to recover from giving birth, or for an employee who is the other parent to care for the birth mother during her recovery period, even if the employee is not involved in caring for the son or daughter during portions of that recovery period. Several commenters stated that the new subparagraph (7) should not be included in the final rule, on the ground that no good cause exists for modifying the relevant DOL regulations to add this subparagraph. The Board has determined not to address this issue in the regulations and therefore will not include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) in 825.120. 825.121 Leave for adoption or foster care. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (a) of 825.121 to clarify that FMLA leave for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care includes leave to care for the newly placed child. One commenter stated that the Board should amend subparagraph (a)(3) of 825.121, which concerns spouses who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employing office, to clarify whether employing offices have discretion to grant the entire 12-week entitlement to both employee spouses; and to identify the circumstances when FEPLA leave must be separated or combined for those eligible employees. The Board's regulation is based on the DOL's regulation, and the Board finds no good cause to further modify that regulation. One commenter stated that the first sentence of paragraph (b) of 825.121 should be amended to substitute ``the employee's'' for ``the,'' so that the sentence would read: ``An eligible employee may use intermittent or reduced schedule leave after the placement of the employee's healthy child for adoption or foster care only if the employing office agrees.'' The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgH7224-3 | null | 3,608 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, December 7, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Amended Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Amended Notice be published in the House version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Any inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20540; 202-724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Attachment. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval Modifications to the rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, as required by 2 U.S.C. 1384, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended (CAA). Background: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' Section 202 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1302 et seq.), applies the rights and protections of sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA to covered employees in the legislative branch. On June 22, 2016, the Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record amendments to its substantive regulations regarding the FMLA. 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). As set forth in the Board's accompanying Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval, the 2016 amendments provide needed clarity on certain aspects of the FMLA. Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of these amendments. The purpose of this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval is to announce adoption of additional modifications to the existing legislative branch FMLA substantive regulations. Specifically, on December 20, 2019, Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (subtitle A of title LXXVI of division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, December 20, 2019) (FEPLA). FEPLA amended the FMLA to allow most civilian Federal employees, including eligible employees in the legislative branch, to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) for unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the birth of an employee's son or daughter or for the placement of a son or daughter with an employee for adoption or foster care. These additional modifications are necessary in order to bring existing legislative branch FMLA regulations (issued April 19, 1996) in line with these recent statutory changes. What is the authority under the CAA for these substantive regulations? Section 202(a) of the CAA provides that the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. 2611-2615) shall apply to covered employees in the legislative branch. Section 202(d)(1) and (2) of the CAA require that the Board, pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, issue regulations implementing the rights and protections of the FMLA and that those regulations shall be ``the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in the subsection (a) [of section 202 of the CAA] except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown . . . that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.'' The modifications to the regulations proposed by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 202 of the CAA requires regulations to be issued. Are there currently FMLA regulations in effect? Yes. On January 22, 1996, the OCWR Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record the original FMLA final regulations implementing section 202 of the CAA, which applies certain rights and protections of the FMLA. On April 15, 1996, pursuant to section 304(c) of the CAA, the House and the Senate passed resolutions approving the final regulations. Specifically, the Senate passed S. Res. 242, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the Senate and the employees of the Senate; the House passed H. Res. 400 providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the House and the employees of the House; and the House and the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 51, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to employing offices and employees other than those offices and employees of the House and the Senate. After the Senate and the House passed these resolutions, the Board formally issued the FMLA regulations on April 19, 1996. What does the FMLA provide? In general, the FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons and for specified circumstances relating to a family member's military service. Employing offices in the legislative branch covered by FMLA provisions of the CAA must provide unpaid leave to eligible employees: (1) for the birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn son or daughter; or (2) for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; (3) to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; (4) because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; (5) because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty status; and (6) to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. How do the FEPLA amendments affect the FMLA as applied to the legislative branch? The FEPLA amendments to the FMLA include provisions expressly applicable to the legislative branch that both: (1) change the eligibility rules for employees to take protected leave for births or placements under the FMLA; and (2) permit employees to substitute PPL and other paid accrued leave for unpaid FMLA leave for such births or placements. The FEPLA amendments are summarized below. For purposes of FMLA leave with respect to any birth or placement, all covered employees in the legislative branch are eligible for job-protected leave under the FMLA immediately upon commencement of employment. ``Covered employee'' means any employee of: (1) the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate; (3) the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; (4) the Capitol Police; (5) the Congressional Budget Office; (6) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (7) the Office of the Attending Physician; (8) the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; (9) the Office of Technology Assessment; (10) the Library of Congress; (11) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development; (12) the China Review Commission; (13) the Congressional Executive China Commission; (14) the Helsinki Commission; or (14) the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. See 2 U.S.C. 1301(a). Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid leave. However, under certain circumstances, the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA, as made applicable by the CAA, permit an eligible employee to choose to substitute PPL and accrued paid leave (such as paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave) for unpaid FMLA leave. The term ``substitute'' means that paid leave will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave. Accordingly, the employee receives pay during the period of otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. For leave taken for a birth or placement, an employee may elect to substitute for unpaid FMLA leave--(1) up to 12 workweeks of PPL in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement; and (2) any additional paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave provided by the employing office to such employee. Paid parental leave may be used only ``in connection with the birth or placement involved.'' See 2 U.S.C. 1312(d)(2)(A). By law, unpaid FMLA leave is generally limited to a total of 12 weeks in any 12-month period. Accordingly, any use of unpaid FMLA leave for a purpose other than birth or placement may reduce an employee's ability to substitute PPL for a birth or placement. Thus, for example, if an employee has used 3 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave during the leave year before the birth or placement, that employee's entitlement to 12 weeks of PPL may be reduced to 9 weeks. Paid parental leave may be used no later than the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. There are no carryover provisions for unused PPL. An employee may not be paid for unused or expired PPL. Paid parental leave may not be considered annual leave for purposes of making a lump-sum payment for annual leave or for any other purpose. FEPLA expressly provides that legislative branch employees using parental leave under the FMLA are not subject to the limitations that apply in the executive branch whereby employees may be required to agree in writing to work for the executive branch agency for at least 12 weeks after returning from leave. FEPLA also expressly provides that PPL applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to the limitations that may apply in the executive branch, state and local governments, and private sector, whereby an employer may recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan if the employee fails to return from PPL. When are the Paid Parental Leave provisions of FEPLA effective? FEPLA provides that the amendments to the CAA concerning PPL are not effective with respect to any birth or placement for adoption or foster care occurring before October 1, 2020. Thus, by law, PPL is available to covered employees only in connection with a birth or placement that occurs on or after October 1, 2020. How does FEPLA address active duty service in the National Guard or Reserves? In addition to providing for PPL, effective December 20, 2019, FEPLA also amended the general eligibility provisions of the FMLA (as applied by the CAA) to provide that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(14)) by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. Why are these additional changes to the FMLA regulations necessary? The CAA requires that the FMLA regulations applicable to the legislative branch and promulgated by the OCWR be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement FMLA title I, except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under the CAA. 2 U.S.C. 1312(e). FMLA title I covers employees of most private sector employers, state and local governments, and certain quasi-governmental entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service. These employees are governed by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. 601 and part 825. The Secretary of Labor will not be promulgating FEPLA regulations because FEPLA does not extend PPL to private sector employees or other employees directly covered by FMLA title I. The Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for further modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. Procedural Summary: How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for proposing and approving substantive regulations provides that: (1) the Board of Directors proposes substantive regulations and publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, the Board adopts regulations and transmits notice of such action (together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for congressional approval of the regulations) to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) there be committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) there be final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. What is the approach taken by these adopted substantive regulations? The Board follows the procedures as enumerated above and as required by statute. This Amended Notice of Adopted Rulemaking is step (3) of the outline set forth above. The Board has reviewed and responded to the comments received under step (2) of the outline above, and it has made changes where necessary to ensure that the adopted regulations fully implement section 202 of the CAA, and reflect the practices and policies particular to the legislative branch. (Because the Board's 2016 amendments were adopted pursuant to the procedures for proposing and approving substantive regulations in section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, including providing a comment period of 60 days after publication of the proposed amendments in the Congressional Record, the Board did not seek additional comments on those adopted amendments.) Are there substantive differences in the adopted regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate and other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no ``good cause'' for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these regulations are approved as adopted, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees. See 2 U.S.C. 1331(e)(2). Are these adopted regulations also recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), these adopted regulations are also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. Are these adopted substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? In addition to being posted on the OCWR's website (www.ocwr.gov), this Notice is also available in alternative formats. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, at 202/724-9250 (voice). Am I allowed to view copies of comments submitted by others? Yes. Copies of submitted comments will be available for review on the OCWR's public website at www.ocwr.gov. Summary: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104- 1, was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. The CAA, as amended, applies the rights and protections of 13 federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees and employing offices within the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 202 of the CAA applies to employees covered by the CAA, the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2611-2615. The above provisions of section 202 became effective on January 1, 1997. 2 U.S.C. 1312. The Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) is now publishing adopted amended regulations to implement section 202 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438, as applied to covered employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and certain congressional instrumentalities listed below. The purpose of these amended regulations is to implement section 202 of the CAA. In this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, the Board proposes that virtually identical regulations be adopted for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and certain congressional instrumentalities. Accordingly: (1) Senate. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the Senate, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. (2) House of Representatives. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the House of Representatives, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. (3) Certain congressional instrumentalities. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; the Capitol Police; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending Physician; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Office of Technology Assessment; the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; as recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director. Section-by-Section Discussion of Adopted Changes to the FMLA Regulations As noted above, Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of its amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations that the Board adopted on June 22, 2016. The section-by-section discussion of those amendments appears at 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). The following is a section-by-section discussion of the additional adopted amendments related to FEPLA. The Board's adopted amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations provide more detail regarding the implementation of the statutory provisions summarized above. In order to implement FEPLA, the Board amends subparts A-C of part 825 of its substantive regulations (Family and Medical Leave) to establish how the FMLA provisions will now operate, since the appropriate substitution of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave hinges on the standards for granting unpaid FMLA leave. The Board also amends subpart D to omit obsolete references to the OCWR's administrative dispute resolution procedures, which were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-397. (Although the Board had also proposed to amend part 825 to add a new subpart E, for the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined not to do so.) Below we provide a section-by- section explanation of the adopted changes in subparts A-D. Where a change has been made to a regulatory section, that section is discussed below. However, as the DOL has significantly reorganized its FMLA regulations, which the Board's adopted regulations mirror, many of the sections are moved into other areas of the subpart. The Board as a result will use the adopted section and numbers to provide explanation and analysis of changes. In addition, even if a section is not discussed, there may be minor editorial changes or corrections that do not warrant discussion, such as the substitution of the Office's current name, the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' for its former name, the ``Office of Compliance.'' Note: The use of the terms ``Type A,'' ``Type B,'' ``Type C,'' etc., in this Notice corresponds to the subsections of the FMLA provision describing these types of FMLA leave. Thus, ``Type A'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(A). ``Type B'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(B). ``Type C'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C). ``Type D'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). ``Type E'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(E). Some commenters suggested that the Board modify the regulations to resolve potential ambiguities in the DOL regulation. However, the Board has long held that it will not opine on interpretive ambiguities in the regulations outside of the adjudicatory context of individual cases. The Board's rulemaking authority under the CAA is restricted to circumstances where there is ``good cause'' to depart from the Secretary of Labor's substantive regulations. Further, the Board's adjudicatory function would be undermined if it prejudged ambiguous or disputed interpretive matters. Therefore, the Board does not find ``good cause'' to modify a regulation where the request is based on an ostensible need for clarification. Section-by-Section Discussion and Board Consideration of Comments Part 825--Family and Medical Leave 825.1 Purpose and Scope. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.1 to add a new paragraph (c), which describes the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA provisions of the CAA; states that the Board is amending its substantive FMLA regulations pursuant to the CAA rulemaking procedures set forth at sections 202(d) and 304 of the CAA; and further states that because the Secretary of Labor has not promulgated FEPLA regulations under FMLA title I, the Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. The paragraphs in 825.1 that follow paragraph (c) have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e). One commenter expressed concerns that the term ``Federal civilian employees in the legislative branch'' in proposed paragraph (c) could be read to improperly exclude sworn employees (or police officers) from the scope of the new regulations. The new paragraph (c) omits this term, and instead uses the terms ``Federal employees in the legislative branch'' and ``covered employees.'' Subpart A--COVERAGE UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 825.100 The Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (b) of 825.100 to clarify that the authority of an employing office, disbursing or other financial office to recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan is subject to 825.208(k), which provides that paid parental leave applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to such limitations. One commenter suggested amending paragraph (d) of 825.100 to apprise employees that FMLA leave may be denied, and the employee designated as Absent Without Leave, for failing to comply with the notification requirements outlined in 825.301(b). The Board finds that 825.100(d) is consistent with the DOL's regulation, and that good cause has not been shown to modify the DOL's regulation. 825.102 Definitions. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.102 to add the following definition of Birth: ``Birth means the delivery of a child. When the term ``birth'' under this subpart is used in connection with the use of leave before birth, it refers to an anticipated birth.'' One commenter suggested that the definition of Birth in 825.102 should be revised to ensure that employees who intend to deliver a live child and through complications in the birthing process have a birth that results in a deceased child receive the same entitlements during the physical recovery process from the birth as those employees whose birthing process results in the birth of a living child. The Board declines to make the suggested change, as its proposed definition encompasses the circumstances that the commenter describes. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of Birth should be stricken from the regulation in its entirety on the ground that good cause does not exist for modifying the applicable DOL regulation at 29 CFR 825.120(a)(l) or (2) by adding a definition of Birth which the commenter believed to be in conflict with the existing FMLA regulations. It states that nothing in the FEPLA nor anything unique to the congressional workplace justifies varying from or adding a definition that conflicts with that regulation. The Board disagrees. First, as stated above, the Secretary's regulations do not define the term Birth. Thus, the Board's definition of Birth presents no conflict with the Secretary's regulations. Second, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA for Type A leave provides good cause for adding such a definition. That is, the definition provides the specificity necessary in the Board's regulations to implement the new paid leave provisions of FEPLA in the legislative branch in connection with births and placements. By contrast, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA does not apply to employers and employees covered by the Secretary's FMLA title I regulations. Thus, there is no apparent need for clear distinctions between leave for births, placements, serious health conditions, or other qualifying exigencies in the applicable DOL regulations at 29 CFR 825.120 and 29 CFR 825.121, because the benefit, i.e., 12 weeks of unpaid leave, is the same for any of these reasons. The commenter also suggests striking the second sentence of the Board's definition of Birth on the ground that FEPLA does not permit substitution of paid leave for anticipated births. For the reasons set forth below concerning proposed 825.208, we disagree. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Covered Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of Covered Employee includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Eligible Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of eligible employee adds a new paragraph (1), which clarifies that for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length of service requirements in paragraph (2). Paragraph (3) of that definition, which concerns eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements, is amended to clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. A commenter recommended that the Employee of the House of Representatives definition in 825.102 should be revised to conform with language updates made through amendments and reforms to the CAA. The 2018 CAA Reform Act changed the language in the definition of House employees to reference pay that is disbursed by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, rather than the Office of the Clerk. Similarly, although the term ``clerk-hire allowance'' was used in original CAA text in the 1990's, the appropriate reference is now the ``Members' Representational Allowance.'' The Board finds good cause to make the suggested changes. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Employing Office in 825.102. The amended definition of Employing Office includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Family and Medical Leave in 825.102. The revised definition includes new language addressing leave to care for covered servicemembers. One commenter suggested further revising the definition to clarify that it means an employee's entitlement of ``up to'' 12 workweeks (or 26 workweeks in the case of leave under 825.127) of unpaid leave. The Board agrees and has made the suggested change. A commenter suggested that the definition of Intermittent Leave in 825.102 should be revised to include paid leave that is now available under the FMLA FEPLA provisions for reasons of birth or placement of a child for foster care or adoption. The Board finds good cause to make the suggested revision. The Board had proposed to amend 825.102 to add a new definition of Placement that clarified that it refers to a new placement. Two commenters stated that the proposed definition was inconsistent with the DOL's regulations at 29 CFR 825.121, which does not limit placements to ``new'' placements. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, and the Board will not include a new definition of Placement in its adopted regulations. One commenter suggested that the definitions of Son or Daughter, Son or Daughter of a Covered Servicemember, and Son or Daughter on Covered Active Duty or Call to Covered Active Duty Status in 825.102 (and 825.126(a)(5)) should be defined to account for circumstances where a child is gender neutral or gender undetermined. The commenter suggests adding a provision to clarify that these definitions include a covered servicemember's biological, adopted, foster child, stepchild, legal ward, and child(ren) for whom the covered servicemember stood in loco parentis, who are of any age, and who identify as transgender, gender neutral, gender non-conforming, or non-binary. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. It notes, however, that both DOL and the Board interpret these terms to include any child. 825.104 Covered employing offices. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.104 to: (1) designate paragraphs (1)-(4) as paragraphs (a)-(d); and (2) amend paragraph (d) to include the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 825.110 Eligible employee, general rule. 825.111 Eligible employee, birth or placement. The Board finds good cause to: (1) amend 825.110 to create a general rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements; and (2) add a new 825.111 to create a rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for births or placements. The amendments to 825.110 clarify that its provisions are subject to the exceptions set forth at 825.111; and they provide that for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. The new 825.111 clarifies that, for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length or hours of service requirements in the general rule at 825.110. One commenter suggested deleting the cross-references in 825.111 to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 825.112. The Board agrees and has revised 825.111 accordingly. The Board has determined not to further revise 825.111 to delete the citation: ``See also 825.120-21.'' 825.112 Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) of 825.112 to clarify that employing offices are required to grant leave to eligible employees for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, including the care of such son or daughter. One commenter stated that the citation in subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.112 should be changed to 825.120(a)(1)-(6) in order to exclude citation to the Board's proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. As stated below, the Board has determined not to include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. Therefore, the Board declines to make this revision. 825.120 Leave for pregnancy or birth. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.120 to clarify that FMLA leave for pregnancy or the birth of a son or daughter includes leave for the care of the newborn child. The Board also finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) to add a sentence stating that leave for a birth or placement must be concluded by the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth. One commenter noted that subparagraph (a)(3) indicates that spouses who are employed by the same employing office ``may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave,'' which seemingly grants employing offices the discretion to determine whether spouses are entitled to 12 weeks of individual or combined FEPLA leave for births or placements. The commenter states that the final rule should plainly indicate whether this is the intent of the provision or identify the instances when spouses would otherwise be limited to a combined 12 weeks of FEPLA leave. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, which uses the term ``may.'' See 29 CFR 825.120(a)(3). The Board had proposed to add a new subparagraph (a)(7) to 825.120, to state that leave taken because of a birth includes leave necessary for an employee who is the birth mother to recover from giving birth, or for an employee who is the other parent to care for the birth mother during her recovery period, even if the employee is not involved in caring for the son or daughter during portions of that recovery period. Several commenters stated that the new subparagraph (7) should not be included in the final rule, on the ground that no good cause exists for modifying the relevant DOL regulations to add this subparagraph. The Board has determined not to address this issue in the regulations and therefore will not include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) in 825.120. 825.121 Leave for adoption or foster care. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (a) of 825.121 to clarify that FMLA leave for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care includes leave to care for the newly placed child. One commenter stated that the Board should amend subparagraph (a)(3) of 825.121, which concerns spouses who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employing office, to clarify whether employing offices have discretion to grant the entire 12-week entitlement to both employee spouses; and to identify the circumstances when FEPLA leave must be separated or combined for those eligible employees. The Board's regulation is based on the DOL's regulation, and the Board finds no good cause to further modify that regulation. One commenter stated that the first sentence of paragraph (b) of 825.121 should be amended to substitute ``the employee's'' for ``the,'' so that the sentence would read: ``An eligible employee may use intermittent or reduced schedule leave after the placement of the employee's healthy child for adoption or foster care only if the employing office agrees.'' The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgH7224-3 | null | 3,609 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, December 7, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Amended Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Amended Notice be published in the House version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Any inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20540; 202-724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Attachment. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval Modifications to the rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, as required by 2 U.S.C. 1384, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended (CAA). Background: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' Section 202 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1302 et seq.), applies the rights and protections of sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA to covered employees in the legislative branch. On June 22, 2016, the Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record amendments to its substantive regulations regarding the FMLA. 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). As set forth in the Board's accompanying Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval, the 2016 amendments provide needed clarity on certain aspects of the FMLA. Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of these amendments. The purpose of this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval is to announce adoption of additional modifications to the existing legislative branch FMLA substantive regulations. Specifically, on December 20, 2019, Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (subtitle A of title LXXVI of division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, December 20, 2019) (FEPLA). FEPLA amended the FMLA to allow most civilian Federal employees, including eligible employees in the legislative branch, to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) for unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the birth of an employee's son or daughter or for the placement of a son or daughter with an employee for adoption or foster care. These additional modifications are necessary in order to bring existing legislative branch FMLA regulations (issued April 19, 1996) in line with these recent statutory changes. What is the authority under the CAA for these substantive regulations? Section 202(a) of the CAA provides that the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. 2611-2615) shall apply to covered employees in the legislative branch. Section 202(d)(1) and (2) of the CAA require that the Board, pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, issue regulations implementing the rights and protections of the FMLA and that those regulations shall be ``the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in the subsection (a) [of section 202 of the CAA] except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown . . . that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.'' The modifications to the regulations proposed by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 202 of the CAA requires regulations to be issued. Are there currently FMLA regulations in effect? Yes. On January 22, 1996, the OCWR Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record the original FMLA final regulations implementing section 202 of the CAA, which applies certain rights and protections of the FMLA. On April 15, 1996, pursuant to section 304(c) of the CAA, the House and the Senate passed resolutions approving the final regulations. Specifically, the Senate passed S. Res. 242, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the Senate and the employees of the Senate; the House passed H. Res. 400 providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the House and the employees of the House; and the House and the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 51, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to employing offices and employees other than those offices and employees of the House and the Senate. After the Senate and the House passed these resolutions, the Board formally issued the FMLA regulations on April 19, 1996. What does the FMLA provide? In general, the FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons and for specified circumstances relating to a family member's military service. Employing offices in the legislative branch covered by FMLA provisions of the CAA must provide unpaid leave to eligible employees: (1) for the birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn son or daughter; or (2) for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; (3) to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; (4) because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; (5) because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty status; and (6) to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. How do the FEPLA amendments affect the FMLA as applied to the legislative branch? The FEPLA amendments to the FMLA include provisions expressly applicable to the legislative branch that both: (1) change the eligibility rules for employees to take protected leave for births or placements under the FMLA; and (2) permit employees to substitute PPL and other paid accrued leave for unpaid FMLA leave for such births or placements. The FEPLA amendments are summarized below. For purposes of FMLA leave with respect to any birth or placement, all covered employees in the legislative branch are eligible for job-protected leave under the FMLA immediately upon commencement of employment. ``Covered employee'' means any employee of: (1) the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate; (3) the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; (4) the Capitol Police; (5) the Congressional Budget Office; (6) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (7) the Office of the Attending Physician; (8) the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; (9) the Office of Technology Assessment; (10) the Library of Congress; (11) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development; (12) the China Review Commission; (13) the Congressional Executive China Commission; (14) the Helsinki Commission; or (14) the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. See 2 U.S.C. 1301(a). Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid leave. However, under certain circumstances, the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA, as made applicable by the CAA, permit an eligible employee to choose to substitute PPL and accrued paid leave (such as paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave) for unpaid FMLA leave. The term ``substitute'' means that paid leave will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave. Accordingly, the employee receives pay during the period of otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. For leave taken for a birth or placement, an employee may elect to substitute for unpaid FMLA leave--(1) up to 12 workweeks of PPL in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement; and (2) any additional paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave provided by the employing office to such employee. Paid parental leave may be used only ``in connection with the birth or placement involved.'' See 2 U.S.C. 1312(d)(2)(A). By law, unpaid FMLA leave is generally limited to a total of 12 weeks in any 12-month period. Accordingly, any use of unpaid FMLA leave for a purpose other than birth or placement may reduce an employee's ability to substitute PPL for a birth or placement. Thus, for example, if an employee has used 3 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave during the leave year before the birth or placement, that employee's entitlement to 12 weeks of PPL may be reduced to 9 weeks. Paid parental leave may be used no later than the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. There are no carryover provisions for unused PPL. An employee may not be paid for unused or expired PPL. Paid parental leave may not be considered annual leave for purposes of making a lump-sum payment for annual leave or for any other purpose. FEPLA expressly provides that legislative branch employees using parental leave under the FMLA are not subject to the limitations that apply in the executive branch whereby employees may be required to agree in writing to work for the executive branch agency for at least 12 weeks after returning from leave. FEPLA also expressly provides that PPL applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to the limitations that may apply in the executive branch, state and local governments, and private sector, whereby an employer may recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan if the employee fails to return from PPL. When are the Paid Parental Leave provisions of FEPLA effective? FEPLA provides that the amendments to the CAA concerning PPL are not effective with respect to any birth or placement for adoption or foster care occurring before October 1, 2020. Thus, by law, PPL is available to covered employees only in connection with a birth or placement that occurs on or after October 1, 2020. How does FEPLA address active duty service in the National Guard or Reserves? In addition to providing for PPL, effective December 20, 2019, FEPLA also amended the general eligibility provisions of the FMLA (as applied by the CAA) to provide that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(14)) by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. Why are these additional changes to the FMLA regulations necessary? The CAA requires that the FMLA regulations applicable to the legislative branch and promulgated by the OCWR be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement FMLA title I, except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under the CAA. 2 U.S.C. 1312(e). FMLA title I covers employees of most private sector employers, state and local governments, and certain quasi-governmental entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service. These employees are governed by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. 601 and part 825. The Secretary of Labor will not be promulgating FEPLA regulations because FEPLA does not extend PPL to private sector employees or other employees directly covered by FMLA title I. The Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for further modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. Procedural Summary: How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for proposing and approving substantive regulations provides that: (1) the Board of Directors proposes substantive regulations and publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, the Board adopts regulations and transmits notice of such action (together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for congressional approval of the regulations) to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) there be committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) there be final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. What is the approach taken by these adopted substantive regulations? The Board follows the procedures as enumerated above and as required by statute. This Amended Notice of Adopted Rulemaking is step (3) of the outline set forth above. The Board has reviewed and responded to the comments received under step (2) of the outline above, and it has made changes where necessary to ensure that the adopted regulations fully implement section 202 of the CAA, and reflect the practices and policies particular to the legislative branch. (Because the Board's 2016 amendments were adopted pursuant to the procedures for proposing and approving substantive regulations in section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, including providing a comment period of 60 days after publication of the proposed amendments in the Congressional Record, the Board did not seek additional comments on those adopted amendments.) Are there substantive differences in the adopted regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate and other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no ``good cause'' for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these regulations are approved as adopted, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees. See 2 U.S.C. 1331(e)(2). Are these adopted regulations also recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), these adopted regulations are also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. Are these adopted substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? In addition to being posted on the OCWR's website (www.ocwr.gov), this Notice is also available in alternative formats. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, at 202/724-9250 (voice). Am I allowed to view copies of comments submitted by others? Yes. Copies of submitted comments will be available for review on the OCWR's public website at www.ocwr.gov. Summary: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104- 1, was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. The CAA, as amended, applies the rights and protections of 13 federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees and employing offices within the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 202 of the CAA applies to employees covered by the CAA, the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2611-2615. The above provisions of section 202 became effective on January 1, 1997. 2 U.S.C. 1312. The Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) is now publishing adopted amended regulations to implement section 202 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438, as applied to covered employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and certain congressional instrumentalities listed below. The purpose of these amended regulations is to implement section 202 of the CAA. In this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, the Board proposes that virtually identical regulations be adopted for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and certain congressional instrumentalities. Accordingly: (1) Senate. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the Senate, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. (2) House of Representatives. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the House of Representatives, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. (3) Certain congressional instrumentalities. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; the Capitol Police; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending Physician; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Office of Technology Assessment; the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; as recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director. Section-by-Section Discussion of Adopted Changes to the FMLA Regulations As noted above, Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of its amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations that the Board adopted on June 22, 2016. The section-by-section discussion of those amendments appears at 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). The following is a section-by-section discussion of the additional adopted amendments related to FEPLA. The Board's adopted amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations provide more detail regarding the implementation of the statutory provisions summarized above. In order to implement FEPLA, the Board amends subparts A-C of part 825 of its substantive regulations (Family and Medical Leave) to establish how the FMLA provisions will now operate, since the appropriate substitution of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave hinges on the standards for granting unpaid FMLA leave. The Board also amends subpart D to omit obsolete references to the OCWR's administrative dispute resolution procedures, which were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-397. (Although the Board had also proposed to amend part 825 to add a new subpart E, for the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined not to do so.) Below we provide a section-by- section explanation of the adopted changes in subparts A-D. Where a change has been made to a regulatory section, that section is discussed below. However, as the DOL has significantly reorganized its FMLA regulations, which the Board's adopted regulations mirror, many of the sections are moved into other areas of the subpart. The Board as a result will use the adopted section and numbers to provide explanation and analysis of changes. In addition, even if a section is not discussed, there may be minor editorial changes or corrections that do not warrant discussion, such as the substitution of the Office's current name, the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' for its former name, the ``Office of Compliance.'' Note: The use of the terms ``Type A,'' ``Type B,'' ``Type C,'' etc., in this Notice corresponds to the subsections of the FMLA provision describing these types of FMLA leave. Thus, ``Type A'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(A). ``Type B'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(B). ``Type C'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C). ``Type D'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). ``Type E'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(E). Some commenters suggested that the Board modify the regulations to resolve potential ambiguities in the DOL regulation. However, the Board has long held that it will not opine on interpretive ambiguities in the regulations outside of the adjudicatory context of individual cases. The Board's rulemaking authority under the CAA is restricted to circumstances where there is ``good cause'' to depart from the Secretary of Labor's substantive regulations. Further, the Board's adjudicatory function would be undermined if it prejudged ambiguous or disputed interpretive matters. Therefore, the Board does not find ``good cause'' to modify a regulation where the request is based on an ostensible need for clarification. Section-by-Section Discussion and Board Consideration of Comments Part 825--Family and Medical Leave 825.1 Purpose and Scope. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.1 to add a new paragraph (c), which describes the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA provisions of the CAA; states that the Board is amending its substantive FMLA regulations pursuant to the CAA rulemaking procedures set forth at sections 202(d) and 304 of the CAA; and further states that because the Secretary of Labor has not promulgated FEPLA regulations under FMLA title I, the Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. The paragraphs in 825.1 that follow paragraph (c) have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e). One commenter expressed concerns that the term ``Federal civilian employees in the legislative branch'' in proposed paragraph (c) could be read to improperly exclude sworn employees (or police officers) from the scope of the new regulations. The new paragraph (c) omits this term, and instead uses the terms ``Federal employees in the legislative branch'' and ``covered employees.'' Subpart A--COVERAGE UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 825.100 The Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (b) of 825.100 to clarify that the authority of an employing office, disbursing or other financial office to recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan is subject to 825.208(k), which provides that paid parental leave applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to such limitations. One commenter suggested amending paragraph (d) of 825.100 to apprise employees that FMLA leave may be denied, and the employee designated as Absent Without Leave, for failing to comply with the notification requirements outlined in 825.301(b). The Board finds that 825.100(d) is consistent with the DOL's regulation, and that good cause has not been shown to modify the DOL's regulation. 825.102 Definitions. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.102 to add the following definition of Birth: ``Birth means the delivery of a child. When the term ``birth'' under this subpart is used in connection with the use of leave before birth, it refers to an anticipated birth.'' One commenter suggested that the definition of Birth in 825.102 should be revised to ensure that employees who intend to deliver a live child and through complications in the birthing process have a birth that results in a deceased child receive the same entitlements during the physical recovery process from the birth as those employees whose birthing process results in the birth of a living child. The Board declines to make the suggested change, as its proposed definition encompasses the circumstances that the commenter describes. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of Birth should be stricken from the regulation in its entirety on the ground that good cause does not exist for modifying the applicable DOL regulation at 29 CFR 825.120(a)(l) or (2) by adding a definition of Birth which the commenter believed to be in conflict with the existing FMLA regulations. It states that nothing in the FEPLA nor anything unique to the congressional workplace justifies varying from or adding a definition that conflicts with that regulation. The Board disagrees. First, as stated above, the Secretary's regulations do not define the term Birth. Thus, the Board's definition of Birth presents no conflict with the Secretary's regulations. Second, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA for Type A leave provides good cause for adding such a definition. That is, the definition provides the specificity necessary in the Board's regulations to implement the new paid leave provisions of FEPLA in the legislative branch in connection with births and placements. By contrast, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA does not apply to employers and employees covered by the Secretary's FMLA title I regulations. Thus, there is no apparent need for clear distinctions between leave for births, placements, serious health conditions, or other qualifying exigencies in the applicable DOL regulations at 29 CFR 825.120 and 29 CFR 825.121, because the benefit, i.e., 12 weeks of unpaid leave, is the same for any of these reasons. The commenter also suggests striking the second sentence of the Board's definition of Birth on the ground that FEPLA does not permit substitution of paid leave for anticipated births. For the reasons set forth below concerning proposed 825.208, we disagree. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Covered Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of Covered Employee includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Eligible Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of eligible employee adds a new paragraph (1), which clarifies that for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length of service requirements in paragraph (2). Paragraph (3) of that definition, which concerns eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements, is amended to clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. A commenter recommended that the Employee of the House of Representatives definition in 825.102 should be revised to conform with language updates made through amendments and reforms to the CAA. The 2018 CAA Reform Act changed the language in the definition of House employees to reference pay that is disbursed by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, rather than the Office of the Clerk. Similarly, although the term ``clerk-hire allowance'' was used in original CAA text in the 1990's, the appropriate reference is now the ``Members' Representational Allowance.'' The Board finds good cause to make the suggested changes. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Employing Office in 825.102. The amended definition of Employing Office includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Family and Medical Leave in 825.102. The revised definition includes new language addressing leave to care for covered servicemembers. One commenter suggested further revising the definition to clarify that it means an employee's entitlement of ``up to'' 12 workweeks (or 26 workweeks in the case of leave under 825.127) of unpaid leave. The Board agrees and has made the suggested change. A commenter suggested that the definition of Intermittent Leave in 825.102 should be revised to include paid leave that is now available under the FMLA FEPLA provisions for reasons of birth or placement of a child for foster care or adoption. The Board finds good cause to make the suggested revision. The Board had proposed to amend 825.102 to add a new definition of Placement that clarified that it refers to a new placement. Two commenters stated that the proposed definition was inconsistent with the DOL's regulations at 29 CFR 825.121, which does not limit placements to ``new'' placements. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, and the Board will not include a new definition of Placement in its adopted regulations. One commenter suggested that the definitions of Son or Daughter, Son or Daughter of a Covered Servicemember, and Son or Daughter on Covered Active Duty or Call to Covered Active Duty Status in 825.102 (and 825.126(a)(5)) should be defined to account for circumstances where a child is gender neutral or gender undetermined. The commenter suggests adding a provision to clarify that these definitions include a covered servicemember's biological, adopted, foster child, stepchild, legal ward, and child(ren) for whom the covered servicemember stood in loco parentis, who are of any age, and who identify as transgender, gender neutral, gender non-conforming, or non-binary. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. It notes, however, that both DOL and the Board interpret these terms to include any child. 825.104 Covered employing offices. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.104 to: (1) designate paragraphs (1)-(4) as paragraphs (a)-(d); and (2) amend paragraph (d) to include the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 825.110 Eligible employee, general rule. 825.111 Eligible employee, birth or placement. The Board finds good cause to: (1) amend 825.110 to create a general rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements; and (2) add a new 825.111 to create a rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for births or placements. The amendments to 825.110 clarify that its provisions are subject to the exceptions set forth at 825.111; and they provide that for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. The new 825.111 clarifies that, for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length or hours of service requirements in the general rule at 825.110. One commenter suggested deleting the cross-references in 825.111 to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 825.112. The Board agrees and has revised 825.111 accordingly. The Board has determined not to further revise 825.111 to delete the citation: ``See also 825.120-21.'' 825.112 Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) of 825.112 to clarify that employing offices are required to grant leave to eligible employees for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, including the care of such son or daughter. One commenter stated that the citation in subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.112 should be changed to 825.120(a)(1)-(6) in order to exclude citation to the Board's proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. As stated below, the Board has determined not to include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. Therefore, the Board declines to make this revision. 825.120 Leave for pregnancy or birth. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.120 to clarify that FMLA leave for pregnancy or the birth of a son or daughter includes leave for the care of the newborn child. The Board also finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) to add a sentence stating that leave for a birth or placement must be concluded by the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth. One commenter noted that subparagraph (a)(3) indicates that spouses who are employed by the same employing office ``may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave,'' which seemingly grants employing offices the discretion to determine whether spouses are entitled to 12 weeks of individual or combined FEPLA leave for births or placements. The commenter states that the final rule should plainly indicate whether this is the intent of the provision or identify the instances when spouses would otherwise be limited to a combined 12 weeks of FEPLA leave. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, which uses the term ``may.'' See 29 CFR 825.120(a)(3). The Board had proposed to add a new subparagraph (a)(7) to 825.120, to state that leave taken because of a birth includes leave necessary for an employee who is the birth mother to recover from giving birth, or for an employee who is the other parent to care for the birth mother during her recovery period, even if the employee is not involved in caring for the son or daughter during portions of that recovery period. Several commenters stated that the new subparagraph (7) should not be included in the final rule, on the ground that no good cause exists for modifying the relevant DOL regulations to add this subparagraph. The Board has determined not to address this issue in the regulations and therefore will not include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) in 825.120. 825.121 Leave for adoption or foster care. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (a) of 825.121 to clarify that FMLA leave for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care includes leave to care for the newly placed child. One commenter stated that the Board should amend subparagraph (a)(3) of 825.121, which concerns spouses who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employing office, to clarify whether employing offices have discretion to grant the entire 12-week entitlement to both employee spouses; and to identify the circumstances when FEPLA leave must be separated or combined for those eligible employees. The Board's regulation is based on the DOL's regulation, and the Board finds no good cause to further modify that regulation. One commenter stated that the first sentence of paragraph (b) of 825.121 should be amended to substitute ``the employee's'' for ``the,'' so that the sentence would read: ``An eligible employee may use intermittent or reduced schedule leave after the placement of the employee's healthy child for adoption or foster care only if the employing office agrees.'' The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgH7224-3 | null | 3,610 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel Mr. President, on Jessica Rosenworcel, the Senate will vote to confirm a remarkable, highly experienced, and historic nominee: Jessica Rosenworcel to be the Chair of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. Ms. Rosenworcel has served as a Commissioner at the FCC for nearly a decade, the past 10 months as Acting Chair. I believe she will receive great bipartisan support as she becomes the first woman ever confirmed by this Chamber to lead the FCC. Ms. Rosenworcel is exactly the right person for the job in 2021. She has set herself apart as one of the Nation's leading champions for more affordable and accessible internet. After the FCC repealed net neutrality during the Trump administration, the best thing the Senate can do is confirm someone with a proven record of standing on the side of American consumers. Ms. Rosenworcel will also step in as Chair at a time when the FCC is carrying out the important task of expanding broadband to millions of Americans who have long been left behind. Ms. Rosenworcel is keenly aware of the immense damage that the digital divide has caused our country. It has shut out rural, urban, and low-income Americans, including far too many women and people of color for whom basic internet access remains unavailable or unaffordable, even as it is a necessity in the 21st century. Ms. Rosenworcel has long focused on these issues, and I am confident that,under her leadership, the FCC will make immense progress in addressing these challenges. Americans don't want to see their internet bills go up and up and up. They don't want to have to drive long distances at late hours just so their kids can finish homework at public libraries. And they want telemedicine to be available so they can be in the best of health. No. Every American wants and deserves fast, affordable, and reliable internet access directly in their homes. Already this year, as a result of the President's infrastructure bill, we have made tremendous strides in closing the digital divide. We will build on that progress by confirming Ms. Rosenworcel today so that Americans can rest assured that they will have an FCC fighting for them. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8937-10 | null | 3,611 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel Mr. President, on Jessica Rosenworcel, the Senate will vote to confirm a remarkable, highly experienced, and historic nominee: Jessica Rosenworcel to be the Chair of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. Ms. Rosenworcel has served as a Commissioner at the FCC for nearly a decade, the past 10 months as Acting Chair. I believe she will receive great bipartisan support as she becomes the first woman ever confirmed by this Chamber to lead the FCC. Ms. Rosenworcel is exactly the right person for the job in 2021. She has set herself apart as one of the Nation's leading champions for more affordable and accessible internet. After the FCC repealed net neutrality during the Trump administration, the best thing the Senate can do is confirm someone with a proven record of standing on the side of American consumers. Ms. Rosenworcel will also step in as Chair at a time when the FCC is carrying out the important task of expanding broadband to millions of Americans who have long been left behind. Ms. Rosenworcel is keenly aware of the immense damage that the digital divide has caused our country. It has shut out rural, urban, and low-income Americans, including far too many women and people of color for whom basic internet access remains unavailable or unaffordable, even as it is a necessity in the 21st century. Ms. Rosenworcel has long focused on these issues, and I am confident that,under her leadership, the FCC will make immense progress in addressing these challenges. Americans don't want to see their internet bills go up and up and up. They don't want to have to drive long distances at late hours just so their kids can finish homework at public libraries. And they want telemedicine to be available so they can be in the best of health. No. Every American wants and deserves fast, affordable, and reliable internet access directly in their homes. Already this year, as a result of the President's infrastructure bill, we have made tremendous strides in closing the digital divide. We will build on that progress by confirming Ms. Rosenworcel today so that Americans can rest assured that they will have an FCC fighting for them. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8937-10 | null | 3,612 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for a term of five years from July 1, 2020. (Reappointment) | 2020-01-06 | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8937-7 | null | 3,613 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on Build Back Better, Senate Democrats continue our work to pass the President's Build Back Better Act before Christmas. Making progress on Build Back Better has been no small task, but sticking to our deadline will be worth it for one simple reason: at its core, Build Back Better is the best shot we have had in decades to help families lower costs, to cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans, and create good paying jobs while fighting the climate crisis. Economists across the ideological spectrum have said it will not--will not--worsen inflation, something we are seeing happening across the world, not just in the U.S. Here is something just about every American can appreciate: Build Back Better will make it cheaper for parents to raise their kids. For that alone, it is more than worth the effort. By providing the largest investment in childcare in American history, Build Back Better will make it so the vast majority of families will pay no more than 7 percent of their income on childcare for kids under 6. That single investment could save parents hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. I think it is a pretty great deal for American families. It will also help our economy. Everywhere you go you hear about shortages of labor. One of the main reasons is inadequate childcare. We rank way low on the list of developed nations. The United States' provisions for childcare come out near the very bottom. That is something we cannot tolerate anymore. And that is just one item, childcare. Build Back Better will also provide, for the first time ever, free universal pre-K for millions of American families. By one measure, pre-K can cost parents up to $8,600 a year per child. Under Build Back Better, many parents will pay zero. Think about that: pre-K, for the first time in U.S. history, the greatest expansion of free education that the United States has seen in a century. When we made high schools available to everyone, it made our economy the strongest in the 20th century. We have got to learn that lesson here in the 21st century with pre-K. Build Back Better, of course, will also extend the child tax credit that Democrats passed under the American Rescue Plan. This simple lifeline--a $300 check in the mail each month for each child--can be a game changer--a game changer--during the winter months, and under Build Back Better, we can make sure this benefit stays in place. None of this approaches the many other ways that Build Back Better will save Americans money. It will provide the largest investment in affordable housing ever. It could save Americans hundreds--even more--by making prescription drugs, like insulin, cheaper. And it will take necessary and long-overdue steps to fight the climate crisis, which costs our country tens of billions each year every time hurricanes, wildfires, and floods wreak havoc across the country. Creating jobs, lowering costs, fighting climate change, and keeping more money in people's pockets--these are the things Americans want. These are the things Americans need, and it is what Build Back Better does. We are going to continue working to get these things done before the Christmas holiday. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8938 | null | 3,614 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on Build Back Better, Senate Democrats continue our work to pass the President's Build Back Better Act before Christmas. Making progress on Build Back Better has been no small task, but sticking to our deadline will be worth it for one simple reason: at its core, Build Back Better is the best shot we have had in decades to help families lower costs, to cut taxes for working and middle-class Americans, and create good paying jobs while fighting the climate crisis. Economists across the ideological spectrum have said it will not--will not--worsen inflation, something we are seeing happening across the world, not just in the U.S. Here is something just about every American can appreciate: Build Back Better will make it cheaper for parents to raise their kids. For that alone, it is more than worth the effort. By providing the largest investment in childcare in American history, Build Back Better will make it so the vast majority of families will pay no more than 7 percent of their income on childcare for kids under 6. That single investment could save parents hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. I think it is a pretty great deal for American families. It will also help our economy. Everywhere you go you hear about shortages of labor. One of the main reasons is inadequate childcare. We rank way low on the list of developed nations. The United States' provisions for childcare come out near the very bottom. That is something we cannot tolerate anymore. And that is just one item, childcare. Build Back Better will also provide, for the first time ever, free universal pre-K for millions of American families. By one measure, pre-K can cost parents up to $8,600 a year per child. Under Build Back Better, many parents will pay zero. Think about that: pre-K, for the first time in U.S. history, the greatest expansion of free education that the United States has seen in a century. When we made high schools available to everyone, it made our economy the strongest in the 20th century. We have got to learn that lesson here in the 21st century with pre-K. Build Back Better, of course, will also extend the child tax credit that Democrats passed under the American Rescue Plan. This simple lifeline--a $300 check in the mail each month for each child--can be a game changer--a game changer--during the winter months, and under Build Back Better, we can make sure this benefit stays in place. None of this approaches the many other ways that Build Back Better will save Americans money. It will provide the largest investment in affordable housing ever. It could save Americans hundreds--even more--by making prescription drugs, like insulin, cheaper. And it will take necessary and long-overdue steps to fight the climate crisis, which costs our country tens of billions each year every time hurricanes, wildfires, and floods wreak havoc across the country. Creating jobs, lowering costs, fighting climate change, and keeping more money in people's pockets--these are the things Americans want. These are the things Americans need, and it is what Build Back Better does. We are going to continue working to get these things done before the Christmas holiday. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8938 | null | 3,615 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, Democrats continue to work on their reckless tax-and-spending spree--or perhaps I should say their reckless tax-and-spending disaster. Tax hikes, deficit spending, inflationary spending--it is all there in Democrats' spending package--plus, of course, that tax break for wealthy Americans. Yeah, that is right, a tax break for millionaires. I am talking, of course, about Democrats' expansion of the State and local tax deduction known as the SALT deduction, which would overwhelmingly benefit affluent taxpayers in mainly Democrat-led States and do almost nothing for middle- and lower-income families. For months and months, Democrats have been going on about the need for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes, which is, I find, at the height of irony that the Democrats' current bill contains a substantial tax break for wealthy Americans. I am not surprised that Democrats kept that SALT provision out of the Ways and Means Committee markup in the House of Representatives. After constantly talking about making the wealthy pay their fair share, it is a little awkward to publicly debate your tax break for the wealthy. Instead, Democrats stuffed the tax break into the reconciliation bill under the subtitle of, of all things, ``social safety net.'' Yes, that is right, social safety net. Well, who benefits from this particular safety net exactly? About 94 percent of the tax benefit would go to the top 20 percent of earners. About 70 percent will go to the top 5 percent of earners. And nearly one-third of this tax benefit would go to the top 1 percent of households in this country. The average tax savings for middle-income households from raising the SALT cap would be 20 bucks--$20. Meanwhile, millionaires would receive an average tax cut of almost $15,000. Well, I guess the priorities of wealthy Democrat donors in blue States trump Democrats' plans to make wealthy Americans pay their fair share. Not only does the bill contain a tax break for millionaires, this tax break is one of the most expensive parts of the bill. In fact, it is the second most expensive item in the House-passed bill over the next 5 years. That is right. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, only Democrats' childcare and pre-K programs would exceed the cost of raising the SALT cap. Now, given their rhetoric, you would think that Democrats might have chosen to forgo this tax break for the wealthy and spend the money on one of their other programs that they fund for only part of their bill's 10-year budget window. But no. This tax break is apparently so important to Democrats that they are willing to shortchange some of their other priorities in order to include it. We have also heard a lot from Democrats about how corporations need to pay their fair share, which, I guess, is whatever Democrats determine it to be. The Democrats' bill does include a corporate minimum tax--except it turns out that it is not really a corporate minimum tax and some corporations won't have to pay the full tax. Democrats have carved out certain exceptions to the corporate minimum tax, including clean energy tax credits. So if you are a corporation engaged in Democrat-approved activities, you will be able to avoid paying some or all of the corporate minimum tax. If you don't qualify for Democrats' approved carve-outs, on the other hand, you can look forward to paying the full tax bill. Democrats' hypocrisy might be amusing if this bill weren't so dangerous, but, unfortunately, there is not much to laugh about when it comes to this bill. Democrats' Build Back Better spending disaster will pour $1.75 trillion in government money into an already overheated economy, which will likely prolong the serious inflation we are currently experiencing. Democrats' helped create our current inflation situation by flooding the economy with a lot of unnecessary government money earlier this year, and now Democrats are going to pour another $1.75 trillion onto the inflationary fire. American families are already experiencing the worst inflation in more than 30 years. I don't even want to think about what inflation will look like if Democrats succeed in passing on another $1.75 trillion in spending. Now, I say $1.75 trillion, but, of course, Democrats only arrived at that number through a series of shell games and budget gimmicks. The real cost ofthe Democrats' bill is much, much higher. An honest accounting of the bill puts the number in the range of $4.5 to nearly $5 trillion--$5 trillion. To put that number in perspective, the entire Federal budget for fiscal year 2019 was $4.4 trillion--the entire Federal budget. Democrats are proposing a major expansion of government, and they are deceiving the American people into thinking that it can be paid for with $1.75 trillion. That is simply not true. Democrats have arrived at that number by putting some of their provisions, from tax measures to new programs, into place for as little as a year. But, of course, Democrats don't have the slightest intention of having those tax measures or new programs expire after a year or 2, or ever. Take the child allowance. Democrats' legislation would have their child allowance sunset in 1 year--1 year. But, of course, Democrats fully intend for their child allowance to be made permanent. But by only funding the child allowance and other measures for a fraction of their bill's 10-year budget window, they can disguise the true cost of permanently implementing these measures and how much these measures will end up costing the American people. And, make no mistake, these programs will cost them. Democrats may talk about funding their legislation with taxes on corporations and the wealthy, but ordinary Americans are going to be paying for a major part of the bill. A substantial part of the Democrats' tax increases on business and investment would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or reduced services, and those price hikes will come on top of the inflation that we are already experiencing and the additional inflation we are likely to experience as a result of this bill. Americans are also likely to pay for this legislation with decreased economic growth and fewer economic opportunities, and they may pay in further tax hikes when Democrats try to extend their programs and need to come up with money to at least partially pay for them. I am hard pressed to think of anything more irresponsible than Democrats passing this legislation at this time. As I mentioned, inflation is currently at a 30-year high. American families are struggling with high gas prices, high grocery bills, high rent prices, the high price of used cars--and the list goes on. Yet Democrats are planning to pass a bill that is likely to worsen our inflation situation and extend our current inflation crisis even further, not to mention driving up our deficit and worsening our country's fiscal health. We don't know what government money will be needed down the road. We are emerging from a pandemic that required a lot of unexpected government expenditure, and we don't know what other challenges our country will end up facing in the future. Yet Democrats are planning to keep spending as if there is no tomorrow with absolutely no regard--absolutely no regard--for our current inflation situation or for possible future needs. It is deeply, deeply irresponsible, and if Democrats succeed in passing their spending spree, the American people will be paying a very steep price for decades to come. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8941-3 | null | 3,616 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, Democrats continue to work on their reckless tax-and-spending spree--or perhaps I should say their reckless tax-and-spending disaster. Tax hikes, deficit spending, inflationary spending--it is all there in Democrats' spending package--plus, of course, that tax break for wealthy Americans. Yeah, that is right, a tax break for millionaires. I am talking, of course, about Democrats' expansion of the State and local tax deduction known as the SALT deduction, which would overwhelmingly benefit affluent taxpayers in mainly Democrat-led States and do almost nothing for middle- and lower-income families. For months and months, Democrats have been going on about the need for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes, which is, I find, at the height of irony that the Democrats' current bill contains a substantial tax break for wealthy Americans. I am not surprised that Democrats kept that SALT provision out of the Ways and Means Committee markup in the House of Representatives. After constantly talking about making the wealthy pay their fair share, it is a little awkward to publicly debate your tax break for the wealthy. Instead, Democrats stuffed the tax break into the reconciliation bill under the subtitle of, of all things, ``social safety net.'' Yes, that is right, social safety net. Well, who benefits from this particular safety net exactly? About 94 percent of the tax benefit would go to the top 20 percent of earners. About 70 percent will go to the top 5 percent of earners. And nearly one-third of this tax benefit would go to the top 1 percent of households in this country. The average tax savings for middle-income households from raising the SALT cap would be 20 bucks--$20. Meanwhile, millionaires would receive an average tax cut of almost $15,000. Well, I guess the priorities of wealthy Democrat donors in blue States trump Democrats' plans to make wealthy Americans pay their fair share. Not only does the bill contain a tax break for millionaires, this tax break is one of the most expensive parts of the bill. In fact, it is the second most expensive item in the House-passed bill over the next 5 years. That is right. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, only Democrats' childcare and pre-K programs would exceed the cost of raising the SALT cap. Now, given their rhetoric, you would think that Democrats might have chosen to forgo this tax break for the wealthy and spend the money on one of their other programs that they fund for only part of their bill's 10-year budget window. But no. This tax break is apparently so important to Democrats that they are willing to shortchange some of their other priorities in order to include it. We have also heard a lot from Democrats about how corporations need to pay their fair share, which, I guess, is whatever Democrats determine it to be. The Democrats' bill does include a corporate minimum tax--except it turns out that it is not really a corporate minimum tax and some corporations won't have to pay the full tax. Democrats have carved out certain exceptions to the corporate minimum tax, including clean energy tax credits. So if you are a corporation engaged in Democrat-approved activities, you will be able to avoid paying some or all of the corporate minimum tax. If you don't qualify for Democrats' approved carve-outs, on the other hand, you can look forward to paying the full tax bill. Democrats' hypocrisy might be amusing if this bill weren't so dangerous, but, unfortunately, there is not much to laugh about when it comes to this bill. Democrats' Build Back Better spending disaster will pour $1.75 trillion in government money into an already overheated economy, which will likely prolong the serious inflation we are currently experiencing. Democrats' helped create our current inflation situation by flooding the economy with a lot of unnecessary government money earlier this year, and now Democrats are going to pour another $1.75 trillion onto the inflationary fire. American families are already experiencing the worst inflation in more than 30 years. I don't even want to think about what inflation will look like if Democrats succeed in passing on another $1.75 trillion in spending. Now, I say $1.75 trillion, but, of course, Democrats only arrived at that number through a series of shell games and budget gimmicks. The real cost ofthe Democrats' bill is much, much higher. An honest accounting of the bill puts the number in the range of $4.5 to nearly $5 trillion--$5 trillion. To put that number in perspective, the entire Federal budget for fiscal year 2019 was $4.4 trillion--the entire Federal budget. Democrats are proposing a major expansion of government, and they are deceiving the American people into thinking that it can be paid for with $1.75 trillion. That is simply not true. Democrats have arrived at that number by putting some of their provisions, from tax measures to new programs, into place for as little as a year. But, of course, Democrats don't have the slightest intention of having those tax measures or new programs expire after a year or 2, or ever. Take the child allowance. Democrats' legislation would have their child allowance sunset in 1 year--1 year. But, of course, Democrats fully intend for their child allowance to be made permanent. But by only funding the child allowance and other measures for a fraction of their bill's 10-year budget window, they can disguise the true cost of permanently implementing these measures and how much these measures will end up costing the American people. And, make no mistake, these programs will cost them. Democrats may talk about funding their legislation with taxes on corporations and the wealthy, but ordinary Americans are going to be paying for a major part of the bill. A substantial part of the Democrats' tax increases on business and investment would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or reduced services, and those price hikes will come on top of the inflation that we are already experiencing and the additional inflation we are likely to experience as a result of this bill. Americans are also likely to pay for this legislation with decreased economic growth and fewer economic opportunities, and they may pay in further tax hikes when Democrats try to extend their programs and need to come up with money to at least partially pay for them. I am hard pressed to think of anything more irresponsible than Democrats passing this legislation at this time. As I mentioned, inflation is currently at a 30-year high. American families are struggling with high gas prices, high grocery bills, high rent prices, the high price of used cars--and the list goes on. Yet Democrats are planning to pass a bill that is likely to worsen our inflation situation and extend our current inflation crisis even further, not to mention driving up our deficit and worsening our country's fiscal health. We don't know what government money will be needed down the road. We are emerging from a pandemic that required a lot of unexpected government expenditure, and we don't know what other challenges our country will end up facing in the future. Yet Democrats are planning to keep spending as if there is no tomorrow with absolutely no regard--absolutely no regard--for our current inflation situation or for possible future needs. It is deeply, deeply irresponsible, and if Democrats succeed in passing their spending spree, the American people will be paying a very steep price for decades to come. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8941-3 | null | 3,617 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of Chris Magnus The President has nominated, in this instance, a fellow named Chris Magnus. He has nominated him to serve as the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, a very big and important job, as the Presiding Officer knows. I always like to say that leadership may be the most important ingredient for success of any organization I have ever seen. Inside of government or outside of government, it is the single most important ingredient. Chief Chris Magnus has over 40 years of exemplary public service in communities that span across this country. He has a strong track record of collaborative leadership, and his nomination has earned the support of dozens and dozens of law enforcement and public safety organizations. It has been 8 months--8 months have passed since our President nominated Chief Magnus for this critically important role at the Department. The American people are counting on seasoned leadership at the Agency. We have the opportunity today to confirm this nomination and provide the leadership that is badly needed on the borders--especially on the borders of our Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8945 | null | 3,618 |
formal | Janet Yellen | null | antisemitic | Private Debt Collection Program Madam President, now on another matter, I want to refer to the debate that is going on behind the scenes here as Democrats try to put together a bill that they would call the Build Back Better bill. I call it the Blue State Billionaire Bailout. It comes from that part that they are talking about increasing all of the IRS agents by a massive amount of people to supposedly bring in x number more dollars into the Federal Treasury. There is some debate about how much it will bring in. But I want to talk about a program that hires more agents, pays for more agents, and brings in more money, and that is the Private Debt Collection Program. Going back to what is being talked about here in the Senate behind closed doors in the Democratic Party to put this Blue State Billionaire Bailout bill together, I go to December 1, Washington Post, Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen. The Post gave her two Pinocchios for claiming that the bloated Blue State Billionaire Bailout package is fully paid for, or, as she would say, the Build Back Better bill is fully paid for. Much of the Post's column focuses on how much revenue Democrats' proposed increase in the IRS enforcement budget would generate. The White House and the Congressional Budget Office have offered wildly, wildly different estimates of what that proposal would do. The estimate provided by CBO--that is Congress's official scorekeeper--is hundreds of billions less than the number provided by the White House. I am noting this disagreement to highlight an existing program that is bringing in additional revenue without Congress spending 1 dollar more. I am speaking about, as I previously said, the Private Debt Collection Program. Recently, the IRS provided an update of this program's enforcement and performance for fiscal year 2021. It shows the program is thriving and bringing in more and more revenue on an annual basis. Maybe I should give a personal comment on why this program is important to me, because I think I was chairman of the Finance Committee--I forget whether it was 2003 through 2006--during that period of time that we set this program up. This update on the latest statistics shows that this program, the Private Debt Collection Program, resulted in net revenue to the Treasury of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2021. This is a real increase of around 129 percent over net revenue in fiscal year 2020 of around $459 million. That 2020 increase was on top of a more than 100 percent increase in net revenue over the year 2019. These numbers show that the longer the Private Debt Collection Program operates, the more it recovers to the Federal Treasury. The incredible numbers of fiscal year 2021 also reflect several months where the IRS did not provide new cases to the private debt collection company, and without cases being given to these private debt collectors, you aren't going to get more revenue. In a previous speech, I said that I was going to hold the IRS Commissioner responsible to his promise to provide additional cases to the collection companies by September 27. And, by the way, I also ought to make very clear that this Private Debt Collection program only goes after taxpayers that aren't paying and that the IRS has given up on collecting money from. So Commissioner Rettig has kept his promise. I understand that additional collection cases were provided. I commend Commissioner Rettig for following through on his promise to me and for his continued support of this very worthwhile program. The Private Debt Collection program also does more than just bring in revenue into the Treasury. It also pays for the IRS to hire special compliance personnel who collect unpaid debts that are owed to the government. Those amounts are reflected in the total fiscal year numbers that I gave earlier. I understand that the program was also so successful that the IRS can now hire with this additional revenue up to 400 more employees. Right now, the Senate is wrangling over how much revenue might be collected if you increase the budget of the IRS and hire thousands of additional IRS personnel. So, meanwhile, as I have shown, we currently have a program that is already bringing in more money year over year, while paying for additional IRS personnel. I appreciate Commissioner Rettig's support of this program, and look forward to reporting to my colleagues on his continued success. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8946 | null | 3,619 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Private Debt Collection Program Madam President, now on another matter, I want to refer to the debate that is going on behind the scenes here as Democrats try to put together a bill that they would call the Build Back Better bill. I call it the Blue State Billionaire Bailout. It comes from that part that they are talking about increasing all of the IRS agents by a massive amount of people to supposedly bring in x number more dollars into the Federal Treasury. There is some debate about how much it will bring in. But I want to talk about a program that hires more agents, pays for more agents, and brings in more money, and that is the Private Debt Collection Program. Going back to what is being talked about here in the Senate behind closed doors in the Democratic Party to put this Blue State Billionaire Bailout bill together, I go to December 1, Washington Post, Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen. The Post gave her two Pinocchios for claiming that the bloated Blue State Billionaire Bailout package is fully paid for, or, as she would say, the Build Back Better bill is fully paid for. Much of the Post's column focuses on how much revenue Democrats' proposed increase in the IRS enforcement budget would generate. The White House and the Congressional Budget Office have offered wildly, wildly different estimates of what that proposal would do. The estimate provided by CBO--that is Congress's official scorekeeper--is hundreds of billions less than the number provided by the White House. I am noting this disagreement to highlight an existing program that is bringing in additional revenue without Congress spending 1 dollar more. I am speaking about, as I previously said, the Private Debt Collection Program. Recently, the IRS provided an update of this program's enforcement and performance for fiscal year 2021. It shows the program is thriving and bringing in more and more revenue on an annual basis. Maybe I should give a personal comment on why this program is important to me, because I think I was chairman of the Finance Committee--I forget whether it was 2003 through 2006--during that period of time that we set this program up. This update on the latest statistics shows that this program, the Private Debt Collection Program, resulted in net revenue to the Treasury of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2021. This is a real increase of around 129 percent over net revenue in fiscal year 2020 of around $459 million. That 2020 increase was on top of a more than 100 percent increase in net revenue over the year 2019. These numbers show that the longer the Private Debt Collection Program operates, the more it recovers to the Federal Treasury. The incredible numbers of fiscal year 2021 also reflect several months where the IRS did not provide new cases to the private debt collection company, and without cases being given to these private debt collectors, you aren't going to get more revenue. In a previous speech, I said that I was going to hold the IRS Commissioner responsible to his promise to provide additional cases to the collection companies by September 27. And, by the way, I also ought to make very clear that this Private Debt Collection program only goes after taxpayers that aren't paying and that the IRS has given up on collecting money from. So Commissioner Rettig has kept his promise. I understand that additional collection cases were provided. I commend Commissioner Rettig for following through on his promise to me and for his continued support of this very worthwhile program. The Private Debt Collection program also does more than just bring in revenue into the Treasury. It also pays for the IRS to hire special compliance personnel who collect unpaid debts that are owed to the government. Those amounts are reflected in the total fiscal year numbers that I gave earlier. I understand that the program was also so successful that the IRS can now hire with this additional revenue up to 400 more employees. Right now, the Senate is wrangling over how much revenue might be collected if you increase the budget of the IRS and hire thousands of additional IRS personnel. So, meanwhile, as I have shown, we currently have a program that is already bringing in more money year over year, while paying for additional IRS personnel. I appreciate Commissioner Rettig's support of this program, and look forward to reporting to my colleagues on his continued success. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8946 | null | 3,620 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the next two nominees that I will bring forward have been cleared, and I would certainly urge my colleagues to support their confirmation. The first is Michael Kubayanda, nominated to serve a second term on the Postal Regulatory Commission. Mr. Kubayanda joined the Commission in January of 2019 after he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate during the last administration. Earlier this month, his nomination was reported from committee by a bipartisan vote. I will say that he brings insight and expertise from decades of experience in both government and the private sector. During his tenure as Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Kubayanda has demonstrated his commitment to working in a bipartisan manner to make the Postal Service more effective and accountable. I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination. Next, Mr. President, I would ask my colleagues to join me in confirming Erik Hooks to be Deputy Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. The Deputy Administrator helps lead FEMA's work preparing for and responding to disasters, ranging from hurricanes to historic flooding and wildfires, to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Hooks has more than 30 years of public safety experience, including serving as secretary of public safety and homeland security advisor for the State of North Carolina, where his responsibilities included overseeing the State's emergency management agency. I would urge my colleagues to join me in swiftly confirming Mr. Hooks to this important role as well. So, Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 558 and Calendar No. 555; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8949 | null | 3,621 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I can say with confidence to the senior Senator from Kentucky, who spoke this morning on childcare, that as a former preschool teacher, we can rest assured that we are not at risk of a toddler takeover in the U.S. Senate. But seriously, I have never heard so much misinformation in such a short time from one person. It is not at all clear to me that the senior Senator from Kentucky read the bill--the Build Back Better bill. So I want to set some facts straight. Under our bill, working parents will have way more options and pay way less to send their child to a high-quality childcare provider they choose. It is the same with pre-K. Parents of 3- and 4-year-olds will have more options to send their kids to quality preschool for free. We are talking about parents saving thousands of dollars a year on childcare and pre-K, which are huge financial burdens to families right now. It is also, by the way, a great deal for our States who, by the way, are already working with the Federal Government on childcare, and 44 States already have some form of publicly funded pre-K. So this plan is not some new outlandish idea. And, finally, religious providers and family-based providers are absolutely eligible. So this isn't a radical plan. It is a practical solution to, again, a huge financial barrier that parents are facing today. It is not a toddler takeover. It is giving parents more choices and more affordability. Though I would actually prefer toddlers on the Senate floor to what I saw today. And it is not far-left propaganda because I can't emphasize this enough: This is not a political question for parents. To them, the question is, Can I choose the provider I actually like or do I have to go to this cheaper one just because I can't afford the one I really want to send my kids to; or is it worth me going back to work if I have to pay as much for rent or mortgage or college tuition as I do to send my child to a provider that I trust; or how long am I going to be on this wait list, and what do I do in the meantime? What Democrats want to do is make sure there are more affordable options out there for parents. What Senate Republicans want to do is nothing but watch the prices keep rising. And here is the thing. I have seen again and again, when someone says you can't do something, it is because they are afraid that you will. It is because they are afraid that we will. Senate Republicans are shaking in their boots because we are really doing something that helps working parents with a big part of their costs. So I am sure they are going to keep calling affordable childcare ``radical'' and insisting that it would be better to do just nothing, and I am equally sure that Democrats are going to get this done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. MURRAY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8955-2 | null | 3,622 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I can say with confidence to the senior Senator from Kentucky, who spoke this morning on childcare, that as a former preschool teacher, we can rest assured that we are not at risk of a toddler takeover in the U.S. Senate. But seriously, I have never heard so much misinformation in such a short time from one person. It is not at all clear to me that the senior Senator from Kentucky read the bill--the Build Back Better bill. So I want to set some facts straight. Under our bill, working parents will have way more options and pay way less to send their child to a high-quality childcare provider they choose. It is the same with pre-K. Parents of 3- and 4-year-olds will have more options to send their kids to quality preschool for free. We are talking about parents saving thousands of dollars a year on childcare and pre-K, which are huge financial burdens to families right now. It is also, by the way, a great deal for our States who, by the way, are already working with the Federal Government on childcare, and 44 States already have some form of publicly funded pre-K. So this plan is not some new outlandish idea. And, finally, religious providers and family-based providers are absolutely eligible. So this isn't a radical plan. It is a practical solution to, again, a huge financial barrier that parents are facing today. It is not a toddler takeover. It is giving parents more choices and more affordability. Though I would actually prefer toddlers on the Senate floor to what I saw today. And it is not far-left propaganda because I can't emphasize this enough: This is not a political question for parents. To them, the question is, Can I choose the provider I actually like or do I have to go to this cheaper one just because I can't afford the one I really want to send my kids to; or is it worth me going back to work if I have to pay as much for rent or mortgage or college tuition as I do to send my child to a provider that I trust; or how long am I going to be on this wait list, and what do I do in the meantime? What Democrats want to do is make sure there are more affordable options out there for parents. What Senate Republicans want to do is nothing but watch the prices keep rising. And here is the thing. I have seen again and again, when someone says you can't do something, it is because they are afraid that you will. It is because they are afraid that we will. Senate Republicans are shaking in their boots because we are really doing something that helps working parents with a big part of their costs. So I am sure they are going to keep calling affordable childcare ``radical'' and insisting that it would be better to do just nothing, and I am equally sure that Democrats are going to get this done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. MURRAY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8955-2 | null | 3,623 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a famous chef once said that ``a plate of food was a plate of hope.'' At Yoshi's Cafe in Chicago, the meals were that--and so much more. Every meal--every bite--at Yoshi's was a celebration and a discovery of new tastes and new combinations of tastes. When Yoshi's Cafe opened 39 years ago, it was on the vanguard of ``fusion cuisine,'' cooking that combines the best of different cultures. In Yoshi's case, it was an exquisite mix of classical French and Japanese cooking traditions. Over the years, Yoshi's also incorporated bits of cuisines, such as hint of Mexican cooking, into their dishes. But the true signature ingredients of any meal at Yoshi's Cafe were pride and love. Every meal was a chance for founder Yoshi Katsumura to share his impeccable culinary skill and imagination. And every customer was treated like a friend. If you went often enough, as my wife Loretta and I have, you became part of the family. That combination of personal warmth and impeccable food has made Yoshi's Cafe one of Chicago's truly great neighborhood restaurants. This weekend, Yoshi's Cafe will serve its last meal--and Loretta and I plan to be there. We wouldn't miss the chance to eat one last time at one of our favorite restaurants. Chicagoans feared this day might come sooner. When founder Yoshi Katsumura died in 2015, we wondered if that might be the end of Yoshi's Cafe as well. But Yoshi asked his wife Nobuko to try to preserve his legacy and the business they had built together. And she did. With the help of her son, chef Ken Katsumura, Nobuko kept Yoshi's Cafe open, even through a lethal pandemic that devastated the restaurant industry. Her daughter, Mari, has made a name for herself as a top-ranked pastry chef in Chicago. After some soul-searching, however, Nobuko has decided that it's time for a new chapter--time to spend a little more time with her grandchildren and enjoying life. Like countless other Chicagoans, Loretta and I feel a touch of sadness about the closing of Yoshi's Cafe. But we also feel tremendously grateful for the memorable meals we have enjoyed there and for the gift of Yoshi and Nobuko's friendship over the years. I once showed up at the restaurant on a Monday evening, forgetting that it was closed. I stood for a moment on the sidewalk of North Halsted Street, stranded and hungry, trying to decide where to eat. Just as I was about to leave, I heard someone call my name. It was Yoshi, who lived above the restaurant, calling down to me and offering to fix me a meal on his day off. That was the moment I came to see the goodness of this man. And Nobuko is just as kind and giving. Yoshi's Cafe brought together the foods of Tokyo, Paris, Lyon, and Chicago. Yoshi was born in Japan. At the age of 20, he apprenticed under another legendary chef, Hiroyuki Sakai in Tokyo, where he first learned the intricacies of fine French cooking. In 1973, he moved to Chicago, where he studied under one of Chicago' firstcelebrity chefs, Jean Banchet, at Le Francais. Further study in Paris and Lyon added to his skills. He returned to Chicago as chef and partner in the city's premier French fusion restaurant, Jimmy's Place. In 1982, he and Nobuko opened their own place. For nearly 40 years, Yoshi's has earned the love and loyalty of generation of Chicagoans. It has been featured on the Food Network and listed among ``America's Top Tables'' by the Conde Nast Gourmet magazine. I want to thank Nobuko Katsumura and her gracious and loyal staff for the great gift Yoshi's has been to Chicago. Loretta and I will miss our friends at Yoshi's and the incredible meals we enjoyed there. We will treasure our memories of this Chicago icon and the great family that created it for years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8958-4 | null | 3,624 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today on Pearl Harbor Day to remind my colleagues that on December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked not only Pearl Harbor but also the Philippine Islands, Guam, Wake Island, Howland Island, Midway, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Bangkok. In the Philippines that day, 89 men from Maywood, IL, who made up Company ``B'' of the 192nd Tank Battalion--federated National Guard units from Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Ohio--defended Clark Field from invading Japanese forces. They had arrived in the Philippines less than 3 weeks earlier. These Illinois tankers watched helplessly as Japan's modern planes flew beyond the reach of their guns and destroyed the airfield. They then fought valiantly on the Bataan Peninsula with antiquated weapons and dwindling supplies. Relief from the United States never came. Though they held out for months, the men, overcome with fatigue, starvation, and disease, were surrendered by their commanders on April 9, 1942. What followed was the infamous Bataan Death March 100 miles up the peninsula to a makeshift prison camp. Thousands died. Maywood, a hamlet outside of Chicago, had the greatest number of men from any single American town on the Death March. They would not all make it home. Those who survived the initial march endured 3 and a half years of death camps, brutal forced labor, and unimaginable abuse. More than half the Americans taken prisoner on Bataan died before they could see the war's end. Of the 89 Maywood men of Company ``B'' who left the U.S. in 1941, only 43 returned home in 1945. For 79 years, Maywood has celebrated and remembered its heroes of Bataan with an annual September Memorial. Like many important celebrations in COVID, this was the second year that the memorial had to be postponed. But we do not forget the men of Maywood. From the Bataan-Corregidor Memorial Bridge in Chicago to Maywood's Bataan Memorial Park, my home State of Illinois recalls daily their sacrifice for liberty. As a retired member of the Illinois National Guard myself, today is a solemn day--a day that will forever live in infamy--when we are reminded of the sacrifices made and the brave lives lost in service to our Nation. I am proud to have served with my Illinois National Guard family and work to continue to bring respect, remembrance, and honor to such a strong legacy. Therefore, I ask my fellow Senators to join me on this 80th anniversary of Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and to remember the other Americans who fought and died throughout the Pacific that day. Although the aim of the December 7 surprise attack on Hawaii's Pearl Harbor was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet in its home port and to discourage U.S. action in Asia, the other strikes served as preludes to full-scale invasion and brutal military occupation. I further ask my colleagues to join me in commending the hard work and dedication of Maywood Bataan Day Organization President Col. Richard A. McMahon, Jr., and his board of directors, as well as Ms. Jan Thompson, president of the Illinois-based American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Memorial Society, who are committed to honoring and preserving the history of the men and women of Bataan who gave so much in the fight against tyranny and fascism. They, too, are the part of the story of Pearl Harbor Day and in keeping the memory of the men of Maywood alive to this day. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8959-3 | null | 3,625 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today on Pearl Harbor Day to remind my colleagues that on December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked not only Pearl Harbor but also the Philippine Islands, Guam, Wake Island, Howland Island, Midway, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Bangkok. In the Philippines that day, 89 men from Maywood, IL, who made up Company ``B'' of the 192nd Tank Battalion--federated National Guard units from Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Ohio--defended Clark Field from invading Japanese forces. They had arrived in the Philippines less than 3 weeks earlier. These Illinois tankers watched helplessly as Japan's modern planes flew beyond the reach of their guns and destroyed the airfield. They then fought valiantly on the Bataan Peninsula with antiquated weapons and dwindling supplies. Relief from the United States never came. Though they held out for months, the men, overcome with fatigue, starvation, and disease, were surrendered by their commanders on April 9, 1942. What followed was the infamous Bataan Death March 100 miles up the peninsula to a makeshift prison camp. Thousands died. Maywood, a hamlet outside of Chicago, had the greatest number of men from any single American town on the Death March. They would not all make it home. Those who survived the initial march endured 3 and a half years of death camps, brutal forced labor, and unimaginable abuse. More than half the Americans taken prisoner on Bataan died before they could see the war's end. Of the 89 Maywood men of Company ``B'' who left the U.S. in 1941, only 43 returned home in 1945. For 79 years, Maywood has celebrated and remembered its heroes of Bataan with an annual September Memorial. Like many important celebrations in COVID, this was the second year that the memorial had to be postponed. But we do not forget the men of Maywood. From the Bataan-Corregidor Memorial Bridge in Chicago to Maywood's Bataan Memorial Park, my home State of Illinois recalls daily their sacrifice for liberty. As a retired member of the Illinois National Guard myself, today is a solemn day--a day that will forever live in infamy--when we are reminded of the sacrifices made and the brave lives lost in service to our Nation. I am proud to have served with my Illinois National Guard family and work to continue to bring respect, remembrance, and honor to such a strong legacy. Therefore, I ask my fellow Senators to join me on this 80th anniversary of Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and to remember the other Americans who fought and died throughout the Pacific that day. Although the aim of the December 7 surprise attack on Hawaii's Pearl Harbor was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet in its home port and to discourage U.S. action in Asia, the other strikes served as preludes to full-scale invasion and brutal military occupation. I further ask my colleagues to join me in commending the hard work and dedication of Maywood Bataan Day Organization President Col. Richard A. McMahon, Jr., and his board of directors, as well as Ms. Jan Thompson, president of the Illinois-based American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Memorial Society, who are committed to honoring and preserving the history of the men and women of Bataan who gave so much in the fight against tyranny and fascism. They, too, are the part of the story of Pearl Harbor Day and in keeping the memory of the men of Maywood alive to this day. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8959-3 | null | 3,626 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today on Pearl Harbor Day to remind my colleagues that on December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked not only Pearl Harbor but also the Philippine Islands, Guam, Wake Island, Howland Island, Midway, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Bangkok. In the Philippines that day, 89 men from Maywood, IL, who made up Company ``B'' of the 192nd Tank Battalion--federated National Guard units from Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Ohio--defended Clark Field from invading Japanese forces. They had arrived in the Philippines less than 3 weeks earlier. These Illinois tankers watched helplessly as Japan's modern planes flew beyond the reach of their guns and destroyed the airfield. They then fought valiantly on the Bataan Peninsula with antiquated weapons and dwindling supplies. Relief from the United States never came. Though they held out for months, the men, overcome with fatigue, starvation, and disease, were surrendered by their commanders on April 9, 1942. What followed was the infamous Bataan Death March 100 miles up the peninsula to a makeshift prison camp. Thousands died. Maywood, a hamlet outside of Chicago, had the greatest number of men from any single American town on the Death March. They would not all make it home. Those who survived the initial march endured 3 and a half years of death camps, brutal forced labor, and unimaginable abuse. More than half the Americans taken prisoner on Bataan died before they could see the war's end. Of the 89 Maywood men of Company ``B'' who left the U.S. in 1941, only 43 returned home in 1945. For 79 years, Maywood has celebrated and remembered its heroes of Bataan with an annual September Memorial. Like many important celebrations in COVID, this was the second year that the memorial had to be postponed. But we do not forget the men of Maywood. From the Bataan-Corregidor Memorial Bridge in Chicago to Maywood's Bataan Memorial Park, my home State of Illinois recalls daily their sacrifice for liberty. As a retired member of the Illinois National Guard myself, today is a solemn day--a day that will forever live in infamy--when we are reminded of the sacrifices made and the brave lives lost in service to our Nation. I am proud to have served with my Illinois National Guard family and work to continue to bring respect, remembrance, and honor to such a strong legacy. Therefore, I ask my fellow Senators to join me on this 80th anniversary of Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and to remember the other Americans who fought and died throughout the Pacific that day. Although the aim of the December 7 surprise attack on Hawaii's Pearl Harbor was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet in its home port and to discourage U.S. action in Asia, the other strikes served as preludes to full-scale invasion and brutal military occupation. I further ask my colleagues to join me in commending the hard work and dedication of Maywood Bataan Day Organization President Col. Richard A. McMahon, Jr., and his board of directors, as well as Ms. Jan Thompson, president of the Illinois-based American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor Memorial Society, who are committed to honoring and preserving the history of the men and women of Bataan who gave so much in the fight against tyranny and fascism. They, too, are the part of the story of Pearl Harbor Day and in keeping the memory of the men of Maywood alive to this day. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8959-3 | null | 3,627 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. SINEMA. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present I would have voted yes on rollcall No. 478, on the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Executive Calendar No. 567, Jessica Rosenworcel, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. SINEMA | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8959 | null | 3,628 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-2762. A communication from the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on the remaining obstacles to the efficient and timely circulation of $1 coins; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-2763. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Syrian Sanctions Regulations'' (31 CFR Part 542) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-2764. A communication from the Director of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Computer- Security Incident Notification Requirements for Banking Organizations and Their Bank Service Providers'' (RIN3064- AF59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-2765. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Additional Revised Air Quality Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: El Paso County, Texas and Weld County, Colorado'' (FRL No. 8260.1-02-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2766. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Louisiana: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Program'' (FRL No. 9240-02- R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2767. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Serious Area and Section 189(d) Plan for Attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS'' (FRL No. 8644-01-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2768. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Clean Air Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Contingency Measures for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' (FRL No. 8846-02-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2769. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory'' (FRL No. 5879-02-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2770. A communication from the Regulations Writer, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of Expiration Dates for Three Body System Listings'' (RIN0960-AI56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-2771. A communication from the Branch Chief of the Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Homeowner Assistance Fund safe harbor'' (Rev. Proc. 2021-47) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Finance. EC-2772. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Fiscal Year 2020 Review of Medicare's Program for Oversight of Accrediting Organizations and the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Validation Program''; to the Committee on Finance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8961-4 | null | 3,629 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, December 7, 2021. Hon. Patrick Leahy, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Amended Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Amended Notice be published in the Senate version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Any inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street S.E., Washington, DC 20540; 202-724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Attachment. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval Modifications to the rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, as required by 2 U.S.C. 1384, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended (CAA). Background: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' Section 202 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1302 et seq.), applies the rights and protections of sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA to covered employees in the legislative branch. On June 22, 2016, the Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record amendments to its substantive regulations regarding the FMLA. 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). As set forth in the Board's accompanying Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval, the 2016 amendments provide needed clarity on certain aspects of the FMLA. Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of these amendments. The purpose of this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval is to announce adoption of additional modifications to the existing legislative branch FMLA substantive regulations. Specifically, on December 20, 2019, Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (subtitle A of title LXXVI of division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, December 20, 2019) (FEPLA). FEPLA amended the FMLA to allow most civilian Federal employees, including eligible employees in the legislative branch, to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) for unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the birth of an employee's son or daughter or for the placement of a son or daughter with an employee for adoption or foster care. These additional modifications are necessary in order to bring existing legislative branch FMLA regulations (issued April 19, 1996) in line with these recent statutory changes. What is the authority under the CAA for these substantive regulations? Section 202(a) of the CAA provides that the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. 2611-2615) shall apply to covered employees in the legislative branch. Section 202(d)(1) and (2) of the CAA require that the Board, pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, issue regulations implementing the rights and protections of the FMLA and that those regulations shall be ``the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in the subsection (a) [of section 202 of the CAA] except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown . . . that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.'' The modifications to the regulations proposed by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 202 of the CAA requires regulations to be issued. Are there currently FMLA regulations in effect? Yes. On January 22, 1996, the OCWR Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record the original FMLA final regulations implementing section 202 of the CAA, which applies certain rights and protections of the FMLA. On April 15, 1996, pursuant to section 304(c) of the CAA, the House and the Senate passed resolutions approving the final regulations. Specifically, the Senate passed S. Res. 242, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the Senate and the employees of the Senate; the House passed H. Res. 400 providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the House and the employees of the House; and the House and the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 51, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to employing offices and employees other than those offices and employees of the House and the Senate. After the Senate and the House passed these resolutions, the Board formally issued the FMLA regulations on April 19, 1996. What does the FMLA provide? In general, the FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons and for specified circumstances relating to a family member's military service. Employing offices in the legislative branch covered by FMLA provisions of the CAA must provide unpaid leave to eligible employees: (1) for the birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn son or daughter; or (2) for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; (3) to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; (4) because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; (5) because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty status; and (6) to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. How do the FEPLA amendments affect the FMLA as applied to the legislative branch? The FEPLA amendments to the FMLA include provisions expressly applicable to the legislative branch that both: (1) change the eligibility rules for employees to take protected leave for births or placements under the FMLA; and (2) permit employees to substitute PPL and other paid accrued leave for unpaid FMLA leave for such births or placements. The FEPLA amendments are summarized below. For purposes of FMLA leave with respect to any birth or placement, all covered employees in the legislative branch are eligible for job-protected leave under the FMLA immediately upon commencement of employment. ``Covered employee'' means any employee of: (1) the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate; (3) the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; (4) the Capitol Police; (5) the Congressional Budget Office; (6) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (7) the Office of the Attending Physician; (8) the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; (9) the Office of Technology Assessment; (10) the Library of Congress; (11) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development; (12) the China Review Commission; (13) the Congressional Executive China Commission; (14) the Helsinki Commission; or (14) the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. See 2 U.S.C. 1301(a). Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid leave. However, under certain circumstances, the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA, as made applicable by the CAA, permit an eligible employee to choose to substitute PPL and accrued paid leave (such as paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave) for unpaid FMLA leave. The term ``substitute'' means that paid leave will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave. Accordingly, the employee receives pay during the period of otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. For leave taken for a birth or placement, an employee may elect to substitute for unpaid FMLA leave--(1) up to 12 workweeks of PPL in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement; and (2) any additional paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave provided by the employing office to such employee. Paid parental leave may be used only ``in connection with the birth or placement involved.'' See 2 U.S.C. 1312(d)(2)(A). By law, unpaid FMLA leave is generally limited to a total of 12 weeks in any 12-month period. Accordingly, any use of unpaid FMLA leave for a purpose other than birth or placement may reduce an employee's ability to substitute PPL for a birth or placement. Thus, for example, if an employee has used 3 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave during the leave year before the birth or placement, that employee's entitlement to 12 weeks of PPL may be reduced to 9 weeks. Paid parental leave may be used no later than the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. There are no carryover provisions for unused PPL. An employee may not be paid for unused or expired PPL. Paid parental leave may not be considered annual leave for purposes of making a lump-sum payment for annual leave or for any other purpose. FEPLA expressly provides that legislative branch employees using parental leave under the FMLA are not subject to the limitations that apply in the executive branch whereby employees may be required to agree in writing to work for the executive branch agency for at least 12 weeks after returning from leave. FEPLA also expressly provides that PPL applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to the limitations that may apply in the executive branch, state and local governments, and private sector, whereby an employer may recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan if the employee fails to return from PPL. When are the Paid Parental Leave provisions of FEPLA effective? FEPLA provides that the amendments to the CAA concerning PPL are not effective with respect to any birth or placement for adoption or foster care occurring before October 1, 2020. Thus, by law, PPL is available to covered employees only in connection with a birth or placement that occurs on or after October 1, 2020. How does FEPLA address active duty service in the National Guard or Reserves? In addition to providing for PPL, effective December 20, 2019, FEPLA also amended the general eligibility provisions of the FMLA (as applied by the CAA) to provide that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(14)) by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. Why are these additional changes to the FMLA regulations necessary? The CAA requires that the FMLA regulations applicable to the legislative branch and promulgated by the OCWR be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement FMLA title I, except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under the CAA. 2 U.S.C. 1312(e). FMLA title I covers employees of most private sector employers, state and local governments, and certain quasi-governmental entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service. These employees are governed by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. 601 and part 825. The Secretary of Labor will not be promulgating FEPLA regulations because FEPLA does not extend PPL to private sector employees or other employees directly covered by FMLA title I. The Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for further modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. Procedural Summary: How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for proposing and approving substantive regulations provides that: (1) the Board of Directors proposes substantive regulations and publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, the Board adopts regulations and transmits notice of such action (together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for congressional approval of the regulations) to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) there be committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) there be final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. What is the approach taken by these adopted substantive regulations? The Board follows the procedures as enumerated above and as required by statute. This Amended Notice of Adopted Rulemaking is step (3) of the outline set forth above. The Board has reviewed and responded to the comments received under step (2) of the outline above, and it has made changes where necessary to ensure that the adopted regulations fully implement section 202 of the CAA, and reflect the practices and policies particular to the legislative branch. (Because the Board's 2016 amendments were adopted pursuant to the procedures for proposing and approving substantive regulations in section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, including providing a comment period of 60 days after publication of the proposed amendments in the Congressional Record, the Board did not seek additional comments on those adopted amendments.) Are there substantive differences in the adopted regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate and other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no ``good cause'' for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these regulations are approved as adopted, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees. See 2 U.S.C. 1331(e)(2). Are these adopted regulations also recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), these adopted regulations are also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. Are these adopted substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? In addition to being posted on the OCWR's website (www.ocwr.gov), this Notice is also available in alternative formats. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, at 202/724-9250 (voice). Am I allowed to view copies of comments submitted by others? Yes. Copies of submitted comments will be available for review on the OCWR's public website at www.ocwr.gov. Summary: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104- 1, was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. The CAA, as amended, applies the rights and protections of 13 federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees and employing offices within the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 202 of the CAA applies to employees covered by the CAA, the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2611-2615. The above provisions of section 202 became effective on January 1, 1997. 2 U.S.C. 1312. The Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) is now publishing adopted amended regulations to implement section 202 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438, as applied to covered employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and certain congressional instrumentalities listed below. The purpose of these amended regulations is to implement section 202 of the CAA. In this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, the Board proposes that virtually identical regulations be adopted for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and certain congressional instrumentalities. Accordingly: (1) Senate. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the Senate, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. (2) House of Representatives. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the House of Representatives, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. (3) Certain congressional instrumentalities. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; the Capitol Police; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending Physician; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Office of Technology Assessment; the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; as recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director. Section-by-Section Discussion of Adopted Changes to the FMLA Regulations As noted above, Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of its amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations that the Board adopted on June 22, 2016. The section-by-section discussion of those amendments appears at 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). The following is a section-by-section discussion of the additional adopted amendments related to FEPLA. The Board's adopted amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations provide more detail regarding the implementation of the statutory provisions summarized above. In order to implement FEPLA, the Board amends subparts A-C of part 825 of its substantive regulations (Family and Medical Leave) to establish how the FMLA provisions will now operate, since the appropriate substitution of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave hinges on the standards for granting unpaid FMLA leave. The Board also amends subpart D to omit obsolete references to the OCWR's administrative dispute resolution procedures, which were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-397. (Although the Board had also proposed to amend part 825 to add a new subpart E, for the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined not to do so.) Below we provide a section-by- section explanation of the adopted changes in subparts A-D. Where a change has been made to a regulatory section, that section is discussed below. However, as the DOL has significantly reorganized its FMLA regulations, which the Board's adopted regulations mirror, many of the sections are moved into other areas of the subpart. The Board as a result will use the adopted section and numbers to provide explanation and analysis of changes. In addition, even if a section is not discussed, there may be minor editorial changes or corrections that do not warrant discussion, such as the substitution of the Office's current name, the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' for its former name, the ``Office of Compliance.'' Note: The use of the terms ``Type A,'' ``Type B,'' ``Type C,'' etc., in this Notice corresponds to the subsections of the FMLA provision describing these types of FMLA leave. Thus, ``Type A'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(A). ``Type B'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(B). ``Type C'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C). ``Type D'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). ``Type E'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(E). Some commenters suggested that the Board modify the regulations to resolve potential ambiguities in the DOL regulation. However, the Board has long held that it will not opine on interpretive ambiguities in the regulations outside of the adjudicatory context of individual cases. The Board's rulemaking authority under the CAA is restricted to circumstances where there is ``good cause'' to depart from the Secretary of Labor's substantive regulations. Further, the Board's adjudicatory function would be undermined if it prejudged ambiguous or disputed interpretive matters. Therefore, the Board does not find ``good cause'' to modify a regulation where the request is based on an ostensible need for clarification. Section-by-Section Discussion and Board Consideration of Comments Part 825--Family and Medical Leave 825.1 Purpose and Scope. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.1 to add a new paragraph (c), which describes the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA provisions of the CAA; states that the Board is amending its substantive FMLA regulations pursuant to the CAA rulemaking procedures set forth at sections 202(d) and 304 of the CAA; and further states that because the Secretary of Labor has not promulgated FEPLA regulations under FMLA title I, the Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. The paragraphs in 825.1 that follow paragraph (c) have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e). One commenter expressed concerns that the term ``Federal civilian employees in the legislative branch'' in proposed paragraph (c) could be read to improperly exclude sworn employees (or police officers) from the scope of the new regulations. The new paragraph (c) omits this term, and instead uses the terms ``Federal employees in the legislative branch'' and ``covered employees.'' Subpart A--COVERAGE UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 825.100 The Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (b) of 825.100 to clarify that the authority of an employing office, disbursing or other financial office to recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan is subject to 825.208(k), which provides that paid parental leave applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to such limitations. One commenter suggested amending paragraph (d) of 825.100 to apprise employees that FMLA leave may be denied, and the employee designated as Absent Without Leave, for failing to comply with the notification requirements outlined in 825.301(b). The Board finds that 825.100(d) is consistent with the DOL's regulation, and that good cause has not been shown to modify the DOL's regulation. 825.102 Definitions. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.102 to add the following definition of Birth: ``Birth means the delivery of a child. When the term ``birth'' under this subpart is used in connection with the use of leave before birth, it refers to an anticipated birth.'' One commenter suggested that the definition of Birth in 825.102 should be revised to ensure that employees who intend to deliver a live child and through complications in the birthing process have a birth that results in a deceased child receive the same entitlements during the physical recovery process from the birth as those employees whose birthing process results in the birth of a living child. The Board declines to make the suggested change, as its proposed definition encompasses the circumstances that the commenter describes. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of Birth should be stricken from the regulation in its entirety on the ground that good cause does not exist for modifying the applicable DOL regulation at 29 CFR 825.120(a)(l) or (2) by adding a definition of Birth which the commenter believed to be in conflict with the existing FMLA regulations. It states that nothing in the FEPLA nor anything unique to the congressional workplace justifies varying from or adding a definition that conflicts with that regulation. The Board disagrees. First, as stated above, the Secretary's regulations do not define the term Birth. Thus, the Board's definition of Birth presents no conflict with the Secretary's regulations. Second, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA for Type A leave provides good cause for adding such a definition. That is, the definition provides the specificity necessary in the Board's regulations to implement the new paid leave provisions of FEPLA in the legislative branch in connection with births and placements. By contrast, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA does not apply to employers and employees covered by the Secretary's FMLA title I regulations. Thus, there is no apparent need for clear distinctions between leave for births, placements, serious health conditions, or other qualifying exigencies in the applicable DOL regulations at 29 CFR 825.120 and 29 CFR 825.121, because the benefit, i.e., 12 weeks of unpaid leave, is the same for any of these reasons. The commenter also suggests striking the second sentence of the Board's definition of Birth on the ground that FEPLA does not permit substitution of paid leave for anticipated births. For the reasons set forth below concerning proposed 825.208, we disagree. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Covered Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of Covered Employee includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Eligible Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of eligible employee adds a new paragraph (1), which clarifies that for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length of service requirements in paragraph (2). Paragraph (3) of that definition, which concerns eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements, is amended to clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. A commenter recommended that the Employee of the House of Representatives definition in 825.102 should be revised to conform with language updates made through amendments and reforms to the CAA. The 2018 CAA Reform Act changed the language in the definition of House employees to reference pay that is disbursed by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, rather than the Office of the Clerk. Similarly, although the term ``clerk-hire allowance'' was used in original CAA text in the 1990's, the appropriate reference is now the ``Members' Representational Allowance.'' The Board finds good cause to make the suggested changes. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Employing Office in 825.102. The amended definition of Employing Office includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Family and Medical Leave in 825.102. The revised definition includes new language addressing leave to care for covered servicemembers. One commenter suggested further revising the definition to clarify that it means an employee's entitlement of ``up to'' 12 workweeks (or 26 workweeks in the case of leave under 825.127) of unpaid leave. The Board agrees and has made the suggested change. A commenter suggested that the definition of Intermittent Leave in 825.102 should be revised to include paid leave that is now available under the FMLA FEPLA provisions for reasons of birth or placement of a child for foster care or adoption. The Board finds good cause to make the suggested revision. The Board had proposed to amend 825.102 to add a new definition of Placement that clarified that it refers to a new placement. Two commenters stated that the proposed definition was inconsistent with the DOL's regulations at 29 CFR 825.121, which does not limit placements to ``new'' placements. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, and the Board will not include a new definition of Placement in its adopted regulations. One commenter suggested that the definitions of Son or Daughter, Son or Daughter of a Covered Servicemember, and Son or Daughter on Covered Active Duty or Call to Covered Active Duty Status in 825.102 (and 825.126(a)(5)) should be defined to account for circumstances where a child is gender neutral or gender undetermined. The commenter suggests adding a provision to clarify that these definitions include a covered servicemember's biological, adopted, foster child, stepchild, legal ward, and child(ren) for whom the covered servicemember stood in loco parentis, who are of any age, and who identify as transgender, gender neutral, gender non-conforming, or non-binary. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. It notes, however, that both DOL and the Board interpret these terms to include any child. 825.104 Covered employing offices. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.104 to: (1) designate paragraphs (1)-(4) as paragraphs (a)-(d); and (2) amend paragraph (d) to include the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 825.110 Eligible employee, general rule. 825.111 Eligible employee, birth or placement. The Board finds good cause to: (1) amend 825.110 to create a general rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements; and (2) add a new 825.111 to create a rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for births or placements. The amendments to 825.110 clarify that its provisions are subject to the exceptions set forth at 825.111; and they provide that for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. The new 825.111 clarifies that, for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length or hours of service requirements in the general rule at 825.110. One commenter suggested deleting the cross-references in 825.111 to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 825.112. The Board agrees and has revised 825.111 accordingly. The Board has determined not to further revise 825.111 to delete the citation: ``See also 825.120-21.'' 825.112 Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) of 825.112 to clarify that employing offices are required to grant leave to eligible employees for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, including the care of such son or daughter. One commenter stated that the citation in subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.112 should be changed to 825.120(a)(1)-(6) in order to exclude citation to the Board's proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. As stated below, the Board has determined not to include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. Therefore, the Board declines to make this revision. 825.120 Leave for pregnancy or birth. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.120 to clarify that FMLA leave for pregnancy or the birth of a son or daughter includes leave for the care of the newborn child. The Board also finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) to add a sentence stating that leave for a birth or placement must be concluded by the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth. One commenter noted that subparagraph (a)(3) indicates that spouses who are employed by the same employing office ``may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave,'' which seemingly grants employing offices the discretion to determine whether spouses are entitled to 12 weeks of individual or combined FEPLA leave for births or placements. The commenter states that the final rule should plainly indicate whether this is the intent of the provision or identify the instances when spouses would otherwise be limited to a combined 12 weeks of FEPLA leave. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, which uses the term ``may.'' See 29 CFR 825.120(a)(3). The Board had proposed to add a new subparagraph (a)(7) to 825.120, to state that leave taken because of a birth includes leave necessary for an employee who is the birth mother to recover from giving birth, or for an employee who is the other parent to care for the birth mother during her recovery period, even if the employee is not involved in caring for the son or daughter during portions of that recovery period. Several commenters stated that the new subparagraph (7) should not be included in the final rule, on the ground that no good cause exists for modifying the relevant DOL regulations to add this subparagraph. The Board has determined not to address this issue in the regulations and therefore will not include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) in 825.120. 825.121 Leave for adoption or foster care. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (a) of 825.121 to clarify that FMLA leave for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care includes leave to care for the newly placed child. One commenter stated that the Board should amend subparagraph (a)(3) of 825.121, which concerns spouses who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employing office, to clarify whether employing offices have discretion to grant the entire 12-week entitlement to both employee spouses; and to identify the circumstances when FEPLA leave must be separated or combined for those eligible employees. The Board's regulation is based on the DOL's regulation, and the Board finds no good cause to further modify that regulation. One commenter stated that the first sentence of paragraph (b) of 825.121 should be amended to substitute ``the employee's'' for ``the,'' so that the sentence would read: ``An eligible employee may use intermittent or reduced schedule leave after the placement of the employee's healthy child for adoption or foster care only if the employing office agrees.'' The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8966-2 | null | 3,630 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, December 7, 2021. Hon. Patrick Leahy, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Amended Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Amended Notice be published in the Senate version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Any inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street S.E., Washington, DC 20540; 202-724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Attachment. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval Modifications to the rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, as required by 2 U.S.C. 1384, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended (CAA). Background: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' Section 202 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1302 et seq.), applies the rights and protections of sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA to covered employees in the legislative branch. On June 22, 2016, the Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record amendments to its substantive regulations regarding the FMLA. 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). As set forth in the Board's accompanying Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval, the 2016 amendments provide needed clarity on certain aspects of the FMLA. Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of these amendments. The purpose of this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval is to announce adoption of additional modifications to the existing legislative branch FMLA substantive regulations. Specifically, on December 20, 2019, Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (subtitle A of title LXXVI of division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, December 20, 2019) (FEPLA). FEPLA amended the FMLA to allow most civilian Federal employees, including eligible employees in the legislative branch, to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) for unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the birth of an employee's son or daughter or for the placement of a son or daughter with an employee for adoption or foster care. These additional modifications are necessary in order to bring existing legislative branch FMLA regulations (issued April 19, 1996) in line with these recent statutory changes. What is the authority under the CAA for these substantive regulations? Section 202(a) of the CAA provides that the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. 2611-2615) shall apply to covered employees in the legislative branch. Section 202(d)(1) and (2) of the CAA require that the Board, pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, issue regulations implementing the rights and protections of the FMLA and that those regulations shall be ``the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in the subsection (a) [of section 202 of the CAA] except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown . . . that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.'' The modifications to the regulations proposed by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 202 of the CAA requires regulations to be issued. Are there currently FMLA regulations in effect? Yes. On January 22, 1996, the OCWR Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record the original FMLA final regulations implementing section 202 of the CAA, which applies certain rights and protections of the FMLA. On April 15, 1996, pursuant to section 304(c) of the CAA, the House and the Senate passed resolutions approving the final regulations. Specifically, the Senate passed S. Res. 242, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the Senate and the employees of the Senate; the House passed H. Res. 400 providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the House and the employees of the House; and the House and the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 51, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to employing offices and employees other than those offices and employees of the House and the Senate. After the Senate and the House passed these resolutions, the Board formally issued the FMLA regulations on April 19, 1996. What does the FMLA provide? In general, the FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons and for specified circumstances relating to a family member's military service. Employing offices in the legislative branch covered by FMLA provisions of the CAA must provide unpaid leave to eligible employees: (1) for the birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn son or daughter; or (2) for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; (3) to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; (4) because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; (5) because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty status; and (6) to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. How do the FEPLA amendments affect the FMLA as applied to the legislative branch? The FEPLA amendments to the FMLA include provisions expressly applicable to the legislative branch that both: (1) change the eligibility rules for employees to take protected leave for births or placements under the FMLA; and (2) permit employees to substitute PPL and other paid accrued leave for unpaid FMLA leave for such births or placements. The FEPLA amendments are summarized below. For purposes of FMLA leave with respect to any birth or placement, all covered employees in the legislative branch are eligible for job-protected leave under the FMLA immediately upon commencement of employment. ``Covered employee'' means any employee of: (1) the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate; (3) the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; (4) the Capitol Police; (5) the Congressional Budget Office; (6) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (7) the Office of the Attending Physician; (8) the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; (9) the Office of Technology Assessment; (10) the Library of Congress; (11) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development; (12) the China Review Commission; (13) the Congressional Executive China Commission; (14) the Helsinki Commission; or (14) the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. See 2 U.S.C. 1301(a). Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid leave. However, under certain circumstances, the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA, as made applicable by the CAA, permit an eligible employee to choose to substitute PPL and accrued paid leave (such as paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave) for unpaid FMLA leave. The term ``substitute'' means that paid leave will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave. Accordingly, the employee receives pay during the period of otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. For leave taken for a birth or placement, an employee may elect to substitute for unpaid FMLA leave--(1) up to 12 workweeks of PPL in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement; and (2) any additional paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave provided by the employing office to such employee. Paid parental leave may be used only ``in connection with the birth or placement involved.'' See 2 U.S.C. 1312(d)(2)(A). By law, unpaid FMLA leave is generally limited to a total of 12 weeks in any 12-month period. Accordingly, any use of unpaid FMLA leave for a purpose other than birth or placement may reduce an employee's ability to substitute PPL for a birth or placement. Thus, for example, if an employee has used 3 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave during the leave year before the birth or placement, that employee's entitlement to 12 weeks of PPL may be reduced to 9 weeks. Paid parental leave may be used no later than the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. There are no carryover provisions for unused PPL. An employee may not be paid for unused or expired PPL. Paid parental leave may not be considered annual leave for purposes of making a lump-sum payment for annual leave or for any other purpose. FEPLA expressly provides that legislative branch employees using parental leave under the FMLA are not subject to the limitations that apply in the executive branch whereby employees may be required to agree in writing to work for the executive branch agency for at least 12 weeks after returning from leave. FEPLA also expressly provides that PPL applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to the limitations that may apply in the executive branch, state and local governments, and private sector, whereby an employer may recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan if the employee fails to return from PPL. When are the Paid Parental Leave provisions of FEPLA effective? FEPLA provides that the amendments to the CAA concerning PPL are not effective with respect to any birth or placement for adoption or foster care occurring before October 1, 2020. Thus, by law, PPL is available to covered employees only in connection with a birth or placement that occurs on or after October 1, 2020. How does FEPLA address active duty service in the National Guard or Reserves? In addition to providing for PPL, effective December 20, 2019, FEPLA also amended the general eligibility provisions of the FMLA (as applied by the CAA) to provide that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(14)) by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. Why are these additional changes to the FMLA regulations necessary? The CAA requires that the FMLA regulations applicable to the legislative branch and promulgated by the OCWR be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement FMLA title I, except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under the CAA. 2 U.S.C. 1312(e). FMLA title I covers employees of most private sector employers, state and local governments, and certain quasi-governmental entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service. These employees are governed by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. 601 and part 825. The Secretary of Labor will not be promulgating FEPLA regulations because FEPLA does not extend PPL to private sector employees or other employees directly covered by FMLA title I. The Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for further modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. Procedural Summary: How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for proposing and approving substantive regulations provides that: (1) the Board of Directors proposes substantive regulations and publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, the Board adopts regulations and transmits notice of such action (together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for congressional approval of the regulations) to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) there be committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) there be final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. What is the approach taken by these adopted substantive regulations? The Board follows the procedures as enumerated above and as required by statute. This Amended Notice of Adopted Rulemaking is step (3) of the outline set forth above. The Board has reviewed and responded to the comments received under step (2) of the outline above, and it has made changes where necessary to ensure that the adopted regulations fully implement section 202 of the CAA, and reflect the practices and policies particular to the legislative branch. (Because the Board's 2016 amendments were adopted pursuant to the procedures for proposing and approving substantive regulations in section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, including providing a comment period of 60 days after publication of the proposed amendments in the Congressional Record, the Board did not seek additional comments on those adopted amendments.) Are there substantive differences in the adopted regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate and other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no ``good cause'' for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these regulations are approved as adopted, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees. See 2 U.S.C. 1331(e)(2). Are these adopted regulations also recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), these adopted regulations are also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. Are these adopted substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? In addition to being posted on the OCWR's website (www.ocwr.gov), this Notice is also available in alternative formats. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, at 202/724-9250 (voice). Am I allowed to view copies of comments submitted by others? Yes. Copies of submitted comments will be available for review on the OCWR's public website at www.ocwr.gov. Summary: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104- 1, was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. The CAA, as amended, applies the rights and protections of 13 federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees and employing offices within the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 202 of the CAA applies to employees covered by the CAA, the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2611-2615. The above provisions of section 202 became effective on January 1, 1997. 2 U.S.C. 1312. The Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) is now publishing adopted amended regulations to implement section 202 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438, as applied to covered employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and certain congressional instrumentalities listed below. The purpose of these amended regulations is to implement section 202 of the CAA. In this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, the Board proposes that virtually identical regulations be adopted for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and certain congressional instrumentalities. Accordingly: (1) Senate. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the Senate, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. (2) House of Representatives. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the House of Representatives, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. (3) Certain congressional instrumentalities. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; the Capitol Police; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending Physician; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Office of Technology Assessment; the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; as recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director. Section-by-Section Discussion of Adopted Changes to the FMLA Regulations As noted above, Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of its amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations that the Board adopted on June 22, 2016. The section-by-section discussion of those amendments appears at 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). The following is a section-by-section discussion of the additional adopted amendments related to FEPLA. The Board's adopted amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations provide more detail regarding the implementation of the statutory provisions summarized above. In order to implement FEPLA, the Board amends subparts A-C of part 825 of its substantive regulations (Family and Medical Leave) to establish how the FMLA provisions will now operate, since the appropriate substitution of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave hinges on the standards for granting unpaid FMLA leave. The Board also amends subpart D to omit obsolete references to the OCWR's administrative dispute resolution procedures, which were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-397. (Although the Board had also proposed to amend part 825 to add a new subpart E, for the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined not to do so.) Below we provide a section-by- section explanation of the adopted changes in subparts A-D. Where a change has been made to a regulatory section, that section is discussed below. However, as the DOL has significantly reorganized its FMLA regulations, which the Board's adopted regulations mirror, many of the sections are moved into other areas of the subpart. The Board as a result will use the adopted section and numbers to provide explanation and analysis of changes. In addition, even if a section is not discussed, there may be minor editorial changes or corrections that do not warrant discussion, such as the substitution of the Office's current name, the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' for its former name, the ``Office of Compliance.'' Note: The use of the terms ``Type A,'' ``Type B,'' ``Type C,'' etc., in this Notice corresponds to the subsections of the FMLA provision describing these types of FMLA leave. Thus, ``Type A'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(A). ``Type B'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(B). ``Type C'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C). ``Type D'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). ``Type E'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(E). Some commenters suggested that the Board modify the regulations to resolve potential ambiguities in the DOL regulation. However, the Board has long held that it will not opine on interpretive ambiguities in the regulations outside of the adjudicatory context of individual cases. The Board's rulemaking authority under the CAA is restricted to circumstances where there is ``good cause'' to depart from the Secretary of Labor's substantive regulations. Further, the Board's adjudicatory function would be undermined if it prejudged ambiguous or disputed interpretive matters. Therefore, the Board does not find ``good cause'' to modify a regulation where the request is based on an ostensible need for clarification. Section-by-Section Discussion and Board Consideration of Comments Part 825--Family and Medical Leave 825.1 Purpose and Scope. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.1 to add a new paragraph (c), which describes the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA provisions of the CAA; states that the Board is amending its substantive FMLA regulations pursuant to the CAA rulemaking procedures set forth at sections 202(d) and 304 of the CAA; and further states that because the Secretary of Labor has not promulgated FEPLA regulations under FMLA title I, the Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. The paragraphs in 825.1 that follow paragraph (c) have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e). One commenter expressed concerns that the term ``Federal civilian employees in the legislative branch'' in proposed paragraph (c) could be read to improperly exclude sworn employees (or police officers) from the scope of the new regulations. The new paragraph (c) omits this term, and instead uses the terms ``Federal employees in the legislative branch'' and ``covered employees.'' Subpart A--COVERAGE UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 825.100 The Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (b) of 825.100 to clarify that the authority of an employing office, disbursing or other financial office to recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan is subject to 825.208(k), which provides that paid parental leave applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to such limitations. One commenter suggested amending paragraph (d) of 825.100 to apprise employees that FMLA leave may be denied, and the employee designated as Absent Without Leave, for failing to comply with the notification requirements outlined in 825.301(b). The Board finds that 825.100(d) is consistent with the DOL's regulation, and that good cause has not been shown to modify the DOL's regulation. 825.102 Definitions. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.102 to add the following definition of Birth: ``Birth means the delivery of a child. When the term ``birth'' under this subpart is used in connection with the use of leave before birth, it refers to an anticipated birth.'' One commenter suggested that the definition of Birth in 825.102 should be revised to ensure that employees who intend to deliver a live child and through complications in the birthing process have a birth that results in a deceased child receive the same entitlements during the physical recovery process from the birth as those employees whose birthing process results in the birth of a living child. The Board declines to make the suggested change, as its proposed definition encompasses the circumstances that the commenter describes. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of Birth should be stricken from the regulation in its entirety on the ground that good cause does not exist for modifying the applicable DOL regulation at 29 CFR 825.120(a)(l) or (2) by adding a definition of Birth which the commenter believed to be in conflict with the existing FMLA regulations. It states that nothing in the FEPLA nor anything unique to the congressional workplace justifies varying from or adding a definition that conflicts with that regulation. The Board disagrees. First, as stated above, the Secretary's regulations do not define the term Birth. Thus, the Board's definition of Birth presents no conflict with the Secretary's regulations. Second, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA for Type A leave provides good cause for adding such a definition. That is, the definition provides the specificity necessary in the Board's regulations to implement the new paid leave provisions of FEPLA in the legislative branch in connection with births and placements. By contrast, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA does not apply to employers and employees covered by the Secretary's FMLA title I regulations. Thus, there is no apparent need for clear distinctions between leave for births, placements, serious health conditions, or other qualifying exigencies in the applicable DOL regulations at 29 CFR 825.120 and 29 CFR 825.121, because the benefit, i.e., 12 weeks of unpaid leave, is the same for any of these reasons. The commenter also suggests striking the second sentence of the Board's definition of Birth on the ground that FEPLA does not permit substitution of paid leave for anticipated births. For the reasons set forth below concerning proposed 825.208, we disagree. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Covered Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of Covered Employee includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Eligible Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of eligible employee adds a new paragraph (1), which clarifies that for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length of service requirements in paragraph (2). Paragraph (3) of that definition, which concerns eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements, is amended to clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. A commenter recommended that the Employee of the House of Representatives definition in 825.102 should be revised to conform with language updates made through amendments and reforms to the CAA. The 2018 CAA Reform Act changed the language in the definition of House employees to reference pay that is disbursed by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, rather than the Office of the Clerk. Similarly, although the term ``clerk-hire allowance'' was used in original CAA text in the 1990's, the appropriate reference is now the ``Members' Representational Allowance.'' The Board finds good cause to make the suggested changes. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Employing Office in 825.102. The amended definition of Employing Office includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Family and Medical Leave in 825.102. The revised definition includes new language addressing leave to care for covered servicemembers. One commenter suggested further revising the definition to clarify that it means an employee's entitlement of ``up to'' 12 workweeks (or 26 workweeks in the case of leave under 825.127) of unpaid leave. The Board agrees and has made the suggested change. A commenter suggested that the definition of Intermittent Leave in 825.102 should be revised to include paid leave that is now available under the FMLA FEPLA provisions for reasons of birth or placement of a child for foster care or adoption. The Board finds good cause to make the suggested revision. The Board had proposed to amend 825.102 to add a new definition of Placement that clarified that it refers to a new placement. Two commenters stated that the proposed definition was inconsistent with the DOL's regulations at 29 CFR 825.121, which does not limit placements to ``new'' placements. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, and the Board will not include a new definition of Placement in its adopted regulations. One commenter suggested that the definitions of Son or Daughter, Son or Daughter of a Covered Servicemember, and Son or Daughter on Covered Active Duty or Call to Covered Active Duty Status in 825.102 (and 825.126(a)(5)) should be defined to account for circumstances where a child is gender neutral or gender undetermined. The commenter suggests adding a provision to clarify that these definitions include a covered servicemember's biological, adopted, foster child, stepchild, legal ward, and child(ren) for whom the covered servicemember stood in loco parentis, who are of any age, and who identify as transgender, gender neutral, gender non-conforming, or non-binary. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. It notes, however, that both DOL and the Board interpret these terms to include any child. 825.104 Covered employing offices. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.104 to: (1) designate paragraphs (1)-(4) as paragraphs (a)-(d); and (2) amend paragraph (d) to include the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 825.110 Eligible employee, general rule. 825.111 Eligible employee, birth or placement. The Board finds good cause to: (1) amend 825.110 to create a general rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements; and (2) add a new 825.111 to create a rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for births or placements. The amendments to 825.110 clarify that its provisions are subject to the exceptions set forth at 825.111; and they provide that for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. The new 825.111 clarifies that, for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length or hours of service requirements in the general rule at 825.110. One commenter suggested deleting the cross-references in 825.111 to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 825.112. The Board agrees and has revised 825.111 accordingly. The Board has determined not to further revise 825.111 to delete the citation: ``See also 825.120-21.'' 825.112 Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) of 825.112 to clarify that employing offices are required to grant leave to eligible employees for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, including the care of such son or daughter. One commenter stated that the citation in subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.112 should be changed to 825.120(a)(1)-(6) in order to exclude citation to the Board's proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. As stated below, the Board has determined not to include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. Therefore, the Board declines to make this revision. 825.120 Leave for pregnancy or birth. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.120 to clarify that FMLA leave for pregnancy or the birth of a son or daughter includes leave for the care of the newborn child. The Board also finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) to add a sentence stating that leave for a birth or placement must be concluded by the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth. One commenter noted that subparagraph (a)(3) indicates that spouses who are employed by the same employing office ``may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave,'' which seemingly grants employing offices the discretion to determine whether spouses are entitled to 12 weeks of individual or combined FEPLA leave for births or placements. The commenter states that the final rule should plainly indicate whether this is the intent of the provision or identify the instances when spouses would otherwise be limited to a combined 12 weeks of FEPLA leave. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, which uses the term ``may.'' See 29 CFR 825.120(a)(3). The Board had proposed to add a new subparagraph (a)(7) to 825.120, to state that leave taken because of a birth includes leave necessary for an employee who is the birth mother to recover from giving birth, or for an employee who is the other parent to care for the birth mother during her recovery period, even if the employee is not involved in caring for the son or daughter during portions of that recovery period. Several commenters stated that the new subparagraph (7) should not be included in the final rule, on the ground that no good cause exists for modifying the relevant DOL regulations to add this subparagraph. The Board has determined not to address this issue in the regulations and therefore will not include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) in 825.120. 825.121 Leave for adoption or foster care. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (a) of 825.121 to clarify that FMLA leave for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care includes leave to care for the newly placed child. One commenter stated that the Board should amend subparagraph (a)(3) of 825.121, which concerns spouses who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employing office, to clarify whether employing offices have discretion to grant the entire 12-week entitlement to both employee spouses; and to identify the circumstances when FEPLA leave must be separated or combined for those eligible employees. The Board's regulation is based on the DOL's regulation, and the Board finds no good cause to further modify that regulation. One commenter stated that the first sentence of paragraph (b) of 825.121 should be amended to substitute ``the employee's'' for ``the,'' so that the sentence would read: ``An eligible employee may use intermittent or reduced schedule leave after the placement of the employee's healthy child for adoption or foster care only if the employing office agrees.'' The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8966-2 | null | 3,631 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Washington, DC, December 7, 2021. Hon. Patrick Leahy, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' The Board has adopted the regulations in the Amended Notice of Adoption of Substantive Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval which accompany this transmittal letter. The Board requests that the accompanying Amended Notice be published in the Senate version of the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following receipt of this transmittal. The Board has adopted the same regulations for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the other covered entities and facilities, and therefore recommends that the adopted regulations be approved by concurrent resolution of the Congress. Any inquiries regarding this notice should be addressed to Susan Tsui Grundmann, Executive Director of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, Room LA-200, 110 2nd Street S.E., Washington, DC 20540; 202-724-9250. Sincerely, Barbara Childs Wallace, Chair of the Board of Directors, Office of Congressional Workplace Rights. Attachment. From the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval Modifications to the rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, as required by 2 U.S.C. 1384, Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended (CAA). Background: Section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1384(b)(3), requires that, with regard to substantive regulations under the CAA, after the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (Board) has published a general notice of proposed rulemaking as required by subsection (b)(1), and received comments as required by subsection (b)(2), ``the Board shall adopt regulations and shall transmit notice of such action together with a copy of such regulations to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record on the first day on which both Houses are in session following such transmittal.'' Section 202 of the CAA (2 U.S.C. 1302 et seq.), applies the rights and protections of sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA to covered employees in the legislative branch. On June 22, 2016, the Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record amendments to its substantive regulations regarding the FMLA. 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). As set forth in the Board's accompanying Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval, the 2016 amendments provide needed clarity on certain aspects of the FMLA. Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of these amendments. The purpose of this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations and Transmittal for Congressional Approval is to announce adoption of additional modifications to the existing legislative branch FMLA substantive regulations. Specifically, on December 20, 2019, Congress enacted the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act (subtitle A of title LXXVI of division F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, December 20, 2019) (FEPLA). FEPLA amended the FMLA to allow most civilian Federal employees, including eligible employees in the legislative branch, to substitute up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) for unpaid FMLA leave granted in connection with the birth of an employee's son or daughter or for the placement of a son or daughter with an employee for adoption or foster care. These additional modifications are necessary in order to bring existing legislative branch FMLA regulations (issued April 19, 1996) in line with these recent statutory changes. What is the authority under the CAA for these substantive regulations? Section 202(a) of the CAA provides that the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the FMLA (29 U.S.C. 2611-2615) shall apply to covered employees in the legislative branch. Section 202(d)(1) and (2) of the CAA require that the Board, pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, issue regulations implementing the rights and protections of the FMLA and that those regulations shall be ``the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in the subsection (a) [of section 202 of the CAA] except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown . . . that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.'' The modifications to the regulations proposed by the Board herein are on all matters for which section 202 of the CAA requires regulations to be issued. Are there currently FMLA regulations in effect? Yes. On January 22, 1996, the OCWR Board adopted and submitted for publication in the Congressional Record the original FMLA final regulations implementing section 202 of the CAA, which applies certain rights and protections of the FMLA. On April 15, 1996, pursuant to section 304(c) of the CAA, the House and the Senate passed resolutions approving the final regulations. Specifically, the Senate passed S. Res. 242, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the Senate and the employees of the Senate; the House passed H. Res. 400 providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to the House and the employees of the House; and the House and the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 51, providing for approval of the final regulations applicable to employing offices and employees other than those offices and employees of the House and the Senate. After the Senate and the House passed these resolutions, the Board formally issued the FMLA regulations on April 19, 1996. What does the FMLA provide? In general, the FMLA provides eligible employees the right to take a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons and for specified circumstances relating to a family member's military service. Employing offices in the legislative branch covered by FMLA provisions of the CAA must provide unpaid leave to eligible employees: (1) for the birth of a son or daughter and to care for the newborn son or daughter; or (2) for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care; (3) to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition; (4) because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's job; (5) because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a military member on covered active duty status; and (6) to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of the covered servicemember. How do the FEPLA amendments affect the FMLA as applied to the legislative branch? The FEPLA amendments to the FMLA include provisions expressly applicable to the legislative branch that both: (1) change the eligibility rules for employees to take protected leave for births or placements under the FMLA; and (2) permit employees to substitute PPL and other paid accrued leave for unpaid FMLA leave for such births or placements. The FEPLA amendments are summarized below. For purposes of FMLA leave with respect to any birth or placement, all covered employees in the legislative branch are eligible for job-protected leave under the FMLA immediately upon commencement of employment. ``Covered employee'' means any employee of: (1) the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate; (3) the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; (4) the Capitol Police; (5) the Congressional Budget Office; (6) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; (7) the Office of the Attending Physician; (8) the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; (9) the Office of Technology Assessment; (10) the Library of Congress; (11) the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development; (12) the China Review Commission; (13) the Congressional Executive China Commission; (14) the Helsinki Commission; or (14) the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. See 2 U.S.C. 1301(a). Generally, FMLA leave is unpaid leave. However, under certain circumstances, the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA, as made applicable by the CAA, permit an eligible employee to choose to substitute PPL and accrued paid leave (such as paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave) for unpaid FMLA leave. The term ``substitute'' means that paid leave will run concurrently with the unpaid FMLA leave. Accordingly, the employee receives pay during the period of otherwise unpaid FMLA leave. For leave taken for a birth or placement, an employee may elect to substitute for unpaid FMLA leave--(1) up to 12 workweeks of PPL in connection with the occurrence of a birth or placement; and (2) any additional paid annual, vacation, personal, family, medical, or sick leave provided by the employing office to such employee. Paid parental leave may be used only ``in connection with the birth or placement involved.'' See 2 U.S.C. 1312(d)(2)(A). By law, unpaid FMLA leave is generally limited to a total of 12 weeks in any 12-month period. Accordingly, any use of unpaid FMLA leave for a purpose other than birth or placement may reduce an employee's ability to substitute PPL for a birth or placement. Thus, for example, if an employee has used 3 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave during the leave year before the birth or placement, that employee's entitlement to 12 weeks of PPL may be reduced to 9 weeks. Paid parental leave may be used no later than the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the birth or placement involved. There are no carryover provisions for unused PPL. An employee may not be paid for unused or expired PPL. Paid parental leave may not be considered annual leave for purposes of making a lump-sum payment for annual leave or for any other purpose. FEPLA expressly provides that legislative branch employees using parental leave under the FMLA are not subject to the limitations that apply in the executive branch whereby employees may be required to agree in writing to work for the executive branch agency for at least 12 weeks after returning from leave. FEPLA also expressly provides that PPL applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to the limitations that may apply in the executive branch, state and local governments, and private sector, whereby an employer may recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan if the employee fails to return from PPL. When are the Paid Parental Leave provisions of FEPLA effective? FEPLA provides that the amendments to the CAA concerning PPL are not effective with respect to any birth or placement for adoption or foster care occurring before October 1, 2020. Thus, by law, PPL is available to covered employees only in connection with a birth or placement that occurs on or after October 1, 2020. How does FEPLA address active duty service in the National Guard or Reserves? In addition to providing for PPL, effective December 20, 2019, FEPLA also amended the general eligibility provisions of the FMLA (as applied by the CAA) to provide that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty (as defined in 29 U.S.C. 2611(14)) by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. Why are these additional changes to the FMLA regulations necessary? The CAA requires that the FMLA regulations applicable to the legislative branch and promulgated by the OCWR be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement FMLA title I, except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under the CAA. 2 U.S.C. 1312(e). FMLA title I covers employees of most private sector employers, state and local governments, and certain quasi-governmental entities, such as the U.S. Postal Service. These employees are governed by Department of Labor regulations at 29 C.F.R. 601 and part 825. The Secretary of Labor will not be promulgating FEPLA regulations because FEPLA does not extend PPL to private sector employees or other employees directly covered by FMLA title I. The Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for further modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. Procedural Summary: How are substantive regulations proposed and approved under the CAA? Pursuant to section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, the procedure for proposing and approving substantive regulations provides that: (1) the Board of Directors proposes substantive regulations and publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Congressional Record; (2) there be a comment period of at least 30 days after the date of publication of the general notice of proposed rulemaking; (3) after consideration of comments by the Board of Directors, the Board adopts regulations and transmits notice of such action (together with the regulations and a recommendation regarding the method for congressional approval of the regulations) to the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate for publication in the Congressional Record; (4) there be committee referral and action on the proposed regulations by resolution in each House, concurrent resolution, or by joint resolution; and (5) there be final publication of the approved regulations in the Congressional Record, with an effective date prescribed in the final publication. For more detail, please reference the text of 2 U.S.C. 1384. What is the approach taken by these adopted substantive regulations? The Board follows the procedures as enumerated above and as required by statute. This Amended Notice of Adopted Rulemaking is step (3) of the outline set forth above. The Board has reviewed and responded to the comments received under step (2) of the outline above, and it has made changes where necessary to ensure that the adopted regulations fully implement section 202 of the CAA, and reflect the practices and policies particular to the legislative branch. (Because the Board's 2016 amendments were adopted pursuant to the procedures for proposing and approving substantive regulations in section 304 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384, including providing a comment period of 60 days after publication of the proposed amendments in the Congressional Record, the Board did not seek additional comments on those adopted amendments.) Are there substantive differences in the adopted regulations for the House of Representatives, the Senate and other employing offices? No. The Board of Directors has identified no ``good cause'' for varying the text of these regulations. Therefore, if these regulations are approved as adopted, there will be one text applicable to all employing offices and covered employees. See 2 U.S.C. 1331(e)(2). Are these adopted regulations also recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate, and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives? As required by section 304(b)(1) of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1), these adopted regulations are also recommended by the Executive Director, the Deputy Executive Director for the Senate and the Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. Are these adopted substantive regulations available to persons with disabilities in an alternate format? In addition to being posted on the OCWR's website (www.ocwr.gov), this Notice is also available in alternative formats. Requests for this Notice in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, at 202/724-9250 (voice). Am I allowed to view copies of comments submitted by others? Yes. Copies of submitted comments will be available for review on the OCWR's public website at www.ocwr.gov. Summary: The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA), PL 104- 1, was enacted into law on January 23, 1995. The CAA, as amended, applies the rights and protections of 13 federal labor and employment statutes to covered employees and employing offices within the legislative branch of the federal government. Section 202 of the CAA applies to employees covered by the CAA, the rights and protections established by sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2611-2615. The above provisions of section 202 became effective on January 1, 1997. 2 U.S.C. 1312. The Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) is now publishing adopted amended regulations to implement section 202 of the CAA, 2 U.S.C. 1301-1438, as applied to covered employees of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and certain congressional instrumentalities listed below. The purpose of these amended regulations is to implement section 202 of the CAA. In this Amended Notice of Adoption of Regulations, the Board proposes that virtually identical regulations be adopted for the Senate, the House of Representatives, and certain congressional instrumentalities. Accordingly: (1) Senate. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the Senate, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the Senate. (2) House of Representatives. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to entities within the House of Representatives, as recommended by the OCWR's Deputy Executive Director for the House of Representatives. (3) Certain congressional instrumentalities. The amended regulations adopted in this Notice shall apply to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services; the Capitol Police; the Congressional Budget Office; the Office of the Architect of the Capitol; the Office of the Attending Physician; the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights; the Office of Technology Assessment; the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; as recommended by the OCWR's Executive Director. Section-by-Section Discussion of Adopted Changes to the FMLA Regulations As noted above, Congress has not yet acted on the Board's request for approval of its amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations that the Board adopted on June 22, 2016. The section-by-section discussion of those amendments appears at 162 Cong. Rec. H4128-H4168, S4475-S4516 (daily ed. June 22, 2016). The following is a section-by-section discussion of the additional adopted amendments related to FEPLA. The Board's adopted amendments to its substantive FMLA regulations provide more detail regarding the implementation of the statutory provisions summarized above. In order to implement FEPLA, the Board amends subparts A-C of part 825 of its substantive regulations (Family and Medical Leave) to establish how the FMLA provisions will now operate, since the appropriate substitution of paid parental leave for unpaid FMLA leave hinges on the standards for granting unpaid FMLA leave. The Board also amends subpart D to omit obsolete references to the OCWR's administrative dispute resolution procedures, which were significantly amended by the CAA of 1995 Reform Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-397. (Although the Board had also proposed to amend part 825 to add a new subpart E, for the reasons discussed below, the Board has determined not to do so.) Below we provide a section-by- section explanation of the adopted changes in subparts A-D. Where a change has been made to a regulatory section, that section is discussed below. However, as the DOL has significantly reorganized its FMLA regulations, which the Board's adopted regulations mirror, many of the sections are moved into other areas of the subpart. The Board as a result will use the adopted section and numbers to provide explanation and analysis of changes. In addition, even if a section is not discussed, there may be minor editorial changes or corrections that do not warrant discussion, such as the substitution of the Office's current name, the ``Office of Congressional Workplace Rights'' for its former name, the ``Office of Compliance.'' Note: The use of the terms ``Type A,'' ``Type B,'' ``Type C,'' etc., in this Notice corresponds to the subsections of the FMLA provision describing these types of FMLA leave. Thus, ``Type A'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(A). ``Type B'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(B). ``Type C'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[i]n order to care for the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(C). ``Type D'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). ``Type E'' FMLA leave refers to leave ``[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency (as the Secretary shall, by regulation, determine) arising out of the fact that the spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee is on covered active duty (or has been notified of an impending call or order to covered active duty) in the Armed Forces.'' See 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(E). Some commenters suggested that the Board modify the regulations to resolve potential ambiguities in the DOL regulation. However, the Board has long held that it will not opine on interpretive ambiguities in the regulations outside of the adjudicatory context of individual cases. The Board's rulemaking authority under the CAA is restricted to circumstances where there is ``good cause'' to depart from the Secretary of Labor's substantive regulations. Further, the Board's adjudicatory function would be undermined if it prejudged ambiguous or disputed interpretive matters. Therefore, the Board does not find ``good cause'' to modify a regulation where the request is based on an ostensible need for clarification. Section-by-Section Discussion and Board Consideration of Comments Part 825--Family and Medical Leave 825.1 Purpose and Scope. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.1 to add a new paragraph (c), which describes the FEPLA amendments to the FMLA provisions of the CAA; states that the Board is amending its substantive FMLA regulations pursuant to the CAA rulemaking procedures set forth at sections 202(d) and 304 of the CAA; and further states that because the Secretary of Labor has not promulgated FEPLA regulations under FMLA title I, the Board has determined that these circumstances constitute good cause for modification of its substantive FMLA regulations in order to effectively implement FEPLA's rights and protections to Federal employees in the legislative branch. The paragraphs in 825.1 that follow paragraph (c) have been redesignated as paragraphs (d) and (e). One commenter expressed concerns that the term ``Federal civilian employees in the legislative branch'' in proposed paragraph (c) could be read to improperly exclude sworn employees (or police officers) from the scope of the new regulations. The new paragraph (c) omits this term, and instead uses the terms ``Federal employees in the legislative branch'' and ``covered employees.'' Subpart A--COVERAGE UNDER THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT 825.100 The Family and Medical Leave Act. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (b) of 825.100 to clarify that the authority of an employing office, disbursing or other financial office to recover the premiums for maintaining coverage under a group health plan is subject to 825.208(k), which provides that paid parental leave applies to covered employees in the legislative branch without regard to such limitations. One commenter suggested amending paragraph (d) of 825.100 to apprise employees that FMLA leave may be denied, and the employee designated as Absent Without Leave, for failing to comply with the notification requirements outlined in 825.301(b). The Board finds that 825.100(d) is consistent with the DOL's regulation, and that good cause has not been shown to modify the DOL's regulation. 825.102 Definitions. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.102 to add the following definition of Birth: ``Birth means the delivery of a child. When the term ``birth'' under this subpart is used in connection with the use of leave before birth, it refers to an anticipated birth.'' One commenter suggested that the definition of Birth in 825.102 should be revised to ensure that employees who intend to deliver a live child and through complications in the birthing process have a birth that results in a deceased child receive the same entitlements during the physical recovery process from the birth as those employees whose birthing process results in the birth of a living child. The Board declines to make the suggested change, as its proposed definition encompasses the circumstances that the commenter describes. One commenter stated that the proposed definition of Birth should be stricken from the regulation in its entirety on the ground that good cause does not exist for modifying the applicable DOL regulation at 29 CFR 825.120(a)(l) or (2) by adding a definition of Birth which the commenter believed to be in conflict with the existing FMLA regulations. It states that nothing in the FEPLA nor anything unique to the congressional workplace justifies varying from or adding a definition that conflicts with that regulation. The Board disagrees. First, as stated above, the Secretary's regulations do not define the term Birth. Thus, the Board's definition of Birth presents no conflict with the Secretary's regulations. Second, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA for Type A leave provides good cause for adding such a definition. That is, the definition provides the specificity necessary in the Board's regulations to implement the new paid leave provisions of FEPLA in the legislative branch in connection with births and placements. By contrast, the paid leave benefit under FEPLA does not apply to employers and employees covered by the Secretary's FMLA title I regulations. Thus, there is no apparent need for clear distinctions between leave for births, placements, serious health conditions, or other qualifying exigencies in the applicable DOL regulations at 29 CFR 825.120 and 29 CFR 825.121, because the benefit, i.e., 12 weeks of unpaid leave, is the same for any of these reasons. The commenter also suggests striking the second sentence of the Board's definition of Birth on the ground that FEPLA does not permit substitution of paid leave for anticipated births. For the reasons set forth below concerning proposed 825.208, we disagree. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Covered Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of Covered Employee includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Eligible Employee in 825.102. The amended definition of eligible employee adds a new paragraph (1), which clarifies that for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length of service requirements in paragraph (2). Paragraph (3) of that definition, which concerns eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements, is amended to clarify that, for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. A commenter recommended that the Employee of the House of Representatives definition in 825.102 should be revised to conform with language updates made through amendments and reforms to the CAA. The 2018 CAA Reform Act changed the language in the definition of House employees to reference pay that is disbursed by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, rather than the Office of the Clerk. Similarly, although the term ``clerk-hire allowance'' was used in original CAA text in the 1990's, the appropriate reference is now the ``Members' Representational Allowance.'' The Board finds good cause to make the suggested changes. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Employing Office in 825.102. The amended definition of Employing Office includes any employee of the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. The Board finds good cause to amend the definition of Family and Medical Leave in 825.102. The revised definition includes new language addressing leave to care for covered servicemembers. One commenter suggested further revising the definition to clarify that it means an employee's entitlement of ``up to'' 12 workweeks (or 26 workweeks in the case of leave under 825.127) of unpaid leave. The Board agrees and has made the suggested change. A commenter suggested that the definition of Intermittent Leave in 825.102 should be revised to include paid leave that is now available under the FMLA FEPLA provisions for reasons of birth or placement of a child for foster care or adoption. The Board finds good cause to make the suggested revision. The Board had proposed to amend 825.102 to add a new definition of Placement that clarified that it refers to a new placement. Two commenters stated that the proposed definition was inconsistent with the DOL's regulations at 29 CFR 825.121, which does not limit placements to ``new'' placements. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, and the Board will not include a new definition of Placement in its adopted regulations. One commenter suggested that the definitions of Son or Daughter, Son or Daughter of a Covered Servicemember, and Son or Daughter on Covered Active Duty or Call to Covered Active Duty Status in 825.102 (and 825.126(a)(5)) should be defined to account for circumstances where a child is gender neutral or gender undetermined. The commenter suggests adding a provision to clarify that these definitions include a covered servicemember's biological, adopted, foster child, stepchild, legal ward, and child(ren) for whom the covered servicemember stood in loco parentis, who are of any age, and who identify as transgender, gender neutral, gender non-conforming, or non-binary. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. It notes, however, that both DOL and the Board interpret these terms to include any child. 825.104 Covered employing offices. The Board finds good cause to amend 825.104 to: (1) designate paragraphs (1)-(4) as paragraphs (a)-(d); and (2) amend paragraph (d) to include the Library of Congress; the Stennis Center for Public Service; the China Review Commission; the Congressional Executive China Commission; the Helsinki Commission; and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 825.110 Eligible employee, general rule. 825.111 Eligible employee, birth or placement. The Board finds good cause to: (1) amend 825.110 to create a general rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for reasons other than births or placements; and (2) add a new 825.111 to create a rule for eligibility for unpaid FMLA leave for births or placements. The amendments to 825.110 clarify that its provisions are subject to the exceptions set forth at 825.111; and they provide that for purposes of determining whether a covered employee has been employed by any employing office for at least 12 months and for at least 1,250 hours of service during the 12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, any service on active duty by a member of the National Guard or Reserves shall be counted as time during which such employee has been employed by an employing office. The new 825.111 clarifies that, for purposes of births or placements, an eligible employee is any covered employee as defined in the CAA, irrespective of whether the employee meets the length or hours of service requirements in the general rule at 825.110. One commenter suggested deleting the cross-references in 825.111 to subparagraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of 825.112. The Board agrees and has revised 825.111 accordingly. The Board has determined not to further revise 825.111 to delete the citation: ``See also 825.120-21.'' 825.112 Qualifying reasons for leave, general rule. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) of 825.112 to clarify that employing offices are required to grant leave to eligible employees for the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care, including the care of such son or daughter. One commenter stated that the citation in subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.112 should be changed to 825.120(a)(1)-(6) in order to exclude citation to the Board's proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. As stated below, the Board has determined not to include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) of 825.120. Therefore, the Board declines to make this revision. 825.120 Leave for pregnancy or birth. The Board finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(1) of 825.120 to clarify that FMLA leave for pregnancy or the birth of a son or daughter includes leave for the care of the newborn child. The Board also finds good cause to amend subparagraph (a)(2) to add a sentence stating that leave for a birth or placement must be concluded by the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth. One commenter noted that subparagraph (a)(3) indicates that spouses who are employed by the same employing office ``may be limited to a combined total of 12 weeks of leave,'' which seemingly grants employing offices the discretion to determine whether spouses are entitled to 12 weeks of individual or combined FEPLA leave for births or placements. The commenter states that the final rule should plainly indicate whether this is the intent of the provision or identify the instances when spouses would otherwise be limited to a combined 12 weeks of FEPLA leave. The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation, which uses the term ``may.'' See 29 CFR 825.120(a)(3). The Board had proposed to add a new subparagraph (a)(7) to 825.120, to state that leave taken because of a birth includes leave necessary for an employee who is the birth mother to recover from giving birth, or for an employee who is the other parent to care for the birth mother during her recovery period, even if the employee is not involved in caring for the son or daughter during portions of that recovery period. Several commenters stated that the new subparagraph (7) should not be included in the final rule, on the ground that no good cause exists for modifying the relevant DOL regulations to add this subparagraph. The Board has determined not to address this issue in the regulations and therefore will not include the proposed subparagraph (a)(7) in 825.120. 825.121 Leave for adoption or foster care. The Board finds good cause to amend paragraph (a) of 825.121 to clarify that FMLA leave for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care includes leave to care for the newly placed child. One commenter stated that the Board should amend subparagraph (a)(3) of 825.121, which concerns spouses who are eligible for FMLA leave and are employed by the same covered employing office, to clarify whether employing offices have discretion to grant the entire 12-week entitlement to both employee spouses; and to identify the circumstances when FEPLA leave must be separated or combined for those eligible employees. The Board's regulation is based on the DOL's regulation, and the Board finds no good cause to further modify that regulation. One commenter stated that the first sentence of paragraph (b) of 825.121 should be amended to substitute ``the employee's'' for ``the,'' so that the sentence would read: ``An eligible employee may use intermittent or reduced schedule leave after the placement of the employee's healthy child for adoption or foster care only if the employing office agrees.'' The Board has determined that no good cause has been shown to modify the DOL regulation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-07-pt1-PgS8966-2 | null | 3,632 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | A message from the Senate by Ms. Byrd, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate agreed to the following resolution: S. Res. 470 Whereas Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole (referred to in this preamble as ``Bob Dole'') was born in Russell, Kansas; Whereas Bob Dole enlisted in the United States Army while he was a student at the University of Kansas, served in World War II, was seriously wounded attempting to save a fellow soldier during a military offensive in Italy, and was awarded 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with an Oak Cluster for his service; Whereas Bob Dole continued his public service by serving in the Kansas State House of Representatives from 1951 to 1953, and he was then elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1961, where he served until 1969; Whereas Bob Dole began his United States Senate career in 1969, which would last until 1996, serving during this period as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senate Minority Leader, and Senate Majority Leader; Whereas Bob Dole was a life-long advocate for the disabled and was instrumental in the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Dole-McGovern Food for Education program; Whereas Bob Dole was the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States in 1996; Whereas Bob Dole has been recognized by several presidents for his public service, including President Reagan awarding him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989 and President Clinton bestowing upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1997; Whereas Bob Dole left elected office but remained in public service, serving as-- (1) National Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign; (2) co-chair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund for families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; (3) co-chair of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors in 2007; and (4) Finance Chairman of the Campaign for the National Eisenhower Memorial; Whereas Bob Dole's bond with veterans remained unbroken, and he rarely missed an opportunity to greet veterans during their Honor Flights to the World War II Memorial, personally thanking each of them for their service; and Whereas Bob Dole exemplified the American spirit of service and leadership: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that-- (1) the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas; (2) the Senate respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate-- (A) communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives; and (B) transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole; and (3) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole. The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 2629. An act to establish cybercrime reporting mechanisms, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate has agreed to concurrent resolutions of the following titles in whichthe concurrence of the House is requested: S. Con. Res. 22. Concurrent Resolution providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the rotunda of the Capitol for the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas. S. Con. Res. 23. Concurrent Resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state of the remains of the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7465-6 | null | 3,633 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | A message from the Senate by Ms. Byrd, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate agreed to the following resolution: S. Res. 470 Whereas Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole (referred to in this preamble as ``Bob Dole'') was born in Russell, Kansas; Whereas Bob Dole enlisted in the United States Army while he was a student at the University of Kansas, served in World War II, was seriously wounded attempting to save a fellow soldier during a military offensive in Italy, and was awarded 2 Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star with an Oak Cluster for his service; Whereas Bob Dole continued his public service by serving in the Kansas State House of Representatives from 1951 to 1953, and he was then elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1961, where he served until 1969; Whereas Bob Dole began his United States Senate career in 1969, which would last until 1996, serving during this period as Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Senate Minority Leader, and Senate Majority Leader; Whereas Bob Dole was a life-long advocate for the disabled and was instrumental in the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 and the Dole-McGovern Food for Education program; Whereas Bob Dole was the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States in 1996; Whereas Bob Dole has been recognized by several presidents for his public service, including President Reagan awarding him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989 and President Clinton bestowing upon him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1997; Whereas Bob Dole left elected office but remained in public service, serving as-- (1) National Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign; (2) co-chair of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund for families of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; (3) co-chair of the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors in 2007; and (4) Finance Chairman of the Campaign for the National Eisenhower Memorial; Whereas Bob Dole's bond with veterans remained unbroken, and he rarely missed an opportunity to greet veterans during their Honor Flights to the World War II Memorial, personally thanking each of them for their service; and Whereas Bob Dole exemplified the American spirit of service and leadership: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that-- (1) the Senate has heard with profound sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole, former United States Senator for the State of Kansas; (2) the Senate respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate-- (A) communicate this resolution to the House of Representatives; and (B) transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole; and (3) when the Senate adjourns today, it stand adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the Honorable Robert ``Bob'' J. Dole. The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 2629. An act to establish cybercrime reporting mechanisms, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate has agreed to concurrent resolutions of the following titles in whichthe concurrence of the House is requested: S. Con. Res. 22. Concurrent Resolution providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the rotunda of the Capitol for the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas. S. Con. Res. 23. Concurrent Resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state of the remains of the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7465-6 | null | 3,634 |
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-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7468 | null | 3,635 |
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. 4996) to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to prohibited acts by ocean common carriers or marine terminal operators, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7528-2 | null | 3,636 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). 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. 4616) to deem certain references to LIBOR as referring to a replacement benchmark rate upon the occurrence of certain events affecting LIBOR, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette) | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7529 | null | 3,637 |
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 thebill (H.R. 5609) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, to establish a cattle contract library, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7530-2 | null | 3,638 |
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. 5290) to extend authorization for livestock mandatory reporting, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7530 | null | 3,639 |
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. 4489) to amend the Act of June 20, 1958, to require that certain amounts collected by the United States with respect to lands under the administration of the Forest Service be invested into interest bearing obligations, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7531 | null | 3,640 |
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. 5608) to support research and state management efforts on chronic wasting disease, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7532 | null | 3,641 |
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. 1155) ensuring that goods made with forced labor in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of the People's Republic of China do not enter the United States market, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7533 | null | 3,642 |
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 agree to the resolution (H. Res. 317) condemning the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity being committed against Uyghurs and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups by the People's Republic of China, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7534-2 | null | 3,643 |
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 agree to the resolution (H. Res. 837) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the International Olympic Committee failed to adhere to its own human rights commitments, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7534 | null | 3,644 |
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. 3537) to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support research on, and expanded access to, investigational drugs for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7535 | null | 3,645 |
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. 5487) to improve research and data collection on stillbirths, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7536 | null | 3,646 |
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. 5551) to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7537-2 | null | 3,647 |
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. 5561) to reauthorize a program for early detection, diagnosis, and treatment regarding deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns, infants, and young children, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7537 | null | 3,648 |
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. 1667) to address behavioral health and well-being among health care professionals, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7538 | null | 3,649 |
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. 4555) to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a public education campaign across all relevant programs of the Health Resources and Services Administration to increase oral health literacy and awareness, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7539 | null | 3,650 |
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. 2355) to facilitate responsible, informed dispensing of controlled substances and other prescribed medications, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7540-2 | null | 3,651 |
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. 5119) to amend title VI of the Social Security Act to extend the coverage of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments to Tribal Governments, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7540 | null | 3,652 |
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. 2364) to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to provide for a public education campaign to raise public awareness of synthetic opioids, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7541 | null | 3,653 |
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. 897) to take certain lands in California into trust for the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7543-2 | null | 3,654 |
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. 2074) to assist Tribal governments in the management of buffalo and buffalo habitat and for the reestablishment of buffalo on Indian lands, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7544 | null | 3,655 |
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. 3531) to authorize the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7545 | null | 3,656 |
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. 4706) to establish the Blackwell School National Historic Site in Marfa, Texas, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7546 | null | 3,657 |
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. 5695) to make technical amendments to update statutory references to certain provisions which were formerly classified to chapters 14 and 19 of title 25, United States Code, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7548 | null | 3,658 |
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. 5961) to make revisions in title 5, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7549-2 | null | 3,659 |
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. 5705) to make technical amendments to update statutory references to provisions reclassified to title 34, United States Code, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7549 | null | 3,660 |
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. 5982) to make revisions in title 51, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7550 | null | 3,661 |
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-2889. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of General Austin A. Miller, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of general on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec. 502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-2890. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the National Health Service Corps Report to Congress for the Year 2020, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 254i; July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, Sec. 336A (as amended by Public Law 107-251, Sec. 307(b)); (116 Stat. 1649); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2891. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Progress Report to Congress on the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program and National Cord Blood Inventory Program, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 274k(a)(6); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, Sec. 379 (as amended by Public Law 109-129, Sec. 3(a)); (119 Stat. 2554); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2892. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the FY 2020 Report on the Preventive Medicine and Public Health Training Grant Program, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 295c(d); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VII, Sec. 768(d) (as amended by Public Law 111-148, Sec. 10501(m)); (124 Stat. 1002); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2893. A letter from the Administrator and Chief Executive Officer, Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy, transmitting the 2021 Annual Report of the Bonneville Power Administration, pursuant to the Third Powerplant at Grand Coulee Dam Act, 16 U.S.C. 835j; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2894. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting thirty-four (34) notifications of a nomination and action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2895. A letter from the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107- 289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2896. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2897. A letter from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Administration's Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2898. A letter from the Board Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm Credit Administration, transmitting the Administration's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress covering the period of April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2899. A letter from the Chairman of the Board and Chairman, Audit Committee, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's report to the President addressing the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act and the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2900. A letter from the Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. House of Representatives, transmitting the Audit of Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2020; to the Committee on House Administration. EC-2901. A letter from the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, transmitting the Department's sixteenth annual report to Congress on crime victims' rights, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771 note; Public Law 108-405, Sec. 104(a); (118 Stat. 2265); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2902. A letter from the Director, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, transmitting the 2021 Delayed- Notice Search Warrant Report, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3103a(d)(2); Public Law 90-351, Sec. 1401(a) (added by Public Law 109-177, Sec. 114(c)); (120 Stat. 211); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2903. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0373; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01352-R; Amendment 39-21668; AD 2021-16- 06] (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-2904. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major interim final rule -- Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Omnibus COVID- 19 Health Care Staff Vaccination [CMS-3415-IFC] (RIN: 0938- AU75) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-2905. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals With Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, and End-Stage Renal Disease Treatment Choices Model [CMS-1749-F] (RIN: 0938-AU39) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-2906. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major interim final rule -- Medicare Program; Opioid Treatment Programs: CY 2022 Methadone Payment Exception [CMS-1751-IFC] (RIN: 0938- AU95) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-2907. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Medicare Program; CY 2022 Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Changes to Part B Payment Policies; Medicare Shared Savings Program Requirements; Provider Enrollment Regulation Updates; and Provider and Supplier Prepayment and Post-Payment Medical Review Requirements [CMS-1751-F] (RIN: 0938-AU42) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-2908. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 2022 Home Health Prospective Payment System Rate Update; Home Health Value- Based Purchasing Model Requirements and Model Expansion; Home Health and Other Quality Reporting Program Requirements; Home Infusion Therapy Services Requirements; Survey and Enforcement Requirements for Hospice Programs; Medicare Provider Enrollment Requirements; and COVID-19 Reporting Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities [CMS-1747-F and CMS-5531-F] (RINs: 0938-AU32 and 0938-AU37) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgH7553-3 | null | 3,662 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, at the beginning of December, I said the Senate had a lot of hard work to do in order to address several critical priorities before the end of the year. When the month began, America knew we had to avoid a government shutdown; we had to approve our annual Defense bill; we had to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States; take action on Build Back Better before Christmas, as well as deal with voting rights. It is now December 8, and the Senate is making very good progress on all of these priorities. It was a big, big agenda, and we are clearly not through with it, but we are making good progress. There is clearly light at the end of the tunnel on the debt ceiling and the Defense bill based on the agreement Leader McConnell and I came to and the House's action last night. Let me go over those details. Last night, the House of Representatives sent us two important pieces of legislation. One of them is a compromise version of our annual Defense bill, which I expect will earn bipartisan support in this Chamber in the coming days. I want to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and all my colleagues, who worked to shape this legislation to help us make sure we pass a bipartisan Defense bill this year, as we have done for decades. The second bill they sent us will enable the Chamber to swiftly address the debt limit, sparing our country from the calamity--and a calamity it would have been--of a first-ever default on our national debt. This fast-tracked process was included in a bill that will also provide critical protections for Medicare funding, preventing slashes in that very important funding to so many seniors, and waive the pay-go rule to avoid harmful cuts. Last night, I took the first procedural step to advance this legislation, setting up a cloture vote to take place as soon as Thursday. Once our proposal is approved by the Senate, we will be able to address the debt limit in this Chamber with a simple majority vote, which is exactly what Democrats have been seeking for months and what I have been asking for at this podium time after time, after time. I want to thank the Republican leader for his help in working with us to find a responsible path that avoids partisan brinksmanship. Democrats have always said that the Senate should be able to raise the debt limit without resorting to a convoluted, lengthy, and risky reconciliation process, and under our plan, we won't have to do that. Democrats have also said repeatedly that the responsible thing to do is to raise the debt ceiling. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the spending increase. We have said repeatedly thatwe are ready to shoulder this burden even if our Republican colleagues are not going to be able to. It now looks like we will be able to do that--to have 50 Democrats vote responsibly and do what is good for the Nation, avoiding catastrophe by raising the debt ceiling to pay the debts we have already incurred, just like any household must do. This agreement we have secured is the responsible path forward. No gamesmanship on the debt limit means no default on our sovereign debt and the calamity--the calamity--that it would cause. Again, I thank my Republican colleagues and Leader McConnell. We have had fruitful, honest, and good discussions over the last several weeks to come up with this proposal. We are not over the finish line yet, but I want to thank all of my colleagues for working in good faith to move forward on this responsibility that must be addressed in the coming days. Soon, we will be able to cross another major item off our December to-do list. And we have more to roll up our sleeves and get working on. They are so important. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9001-8 | null | 3,663 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, one more issue--the upcoming vaccine CRA. On another matter, reports this morning indicate that getting vaccinated and boosted offer significant protection against the Omicron variant. As we learn more about Omicron, it is an important moment for national leaders to double- and triple-down on encouraging all eligible Americans to get vaccinated and boosted as soon as possible. But as soon as today, our Republican friends are going to come to the floor to push an anti-science, anti-vaccine proposal to overturn the President's vaccines requirements for businesses with more than 100 employees. My friends, America, we are in the middle of a public health crisis. Everyone sees the damage it causes to themselves, their friends, their families, and their communities, and the way to solve this is to be driven by science. We have had hundreds of years of scientific advancement. It has helped us live longer and live healthier. My dad just lived until 98. That didn't happen in a vacuum, and it certainly wouldn't have happened when there were scientific advances and people said, ``Let's not listen to them,'' for political, ideological, or whatever reasons. We cannot go back to the days when people were driven by wild theories. Some of the anti-vaxxers here in this Chamber remind me of what happened 400 years ago, when people were clinging to the fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth--they just didn't believe science--or 300 years ago or 500 years ago, when they were sure the Earth was flat. It is just like that. The science is here. And what does the science show? The more people who get vaccinated, the greater chance we have to eliminate and, certainly, greatly reduce the virulence and ``widespreadness'' of this disease. People are resisting. Is it political? Is it fueled by lies on the internet? Is it just because people fear vaccines? We never had this outcry when we had to give our kids--my kids--mumps, measles vaccines before they went to school. We never had this outcry as people lined up to get flu shots. All of a sudden, something has happened here. It is wrong, and it is bad for the country, and it is not based on any scientific evidence whatsoever. I know that wild stories on the internet, lies, sometimes get in people's heads, but we can't listen to people's lies. We are a fact-based society. We always have been. The biggest thing standing between us and the end of the pandemic is Americans who have refused to get vaccinated. Too many Americans believe a wide range of conspiracy theoriesabout vaccines, and even those who seem to encourage those crazy theories often get vaccinated themselves and don't tell anybody. We have had so many of these hard-right leaders admitting: ``Oh, yes, I did get vaccinated,'' even though they are telling people they shouldn't have to take one. ``Oh, yes, I will get vaccinated, but you shouldn't have to.'' If the only damage were to the person, him or herself, who didn't get vaccinated, maybe some people would say that is OK. But it is not just to them because, when there is a large pool of people unvaccinated, even if it is not the majority, that allows the COVID virus to spread, to mutate, to create new variants, and create new stronger variants. It is a pool of people. If you greatly reduce that pool, you greatly reduce the chance of a new variant, particularly a virulent one, from afflicting us in the months ahead. It is crazy. The internet has had a role in spreading this, and so has the far right. The same people in the far right who want to tear down government and hurt working people in so many other ways are here doing the same thing--the same thing--even though, as I said, a good number of them get vaccinated themselves--hypocrisy. There should be one message, and one message only, coming from this Chamber to the American people: Get vaccinated. Get boosted. Stay safe yourself. Keep your families, your communities, and our country safe. The worst thing we can do is tie our own hands behind our backs and let these new variants spread and grow--new ones after Omicron and so many others. But that is what Republican-pushed ``anti-vaccines'' would do. I will strongly vote against this amendment. I have strong feelings about what is good for this country and about fighting anti-science and theories that seem to, as I said, come from the same place that the flat Earth theory came from, that the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth came from. Anti-science, nonscience, fictional belief come from there. We ought not give it a stamp of approval in this Chamber. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9002-2 | null | 3,664 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Build Back Better: So, in the first few days of December, we have successfully avoided a government shutdown. We have cleared the path, hopefully, for addressing the debt limit; and, as I mentioned, I am optimistic that the NDAA will soon be settled. None of these are easy accomplishments, but we are clearing the path for Democrats to turn to our biggest domestic priority of the year: passing President Biden's Build Back Better Act before Christmas. Later today, four Senate committees will release the final texts of their portions of Build Back Better, along with CBO scores for each, as required by the reconciliation process. Those four committees are Commerce, Small Business, Banking and Housing, and Veterans' Affairs. In the meantime, I continue to hold daily conversations with my Democratic colleagues, with the White House, with the Speaker, and House colleagues. We continue to make good progress, and we are still on track to vote on a final product before Christmas. The sooner we can pass Build Back Better, the better off American families will be as we start the new year. This bill has always been about a simple goal: cutting costs for working and middle-class families. People are complaining about higher costs. They are right to do that. This bill actually lowers costs in many different areas and will help families who are trying to make ends meet and stretch those dollars. Let me give you some examples. Families are still struggling to pull themselves out of a once-in-a-century economic crisis brought about by COVID. They want to pay less for things like healthcare, prescription drugs, childcare--some of the biggest costs average middle-income and working families have. They want us to find ways to make that happen, and that is exactly what Build Back Better does. America, if you want lower costs, tell your Senators to vote for Build Back Better. If we invest in American families, then we make it easier for them to work, to be productive, to flourish in society, and that makes our country stronger and lowers costs in the long term. One of the great problems, we are told, is a shortage of workers. One of the greatest reasons for the shortage of workers is the lack of good childcare. People can't go to work if they have to look after their kids. And in this post-COVID era, a lot of the patterns that used to happen don't happen anymore. Making childcare affordable will help bring people back to work, get our economy humming along again, and deal with some of the bottlenecks in certain areas, from certain industries, which is creating inflation. Helping families afford childcare, of course, saves parents money, but it goes a long way to alleviating our labor shortage. If parents don't have to worry about how they will keep their kids safe during the day, they will have greater flexibility to reenter the workforce and increase the country's output. That lowers inflation. In the long term, everyone wins--kids, parents, employers, and the entire economy. This single investment alone is enough reason to keep pushing Build Back Better, but there are so many. One of the greatest costs we face is prescription drug costs. That is what families complain about above all. This bill goes a long way to making prescription drugs cost less. Another great cost people are complaining about is the rising cost of housing. This bill puts more money into housing--into both rehabilitating housing that has deteriorated and putting them back into the marketplace in a real way and into creating new housing. It will reduce the dramatic increase in housing costs. So you want to talk about inflation, you want to talk about people having to pay more, this bill is an antidote in so many areas. I have mentioned childcare, healthcare, and housing, just to name a few, but there are many others as well. So we are going to keep working in getting this bill done. It is so important to working families and to America. To working families: less expenses, easier to make that dollar stretch when we sit down Friday night after dinner and say, ``How are we going to pay the bills this week?'' To America: relieving bottlenecks and making sure that our economy hums along at a rapid rate, where people are getting good wages, but the bottlenecks caused often by COVID are reduced. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9002 | null | 3,665 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Build Back Better: So, in the first few days of December, we have successfully avoided a government shutdown. We have cleared the path, hopefully, for addressing the debt limit; and, as I mentioned, I am optimistic that the NDAA will soon be settled. None of these are easy accomplishments, but we are clearing the path for Democrats to turn to our biggest domestic priority of the year: passing President Biden's Build Back Better Act before Christmas. Later today, four Senate committees will release the final texts of their portions of Build Back Better, along with CBO scores for each, as required by the reconciliation process. Those four committees are Commerce, Small Business, Banking and Housing, and Veterans' Affairs. In the meantime, I continue to hold daily conversations with my Democratic colleagues, with the White House, with the Speaker, and House colleagues. We continue to make good progress, and we are still on track to vote on a final product before Christmas. The sooner we can pass Build Back Better, the better off American families will be as we start the new year. This bill has always been about a simple goal: cutting costs for working and middle-class families. People are complaining about higher costs. They are right to do that. This bill actually lowers costs in many different areas and will help families who are trying to make ends meet and stretch those dollars. Let me give you some examples. Families are still struggling to pull themselves out of a once-in-a-century economic crisis brought about by COVID. They want to pay less for things like healthcare, prescription drugs, childcare--some of the biggest costs average middle-income and working families have. They want us to find ways to make that happen, and that is exactly what Build Back Better does. America, if you want lower costs, tell your Senators to vote for Build Back Better. If we invest in American families, then we make it easier for them to work, to be productive, to flourish in society, and that makes our country stronger and lowers costs in the long term. One of the great problems, we are told, is a shortage of workers. One of the greatest reasons for the shortage of workers is the lack of good childcare. People can't go to work if they have to look after their kids. And in this post-COVID era, a lot of the patterns that used to happen don't happen anymore. Making childcare affordable will help bring people back to work, get our economy humming along again, and deal with some of the bottlenecks in certain areas, from certain industries, which is creating inflation. Helping families afford childcare, of course, saves parents money, but it goes a long way to alleviating our labor shortage. If parents don't have to worry about how they will keep their kids safe during the day, they will have greater flexibility to reenter the workforce and increase the country's output. That lowers inflation. In the long term, everyone wins--kids, parents, employers, and the entire economy. This single investment alone is enough reason to keep pushing Build Back Better, but there are so many. One of the greatest costs we face is prescription drug costs. That is what families complain about above all. This bill goes a long way to making prescription drugs cost less. Another great cost people are complaining about is the rising cost of housing. This bill puts more money into housing--into both rehabilitating housing that has deteriorated and putting them back into the marketplace in a real way and into creating new housing. It will reduce the dramatic increase in housing costs. So you want to talk about inflation, you want to talk about people having to pay more, this bill is an antidote in so many areas. I have mentioned childcare, healthcare, and housing, just to name a few, but there are many others as well. So we are going to keep working in getting this bill done. It is so important to working families and to America. To working families: less expenses, easier to make that dollar stretch when we sit down Friday night after dinner and say, ``How are we going to pay the bills this week?'' To America: relieving bottlenecks and making sure that our economy hums along at a rapid rate, where people are getting good wages, but the bottlenecks caused often by COVID are reduced. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9002 | null | 3,666 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for Washington Democrats, 2021 will have one major theme: ramming through inflationary spending on a partisan basis that hurts American families and actually helps China. That is how this all-Democratic Government began the year, jamming through a wasteful excuse for a stimulus bill that drove up prices and made supply chain problems even worse. Not a single Republican supported it, and Democrats now want to end the year with another massive spree that would make it even worse. The whole country understands that Democrats own this mess. They have seized one-party control of the economy. So you better believe that they will have one-party accountability for the resulting nightmare. The President and his allies are badly upside down in overall approval ratings, upside down on the generic ballot, upside down on the economy. And the more the men and women of this country learn about the reckless taxing-and-spending spree that Democrats are planning next, the less they want it or anything close to it. Democrats have wanted to transform the country alone. They want to print and borrow trillion after trillion on their own. They want to create even more inflation on their own. So, as the Republicans have made clear for months, they will have to own a debt ceiling increase as well. This week, the House and Senate have reached a bipartisan agreement to make that happen. As the Democratic leader said yesterday, the Democrats are ``willing to carry the burden.'' And so they will. We have reached an agreement on a one-time, one-shot statutory process that will enable Democrats to raise the debt limit at a fixed dollar amount, which they will specify. Much like the vote on an arms sales resolution that occurred yesterday and the Congressional Review Act vote that will occur today, this will be a standard expedited process, at a simple majority threshold, established by law. Democrats will get one shot at this. They won't be able to add any other amendments. And every single Senate Democrat will have to put their name to the gigantic dollar amount of debt they are prepared to pile on the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9003-2 | null | 3,667 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Americans are currently dealing with the worst inflation in more than 30 years--high grocery prices, high rent prices, high gas prices, high car prices, increases in the price of household goods, and the list goes on. Inflation is so bad that it has outstripped wage growth,resulting in a de facto pay cut for many Americans. One of the price hikes hitting Americans hard is the increase in the price of gas. Gas prices have risen 40 percent since President Biden took office--40 percent. That takes a tremendous toll on family budgets. And, of course, high gas prices and other energy costs contribute to price increases on a whole host of other goods. Manufacturers facing higher transportation costs thanks to high gas prices, for example, are likely to pass on at least some of those increased costs to consumers in the form of price hikes. In my home State of South Dakota, families are facing an increase in home heating costs as high as 50 to 100 percent, depending on how severe of a winter we face. Nationwide, concerns over high heating costs this winter have been tempered by mild weather so far, but predictions of huge energy bills could return with a period of sustained harsh weather. And that would be another financial blow for families whose budgets are already severely stretched by our current inflation crisis. It is easy for, say, a wealthy Democrat politician to dismiss the consequences of inflation, but for families living paycheck to paycheck, an increase in the grocery bill or heating costs or the cost of a tank of gas could mean tough decisions, like choosing between adequately heating the house or filling the car to get to a job. So what has President Biden been doing to help alleviate rising energy prices and inflation? Well, the answer is not much. First, he pleaded with the OPEC cartel to increase oil production and increase global supply, which is the single most influential factor when it comes to gas prices. OPEC was unmoved. Then the President recently announced the release of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve, a move that Congress had, in part, already mandated. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a short-term relief measure, if that, as it will do little to give our energy sector the certainty it is seeking to bring production and American energy jobs back online. While Democrats helped create the inflation crisis that we are experiencing by flooding the economy with unnecessary government money earlier this year, the President is not solely to blame for high energy prices, which have also been driven up by COVID-related issues. However, the President is certainly to blame for the hostile attitude his administration has displayed toward conventional energy production. And he is certainly to blame for the reckless tax-and-spending spree he is pushing, which would further drive up energy prices for American families. The President made clear that his attitude toward conventional energy production on day 1 of his administration, when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway and that would have delivered more than 10,000 construction jobs and helped decrease energy costs by increasing regional energy supply, all while being offset with a $1.7 billion investment in renewable energy. The President also almost immediately banned new oil and gas leases on Federal lands, sending a clear signal to oil and gas producers that his administration would be reluctant to work with them to increase American energy production. Then, of course, there was the release of the first outlines of the President's reckless tax-and-spending plan, which displayed a clear hostility to conventional energy. Given this record, it is no surprise that many energy producers have been less than enthusiastic about coming fully back online as we emerge from the pandemic. The market signals to increase production are being muted by this administration's burdensome policies and clear intent of sidelining American energy development. Then there is the current version of the reckless tax-and-spending spree, which Democrats are pushing to pass in the very near future. This legislation will not only likely worsen our current inflation situation, it will also make our energy less reliable and more expensive. If Democrats succeed in passing their legislation, American families will have to brace themselves for even higher energy bills. One major driver of those higher energy bills will be the bill's new fee--or tax--on methane, which is targeted at crippling the natural gas sector that spurred America's recent energy renaissance and has actually been the largest driver of coal displacement. The American Gas Association says the proposed fee could add as much as 34 percent to natural gas bills. And that is on top of any increases Americans may already be facing. As I mentioned earlier, home heating bills are already projected to rise as much as 50 to 100 percent in my State this winter--and that is without the reckless tax-and-spending spree piling on. And if progressive Democrats have their way, Democrats' tax-and-spending spree could also penalize our oil and gas sector by ending longstanding tax provisions like the percentage depletion deduction, which underpins an overwhelming number of independent producers representing roughly 90 percent of wells drilled in the United States. Simply put, this administration wants to make it more expensive and more difficult to develop our abundant energy resources in favor of their preferred energy technologies and electric vehicles, with predictable consequences for Americans' pocketbooks. And just a word about those electric vehicles. The President's Transportation Secretary recently suggested that families feeling the pinch of high gas prices could solve their problem by buying an electric vehicle, which would allow them to ``never have to worry about gas prices again.'' Well, I have news for the President's Transportation Secretary. A lot of Americans can't afford to replace their car with an electric vehicle, not to mention that electric cars and trucks are still not a practical option for many Americans for other reasons. Secretary Buttigieg's statement shows just how far out of touch Democrats have become with ordinary Americans. I know Democrats are deeply invested in their Green New Deal fantasies of an instant, mostly electric energy regime. But the reality is that American consumers will need to use liquid fuels and electricity and heat for natural gas well into the future. And punishing or discouraging responsible energy development in oil and natural gas will do nothing--nothing--but drive up energy prices for consumers and force our Nation to rely more on oil and gas imports from unstable areas of the world. We should be encouraging American energy development of every kind--from oil and natural gas to wind, solar, and biofuels--not artificially picking winners and losers and discouraging essential energy production. And with American consumers struggling with long-term inflation, the last thing we need to be doing right now is passing legislation that will drive up energy prices. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way and succeed in passing their tax-and-spending legislation, Americans will soon be able to add even higher energy bills to the list of challenges that they are currently facing. So much for building back better for the American people. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9004-2 | null | 3,668 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on a related matter, just before Thanksgiving, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act. It is one of the most pro-family pieces of legislation in modern history. For nearly 50 years, the wealthy in America have gotten richer while the middle class has been squeezed. Build Back Better is about restoring fairness. Four years ago, when the Republicans had their chance to use the reconciliation process, they really identified their highest priority: tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They continue to hold to the philosophy that if you give tax breaks to wealthy people, eventually people who are in the middle-income categories--working families--will start to see some benefits coming their way. I couldn't disagree more. I believe investing in working families in America has always been the best investment. These are families with kids who are destined for college and even better jobs if we invest in those families and give them a fighting chance. The wealthy are going to do just fine by themselves, and they are doing pretty well, I might add. We have got to make sure that this Build Back Better Act, which President Biden supports, really focuses on working families. And that is why thebill that passed the House has the largest tax cut for middle-class and working families ever in America's history. That bears repeating. Four years ago, the Republicans gave a tax break to the wealthiest people in America. The bill that we are considering will give the largest tax cut for middle class and working families in our Nation's history. It helps families with big-ticket items that keep people up at night: affordable childcare; universal pre-kindergarten; expanded, affordable healthcare coverage; help with affordable housing. It makes serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's be very clear about it. I can remember a time when the whole issue of climate change and global warming was a truly bipartisan concern. The bills that used to come to the floor were cosponsored by the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a Republican and a Democrat, both very seriously concerned about what was happening to the world's environment. That is no longer the case. It is a struggle for us to get Republicans to even acknowledge that there is a challenge, let alone accept the challenge of the solutions that lie ahead. We need to make serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. And critically important to our future economic prosperity, we need Build Back Better to make investments in higher education and affordability, which is the next topic I would like to address. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9015-4 | null | 3,669 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on a related matter, just before Thanksgiving, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act. It is one of the most pro-family pieces of legislation in modern history. For nearly 50 years, the wealthy in America have gotten richer while the middle class has been squeezed. Build Back Better is about restoring fairness. Four years ago, when the Republicans had their chance to use the reconciliation process, they really identified their highest priority: tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They continue to hold to the philosophy that if you give tax breaks to wealthy people, eventually people who are in the middle-income categories--working families--will start to see some benefits coming their way. I couldn't disagree more. I believe investing in working families in America has always been the best investment. These are families with kids who are destined for college and even better jobs if we invest in those families and give them a fighting chance. The wealthy are going to do just fine by themselves, and they are doing pretty well, I might add. We have got to make sure that this Build Back Better Act, which President Biden supports, really focuses on working families. And that is why thebill that passed the House has the largest tax cut for middle-class and working families ever in America's history. That bears repeating. Four years ago, the Republicans gave a tax break to the wealthiest people in America. The bill that we are considering will give the largest tax cut for middle class and working families in our Nation's history. It helps families with big-ticket items that keep people up at night: affordable childcare; universal pre-kindergarten; expanded, affordable healthcare coverage; help with affordable housing. It makes serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's be very clear about it. I can remember a time when the whole issue of climate change and global warming was a truly bipartisan concern. The bills that used to come to the floor were cosponsored by the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a Republican and a Democrat, both very seriously concerned about what was happening to the world's environment. That is no longer the case. It is a struggle for us to get Republicans to even acknowledge that there is a challenge, let alone accept the challenge of the solutions that lie ahead. We need to make serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. And critically important to our future economic prosperity, we need Build Back Better to make investments in higher education and affordability, which is the next topic I would like to address. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9015-4 | null | 3,670 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on a related matter, just before Thanksgiving, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act. It is one of the most pro-family pieces of legislation in modern history. For nearly 50 years, the wealthy in America have gotten richer while the middle class has been squeezed. Build Back Better is about restoring fairness. Four years ago, when the Republicans had their chance to use the reconciliation process, they really identified their highest priority: tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. They continue to hold to the philosophy that if you give tax breaks to wealthy people, eventually people who are in the middle-income categories--working families--will start to see some benefits coming their way. I couldn't disagree more. I believe investing in working families in America has always been the best investment. These are families with kids who are destined for college and even better jobs if we invest in those families and give them a fighting chance. The wealthy are going to do just fine by themselves, and they are doing pretty well, I might add. We have got to make sure that this Build Back Better Act, which President Biden supports, really focuses on working families. And that is why thebill that passed the House has the largest tax cut for middle-class and working families ever in America's history. That bears repeating. Four years ago, the Republicans gave a tax break to the wealthiest people in America. The bill that we are considering will give the largest tax cut for middle class and working families in our Nation's history. It helps families with big-ticket items that keep people up at night: affordable childcare; universal pre-kindergarten; expanded, affordable healthcare coverage; help with affordable housing. It makes serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's be very clear about it. I can remember a time when the whole issue of climate change and global warming was a truly bipartisan concern. The bills that used to come to the floor were cosponsored by the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a Republican and a Democrat, both very seriously concerned about what was happening to the world's environment. That is no longer the case. It is a struggle for us to get Republicans to even acknowledge that there is a challenge, let alone accept the challenge of the solutions that lie ahead. We need to make serious investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change. And critically important to our future economic prosperity, we need Build Back Better to make investments in higher education and affordability, which is the next topic I would like to address. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9015-4 | null | 3,671 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Pell Grant Program Mr. President, the Pell Grant Program has been the cornerstone of America's investment in college student aid for more than 50 years, but it has failed to keep up with the times. It was created in 1972--think about that--almost 50 years ago, and at the time the Pell grants were worth more than 75 percent of the average cost of attending a 4-year public college or university--tuition, fees, and living expenses. The Pell grant covered 75 percent of it. Today, the Pell grant covers less than 30 percent. Well, what makes up the difference? Student debt makes up the difference. Forty-five million Americans now own $1.7 trillion--that is with a ``t''--$1.7 trillion in student loan debt. That is more than America's combined debt to credit card companies. It is second only to mortgages. It is the largest consumer debt in America. Build Back Better will ease the squeeze of college costs by increasing the maximum Pell grant by $550. It will also expand Pell grants and other forms of Federal aid to DACA students. These historic investments will help 5 million students from lower incomes earn college degrees and build a better, stronger America. Now, there is one item in here that I am going to close with that is very important. For years, I brought to the attention of the Senate one industry that purports to be part of education in America--for-profit colleges and universities. With this new Pell grant, we make it clear that the $550 increase will not go to for-profit colleges. Why, you ask? Take a look at the record. The for-profit college industry is one of the most heavily federally subsidized sectors in America. Some for-profit college companies receive 100 percent of their revenue from Federal taxpayers. That is right. Pell grants and student loans make up their entire revenue. The University of Phoenix is one of the giants in the industry--has been for years. One of the founders once called Pell grants and student loans ``the juice'' for the for-profit college industry. It was one of the largest ever increases to the Pell grant on the table. The for-profit college industry is looking for more ``juice.'' They are not going to get it, and I am glad they don't. I would like to leave those who are following my remarks with a quiz. What percentage of post-secondary students in America attend for-profit colleges and universities? The answer: 8 percent. Next question: What percentage of defaults on student loans are by students from for-profit colleges and universities? The answer: 30 percent--8 percent of the students and 30 percent of the student loan defaults. Is it just bad luck? No. It is by design. For-profit colleges and universities will literally accept anyone with a pulse. You do not have to show any aptitude or any ambition. If you will sign on the dotted line and they can take over your Pell grant and hook you up with a student loan, they are perfectly happy. Then what happens? Well, the net result of it is often disappointing. The students have to drop out. They can't continue to pay the high tuitions at these places, and when they drop out, they still have a mountain of debt to pay off. Eventually, you will get a default on it--30 percent of them are going to default on it. That is an outrageous number when you think about it. Also, I might add, these so-called colleges and universities are notorious for fraudulent conduct--misleading their students about what they are learning and what they can earn from what they learn. It is a terrible record. For-profit colleges just spend 26 percent of their revenue on instruction. Well, what do they do with 74 percent? They market, and they take it as profit. Twenty-six percent of their revenue on education--it is a joke. And we are fools to keep perpetuating this terrible drain on the American economy and this terrible hardship on some of these students and their families. So over the last 20 years, nearly every major for-profit college has been investigated and sued by State and Federal agencies for deception and abusive practices. Many, like the University of Phoenix, and DeVry, which sadly is from the city of Chicago, got paid tens of millions of dollars in Federal subsidies. Since the collapse of the most infamous for-profit colleges--Corinthian and ITT Tech--we see taxpayers holding the bag for the defaulted student loans to the tune of millions of dollars. So let's be clear. Adding new program protections in Build Back Better is not about Congress punishing students. The for-profit college industry is doing that quite well by themselves. This is about protecting traditionally underserved and marginalized students and preventing taxpayer dollars from being wasted on these miserable institutions. In closing, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Congressional Record a letter from a coalition of groups urging Congress to support these new protections for Pell grants--among them, the National Urban League, the Education Trust, and Veterans Education Success. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9016 | null | 3,672 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today, I wanted to rise on the Senate floor and talk about a topic of utmost importance to my State, the great people I have the privilege of representing, and what the Biden administration is doing to good, hard-working American families in Alaska. It is what I call the anti-Alaska agenda, or the Biden administration's war on working families. I know that Americans all across the country have felt pain--economic pain, health pain, unfortunately, too many deaths as a result of the pandemic. Right now, we are seeing high energy prices and empty shelves. There has been a lot of suffering in America. We are a resilient people, however. My State, like many, has been hit very hard by the pandemic, particularly economically--our energy sector, our fishing sector, our tourism sector. And as we are coming out of this pandemic and everybody trying to work together--we all want growth and opportunity in America--we have now been hit with this--with this. This administration has issued, in its first 9 months in office, 20 Executive orders for Executive actions solely focused on Alaska. I came down to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about this. It was 19 then. You wait a week or 2 with the Biden administration in Alaska, and it is up to 20. I am sure they have a lot more ready to go. Twenty--there is no State in America that is getting this kind of attention from the Biden administration, and we don't want it. What I am going to be continuing to ask my Senate colleagues to do--and I am going to start with the President of the United States, who was a U.S. Senator for many years, decades--put yourself in the shoes of the people I represent. Let's imagine that a Republican administration comes into office and issues 20 Executive orders or Executive actions focused on Delaware--tiny, little Delaware. The Senators from Delaware, including the former Senator, now-President, would be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate raising Cain, raising heck--I don't think I am allowed to swear here--because of this, because they want to stick up for the people they represent. Imagine that. These Executive orders and actions are not some kind of simple abstractions; they are 20 orders and actions that go to the heart of what Alaskans do in terms of our economy: work, keeping food on the table, keeping lights on in their homes, paying the mortgage, keeping their kids in college, keeping their cultures thriving, keeping our communities from crumbling, particularly in rural Alaska. Some of the poorest communities in America is where this administration is targeting the people I represent. Very few people in my State--Democrat, Republican, Native, non-Native--support this war against Alaska. This is not a partisan issue back home, and here is why: because real people, real families, real communities are being hurt--your fellow Americans. It has got to stop. I have demanded a meeting with the President and his team to just walk him through this. Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to one of your States that you are sworn to defend? These orders threaten the well-being of my entire State, but they particularly threaten the people who live in rural Alaska, who are dependent on the land and natural resources for so much of their economy, so much of their tax base. Here is the thing, I know what some of my colleagues or those who are watching are saying: Oh, it is just resource development issues in Alaska. Well, I will talk about that. It is some of that, but it is not just resource development issues that are happening here. Let me give you one that really burns me up. We had a bipartisan bill last year, last Congress, to provide what you will now call racial justice, racial equity, to Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans who served their country when most Americans were avoiding service and missed out, because they were overseas fighting for their Nation, on the opportunity to apply for what is called a land allotment. There was a deadline that happened, a complete injustice. Native Vietnam veterans coming home, not treated well because they are Native, not treated well because they are Vietnam veterans, and then told: Oh, by the way, the land you were supposed to get, you don't qualify. So we got a bill to pass to say that is an injustice. The previous administration signed it. They were implementing it. And when this administration came into office, the No. 1 issue I asked Secretary Haaland to commit to was to finish getting the Executive order out on these land allotments to implement this bipartisan bill because these Native Vietnam veterans aren't living that long. The administration delayed it for 2 years. Why? It has nothing do to with oil and gas or mining. Why? These Vietnam vets, many aren't going to live for 2 more years. They did it anyway. That is 1 of 20. Let me give you another one. We have had, down in southeast Alaska, the issue of the Tongass--that is the largest national forest in the country. Every elected official--Governor, Senator, Democrat, Republican--in Alaska, the last 30 years, has pressed with the roadless rule, an exemption to the roadless rule, so we can have an economy there; roads for southeast communities. Every elected Governor or U.S. Senator, didn't matter the party, that is how important this was. We were able to get an exemption in the last administration. I appreciate what President Trump did on that. This administration comes in, and they reverse it. One of the 20. Guess how we, the Alaska delegation, found out about that reversal. A front-page story in the Washington Post. The Secretary of Agriculture wanted to brief the Washington Post and all the extreme environmental groups who wanted this before they let the people of Alaska or their representatives know. These are the examples. And, yes, the list also includes resource development projects. But here is the thing on that--I have a folder full of letters. These are letters from the elected leaders, Tribal leaders, borough leaders, Alaska Native Corp. leaders, Native leaders in my State--dozens of letters. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Native village of Kaktovik--that is a Tribe--City of Utqiagvik, City of Atqasuk, City of Wainwright, Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope--that is another Tribe--the Voice of the Inupiat Arctic, these are all Alaskan Native leaders who live in the North Slope, some of whom live in the Arctic National Wildlife area. Every single one of these great leaders in my State, every one, was writing, even begging, this administration not to do this--not to do this. And they ignored them--they ignored them. This is a letter from Edward Rexford. He is the President of the Native Village of Kaktovik. He wrote to Secretary Deb Haaland after she suspended oil and gas leases in the ANWR, which we passed. What the Secretary did, in my view, was clearly illegal. Edward Rexford wrote: ``You have changed our future with one stroke of a pen without any explanation or consultation with us--the tribe that lives within the Coastal Plain.'' His village, Kaktovik, is the only village within the coastal area of ANWR. That is it. There is no group of Americans who should have a greater voice in the development of this area than them. But they didn't even get a phone call--not a phone call, not consultation, Tribal consultation, which is required by law--none of it. That is all part of the 20 Executive orders and actions that I said are hurting people, hurting communities, hurting families, hurting Native cultures. I will tell you this: The Biden administration loves to talk about how they are committed to environmental justice and racial equity, but it is with a caveat. Here is the reality: They want to help unserved minority populations around the country. And I think this is a good goal, but it comes with a caveat. Unless, of course, they are indigenous people of Alaska, then the Biden administration targets them. Look at this folder. These are communities of color in my State, and all they do is get targeted, not helped; targeted, their economic opportunity. And then the things that most Americans take for granted that don't exist in these communities--clinics, flushed toilets, gymnasiums--all of that comes with economic opportunity. And when you shut it down, you are really hurting indigenous people in some of the most impoverished communities in the country. But I guess they seem OK with that. I want all of my Senate colleagues to do just a quick thought experiment. Imagine what it would be like, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican--but just think about it: A Democrat and a Republican administration comes in or you are a Republican and a Democrat administration comes in and changes the future of your State with a stroke of a pen, as Edward Rexford said, for the people you represent. Imagine an administration coming in with 20 Executive orders in 8 months, shutting down your economy as you are trying to get out of a pandemic. Every Senator here would be mad. Every Senator here would be mad. And the one thing I very much enjoy about serving in this body is we are a collegial body. We have our differences, but I certainly have friends on both sides of the aisle, try to work with everybody, try to be respectful with everybody. The Presiding Officer and I chaired committees together, worked together on a lot of things. And here is the thing, if a Republican administration came into power and targeted one of my colleague's States with 20 Executive orders in 8 months and whoever it was came to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, you know this is unfair. My constituents are really being attacked, really being hurt. Could you reach out to the Republican administration and say: Hey, come on. Tone it down. Geez, Louise, 20 Executive orders in one State,'' I would help, and I think almost every Senator here would help. That is what we do here. And I want to say that some of my Democratic colleagues here, when I have talked about this, when I have told them about this, when I have spoken about this, a number of them have come to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, give me the list. Give me the list of 20. Maybe I can't help you on every one of them, all of them. Maybe there are some I actually like. But I do want to try and help.'' That is what has happened. That is what makes this body a good place. To those Senators, I really want to thank you. And I am going to ask for your help because I would do it for you. And this is unacceptable. Tens of thousands of people I represent are being hurt by the Federal Government, by the President and his White House. So I appreciate that from my colleagues. And this is, in general, how this body works. It makes this a special place. But I will say this. Not all Senators have been so gracious and senatorial and collegial. To the contrary, a few of my colleagues are helping lead the charge in the war on Alaska's working families. They seem to be putting a ton of effort into it themselves. I am not sure why, but they spend a lot of their time and energy focused on doing this: shutting down the Alaska economy, hurting working families, and ridiculously and absurdly acting as if they speak for the very people I am privileged to represent, as if they don't have enough to do in terms of helping their own constituents. So I am going to make an example and give an example of one. The leader of this small group is the senior Senator from New Mexico. Here is a sampling--three letters in the last year and a half he has written, signed, or led, focusing on shutting down Alaska's economy and hurting the great people I have the privilege of representing. Two of these letters deal with the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--controversial, no doubt. In 2017, we voted to provide the opportunity for development in that small area, what we call the 1002 area. The President signed it. It came into law. Now, I know most of my colleagues on the Democratic side didn't agree with that. We have legislation we don't agree with. I accept that. I am still very good friends with so many. But, afterward, the senior Senator from New Mexico led letters to all the top banks in America and all the top insurance and financial institutions in America and didn't just say don't invest in the ANWR but said ``don't invest in any oil and gas development project in the Arctic.'' What is that, the Arctic of America? That is my State. So now you have, as opposed to collegiality, a small group, led by this Senator, writing the biggest banks in America, the biggest financial institutions in America, trying to muscle them, saying: Don't invest anything in Alaska. That is not what this body is all about. I would never do that to a colleague. I would never write all the banks of America and say: Don't invest in poor communities, Native communities in New Mexico or in the New Mexico oil and gas industry. I wouldn't do that. Who does that? Well, unfortunately, a few--not many, a few--Senators are doing that. Absurdly, this Senator had the audacity, in one of his letters, to try to speak for the people I represent. He put in the letter: The people dependent on the Arctic Refuge don't want you to invest there. That is patently absurd. Just read the letters from all the people who actually live there, all the people who live there, who overwhelmingly want opportunities for oil and gas development and for jobs and economic opportunity. You would think, with all of New Mexico's problems, this Senator would focus on his own constituents. So I reached out to him and the few others who wrote these letters. I have reached out. I wrote my own letter to them saying: Hey, I was disappointed to see you do that. Why didn't you come talk to me? I wouldn't do that to you. And, by the way, what you are doing is really going to hurt my constituents. This is a letter I wrote to this Senator and a few others: I would appreciate the courtesy of talking about this before you go do it. You clearly don't understand the indigenous communities that I represent. I even provided a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Harry Brower, the Inupiaq mayor, who had a lot to say to the banks who weren't going to invest in his community. But I got no response. To the contrary, just a few months ago, this same Senator led a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, asking her to shut down a very important energy development in Alaska called the Willow Project. This is that letter--just about 4 months ago. Let me talk about the Willow Project. The Willow Project is not in a controversial area; it is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago for oil and gas development. Every Native group in Alaska supports this project, all the unions do, 2,000 direct jobs, billions in revenues for some of the poorest communities in America, the lowest emissions of any major oil and gas development project in America. This is a huge win-win-win for everybody--not even controversial. Yet the senior Senator from New Mexico wrote Deb Haaland saying: Shut down the Willow Project in Alaska. Why is he doing this, literally trying to kill thousands of Alaskan jobs and impoverish Alaska Native communities? Do the people in New Mexico know that their senior Senator spends so much time trying to give Alaska oil and gas workers pink slips and impoverish Native communities? I wonder. I wonder. I thought, for just a moment, maybe I should do something against New Mexico, but then I was like, no; you know what, that is not my style. I wouldn't want to hurt New Mexico oil and gas workers or Native communities. They are all great Americans, I am sure. We are a great country. I wouldn't want to target them the way this Senator is targeting my State, trying to hurt thousands of Alaskan working families. And it should be emphasized and I want to emphasize, that is not how we work here. That is not what I have seen in my almost 7 years in the U.S. Senate, Senators trying to attack other Senators' States, specifically focusing on hurting working families. The vast majority of the Senators I know wouldn't do that at all. That is not how business is conducted here in the U.S. Senate. To the contrary, most of us generally try to help each other. We don't always agree; that is for sure. But particularly when States have unique challenges that could hurt their citizens, when my colleagues would come to me, ``Hey, Dan, can you help out on this,'' I usually try to help. But I certainly don't go on offense and try to hurt like this administration is doing and the senior Senator from New Mexico. But I thought the better course to fight back--because I am going to fight back, OK. I am going to fight back. These are my constituents who are hurting. The better course to fight back against these attacks on Alaskan working families was not to try to hurt New Mexicans but just show this, the rank hypocrisy of what the senior Senator is actually doing and saying. One of his main reasons, in this latest letter, to shut down Alaska, in trying to deny Federal permits for the Willow oil and gas project, is to ``achieve climate goals.'' OK? That is in his letter to Deb Haaland. But if you do just a little digging, this Senator seems fine with trying to achieve these goals on the backs of Alaskan workers and Alaska Natives but not on his own constituents, not on the backs of his own constituents--to the contrary. Guess which State in America has gotten way more Federal oil and gas drilling permits than any other State in the country--guess which one. It is certainly not Alaska. It happens to be New Mexico. It just so happens to be New Mexico. Guess where the Secretary of the Interior is from. New Mexico. Hmm. Is that a coincidence? I wonder, in their frequent phone calls, when they talk about concerns of climate and shutting down oil and gas in Alaska, if shutting down oil and gas in New Mexico ever comes up. I am pretty sure it doesn't. How do I know that? Because close to half of all oil and gas drilling permits issued by the Department of the Interior, by New Mexican Deb Haaland, in 2021 have gone to one State. What State is that? New Mexico--2,286 Federal oil and gas drilling permits; almost half of all the permits in the country to one State. So here is the bottom line. Here is their view. Shut down Alaska, hurt working families in Alaska, supposedly, to help America's climate goals, but then quietly say ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico, with more permits by far than any other State in the country--almost 2,300. If that is not rank hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am going to start asking questions about this and, by the way, so should the press. I sure hope our friends in the press think that, hmm, there is something a little strange going on here. Clearly, there is hypocrisy happening. But, you know, that happens here occasionally--or maybe more than occasionally. But is there anything else going on? And I hope the press in New Mexico ask their senior Senator why he is so darn focused on hurting the good people of Alaska--because I wouldn't do that to New Mexican oil and gas workers or New Mexican Native communities. And finally, I am going to ask questions in another area. The Biden administration is clearly trying to shut down my State. It is there for everybody to see. Everybody back homeknows it. But here is the thing. They can't do it illegally, and they can't do it unethically. And right now there is strong evidence that they are doing just that. What do I mean? Today, I sent this letter that I would like to be printed in the Record to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9035-3 | null | 3,673 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today, I wanted to rise on the Senate floor and talk about a topic of utmost importance to my State, the great people I have the privilege of representing, and what the Biden administration is doing to good, hard-working American families in Alaska. It is what I call the anti-Alaska agenda, or the Biden administration's war on working families. I know that Americans all across the country have felt pain--economic pain, health pain, unfortunately, too many deaths as a result of the pandemic. Right now, we are seeing high energy prices and empty shelves. There has been a lot of suffering in America. We are a resilient people, however. My State, like many, has been hit very hard by the pandemic, particularly economically--our energy sector, our fishing sector, our tourism sector. And as we are coming out of this pandemic and everybody trying to work together--we all want growth and opportunity in America--we have now been hit with this--with this. This administration has issued, in its first 9 months in office, 20 Executive orders for Executive actions solely focused on Alaska. I came down to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about this. It was 19 then. You wait a week or 2 with the Biden administration in Alaska, and it is up to 20. I am sure they have a lot more ready to go. Twenty--there is no State in America that is getting this kind of attention from the Biden administration, and we don't want it. What I am going to be continuing to ask my Senate colleagues to do--and I am going to start with the President of the United States, who was a U.S. Senator for many years, decades--put yourself in the shoes of the people I represent. Let's imagine that a Republican administration comes into office and issues 20 Executive orders or Executive actions focused on Delaware--tiny, little Delaware. The Senators from Delaware, including the former Senator, now-President, would be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate raising Cain, raising heck--I don't think I am allowed to swear here--because of this, because they want to stick up for the people they represent. Imagine that. These Executive orders and actions are not some kind of simple abstractions; they are 20 orders and actions that go to the heart of what Alaskans do in terms of our economy: work, keeping food on the table, keeping lights on in their homes, paying the mortgage, keeping their kids in college, keeping their cultures thriving, keeping our communities from crumbling, particularly in rural Alaska. Some of the poorest communities in America is where this administration is targeting the people I represent. Very few people in my State--Democrat, Republican, Native, non-Native--support this war against Alaska. This is not a partisan issue back home, and here is why: because real people, real families, real communities are being hurt--your fellow Americans. It has got to stop. I have demanded a meeting with the President and his team to just walk him through this. Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to one of your States that you are sworn to defend? These orders threaten the well-being of my entire State, but they particularly threaten the people who live in rural Alaska, who are dependent on the land and natural resources for so much of their economy, so much of their tax base. Here is the thing, I know what some of my colleagues or those who are watching are saying: Oh, it is just resource development issues in Alaska. Well, I will talk about that. It is some of that, but it is not just resource development issues that are happening here. Let me give you one that really burns me up. We had a bipartisan bill last year, last Congress, to provide what you will now call racial justice, racial equity, to Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans who served their country when most Americans were avoiding service and missed out, because they were overseas fighting for their Nation, on the opportunity to apply for what is called a land allotment. There was a deadline that happened, a complete injustice. Native Vietnam veterans coming home, not treated well because they are Native, not treated well because they are Vietnam veterans, and then told: Oh, by the way, the land you were supposed to get, you don't qualify. So we got a bill to pass to say that is an injustice. The previous administration signed it. They were implementing it. And when this administration came into office, the No. 1 issue I asked Secretary Haaland to commit to was to finish getting the Executive order out on these land allotments to implement this bipartisan bill because these Native Vietnam veterans aren't living that long. The administration delayed it for 2 years. Why? It has nothing do to with oil and gas or mining. Why? These Vietnam vets, many aren't going to live for 2 more years. They did it anyway. That is 1 of 20. Let me give you another one. We have had, down in southeast Alaska, the issue of the Tongass--that is the largest national forest in the country. Every elected official--Governor, Senator, Democrat, Republican--in Alaska, the last 30 years, has pressed with the roadless rule, an exemption to the roadless rule, so we can have an economy there; roads for southeast communities. Every elected Governor or U.S. Senator, didn't matter the party, that is how important this was. We were able to get an exemption in the last administration. I appreciate what President Trump did on that. This administration comes in, and they reverse it. One of the 20. Guess how we, the Alaska delegation, found out about that reversal. A front-page story in the Washington Post. The Secretary of Agriculture wanted to brief the Washington Post and all the extreme environmental groups who wanted this before they let the people of Alaska or their representatives know. These are the examples. And, yes, the list also includes resource development projects. But here is the thing on that--I have a folder full of letters. These are letters from the elected leaders, Tribal leaders, borough leaders, Alaska Native Corp. leaders, Native leaders in my State--dozens of letters. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Native village of Kaktovik--that is a Tribe--City of Utqiagvik, City of Atqasuk, City of Wainwright, Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope--that is another Tribe--the Voice of the Inupiat Arctic, these are all Alaskan Native leaders who live in the North Slope, some of whom live in the Arctic National Wildlife area. Every single one of these great leaders in my State, every one, was writing, even begging, this administration not to do this--not to do this. And they ignored them--they ignored them. This is a letter from Edward Rexford. He is the President of the Native Village of Kaktovik. He wrote to Secretary Deb Haaland after she suspended oil and gas leases in the ANWR, which we passed. What the Secretary did, in my view, was clearly illegal. Edward Rexford wrote: ``You have changed our future with one stroke of a pen without any explanation or consultation with us--the tribe that lives within the Coastal Plain.'' His village, Kaktovik, is the only village within the coastal area of ANWR. That is it. There is no group of Americans who should have a greater voice in the development of this area than them. But they didn't even get a phone call--not a phone call, not consultation, Tribal consultation, which is required by law--none of it. That is all part of the 20 Executive orders and actions that I said are hurting people, hurting communities, hurting families, hurting Native cultures. I will tell you this: The Biden administration loves to talk about how they are committed to environmental justice and racial equity, but it is with a caveat. Here is the reality: They want to help unserved minority populations around the country. And I think this is a good goal, but it comes with a caveat. Unless, of course, they are indigenous people of Alaska, then the Biden administration targets them. Look at this folder. These are communities of color in my State, and all they do is get targeted, not helped; targeted, their economic opportunity. And then the things that most Americans take for granted that don't exist in these communities--clinics, flushed toilets, gymnasiums--all of that comes with economic opportunity. And when you shut it down, you are really hurting indigenous people in some of the most impoverished communities in the country. But I guess they seem OK with that. I want all of my Senate colleagues to do just a quick thought experiment. Imagine what it would be like, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican--but just think about it: A Democrat and a Republican administration comes in or you are a Republican and a Democrat administration comes in and changes the future of your State with a stroke of a pen, as Edward Rexford said, for the people you represent. Imagine an administration coming in with 20 Executive orders in 8 months, shutting down your economy as you are trying to get out of a pandemic. Every Senator here would be mad. Every Senator here would be mad. And the one thing I very much enjoy about serving in this body is we are a collegial body. We have our differences, but I certainly have friends on both sides of the aisle, try to work with everybody, try to be respectful with everybody. The Presiding Officer and I chaired committees together, worked together on a lot of things. And here is the thing, if a Republican administration came into power and targeted one of my colleague's States with 20 Executive orders in 8 months and whoever it was came to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, you know this is unfair. My constituents are really being attacked, really being hurt. Could you reach out to the Republican administration and say: Hey, come on. Tone it down. Geez, Louise, 20 Executive orders in one State,'' I would help, and I think almost every Senator here would help. That is what we do here. And I want to say that some of my Democratic colleagues here, when I have talked about this, when I have told them about this, when I have spoken about this, a number of them have come to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, give me the list. Give me the list of 20. Maybe I can't help you on every one of them, all of them. Maybe there are some I actually like. But I do want to try and help.'' That is what has happened. That is what makes this body a good place. To those Senators, I really want to thank you. And I am going to ask for your help because I would do it for you. And this is unacceptable. Tens of thousands of people I represent are being hurt by the Federal Government, by the President and his White House. So I appreciate that from my colleagues. And this is, in general, how this body works. It makes this a special place. But I will say this. Not all Senators have been so gracious and senatorial and collegial. To the contrary, a few of my colleagues are helping lead the charge in the war on Alaska's working families. They seem to be putting a ton of effort into it themselves. I am not sure why, but they spend a lot of their time and energy focused on doing this: shutting down the Alaska economy, hurting working families, and ridiculously and absurdly acting as if they speak for the very people I am privileged to represent, as if they don't have enough to do in terms of helping their own constituents. So I am going to make an example and give an example of one. The leader of this small group is the senior Senator from New Mexico. Here is a sampling--three letters in the last year and a half he has written, signed, or led, focusing on shutting down Alaska's economy and hurting the great people I have the privilege of representing. Two of these letters deal with the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--controversial, no doubt. In 2017, we voted to provide the opportunity for development in that small area, what we call the 1002 area. The President signed it. It came into law. Now, I know most of my colleagues on the Democratic side didn't agree with that. We have legislation we don't agree with. I accept that. I am still very good friends with so many. But, afterward, the senior Senator from New Mexico led letters to all the top banks in America and all the top insurance and financial institutions in America and didn't just say don't invest in the ANWR but said ``don't invest in any oil and gas development project in the Arctic.'' What is that, the Arctic of America? That is my State. So now you have, as opposed to collegiality, a small group, led by this Senator, writing the biggest banks in America, the biggest financial institutions in America, trying to muscle them, saying: Don't invest anything in Alaska. That is not what this body is all about. I would never do that to a colleague. I would never write all the banks of America and say: Don't invest in poor communities, Native communities in New Mexico or in the New Mexico oil and gas industry. I wouldn't do that. Who does that? Well, unfortunately, a few--not many, a few--Senators are doing that. Absurdly, this Senator had the audacity, in one of his letters, to try to speak for the people I represent. He put in the letter: The people dependent on the Arctic Refuge don't want you to invest there. That is patently absurd. Just read the letters from all the people who actually live there, all the people who live there, who overwhelmingly want opportunities for oil and gas development and for jobs and economic opportunity. You would think, with all of New Mexico's problems, this Senator would focus on his own constituents. So I reached out to him and the few others who wrote these letters. I have reached out. I wrote my own letter to them saying: Hey, I was disappointed to see you do that. Why didn't you come talk to me? I wouldn't do that to you. And, by the way, what you are doing is really going to hurt my constituents. This is a letter I wrote to this Senator and a few others: I would appreciate the courtesy of talking about this before you go do it. You clearly don't understand the indigenous communities that I represent. I even provided a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Harry Brower, the Inupiaq mayor, who had a lot to say to the banks who weren't going to invest in his community. But I got no response. To the contrary, just a few months ago, this same Senator led a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, asking her to shut down a very important energy development in Alaska called the Willow Project. This is that letter--just about 4 months ago. Let me talk about the Willow Project. The Willow Project is not in a controversial area; it is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago for oil and gas development. Every Native group in Alaska supports this project, all the unions do, 2,000 direct jobs, billions in revenues for some of the poorest communities in America, the lowest emissions of any major oil and gas development project in America. This is a huge win-win-win for everybody--not even controversial. Yet the senior Senator from New Mexico wrote Deb Haaland saying: Shut down the Willow Project in Alaska. Why is he doing this, literally trying to kill thousands of Alaskan jobs and impoverish Alaska Native communities? Do the people in New Mexico know that their senior Senator spends so much time trying to give Alaska oil and gas workers pink slips and impoverish Native communities? I wonder. I wonder. I thought, for just a moment, maybe I should do something against New Mexico, but then I was like, no; you know what, that is not my style. I wouldn't want to hurt New Mexico oil and gas workers or Native communities. They are all great Americans, I am sure. We are a great country. I wouldn't want to target them the way this Senator is targeting my State, trying to hurt thousands of Alaskan working families. And it should be emphasized and I want to emphasize, that is not how we work here. That is not what I have seen in my almost 7 years in the U.S. Senate, Senators trying to attack other Senators' States, specifically focusing on hurting working families. The vast majority of the Senators I know wouldn't do that at all. That is not how business is conducted here in the U.S. Senate. To the contrary, most of us generally try to help each other. We don't always agree; that is for sure. But particularly when States have unique challenges that could hurt their citizens, when my colleagues would come to me, ``Hey, Dan, can you help out on this,'' I usually try to help. But I certainly don't go on offense and try to hurt like this administration is doing and the senior Senator from New Mexico. But I thought the better course to fight back--because I am going to fight back, OK. I am going to fight back. These are my constituents who are hurting. The better course to fight back against these attacks on Alaskan working families was not to try to hurt New Mexicans but just show this, the rank hypocrisy of what the senior Senator is actually doing and saying. One of his main reasons, in this latest letter, to shut down Alaska, in trying to deny Federal permits for the Willow oil and gas project, is to ``achieve climate goals.'' OK? That is in his letter to Deb Haaland. But if you do just a little digging, this Senator seems fine with trying to achieve these goals on the backs of Alaskan workers and Alaska Natives but not on his own constituents, not on the backs of his own constituents--to the contrary. Guess which State in America has gotten way more Federal oil and gas drilling permits than any other State in the country--guess which one. It is certainly not Alaska. It happens to be New Mexico. It just so happens to be New Mexico. Guess where the Secretary of the Interior is from. New Mexico. Hmm. Is that a coincidence? I wonder, in their frequent phone calls, when they talk about concerns of climate and shutting down oil and gas in Alaska, if shutting down oil and gas in New Mexico ever comes up. I am pretty sure it doesn't. How do I know that? Because close to half of all oil and gas drilling permits issued by the Department of the Interior, by New Mexican Deb Haaland, in 2021 have gone to one State. What State is that? New Mexico--2,286 Federal oil and gas drilling permits; almost half of all the permits in the country to one State. So here is the bottom line. Here is their view. Shut down Alaska, hurt working families in Alaska, supposedly, to help America's climate goals, but then quietly say ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico, with more permits by far than any other State in the country--almost 2,300. If that is not rank hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am going to start asking questions about this and, by the way, so should the press. I sure hope our friends in the press think that, hmm, there is something a little strange going on here. Clearly, there is hypocrisy happening. But, you know, that happens here occasionally--or maybe more than occasionally. But is there anything else going on? And I hope the press in New Mexico ask their senior Senator why he is so darn focused on hurting the good people of Alaska--because I wouldn't do that to New Mexican oil and gas workers or New Mexican Native communities. And finally, I am going to ask questions in another area. The Biden administration is clearly trying to shut down my State. It is there for everybody to see. Everybody back homeknows it. But here is the thing. They can't do it illegally, and they can't do it unethically. And right now there is strong evidence that they are doing just that. What do I mean? Today, I sent this letter that I would like to be printed in the Record to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9035-3 | null | 3,674 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today, I wanted to rise on the Senate floor and talk about a topic of utmost importance to my State, the great people I have the privilege of representing, and what the Biden administration is doing to good, hard-working American families in Alaska. It is what I call the anti-Alaska agenda, or the Biden administration's war on working families. I know that Americans all across the country have felt pain--economic pain, health pain, unfortunately, too many deaths as a result of the pandemic. Right now, we are seeing high energy prices and empty shelves. There has been a lot of suffering in America. We are a resilient people, however. My State, like many, has been hit very hard by the pandemic, particularly economically--our energy sector, our fishing sector, our tourism sector. And as we are coming out of this pandemic and everybody trying to work together--we all want growth and opportunity in America--we have now been hit with this--with this. This administration has issued, in its first 9 months in office, 20 Executive orders for Executive actions solely focused on Alaska. I came down to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about this. It was 19 then. You wait a week or 2 with the Biden administration in Alaska, and it is up to 20. I am sure they have a lot more ready to go. Twenty--there is no State in America that is getting this kind of attention from the Biden administration, and we don't want it. What I am going to be continuing to ask my Senate colleagues to do--and I am going to start with the President of the United States, who was a U.S. Senator for many years, decades--put yourself in the shoes of the people I represent. Let's imagine that a Republican administration comes into office and issues 20 Executive orders or Executive actions focused on Delaware--tiny, little Delaware. The Senators from Delaware, including the former Senator, now-President, would be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate raising Cain, raising heck--I don't think I am allowed to swear here--because of this, because they want to stick up for the people they represent. Imagine that. These Executive orders and actions are not some kind of simple abstractions; they are 20 orders and actions that go to the heart of what Alaskans do in terms of our economy: work, keeping food on the table, keeping lights on in their homes, paying the mortgage, keeping their kids in college, keeping their cultures thriving, keeping our communities from crumbling, particularly in rural Alaska. Some of the poorest communities in America is where this administration is targeting the people I represent. Very few people in my State--Democrat, Republican, Native, non-Native--support this war against Alaska. This is not a partisan issue back home, and here is why: because real people, real families, real communities are being hurt--your fellow Americans. It has got to stop. I have demanded a meeting with the President and his team to just walk him through this. Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to one of your States that you are sworn to defend? These orders threaten the well-being of my entire State, but they particularly threaten the people who live in rural Alaska, who are dependent on the land and natural resources for so much of their economy, so much of their tax base. Here is the thing, I know what some of my colleagues or those who are watching are saying: Oh, it is just resource development issues in Alaska. Well, I will talk about that. It is some of that, but it is not just resource development issues that are happening here. Let me give you one that really burns me up. We had a bipartisan bill last year, last Congress, to provide what you will now call racial justice, racial equity, to Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans who served their country when most Americans were avoiding service and missed out, because they were overseas fighting for their Nation, on the opportunity to apply for what is called a land allotment. There was a deadline that happened, a complete injustice. Native Vietnam veterans coming home, not treated well because they are Native, not treated well because they are Vietnam veterans, and then told: Oh, by the way, the land you were supposed to get, you don't qualify. So we got a bill to pass to say that is an injustice. The previous administration signed it. They were implementing it. And when this administration came into office, the No. 1 issue I asked Secretary Haaland to commit to was to finish getting the Executive order out on these land allotments to implement this bipartisan bill because these Native Vietnam veterans aren't living that long. The administration delayed it for 2 years. Why? It has nothing do to with oil and gas or mining. Why? These Vietnam vets, many aren't going to live for 2 more years. They did it anyway. That is 1 of 20. Let me give you another one. We have had, down in southeast Alaska, the issue of the Tongass--that is the largest national forest in the country. Every elected official--Governor, Senator, Democrat, Republican--in Alaska, the last 30 years, has pressed with the roadless rule, an exemption to the roadless rule, so we can have an economy there; roads for southeast communities. Every elected Governor or U.S. Senator, didn't matter the party, that is how important this was. We were able to get an exemption in the last administration. I appreciate what President Trump did on that. This administration comes in, and they reverse it. One of the 20. Guess how we, the Alaska delegation, found out about that reversal. A front-page story in the Washington Post. The Secretary of Agriculture wanted to brief the Washington Post and all the extreme environmental groups who wanted this before they let the people of Alaska or their representatives know. These are the examples. And, yes, the list also includes resource development projects. But here is the thing on that--I have a folder full of letters. These are letters from the elected leaders, Tribal leaders, borough leaders, Alaska Native Corp. leaders, Native leaders in my State--dozens of letters. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Native village of Kaktovik--that is a Tribe--City of Utqiagvik, City of Atqasuk, City of Wainwright, Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope--that is another Tribe--the Voice of the Inupiat Arctic, these are all Alaskan Native leaders who live in the North Slope, some of whom live in the Arctic National Wildlife area. Every single one of these great leaders in my State, every one, was writing, even begging, this administration not to do this--not to do this. And they ignored them--they ignored them. This is a letter from Edward Rexford. He is the President of the Native Village of Kaktovik. He wrote to Secretary Deb Haaland after she suspended oil and gas leases in the ANWR, which we passed. What the Secretary did, in my view, was clearly illegal. Edward Rexford wrote: ``You have changed our future with one stroke of a pen without any explanation or consultation with us--the tribe that lives within the Coastal Plain.'' His village, Kaktovik, is the only village within the coastal area of ANWR. That is it. There is no group of Americans who should have a greater voice in the development of this area than them. But they didn't even get a phone call--not a phone call, not consultation, Tribal consultation, which is required by law--none of it. That is all part of the 20 Executive orders and actions that I said are hurting people, hurting communities, hurting families, hurting Native cultures. I will tell you this: The Biden administration loves to talk about how they are committed to environmental justice and racial equity, but it is with a caveat. Here is the reality: They want to help unserved minority populations around the country. And I think this is a good goal, but it comes with a caveat. Unless, of course, they are indigenous people of Alaska, then the Biden administration targets them. Look at this folder. These are communities of color in my State, and all they do is get targeted, not helped; targeted, their economic opportunity. And then the things that most Americans take for granted that don't exist in these communities--clinics, flushed toilets, gymnasiums--all of that comes with economic opportunity. And when you shut it down, you are really hurting indigenous people in some of the most impoverished communities in the country. But I guess they seem OK with that. I want all of my Senate colleagues to do just a quick thought experiment. Imagine what it would be like, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican--but just think about it: A Democrat and a Republican administration comes in or you are a Republican and a Democrat administration comes in and changes the future of your State with a stroke of a pen, as Edward Rexford said, for the people you represent. Imagine an administration coming in with 20 Executive orders in 8 months, shutting down your economy as you are trying to get out of a pandemic. Every Senator here would be mad. Every Senator here would be mad. And the one thing I very much enjoy about serving in this body is we are a collegial body. We have our differences, but I certainly have friends on both sides of the aisle, try to work with everybody, try to be respectful with everybody. The Presiding Officer and I chaired committees together, worked together on a lot of things. And here is the thing, if a Republican administration came into power and targeted one of my colleague's States with 20 Executive orders in 8 months and whoever it was came to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, you know this is unfair. My constituents are really being attacked, really being hurt. Could you reach out to the Republican administration and say: Hey, come on. Tone it down. Geez, Louise, 20 Executive orders in one State,'' I would help, and I think almost every Senator here would help. That is what we do here. And I want to say that some of my Democratic colleagues here, when I have talked about this, when I have told them about this, when I have spoken about this, a number of them have come to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, give me the list. Give me the list of 20. Maybe I can't help you on every one of them, all of them. Maybe there are some I actually like. But I do want to try and help.'' That is what has happened. That is what makes this body a good place. To those Senators, I really want to thank you. And I am going to ask for your help because I would do it for you. And this is unacceptable. Tens of thousands of people I represent are being hurt by the Federal Government, by the President and his White House. So I appreciate that from my colleagues. And this is, in general, how this body works. It makes this a special place. But I will say this. Not all Senators have been so gracious and senatorial and collegial. To the contrary, a few of my colleagues are helping lead the charge in the war on Alaska's working families. They seem to be putting a ton of effort into it themselves. I am not sure why, but they spend a lot of their time and energy focused on doing this: shutting down the Alaska economy, hurting working families, and ridiculously and absurdly acting as if they speak for the very people I am privileged to represent, as if they don't have enough to do in terms of helping their own constituents. So I am going to make an example and give an example of one. The leader of this small group is the senior Senator from New Mexico. Here is a sampling--three letters in the last year and a half he has written, signed, or led, focusing on shutting down Alaska's economy and hurting the great people I have the privilege of representing. Two of these letters deal with the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--controversial, no doubt. In 2017, we voted to provide the opportunity for development in that small area, what we call the 1002 area. The President signed it. It came into law. Now, I know most of my colleagues on the Democratic side didn't agree with that. We have legislation we don't agree with. I accept that. I am still very good friends with so many. But, afterward, the senior Senator from New Mexico led letters to all the top banks in America and all the top insurance and financial institutions in America and didn't just say don't invest in the ANWR but said ``don't invest in any oil and gas development project in the Arctic.'' What is that, the Arctic of America? That is my State. So now you have, as opposed to collegiality, a small group, led by this Senator, writing the biggest banks in America, the biggest financial institutions in America, trying to muscle them, saying: Don't invest anything in Alaska. That is not what this body is all about. I would never do that to a colleague. I would never write all the banks of America and say: Don't invest in poor communities, Native communities in New Mexico or in the New Mexico oil and gas industry. I wouldn't do that. Who does that? Well, unfortunately, a few--not many, a few--Senators are doing that. Absurdly, this Senator had the audacity, in one of his letters, to try to speak for the people I represent. He put in the letter: The people dependent on the Arctic Refuge don't want you to invest there. That is patently absurd. Just read the letters from all the people who actually live there, all the people who live there, who overwhelmingly want opportunities for oil and gas development and for jobs and economic opportunity. You would think, with all of New Mexico's problems, this Senator would focus on his own constituents. So I reached out to him and the few others who wrote these letters. I have reached out. I wrote my own letter to them saying: Hey, I was disappointed to see you do that. Why didn't you come talk to me? I wouldn't do that to you. And, by the way, what you are doing is really going to hurt my constituents. This is a letter I wrote to this Senator and a few others: I would appreciate the courtesy of talking about this before you go do it. You clearly don't understand the indigenous communities that I represent. I even provided a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Harry Brower, the Inupiaq mayor, who had a lot to say to the banks who weren't going to invest in his community. But I got no response. To the contrary, just a few months ago, this same Senator led a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, asking her to shut down a very important energy development in Alaska called the Willow Project. This is that letter--just about 4 months ago. Let me talk about the Willow Project. The Willow Project is not in a controversial area; it is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago for oil and gas development. Every Native group in Alaska supports this project, all the unions do, 2,000 direct jobs, billions in revenues for some of the poorest communities in America, the lowest emissions of any major oil and gas development project in America. This is a huge win-win-win for everybody--not even controversial. Yet the senior Senator from New Mexico wrote Deb Haaland saying: Shut down the Willow Project in Alaska. Why is he doing this, literally trying to kill thousands of Alaskan jobs and impoverish Alaska Native communities? Do the people in New Mexico know that their senior Senator spends so much time trying to give Alaska oil and gas workers pink slips and impoverish Native communities? I wonder. I wonder. I thought, for just a moment, maybe I should do something against New Mexico, but then I was like, no; you know what, that is not my style. I wouldn't want to hurt New Mexico oil and gas workers or Native communities. They are all great Americans, I am sure. We are a great country. I wouldn't want to target them the way this Senator is targeting my State, trying to hurt thousands of Alaskan working families. And it should be emphasized and I want to emphasize, that is not how we work here. That is not what I have seen in my almost 7 years in the U.S. Senate, Senators trying to attack other Senators' States, specifically focusing on hurting working families. The vast majority of the Senators I know wouldn't do that at all. That is not how business is conducted here in the U.S. Senate. To the contrary, most of us generally try to help each other. We don't always agree; that is for sure. But particularly when States have unique challenges that could hurt their citizens, when my colleagues would come to me, ``Hey, Dan, can you help out on this,'' I usually try to help. But I certainly don't go on offense and try to hurt like this administration is doing and the senior Senator from New Mexico. But I thought the better course to fight back--because I am going to fight back, OK. I am going to fight back. These are my constituents who are hurting. The better course to fight back against these attacks on Alaskan working families was not to try to hurt New Mexicans but just show this, the rank hypocrisy of what the senior Senator is actually doing and saying. One of his main reasons, in this latest letter, to shut down Alaska, in trying to deny Federal permits for the Willow oil and gas project, is to ``achieve climate goals.'' OK? That is in his letter to Deb Haaland. But if you do just a little digging, this Senator seems fine with trying to achieve these goals on the backs of Alaskan workers and Alaska Natives but not on his own constituents, not on the backs of his own constituents--to the contrary. Guess which State in America has gotten way more Federal oil and gas drilling permits than any other State in the country--guess which one. It is certainly not Alaska. It happens to be New Mexico. It just so happens to be New Mexico. Guess where the Secretary of the Interior is from. New Mexico. Hmm. Is that a coincidence? I wonder, in their frequent phone calls, when they talk about concerns of climate and shutting down oil and gas in Alaska, if shutting down oil and gas in New Mexico ever comes up. I am pretty sure it doesn't. How do I know that? Because close to half of all oil and gas drilling permits issued by the Department of the Interior, by New Mexican Deb Haaland, in 2021 have gone to one State. What State is that? New Mexico--2,286 Federal oil and gas drilling permits; almost half of all the permits in the country to one State. So here is the bottom line. Here is their view. Shut down Alaska, hurt working families in Alaska, supposedly, to help America's climate goals, but then quietly say ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico, with more permits by far than any other State in the country--almost 2,300. If that is not rank hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am going to start asking questions about this and, by the way, so should the press. I sure hope our friends in the press think that, hmm, there is something a little strange going on here. Clearly, there is hypocrisy happening. But, you know, that happens here occasionally--or maybe more than occasionally. But is there anything else going on? And I hope the press in New Mexico ask their senior Senator why he is so darn focused on hurting the good people of Alaska--because I wouldn't do that to New Mexican oil and gas workers or New Mexican Native communities. And finally, I am going to ask questions in another area. The Biden administration is clearly trying to shut down my State. It is there for everybody to see. Everybody back homeknows it. But here is the thing. They can't do it illegally, and they can't do it unethically. And right now there is strong evidence that they are doing just that. What do I mean? Today, I sent this letter that I would like to be printed in the Record to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9035-3 | null | 3,675 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today, I wanted to rise on the Senate floor and talk about a topic of utmost importance to my State, the great people I have the privilege of representing, and what the Biden administration is doing to good, hard-working American families in Alaska. It is what I call the anti-Alaska agenda, or the Biden administration's war on working families. I know that Americans all across the country have felt pain--economic pain, health pain, unfortunately, too many deaths as a result of the pandemic. Right now, we are seeing high energy prices and empty shelves. There has been a lot of suffering in America. We are a resilient people, however. My State, like many, has been hit very hard by the pandemic, particularly economically--our energy sector, our fishing sector, our tourism sector. And as we are coming out of this pandemic and everybody trying to work together--we all want growth and opportunity in America--we have now been hit with this--with this. This administration has issued, in its first 9 months in office, 20 Executive orders for Executive actions solely focused on Alaska. I came down to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about this. It was 19 then. You wait a week or 2 with the Biden administration in Alaska, and it is up to 20. I am sure they have a lot more ready to go. Twenty--there is no State in America that is getting this kind of attention from the Biden administration, and we don't want it. What I am going to be continuing to ask my Senate colleagues to do--and I am going to start with the President of the United States, who was a U.S. Senator for many years, decades--put yourself in the shoes of the people I represent. Let's imagine that a Republican administration comes into office and issues 20 Executive orders or Executive actions focused on Delaware--tiny, little Delaware. The Senators from Delaware, including the former Senator, now-President, would be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate raising Cain, raising heck--I don't think I am allowed to swear here--because of this, because they want to stick up for the people they represent. Imagine that. These Executive orders and actions are not some kind of simple abstractions; they are 20 orders and actions that go to the heart of what Alaskans do in terms of our economy: work, keeping food on the table, keeping lights on in their homes, paying the mortgage, keeping their kids in college, keeping their cultures thriving, keeping our communities from crumbling, particularly in rural Alaska. Some of the poorest communities in America is where this administration is targeting the people I represent. Very few people in my State--Democrat, Republican, Native, non-Native--support this war against Alaska. This is not a partisan issue back home, and here is why: because real people, real families, real communities are being hurt--your fellow Americans. It has got to stop. I have demanded a meeting with the President and his team to just walk him through this. Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to one of your States that you are sworn to defend? These orders threaten the well-being of my entire State, but they particularly threaten the people who live in rural Alaska, who are dependent on the land and natural resources for so much of their economy, so much of their tax base. Here is the thing, I know what some of my colleagues or those who are watching are saying: Oh, it is just resource development issues in Alaska. Well, I will talk about that. It is some of that, but it is not just resource development issues that are happening here. Let me give you one that really burns me up. We had a bipartisan bill last year, last Congress, to provide what you will now call racial justice, racial equity, to Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans who served their country when most Americans were avoiding service and missed out, because they were overseas fighting for their Nation, on the opportunity to apply for what is called a land allotment. There was a deadline that happened, a complete injustice. Native Vietnam veterans coming home, not treated well because they are Native, not treated well because they are Vietnam veterans, and then told: Oh, by the way, the land you were supposed to get, you don't qualify. So we got a bill to pass to say that is an injustice. The previous administration signed it. They were implementing it. And when this administration came into office, the No. 1 issue I asked Secretary Haaland to commit to was to finish getting the Executive order out on these land allotments to implement this bipartisan bill because these Native Vietnam veterans aren't living that long. The administration delayed it for 2 years. Why? It has nothing do to with oil and gas or mining. Why? These Vietnam vets, many aren't going to live for 2 more years. They did it anyway. That is 1 of 20. Let me give you another one. We have had, down in southeast Alaska, the issue of the Tongass--that is the largest national forest in the country. Every elected official--Governor, Senator, Democrat, Republican--in Alaska, the last 30 years, has pressed with the roadless rule, an exemption to the roadless rule, so we can have an economy there; roads for southeast communities. Every elected Governor or U.S. Senator, didn't matter the party, that is how important this was. We were able to get an exemption in the last administration. I appreciate what President Trump did on that. This administration comes in, and they reverse it. One of the 20. Guess how we, the Alaska delegation, found out about that reversal. A front-page story in the Washington Post. The Secretary of Agriculture wanted to brief the Washington Post and all the extreme environmental groups who wanted this before they let the people of Alaska or their representatives know. These are the examples. And, yes, the list also includes resource development projects. But here is the thing on that--I have a folder full of letters. These are letters from the elected leaders, Tribal leaders, borough leaders, Alaska Native Corp. leaders, Native leaders in my State--dozens of letters. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Native village of Kaktovik--that is a Tribe--City of Utqiagvik, City of Atqasuk, City of Wainwright, Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope--that is another Tribe--the Voice of the Inupiat Arctic, these are all Alaskan Native leaders who live in the North Slope, some of whom live in the Arctic National Wildlife area. Every single one of these great leaders in my State, every one, was writing, even begging, this administration not to do this--not to do this. And they ignored them--they ignored them. This is a letter from Edward Rexford. He is the President of the Native Village of Kaktovik. He wrote to Secretary Deb Haaland after she suspended oil and gas leases in the ANWR, which we passed. What the Secretary did, in my view, was clearly illegal. Edward Rexford wrote: ``You have changed our future with one stroke of a pen without any explanation or consultation with us--the tribe that lives within the Coastal Plain.'' His village, Kaktovik, is the only village within the coastal area of ANWR. That is it. There is no group of Americans who should have a greater voice in the development of this area than them. But they didn't even get a phone call--not a phone call, not consultation, Tribal consultation, which is required by law--none of it. That is all part of the 20 Executive orders and actions that I said are hurting people, hurting communities, hurting families, hurting Native cultures. I will tell you this: The Biden administration loves to talk about how they are committed to environmental justice and racial equity, but it is with a caveat. Here is the reality: They want to help unserved minority populations around the country. And I think this is a good goal, but it comes with a caveat. Unless, of course, they are indigenous people of Alaska, then the Biden administration targets them. Look at this folder. These are communities of color in my State, and all they do is get targeted, not helped; targeted, their economic opportunity. And then the things that most Americans take for granted that don't exist in these communities--clinics, flushed toilets, gymnasiums--all of that comes with economic opportunity. And when you shut it down, you are really hurting indigenous people in some of the most impoverished communities in the country. But I guess they seem OK with that. I want all of my Senate colleagues to do just a quick thought experiment. Imagine what it would be like, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican--but just think about it: A Democrat and a Republican administration comes in or you are a Republican and a Democrat administration comes in and changes the future of your State with a stroke of a pen, as Edward Rexford said, for the people you represent. Imagine an administration coming in with 20 Executive orders in 8 months, shutting down your economy as you are trying to get out of a pandemic. Every Senator here would be mad. Every Senator here would be mad. And the one thing I very much enjoy about serving in this body is we are a collegial body. We have our differences, but I certainly have friends on both sides of the aisle, try to work with everybody, try to be respectful with everybody. The Presiding Officer and I chaired committees together, worked together on a lot of things. And here is the thing, if a Republican administration came into power and targeted one of my colleague's States with 20 Executive orders in 8 months and whoever it was came to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, you know this is unfair. My constituents are really being attacked, really being hurt. Could you reach out to the Republican administration and say: Hey, come on. Tone it down. Geez, Louise, 20 Executive orders in one State,'' I would help, and I think almost every Senator here would help. That is what we do here. And I want to say that some of my Democratic colleagues here, when I have talked about this, when I have told them about this, when I have spoken about this, a number of them have come to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, give me the list. Give me the list of 20. Maybe I can't help you on every one of them, all of them. Maybe there are some I actually like. But I do want to try and help.'' That is what has happened. That is what makes this body a good place. To those Senators, I really want to thank you. And I am going to ask for your help because I would do it for you. And this is unacceptable. Tens of thousands of people I represent are being hurt by the Federal Government, by the President and his White House. So I appreciate that from my colleagues. And this is, in general, how this body works. It makes this a special place. But I will say this. Not all Senators have been so gracious and senatorial and collegial. To the contrary, a few of my colleagues are helping lead the charge in the war on Alaska's working families. They seem to be putting a ton of effort into it themselves. I am not sure why, but they spend a lot of their time and energy focused on doing this: shutting down the Alaska economy, hurting working families, and ridiculously and absurdly acting as if they speak for the very people I am privileged to represent, as if they don't have enough to do in terms of helping their own constituents. So I am going to make an example and give an example of one. The leader of this small group is the senior Senator from New Mexico. Here is a sampling--three letters in the last year and a half he has written, signed, or led, focusing on shutting down Alaska's economy and hurting the great people I have the privilege of representing. Two of these letters deal with the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--controversial, no doubt. In 2017, we voted to provide the opportunity for development in that small area, what we call the 1002 area. The President signed it. It came into law. Now, I know most of my colleagues on the Democratic side didn't agree with that. We have legislation we don't agree with. I accept that. I am still very good friends with so many. But, afterward, the senior Senator from New Mexico led letters to all the top banks in America and all the top insurance and financial institutions in America and didn't just say don't invest in the ANWR but said ``don't invest in any oil and gas development project in the Arctic.'' What is that, the Arctic of America? That is my State. So now you have, as opposed to collegiality, a small group, led by this Senator, writing the biggest banks in America, the biggest financial institutions in America, trying to muscle them, saying: Don't invest anything in Alaska. That is not what this body is all about. I would never do that to a colleague. I would never write all the banks of America and say: Don't invest in poor communities, Native communities in New Mexico or in the New Mexico oil and gas industry. I wouldn't do that. Who does that? Well, unfortunately, a few--not many, a few--Senators are doing that. Absurdly, this Senator had the audacity, in one of his letters, to try to speak for the people I represent. He put in the letter: The people dependent on the Arctic Refuge don't want you to invest there. That is patently absurd. Just read the letters from all the people who actually live there, all the people who live there, who overwhelmingly want opportunities for oil and gas development and for jobs and economic opportunity. You would think, with all of New Mexico's problems, this Senator would focus on his own constituents. So I reached out to him and the few others who wrote these letters. I have reached out. I wrote my own letter to them saying: Hey, I was disappointed to see you do that. Why didn't you come talk to me? I wouldn't do that to you. And, by the way, what you are doing is really going to hurt my constituents. This is a letter I wrote to this Senator and a few others: I would appreciate the courtesy of talking about this before you go do it. You clearly don't understand the indigenous communities that I represent. I even provided a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Harry Brower, the Inupiaq mayor, who had a lot to say to the banks who weren't going to invest in his community. But I got no response. To the contrary, just a few months ago, this same Senator led a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, asking her to shut down a very important energy development in Alaska called the Willow Project. This is that letter--just about 4 months ago. Let me talk about the Willow Project. The Willow Project is not in a controversial area; it is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago for oil and gas development. Every Native group in Alaska supports this project, all the unions do, 2,000 direct jobs, billions in revenues for some of the poorest communities in America, the lowest emissions of any major oil and gas development project in America. This is a huge win-win-win for everybody--not even controversial. Yet the senior Senator from New Mexico wrote Deb Haaland saying: Shut down the Willow Project in Alaska. Why is he doing this, literally trying to kill thousands of Alaskan jobs and impoverish Alaska Native communities? Do the people in New Mexico know that their senior Senator spends so much time trying to give Alaska oil and gas workers pink slips and impoverish Native communities? I wonder. I wonder. I thought, for just a moment, maybe I should do something against New Mexico, but then I was like, no; you know what, that is not my style. I wouldn't want to hurt New Mexico oil and gas workers or Native communities. They are all great Americans, I am sure. We are a great country. I wouldn't want to target them the way this Senator is targeting my State, trying to hurt thousands of Alaskan working families. And it should be emphasized and I want to emphasize, that is not how we work here. That is not what I have seen in my almost 7 years in the U.S. Senate, Senators trying to attack other Senators' States, specifically focusing on hurting working families. The vast majority of the Senators I know wouldn't do that at all. That is not how business is conducted here in the U.S. Senate. To the contrary, most of us generally try to help each other. We don't always agree; that is for sure. But particularly when States have unique challenges that could hurt their citizens, when my colleagues would come to me, ``Hey, Dan, can you help out on this,'' I usually try to help. But I certainly don't go on offense and try to hurt like this administration is doing and the senior Senator from New Mexico. But I thought the better course to fight back--because I am going to fight back, OK. I am going to fight back. These are my constituents who are hurting. The better course to fight back against these attacks on Alaskan working families was not to try to hurt New Mexicans but just show this, the rank hypocrisy of what the senior Senator is actually doing and saying. One of his main reasons, in this latest letter, to shut down Alaska, in trying to deny Federal permits for the Willow oil and gas project, is to ``achieve climate goals.'' OK? That is in his letter to Deb Haaland. But if you do just a little digging, this Senator seems fine with trying to achieve these goals on the backs of Alaskan workers and Alaska Natives but not on his own constituents, not on the backs of his own constituents--to the contrary. Guess which State in America has gotten way more Federal oil and gas drilling permits than any other State in the country--guess which one. It is certainly not Alaska. It happens to be New Mexico. It just so happens to be New Mexico. Guess where the Secretary of the Interior is from. New Mexico. Hmm. Is that a coincidence? I wonder, in their frequent phone calls, when they talk about concerns of climate and shutting down oil and gas in Alaska, if shutting down oil and gas in New Mexico ever comes up. I am pretty sure it doesn't. How do I know that? Because close to half of all oil and gas drilling permits issued by the Department of the Interior, by New Mexican Deb Haaland, in 2021 have gone to one State. What State is that? New Mexico--2,286 Federal oil and gas drilling permits; almost half of all the permits in the country to one State. So here is the bottom line. Here is their view. Shut down Alaska, hurt working families in Alaska, supposedly, to help America's climate goals, but then quietly say ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico, with more permits by far than any other State in the country--almost 2,300. If that is not rank hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am going to start asking questions about this and, by the way, so should the press. I sure hope our friends in the press think that, hmm, there is something a little strange going on here. Clearly, there is hypocrisy happening. But, you know, that happens here occasionally--or maybe more than occasionally. But is there anything else going on? And I hope the press in New Mexico ask their senior Senator why he is so darn focused on hurting the good people of Alaska--because I wouldn't do that to New Mexican oil and gas workers or New Mexican Native communities. And finally, I am going to ask questions in another area. The Biden administration is clearly trying to shut down my State. It is there for everybody to see. Everybody back homeknows it. But here is the thing. They can't do it illegally, and they can't do it unethically. And right now there is strong evidence that they are doing just that. What do I mean? Today, I sent this letter that I would like to be printed in the Record to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9035-3 | null | 3,676 |
formal | shut it down | null | antisemitic | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today, I wanted to rise on the Senate floor and talk about a topic of utmost importance to my State, the great people I have the privilege of representing, and what the Biden administration is doing to good, hard-working American families in Alaska. It is what I call the anti-Alaska agenda, or the Biden administration's war on working families. I know that Americans all across the country have felt pain--economic pain, health pain, unfortunately, too many deaths as a result of the pandemic. Right now, we are seeing high energy prices and empty shelves. There has been a lot of suffering in America. We are a resilient people, however. My State, like many, has been hit very hard by the pandemic, particularly economically--our energy sector, our fishing sector, our tourism sector. And as we are coming out of this pandemic and everybody trying to work together--we all want growth and opportunity in America--we have now been hit with this--with this. This administration has issued, in its first 9 months in office, 20 Executive orders for Executive actions solely focused on Alaska. I came down to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about this. It was 19 then. You wait a week or 2 with the Biden administration in Alaska, and it is up to 20. I am sure they have a lot more ready to go. Twenty--there is no State in America that is getting this kind of attention from the Biden administration, and we don't want it. What I am going to be continuing to ask my Senate colleagues to do--and I am going to start with the President of the United States, who was a U.S. Senator for many years, decades--put yourself in the shoes of the people I represent. Let's imagine that a Republican administration comes into office and issues 20 Executive orders or Executive actions focused on Delaware--tiny, little Delaware. The Senators from Delaware, including the former Senator, now-President, would be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate raising Cain, raising heck--I don't think I am allowed to swear here--because of this, because they want to stick up for the people they represent. Imagine that. These Executive orders and actions are not some kind of simple abstractions; they are 20 orders and actions that go to the heart of what Alaskans do in terms of our economy: work, keeping food on the table, keeping lights on in their homes, paying the mortgage, keeping their kids in college, keeping their cultures thriving, keeping our communities from crumbling, particularly in rural Alaska. Some of the poorest communities in America is where this administration is targeting the people I represent. Very few people in my State--Democrat, Republican, Native, non-Native--support this war against Alaska. This is not a partisan issue back home, and here is why: because real people, real families, real communities are being hurt--your fellow Americans. It has got to stop. I have demanded a meeting with the President and his team to just walk him through this. Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to one of your States that you are sworn to defend? These orders threaten the well-being of my entire State, but they particularly threaten the people who live in rural Alaska, who are dependent on the land and natural resources for so much of their economy, so much of their tax base. Here is the thing, I know what some of my colleagues or those who are watching are saying: Oh, it is just resource development issues in Alaska. Well, I will talk about that. It is some of that, but it is not just resource development issues that are happening here. Let me give you one that really burns me up. We had a bipartisan bill last year, last Congress, to provide what you will now call racial justice, racial equity, to Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans who served their country when most Americans were avoiding service and missed out, because they were overseas fighting for their Nation, on the opportunity to apply for what is called a land allotment. There was a deadline that happened, a complete injustice. Native Vietnam veterans coming home, not treated well because they are Native, not treated well because they are Vietnam veterans, and then told: Oh, by the way, the land you were supposed to get, you don't qualify. So we got a bill to pass to say that is an injustice. The previous administration signed it. They were implementing it. And when this administration came into office, the No. 1 issue I asked Secretary Haaland to commit to was to finish getting the Executive order out on these land allotments to implement this bipartisan bill because these Native Vietnam veterans aren't living that long. The administration delayed it for 2 years. Why? It has nothing do to with oil and gas or mining. Why? These Vietnam vets, many aren't going to live for 2 more years. They did it anyway. That is 1 of 20. Let me give you another one. We have had, down in southeast Alaska, the issue of the Tongass--that is the largest national forest in the country. Every elected official--Governor, Senator, Democrat, Republican--in Alaska, the last 30 years, has pressed with the roadless rule, an exemption to the roadless rule, so we can have an economy there; roads for southeast communities. Every elected Governor or U.S. Senator, didn't matter the party, that is how important this was. We were able to get an exemption in the last administration. I appreciate what President Trump did on that. This administration comes in, and they reverse it. One of the 20. Guess how we, the Alaska delegation, found out about that reversal. A front-page story in the Washington Post. The Secretary of Agriculture wanted to brief the Washington Post and all the extreme environmental groups who wanted this before they let the people of Alaska or their representatives know. These are the examples. And, yes, the list also includes resource development projects. But here is the thing on that--I have a folder full of letters. These are letters from the elected leaders, Tribal leaders, borough leaders, Alaska Native Corp. leaders, Native leaders in my State--dozens of letters. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Native village of Kaktovik--that is a Tribe--City of Utqiagvik, City of Atqasuk, City of Wainwright, Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope--that is another Tribe--the Voice of the Inupiat Arctic, these are all Alaskan Native leaders who live in the North Slope, some of whom live in the Arctic National Wildlife area. Every single one of these great leaders in my State, every one, was writing, even begging, this administration not to do this--not to do this. And they ignored them--they ignored them. This is a letter from Edward Rexford. He is the President of the Native Village of Kaktovik. He wrote to Secretary Deb Haaland after she suspended oil and gas leases in the ANWR, which we passed. What the Secretary did, in my view, was clearly illegal. Edward Rexford wrote: ``You have changed our future with one stroke of a pen without any explanation or consultation with us--the tribe that lives within the Coastal Plain.'' His village, Kaktovik, is the only village within the coastal area of ANWR. That is it. There is no group of Americans who should have a greater voice in the development of this area than them. But they didn't even get a phone call--not a phone call, not consultation, Tribal consultation, which is required by law--none of it. That is all part of the 20 Executive orders and actions that I said are hurting people, hurting communities, hurting families, hurting Native cultures. I will tell you this: The Biden administration loves to talk about how they are committed to environmental justice and racial equity, but it is with a caveat. Here is the reality: They want to help unserved minority populations around the country. And I think this is a good goal, but it comes with a caveat. Unless, of course, they are indigenous people of Alaska, then the Biden administration targets them. Look at this folder. These are communities of color in my State, and all they do is get targeted, not helped; targeted, their economic opportunity. And then the things that most Americans take for granted that don't exist in these communities--clinics, flushed toilets, gymnasiums--all of that comes with economic opportunity. And when you shut it down, you are really hurting indigenous people in some of the most impoverished communities in the country. But I guess they seem OK with that. I want all of my Senate colleagues to do just a quick thought experiment. Imagine what it would be like, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican--but just think about it: A Democrat and a Republican administration comes in or you are a Republican and a Democrat administration comes in and changes the future of your State with a stroke of a pen, as Edward Rexford said, for the people you represent. Imagine an administration coming in with 20 Executive orders in 8 months, shutting down your economy as you are trying to get out of a pandemic. Every Senator here would be mad. Every Senator here would be mad. And the one thing I very much enjoy about serving in this body is we are a collegial body. We have our differences, but I certainly have friends on both sides of the aisle, try to work with everybody, try to be respectful with everybody. The Presiding Officer and I chaired committees together, worked together on a lot of things. And here is the thing, if a Republican administration came into power and targeted one of my colleague's States with 20 Executive orders in 8 months and whoever it was came to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, you know this is unfair. My constituents are really being attacked, really being hurt. Could you reach out to the Republican administration and say: Hey, come on. Tone it down. Geez, Louise, 20 Executive orders in one State,'' I would help, and I think almost every Senator here would help. That is what we do here. And I want to say that some of my Democratic colleagues here, when I have talked about this, when I have told them about this, when I have spoken about this, a number of them have come to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, give me the list. Give me the list of 20. Maybe I can't help you on every one of them, all of them. Maybe there are some I actually like. But I do want to try and help.'' That is what has happened. That is what makes this body a good place. To those Senators, I really want to thank you. And I am going to ask for your help because I would do it for you. And this is unacceptable. Tens of thousands of people I represent are being hurt by the Federal Government, by the President and his White House. So I appreciate that from my colleagues. And this is, in general, how this body works. It makes this a special place. But I will say this. Not all Senators have been so gracious and senatorial and collegial. To the contrary, a few of my colleagues are helping lead the charge in the war on Alaska's working families. They seem to be putting a ton of effort into it themselves. I am not sure why, but they spend a lot of their time and energy focused on doing this: shutting down the Alaska economy, hurting working families, and ridiculously and absurdly acting as if they speak for the very people I am privileged to represent, as if they don't have enough to do in terms of helping their own constituents. So I am going to make an example and give an example of one. The leader of this small group is the senior Senator from New Mexico. Here is a sampling--three letters in the last year and a half he has written, signed, or led, focusing on shutting down Alaska's economy and hurting the great people I have the privilege of representing. Two of these letters deal with the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--controversial, no doubt. In 2017, we voted to provide the opportunity for development in that small area, what we call the 1002 area. The President signed it. It came into law. Now, I know most of my colleagues on the Democratic side didn't agree with that. We have legislation we don't agree with. I accept that. I am still very good friends with so many. But, afterward, the senior Senator from New Mexico led letters to all the top banks in America and all the top insurance and financial institutions in America and didn't just say don't invest in the ANWR but said ``don't invest in any oil and gas development project in the Arctic.'' What is that, the Arctic of America? That is my State. So now you have, as opposed to collegiality, a small group, led by this Senator, writing the biggest banks in America, the biggest financial institutions in America, trying to muscle them, saying: Don't invest anything in Alaska. That is not what this body is all about. I would never do that to a colleague. I would never write all the banks of America and say: Don't invest in poor communities, Native communities in New Mexico or in the New Mexico oil and gas industry. I wouldn't do that. Who does that? Well, unfortunately, a few--not many, a few--Senators are doing that. Absurdly, this Senator had the audacity, in one of his letters, to try to speak for the people I represent. He put in the letter: The people dependent on the Arctic Refuge don't want you to invest there. That is patently absurd. Just read the letters from all the people who actually live there, all the people who live there, who overwhelmingly want opportunities for oil and gas development and for jobs and economic opportunity. You would think, with all of New Mexico's problems, this Senator would focus on his own constituents. So I reached out to him and the few others who wrote these letters. I have reached out. I wrote my own letter to them saying: Hey, I was disappointed to see you do that. Why didn't you come talk to me? I wouldn't do that to you. And, by the way, what you are doing is really going to hurt my constituents. This is a letter I wrote to this Senator and a few others: I would appreciate the courtesy of talking about this before you go do it. You clearly don't understand the indigenous communities that I represent. I even provided a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Harry Brower, the Inupiaq mayor, who had a lot to say to the banks who weren't going to invest in his community. But I got no response. To the contrary, just a few months ago, this same Senator led a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, asking her to shut down a very important energy development in Alaska called the Willow Project. This is that letter--just about 4 months ago. Let me talk about the Willow Project. The Willow Project is not in a controversial area; it is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago for oil and gas development. Every Native group in Alaska supports this project, all the unions do, 2,000 direct jobs, billions in revenues for some of the poorest communities in America, the lowest emissions of any major oil and gas development project in America. This is a huge win-win-win for everybody--not even controversial. Yet the senior Senator from New Mexico wrote Deb Haaland saying: Shut down the Willow Project in Alaska. Why is he doing this, literally trying to kill thousands of Alaskan jobs and impoverish Alaska Native communities? Do the people in New Mexico know that their senior Senator spends so much time trying to give Alaska oil and gas workers pink slips and impoverish Native communities? I wonder. I wonder. I thought, for just a moment, maybe I should do something against New Mexico, but then I was like, no; you know what, that is not my style. I wouldn't want to hurt New Mexico oil and gas workers or Native communities. They are all great Americans, I am sure. We are a great country. I wouldn't want to target them the way this Senator is targeting my State, trying to hurt thousands of Alaskan working families. And it should be emphasized and I want to emphasize, that is not how we work here. That is not what I have seen in my almost 7 years in the U.S. Senate, Senators trying to attack other Senators' States, specifically focusing on hurting working families. The vast majority of the Senators I know wouldn't do that at all. That is not how business is conducted here in the U.S. Senate. To the contrary, most of us generally try to help each other. We don't always agree; that is for sure. But particularly when States have unique challenges that could hurt their citizens, when my colleagues would come to me, ``Hey, Dan, can you help out on this,'' I usually try to help. But I certainly don't go on offense and try to hurt like this administration is doing and the senior Senator from New Mexico. But I thought the better course to fight back--because I am going to fight back, OK. I am going to fight back. These are my constituents who are hurting. The better course to fight back against these attacks on Alaskan working families was not to try to hurt New Mexicans but just show this, the rank hypocrisy of what the senior Senator is actually doing and saying. One of his main reasons, in this latest letter, to shut down Alaska, in trying to deny Federal permits for the Willow oil and gas project, is to ``achieve climate goals.'' OK? That is in his letter to Deb Haaland. But if you do just a little digging, this Senator seems fine with trying to achieve these goals on the backs of Alaskan workers and Alaska Natives but not on his own constituents, not on the backs of his own constituents--to the contrary. Guess which State in America has gotten way more Federal oil and gas drilling permits than any other State in the country--guess which one. It is certainly not Alaska. It happens to be New Mexico. It just so happens to be New Mexico. Guess where the Secretary of the Interior is from. New Mexico. Hmm. Is that a coincidence? I wonder, in their frequent phone calls, when they talk about concerns of climate and shutting down oil and gas in Alaska, if shutting down oil and gas in New Mexico ever comes up. I am pretty sure it doesn't. How do I know that? Because close to half of all oil and gas drilling permits issued by the Department of the Interior, by New Mexican Deb Haaland, in 2021 have gone to one State. What State is that? New Mexico--2,286 Federal oil and gas drilling permits; almost half of all the permits in the country to one State. So here is the bottom line. Here is their view. Shut down Alaska, hurt working families in Alaska, supposedly, to help America's climate goals, but then quietly say ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico, with more permits by far than any other State in the country--almost 2,300. If that is not rank hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am going to start asking questions about this and, by the way, so should the press. I sure hope our friends in the press think that, hmm, there is something a little strange going on here. Clearly, there is hypocrisy happening. But, you know, that happens here occasionally--or maybe more than occasionally. But is there anything else going on? And I hope the press in New Mexico ask their senior Senator why he is so darn focused on hurting the good people of Alaska--because I wouldn't do that to New Mexican oil and gas workers or New Mexican Native communities. And finally, I am going to ask questions in another area. The Biden administration is clearly trying to shut down my State. It is there for everybody to see. Everybody back homeknows it. But here is the thing. They can't do it illegally, and they can't do it unethically. And right now there is strong evidence that they are doing just that. What do I mean? Today, I sent this letter that I would like to be printed in the Record to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9035-3 | null | 3,677 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, today, I wanted to rise on the Senate floor and talk about a topic of utmost importance to my State, the great people I have the privilege of representing, and what the Biden administration is doing to good, hard-working American families in Alaska. It is what I call the anti-Alaska agenda, or the Biden administration's war on working families. I know that Americans all across the country have felt pain--economic pain, health pain, unfortunately, too many deaths as a result of the pandemic. Right now, we are seeing high energy prices and empty shelves. There has been a lot of suffering in America. We are a resilient people, however. My State, like many, has been hit very hard by the pandemic, particularly economically--our energy sector, our fishing sector, our tourism sector. And as we are coming out of this pandemic and everybody trying to work together--we all want growth and opportunity in America--we have now been hit with this--with this. This administration has issued, in its first 9 months in office, 20 Executive orders for Executive actions solely focused on Alaska. I came down to the floor 2 weeks ago to talk about this. It was 19 then. You wait a week or 2 with the Biden administration in Alaska, and it is up to 20. I am sure they have a lot more ready to go. Twenty--there is no State in America that is getting this kind of attention from the Biden administration, and we don't want it. What I am going to be continuing to ask my Senate colleagues to do--and I am going to start with the President of the United States, who was a U.S. Senator for many years, decades--put yourself in the shoes of the people I represent. Let's imagine that a Republican administration comes into office and issues 20 Executive orders or Executive actions focused on Delaware--tiny, little Delaware. The Senators from Delaware, including the former Senator, now-President, would be down on the floor of the U.S. Senate raising Cain, raising heck--I don't think I am allowed to swear here--because of this, because they want to stick up for the people they represent. Imagine that. These Executive orders and actions are not some kind of simple abstractions; they are 20 orders and actions that go to the heart of what Alaskans do in terms of our economy: work, keeping food on the table, keeping lights on in their homes, paying the mortgage, keeping their kids in college, keeping their cultures thriving, keeping our communities from crumbling, particularly in rural Alaska. Some of the poorest communities in America is where this administration is targeting the people I represent. Very few people in my State--Democrat, Republican, Native, non-Native--support this war against Alaska. This is not a partisan issue back home, and here is why: because real people, real families, real communities are being hurt--your fellow Americans. It has got to stop. I have demanded a meeting with the President and his team to just walk him through this. Mr. President, do you know what you are doing to one of your States that you are sworn to defend? These orders threaten the well-being of my entire State, but they particularly threaten the people who live in rural Alaska, who are dependent on the land and natural resources for so much of their economy, so much of their tax base. Here is the thing, I know what some of my colleagues or those who are watching are saying: Oh, it is just resource development issues in Alaska. Well, I will talk about that. It is some of that, but it is not just resource development issues that are happening here. Let me give you one that really burns me up. We had a bipartisan bill last year, last Congress, to provide what you will now call racial justice, racial equity, to Alaskan Native Vietnam veterans who served their country when most Americans were avoiding service and missed out, because they were overseas fighting for their Nation, on the opportunity to apply for what is called a land allotment. There was a deadline that happened, a complete injustice. Native Vietnam veterans coming home, not treated well because they are Native, not treated well because they are Vietnam veterans, and then told: Oh, by the way, the land you were supposed to get, you don't qualify. So we got a bill to pass to say that is an injustice. The previous administration signed it. They were implementing it. And when this administration came into office, the No. 1 issue I asked Secretary Haaland to commit to was to finish getting the Executive order out on these land allotments to implement this bipartisan bill because these Native Vietnam veterans aren't living that long. The administration delayed it for 2 years. Why? It has nothing do to with oil and gas or mining. Why? These Vietnam vets, many aren't going to live for 2 more years. They did it anyway. That is 1 of 20. Let me give you another one. We have had, down in southeast Alaska, the issue of the Tongass--that is the largest national forest in the country. Every elected official--Governor, Senator, Democrat, Republican--in Alaska, the last 30 years, has pressed with the roadless rule, an exemption to the roadless rule, so we can have an economy there; roads for southeast communities. Every elected Governor or U.S. Senator, didn't matter the party, that is how important this was. We were able to get an exemption in the last administration. I appreciate what President Trump did on that. This administration comes in, and they reverse it. One of the 20. Guess how we, the Alaska delegation, found out about that reversal. A front-page story in the Washington Post. The Secretary of Agriculture wanted to brief the Washington Post and all the extreme environmental groups who wanted this before they let the people of Alaska or their representatives know. These are the examples. And, yes, the list also includes resource development projects. But here is the thing on that--I have a folder full of letters. These are letters from the elected leaders, Tribal leaders, borough leaders, Alaska Native Corp. leaders, Native leaders in my State--dozens of letters. Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, Native village of Kaktovik--that is a Tribe--City of Utqiagvik, City of Atqasuk, City of Wainwright, Inupiaq Community of the Arctic Slope--that is another Tribe--the Voice of the Inupiat Arctic, these are all Alaskan Native leaders who live in the North Slope, some of whom live in the Arctic National Wildlife area. Every single one of these great leaders in my State, every one, was writing, even begging, this administration not to do this--not to do this. And they ignored them--they ignored them. This is a letter from Edward Rexford. He is the President of the Native Village of Kaktovik. He wrote to Secretary Deb Haaland after she suspended oil and gas leases in the ANWR, which we passed. What the Secretary did, in my view, was clearly illegal. Edward Rexford wrote: ``You have changed our future with one stroke of a pen without any explanation or consultation with us--the tribe that lives within the Coastal Plain.'' His village, Kaktovik, is the only village within the coastal area of ANWR. That is it. There is no group of Americans who should have a greater voice in the development of this area than them. But they didn't even get a phone call--not a phone call, not consultation, Tribal consultation, which is required by law--none of it. That is all part of the 20 Executive orders and actions that I said are hurting people, hurting communities, hurting families, hurting Native cultures. I will tell you this: The Biden administration loves to talk about how they are committed to environmental justice and racial equity, but it is with a caveat. Here is the reality: They want to help unserved minority populations around the country. And I think this is a good goal, but it comes with a caveat. Unless, of course, they are indigenous people of Alaska, then the Biden administration targets them. Look at this folder. These are communities of color in my State, and all they do is get targeted, not helped; targeted, their economic opportunity. And then the things that most Americans take for granted that don't exist in these communities--clinics, flushed toilets, gymnasiums--all of that comes with economic opportunity. And when you shut it down, you are really hurting indigenous people in some of the most impoverished communities in the country. But I guess they seem OK with that. I want all of my Senate colleagues to do just a quick thought experiment. Imagine what it would be like, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican--but just think about it: A Democrat and a Republican administration comes in or you are a Republican and a Democrat administration comes in and changes the future of your State with a stroke of a pen, as Edward Rexford said, for the people you represent. Imagine an administration coming in with 20 Executive orders in 8 months, shutting down your economy as you are trying to get out of a pandemic. Every Senator here would be mad. Every Senator here would be mad. And the one thing I very much enjoy about serving in this body is we are a collegial body. We have our differences, but I certainly have friends on both sides of the aisle, try to work with everybody, try to be respectful with everybody. The Presiding Officer and I chaired committees together, worked together on a lot of things. And here is the thing, if a Republican administration came into power and targeted one of my colleague's States with 20 Executive orders in 8 months and whoever it was came to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, you know this is unfair. My constituents are really being attacked, really being hurt. Could you reach out to the Republican administration and say: Hey, come on. Tone it down. Geez, Louise, 20 Executive orders in one State,'' I would help, and I think almost every Senator here would help. That is what we do here. And I want to say that some of my Democratic colleagues here, when I have talked about this, when I have told them about this, when I have spoken about this, a number of them have come to me and said: ``Hey, Dan, give me the list. Give me the list of 20. Maybe I can't help you on every one of them, all of them. Maybe there are some I actually like. But I do want to try and help.'' That is what has happened. That is what makes this body a good place. To those Senators, I really want to thank you. And I am going to ask for your help because I would do it for you. And this is unacceptable. Tens of thousands of people I represent are being hurt by the Federal Government, by the President and his White House. So I appreciate that from my colleagues. And this is, in general, how this body works. It makes this a special place. But I will say this. Not all Senators have been so gracious and senatorial and collegial. To the contrary, a few of my colleagues are helping lead the charge in the war on Alaska's working families. They seem to be putting a ton of effort into it themselves. I am not sure why, but they spend a lot of their time and energy focused on doing this: shutting down the Alaska economy, hurting working families, and ridiculously and absurdly acting as if they speak for the very people I am privileged to represent, as if they don't have enough to do in terms of helping their own constituents. So I am going to make an example and give an example of one. The leader of this small group is the senior Senator from New Mexico. Here is a sampling--three letters in the last year and a half he has written, signed, or led, focusing on shutting down Alaska's economy and hurting the great people I have the privilege of representing. Two of these letters deal with the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--controversial, no doubt. In 2017, we voted to provide the opportunity for development in that small area, what we call the 1002 area. The President signed it. It came into law. Now, I know most of my colleagues on the Democratic side didn't agree with that. We have legislation we don't agree with. I accept that. I am still very good friends with so many. But, afterward, the senior Senator from New Mexico led letters to all the top banks in America and all the top insurance and financial institutions in America and didn't just say don't invest in the ANWR but said ``don't invest in any oil and gas development project in the Arctic.'' What is that, the Arctic of America? That is my State. So now you have, as opposed to collegiality, a small group, led by this Senator, writing the biggest banks in America, the biggest financial institutions in America, trying to muscle them, saying: Don't invest anything in Alaska. That is not what this body is all about. I would never do that to a colleague. I would never write all the banks of America and say: Don't invest in poor communities, Native communities in New Mexico or in the New Mexico oil and gas industry. I wouldn't do that. Who does that? Well, unfortunately, a few--not many, a few--Senators are doing that. Absurdly, this Senator had the audacity, in one of his letters, to try to speak for the people I represent. He put in the letter: The people dependent on the Arctic Refuge don't want you to invest there. That is patently absurd. Just read the letters from all the people who actually live there, all the people who live there, who overwhelmingly want opportunities for oil and gas development and for jobs and economic opportunity. You would think, with all of New Mexico's problems, this Senator would focus on his own constituents. So I reached out to him and the few others who wrote these letters. I have reached out. I wrote my own letter to them saying: Hey, I was disappointed to see you do that. Why didn't you come talk to me? I wouldn't do that to you. And, by the way, what you are doing is really going to hurt my constituents. This is a letter I wrote to this Senator and a few others: I would appreciate the courtesy of talking about this before you go do it. You clearly don't understand the indigenous communities that I represent. I even provided a Wall Street Journal op-ed from the mayor of the North Slope Borough, Harry Brower, the Inupiaq mayor, who had a lot to say to the banks who weren't going to invest in his community. But I got no response. To the contrary, just a few months ago, this same Senator led a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland, asking her to shut down a very important energy development in Alaska called the Willow Project. This is that letter--just about 4 months ago. Let me talk about the Willow Project. The Willow Project is not in a controversial area; it is in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, set aside by Congress decades ago for oil and gas development. Every Native group in Alaska supports this project, all the unions do, 2,000 direct jobs, billions in revenues for some of the poorest communities in America, the lowest emissions of any major oil and gas development project in America. This is a huge win-win-win for everybody--not even controversial. Yet the senior Senator from New Mexico wrote Deb Haaland saying: Shut down the Willow Project in Alaska. Why is he doing this, literally trying to kill thousands of Alaskan jobs and impoverish Alaska Native communities? Do the people in New Mexico know that their senior Senator spends so much time trying to give Alaska oil and gas workers pink slips and impoverish Native communities? I wonder. I wonder. I thought, for just a moment, maybe I should do something against New Mexico, but then I was like, no; you know what, that is not my style. I wouldn't want to hurt New Mexico oil and gas workers or Native communities. They are all great Americans, I am sure. We are a great country. I wouldn't want to target them the way this Senator is targeting my State, trying to hurt thousands of Alaskan working families. And it should be emphasized and I want to emphasize, that is not how we work here. That is not what I have seen in my almost 7 years in the U.S. Senate, Senators trying to attack other Senators' States, specifically focusing on hurting working families. The vast majority of the Senators I know wouldn't do that at all. That is not how business is conducted here in the U.S. Senate. To the contrary, most of us generally try to help each other. We don't always agree; that is for sure. But particularly when States have unique challenges that could hurt their citizens, when my colleagues would come to me, ``Hey, Dan, can you help out on this,'' I usually try to help. But I certainly don't go on offense and try to hurt like this administration is doing and the senior Senator from New Mexico. But I thought the better course to fight back--because I am going to fight back, OK. I am going to fight back. These are my constituents who are hurting. The better course to fight back against these attacks on Alaskan working families was not to try to hurt New Mexicans but just show this, the rank hypocrisy of what the senior Senator is actually doing and saying. One of his main reasons, in this latest letter, to shut down Alaska, in trying to deny Federal permits for the Willow oil and gas project, is to ``achieve climate goals.'' OK? That is in his letter to Deb Haaland. But if you do just a little digging, this Senator seems fine with trying to achieve these goals on the backs of Alaskan workers and Alaska Natives but not on his own constituents, not on the backs of his own constituents--to the contrary. Guess which State in America has gotten way more Federal oil and gas drilling permits than any other State in the country--guess which one. It is certainly not Alaska. It happens to be New Mexico. It just so happens to be New Mexico. Guess where the Secretary of the Interior is from. New Mexico. Hmm. Is that a coincidence? I wonder, in their frequent phone calls, when they talk about concerns of climate and shutting down oil and gas in Alaska, if shutting down oil and gas in New Mexico ever comes up. I am pretty sure it doesn't. How do I know that? Because close to half of all oil and gas drilling permits issued by the Department of the Interior, by New Mexican Deb Haaland, in 2021 have gone to one State. What State is that? New Mexico--2,286 Federal oil and gas drilling permits; almost half of all the permits in the country to one State. So here is the bottom line. Here is their view. Shut down Alaska, hurt working families in Alaska, supposedly, to help America's climate goals, but then quietly say ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico, with more permits by far than any other State in the country--almost 2,300. If that is not rank hypocrisy, I don't know what is. So I am going to start asking questions about this and, by the way, so should the press. I sure hope our friends in the press think that, hmm, there is something a little strange going on here. Clearly, there is hypocrisy happening. But, you know, that happens here occasionally--or maybe more than occasionally. But is there anything else going on? And I hope the press in New Mexico ask their senior Senator why he is so darn focused on hurting the good people of Alaska--because I wouldn't do that to New Mexican oil and gas workers or New Mexican Native communities. And finally, I am going to ask questions in another area. The Biden administration is clearly trying to shut down my State. It is there for everybody to see. Everybody back homeknows it. But here is the thing. They can't do it illegally, and they can't do it unethically. And right now there is strong evidence that they are doing just that. What do I mean? Today, I sent this letter that I would like to be printed in the Record to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9035-3 | null | 3,678 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will soon lose a fine public servant to retirement. The National Weather Service's director, Dr. Louis Uccellini, is retiring at the end of this year. The National Weather Service--NWS--produces the weather forecasts and products that we rely on a daily basis. These predictions are critical for protecting lives and property around the country, and Dr. Uccellini has played a big part of this work for the last several decades. Before I mention any specific accomplishments, let me share a couple of numbers: 43 years of public service, 70 published scientific articles and chapters in books, and more than 4,500 employees working out of some 168 units or offices. Dr. Uccellini--or Louis, as he urges people to call him--has been passionate about weather since he was a small child. A tremendous snowstorm caught his attention during his youth, and even now, he is still fascinated by winter weather, so much so that among the many offices, teams, and even organizations he founded is the Winter Weather desk at the Weather Prediction Center. Among his many scientific accomplishments, Dr. Uccellini co-wrote what has been deemed the most authoritative study on winter weather, appropriately called ``Northeast Snowstorms.'' There is no aspect of today's weather forecast that Dr. Uccellini didn't either pioneer, or improve, from models that focus on individual phenomena or areas, to the first ensemble models, to seasonal forecasting models and even space weather. Louis established unified workstations that let forecasters view and assimilate multiple data inputs, and he took an entire forecast division from analog to digital. His ability to look at and integrate multiple types of data inputs and computer systems is why we as a nation can look from a daily forecast to weekly to subseasonal to seasonal. He introduced and integrated ocean, wave, water, air quality, and space models with weather models and oversaw all nine of the NWS's National Centers for Environmental Prediction before being tapped to lead the entire National Weather Service. Yet Louis is much more than a scientist. His leadership of NWS and pioneering cultural and organizational changes led the Federal contracting trade publication FCW to name him in 2020 as one of America's top 100 Government Executives, and he was selected to serve as a National Academy of Public Administration Fellow. The ability to lead and manage an organization is difficult even when administration is one's primary profession. It is a large secondary hat for a scientist to wear, and Louis wore it with aplomb, taking the National Weather Service to new heights of organization, service, and professionalism. In 2013, Louis took the helm of the Weather Service. He improved the organization's financial management by creating a budget and organizational structure that mirrored the forecast process. All of NWS is now in alignment: the forecast process, budget portfolio and management structure, creating a stronger sense of mission, and delivering transparency both internally and externally. He truly righted the ship. He actually embraced external audits and advice from consultants and proactively circled back to review changes he was leading at NWS. One event comes to mind when I think of what will define Uccellini's most lasting legacy. In April 2011, a dramatic and devastating tornado outbreak that struck our southern States killed 316 people even though the NWS had been warning partners and the community for days in advance. The tragic number of lives lost, despite multiple warnings, led Louis to lead the Weather Service into a new model for communication called Impact-based Decision Support Services, IDSS. The launch of IDSS was a sea change in NWS operations in which the forecast is not an end product but a starting point for forecasters to help emergency managers advise communities. By deepening Weather Service partnerships with emergency managers, IDSS has increased forecast effectiveness and saved lives. Louis led the NWS toward its goal of creating a Weather-Ready Nation, increasing community and individual readiness and resilience. There are few public servants like Louis Uccellini. He has strengthened our Nation's research on and resilience to extreme weather events. On behalf of my constituents in New Hampshire, I thank Dr. Uccellini for his decades of excellent service to our Nation and wish him well in his retirement. He will be missed. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. SHAHEEN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9042-2 | null | 3,679 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will soon lose a fine public servant to retirement. The National Weather Service's director, Dr. Louis Uccellini, is retiring at the end of this year. The National Weather Service--NWS--produces the weather forecasts and products that we rely on a daily basis. These predictions are critical for protecting lives and property around the country, and Dr. Uccellini has played a big part of this work for the last several decades. Before I mention any specific accomplishments, let me share a couple of numbers: 43 years of public service, 70 published scientific articles and chapters in books, and more than 4,500 employees working out of some 168 units or offices. Dr. Uccellini--or Louis, as he urges people to call him--has been passionate about weather since he was a small child. A tremendous snowstorm caught his attention during his youth, and even now, he is still fascinated by winter weather, so much so that among the many offices, teams, and even organizations he founded is the Winter Weather desk at the Weather Prediction Center. Among his many scientific accomplishments, Dr. Uccellini co-wrote what has been deemed the most authoritative study on winter weather, appropriately called ``Northeast Snowstorms.'' There is no aspect of today's weather forecast that Dr. Uccellini didn't either pioneer, or improve, from models that focus on individual phenomena or areas, to the first ensemble models, to seasonal forecasting models and even space weather. Louis established unified workstations that let forecasters view and assimilate multiple data inputs, and he took an entire forecast division from analog to digital. His ability to look at and integrate multiple types of data inputs and computer systems is why we as a nation can look from a daily forecast to weekly to subseasonal to seasonal. He introduced and integrated ocean, wave, water, air quality, and space models with weather models and oversaw all nine of the NWS's National Centers for Environmental Prediction before being tapped to lead the entire National Weather Service. Yet Louis is much more than a scientist. His leadership of NWS and pioneering cultural and organizational changes led the Federal contracting trade publication FCW to name him in 2020 as one of America's top 100 Government Executives, and he was selected to serve as a National Academy of Public Administration Fellow. The ability to lead and manage an organization is difficult even when administration is one's primary profession. It is a large secondary hat for a scientist to wear, and Louis wore it with aplomb, taking the National Weather Service to new heights of organization, service, and professionalism. In 2013, Louis took the helm of the Weather Service. He improved the organization's financial management by creating a budget and organizational structure that mirrored the forecast process. All of NWS is now in alignment: the forecast process, budget portfolio and management structure, creating a stronger sense of mission, and delivering transparency both internally and externally. He truly righted the ship. He actually embraced external audits and advice from consultants and proactively circled back to review changes he was leading at NWS. One event comes to mind when I think of what will define Uccellini's most lasting legacy. In April 2011, a dramatic and devastating tornado outbreak that struck our southern States killed 316 people even though the NWS had been warning partners and the community for days in advance. The tragic number of lives lost, despite multiple warnings, led Louis to lead the Weather Service into a new model for communication called Impact-based Decision Support Services, IDSS. The launch of IDSS was a sea change in NWS operations in which the forecast is not an end product but a starting point for forecasters to help emergency managers advise communities. By deepening Weather Service partnerships with emergency managers, IDSS has increased forecast effectiveness and saved lives. Louis led the NWS toward its goal of creating a Weather-Ready Nation, increasing community and individual readiness and resilience. There are few public servants like Louis Uccellini. He has strengthened our Nation's research on and resilience to extreme weather events. On behalf of my constituents in New Hampshire, I thank Dr. Uccellini for his decades of excellent service to our Nation and wish him well in his retirement. He will be missed. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. SHAHEEN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9042-2 | null | 3,680 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I rise today to honor an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force. I am proud to enter this tribute into the Record as I have had the pleasure of traveling with Chris to London and Ukraine and saw firsthand his professionalism, leadership, and dedication to duty. Lt. Col. Christopher ``Chris'' Ryan has distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform. A leader and expert communicator, he has provided distinguished service to our country while assigned to the Air Force Senate Liaison Office. He is an outstanding leader and the perfect airman to represent the Air Force on Capitol Hill. Chris has served in the Air Force for over 20 years in both the enlisted and officer ranks. As an aircraft maintenance officer, Chris has led thousands of maintainers in support of the AC-130H, C-17A, KC-135R, and C-5M aircraft. Throughout his career, Chris has demonstrated his exceptional abilities; he was the 1997 Airman of the Year at Joint Base Andrews and recipient of the John Levitow Award in 2000. Chris was both distinguished graduate for the ROTC Detachment 330 at the University of Maryland-College Park and at the Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Operations School. Further, Chris was recognized as the 2019 Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison Reserve Officer of the Year. Prior to his current assignment, Chris had the privilege of being selected as an Air Force Legislative Fellow where he was detailed to the Congressional Research Service and then worked for my dear colleague, the senior Senator from Oklahoma and then-chairman of the Armed Services Committee in 2018. As a legislative liaison in the Air Force Senate Liaison Office from December 2018 to December 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Ryan performed his duties well and without reservation supporting the 115th, 116th, and 117th U.S. Congresses. His strategic thinking and foresight helped to strengthen and improve our national security. Chris accomplished this utilizing his in-depthAir Force knowledge with numerous engagements between Congress and the Department of the Air Force. Chris expertly conveyed Department of the Air Force positions on the Air Force Future Design that included the future bomber, tanker, and fighter force. Chris' direct support provided the U.S. Senate critical information necessary for three National Defense Authorization Acts. His efforts helped establish the U.S. Space Force, ensure the confirmation of the 25th and 26th Air Force Secretaries, the 22nd Air Force Chief of Staff, and ensured the Department of the Air Force support of the National Defense Strategy in our return to Great Power Competition. Lieutenant Colonel Ryan planned and led delegations for Members of Congress on visits all over the world to include the bicameral Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Reagan National Defense Forum. In fact, Chris escorted me to the United Kingdom and Ukraine in 2019. Chris' significant efforts led to successful engagements between this governing body and senior Department of Defense Officials, including the Secretary of the Air Force. All of these engagements helped U.S. Senators understand defense equities and their impact on national security. Due to his direct involvement and stewardship, Members of Congress were able to make informed decisions and ensure the Department of the Air Force was properly resourced and funded. After serving in this vital role for the past 3 years and becoming a fixture on Capitol Hill, Lieutenant Colonel Ryan will move to his next assignment, as deputy group commander, 514th Maintenance Group, located at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Chris, his wife Rachel--the chief of staff for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance at the Department of State--and their children Joshua, Kathrine, and Emma have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Chris' service and his work with my office and the Senate over the past 3 years on issues important to this great Nation. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9042-3 | null | 3,681 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PAUL. Madam President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize anoutstanding Kentucky small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit. This week, it is my privilege to recognize a family-owned small business, Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q of Bowling Green, KY, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Kaye and Phil Huffer purchased Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q in 1999. Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q's founder, Ned ``Smokey'' Nickerson, began serving up his signature Monroe County-style barbecue in 1969 when he established the restaurant. To prepare this southern Kentucky staple, the meat is prepared with no spices before being smoked over hickory wood. The hickory-smoked meat has a distinct flavor and is served with a vinegar-based sauce. Before his family bought the business, Phil regularly made the 100-mile round trip from Bowling Green to his hometown to purchase Monroe County-style barbecue. Noticing the absence of this particular style of barbecue in Warren County, Kaye and Phil decided to run a barbecue restaurant. They bought Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q, welcoming their first customers in March 1999. More than 20 years later, Kaye and Phil continue to serve up some of the best barbecue in Bowling Green. Folks drive from all over the Commonwealth to enjoy their delicious cuisine and family-friendly hospitality. Kaye and Phil's care and attention to detail are evident in every aspect of Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q's restaurant and catering business. Even the charcoal is made on site, using hickory wood from local sawmills. Their son Scott has also joined his parents in dedicating himself to the restaurant's continued success. Together, Kaye and Phil seek to give back to their community in any way possible. Through Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q, Kaye and Phil regularly support community organizations, including Norton Children's Hospital in Louisville, KY. When their son, Matthew, was born preterm, they turned to the Children's Hospital for support. Now, Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q is a longtime supporter of the hospital, supporting their mission to continue helping children overcome health challenges. Over the years, Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q's unique cuisine has been profiled by local and national media. It is currently rated as TripAdvisor's No. 1 Quick Bites in Bowling Green, and Grubwire named it the best restaurant in Bowling Green in 2019. Additionally, the Kentucky Pork Producers Association honored Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q as the 2018 Pork Restaurant of the Year. For more than a decade, locals have voted Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q as ``Best of Bowling Green'' in BG Daily News's annual readers' choice awards. The restaurant was also featured in the Food Network's ``Feasting on Asphalt'' series hosted by Alton Brown. Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q is a remarkable example of how hard work and ingenuity can turn a dream into reality. Small businesses like Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q form the heart of towns across Kentucky and regularly step up to support their communities. Congratulations to Phil, Kaye, and the entire Smokey Pig Bar-B-Q team. I wish them the best of luck and look forward to watching their continued growth and success in Kentucky. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9043-4 | null | 3,682 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-2773. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2774. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner of the Food and Drugs Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2775. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``The Thirteenth Review of the Backlog of Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2776. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Strategies to Improve Patient Safety''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2777. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Fiscal Year 2018 Report to Congress on Community Services Block Grant Discretionary Activities - Community Economic Development and Rural Community Development Programs''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2778. A communication from the Director, Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2779. A communication from the Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report and the Management Response for the period of April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2780. A communication from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021 and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2781. A communication from the Director, Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to transactions from the Unanticipated Needs Account for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2782. A communication from the Acting Chief Financial Officer and Associate Administrator for Performance Management, Small Business Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's fiscal year 2021 Agency Financial Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2783. A communication from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2784. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2785. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2786. A communication from the Chairman, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Amtrak, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2787. A communication from the Chair of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the six- month period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2788. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to two (2) vacancies in the Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-2789. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2020'' (RIN0651-AD31) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2790. A communication from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to notifying Congress that the Commission did not complete or initiate competitive sourcing for conversion in fiscal year 2020, nor do they plan to do so in fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Rules and Administration. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-08-pt1-PgS9044-3 | null | 3,683 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | A message from the Senate by Ms. Byrd, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate has passed bills of the following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 693. An Act to amend title 5, United States Code, to provide for the halt in pension payments for Members of Congress sentenced for certain offenses, and for othe purposes. S. 2293. An Act to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to provide certain employment rights to reservists of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes. S. 2796. An Act to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for the eligibility of rural community response pilot programs for funding under the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate has agreed to a joint resolution of the following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S.J. Res. 29. Joint Resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``COVID-19 Vacinnation and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-09-pt1-PgH7617 | null | 3,684 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Lucy H. Koh to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Koh is a highly respected member of the Federal judiciary and has served California well throughout her career. She would be a welcome addition to the Ninth Circuit bench. I have long supported Judge Koh and am pleased that the Senate will soon be considering her nomination. I recommended Judge Koh for a seat on the Ninth Circuit back in 2016 and was pleased that President Obama nominated her at that time. And I was disappointed that she did not receive a vote on the Senate floor, even though she received strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, which favorably reported her nomination. I am pleased that Judge Koh was among the first circuit court nominees announced by President Biden earlier this year. Her credentials are undeniably impressive. She received her undergraduate degree from Harvard College in 1990, and her law degree from Harvard Law School in 1993. Judge Koh spent several years early in her career in public service, first as a legal fellow on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration Subcommittee and then with the Department of Justice. Among her achievements while at the Justice Department, Judge Koh received an award from the FBI for ``Demonstrated Excellence in Prosecuting a Major Fraud Case.'' She then brought her skills to the private sector, spending nearly a decade in private practice in Palo Alto, CA, where she became a distinguished intellectual property lawyer working on patent, trade secret, and commercial civil litigation. In 2008, she was appointed by California's then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, to serve as a judge on the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County. In 2010, President Obama nominated her to serve as a Federal district judge on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Senate voted unanimously, 90 to 0, to confirm her to that position. She has served with distinction as a Federal district judge for more than a decade. Judge Koh has excelled throughout her career as a Federal prosecutor, in private practice, and as both a state and Federal judge. I have no doubt that she will continue to excel if she is confirmed to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Koh has received bipartisan support each time her nomination has come before the Senate, including a bipartisan vote earlier this year in the Judiciary Committee. I urge all of my colleagues to support her nomination. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FEINSTEIN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-09-pt1-PgS9080 | null | 3,685 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, On December 2, 2021, the Senate confirmed C.B. Sullenberger III to be Representative of the United States to the International Civil Aviation Union--ICAO--with the rank of Ambassador. After receiving responses to a series of written questions to the nominee, I remain concerned about this nominee's approach to the Ambassador position. In response to questions on balancing regulation with the need for an open environment for innovation, Mr. Sullenberger emphasized a position that favored more regulation at the expense of innovation, as well as deference to standards established internationally rather than those generated in the U.S. I do not disagree with the need for essential safety standards to protect the flying public; however, I believe Mr. Sullenberger's views cross a threshold in which the automatic preference for government regulation, particularly international government regulation, risks stunting the growth of aviation startups in emerging technology, entrench the largest players, and result in the exclusion of State and local jurisdictions from conversations in emerging areas of unmanned flight below the airspace of manned aviation. Finally, based on Mr. Sullenberger's responses, I am not convinced that he would properly advocate that the United States lead at ICAO in setting standards that would swiftly bring civil supersonic air travel to fruition. For these reasons, I did not offer my consent to confirm Mr. Sullenberger unanimously and instead requested a voice vote. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2021-12-09-pt1-PgS9088 | null | 3,686 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor the upcoming retirement on January 1, 2022, of a true public servant and leader, Dr. Louis Uccellini, Director of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Louis is the epitome of a dedicated civil servant, having spent the past 43 years of his career at both NOAA and NASA contributing to and leading the maturation and advancement of our Nation's weather prediction capabilities. Put simply, there is no aspect of today's weather forecast that Dr. Uccellini hasn't advanced during his storied career. But Louis' contributions span far beyond science. Perhaps most notably, and certainly most visible to the public, are the organizational changes Louis has made to National Weather Service since becoming Director in 2013. The establishment and development of the Weather-Ready Nation program, a paradigm shift that refocused the entire NWS staff and mission, now enables forecasters to use weather information to deliver Impact-based Decision Support Services to emergency managers, which is empowering local officials to help citizens be ready, responsive and resilient to weather events. This is the real purpose of the weather forecast and is allowing the National Weather Service to better perform its mission of saving lives and protecting property. Louis' mark on the National Weather Service will undoubtedly be felt for many years to come. On behalf of my constituents in Kansas and a grateful nation, I personally thank Dr. Louis Uccellini for his service to our Nation; wish him and his wife, Susan, well in retirement; and as Louis would say, ``I'll leave it at that.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MORAN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-09-pt1-PgS9091-2 | null | 3,687 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | At 3:12 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. 897. An act to take certain lands in California into trust for the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes. H.R. 1193. An act to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to direct the Director of the National Institutes of Health, in consultation with the Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, to establish a program under which the Director of the National Institutes of Health shall support or conduct research on valvular heart disease, and for other purposes. H.R. 1667. An act to address behavioral health and well- being among health care professionals. H.R. 2074. An act to assist Tribal governments in the management of buffalo and buffalo habitat and the reestablishment of buffalo on Indian land. H.R. 2355. An act to facilitate responsible, informed dispensing of controlled substances and other prescribed medications, and for other purposes. H.R. 2364. An act to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to provide for a public education campaign to raise public awareness of synthetic opioids. H.R. 3531. An act to authorize the Women Who Worked on the Home Front Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes. H.R. 3537. An act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support research on, and expanded access to, investigational drugs for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and for other purposes. H.R. 3743. An act to increase funding for the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration and for the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. H.R. 3894. An act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue and disseminate guidance to States to clarify strategies to address social determinants of health under the Medicaid program and the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. H.R. 4489. An act to amend the Act of June 20, 1958, to require that certain amounts collected by the United States with respect to lands under the administration of the Forest Service be invested into interest bearing obligations, and for other purposes. H.R. 4555. An act to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a public education campaign across all relevant programs of the Health Resources and Services Administration to increase oral health literacy and awareness. H.R. 4616. An act to deem certain references to LIBOR as referring to a replacement benchmark rate upon the occurrence of certain events affecting LIBOR, and for other purposes. H.R. 4706. An act to establish the Blackwell School National Historic Site in Marfa, Texas, and for other purposes. H.R. 4996. An act to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to prohibited acts by ocean common carriers or marine terminal operators, and for other purposes. H.R. 5119. An act to amend title VI of the Social Security Act to extend the coverage of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments to Tribal Governments. H.R. 5290. An act to extend authorization for livestock mandatory reporting. H.R. 5487. An act to improve research and data collection on stillbirths, and for other purposes. H.R. 5545. An act to extend certain expiring provisions of law relating to benefits provided under Department of Veterans Affairs educational assistance programs during COVID-19 pandemic, and for other purposes. H.R. 5551. An act to amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, and for other purposes. H.R. 5561. An act to reauthorize a program for early detection, diagnosis, and treatment regarding deaf and hard- of-hearing newborns, infants, and young children, and for other purposes. H.R. 5608. An act to support research and state management efforts on chronic wasting disease. H.R. 5609. An act to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, to establish a cattle contract library, and for other purposes. H.R. 5677. An act to make technical amendments to update statutory references to certain provisions classified to title 2, United States Code, title 50, United States Code, and title 52, United States Code. H.R. 5679. An act to make technical amendments to update statutory references to certain provisions classified to title 7, title 20, and title 43, United States Code. H.R. 5695. An act to make technical amendments to update statutory references to certain provisions which were formerly classified to chapters 14 and 19 of title 25, United States Code. H.R. 5705. An act to make technical amendments to update statutory references to provisions reclassified to title 34, United States Code. H.R. 5746. An act to amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into leases of non-excess property of the Administration. H.R. 5961. An act to make revisions in title 5, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code. H.R. 5982. An act to make revisions in title 51, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, without amendment: S. Con. Res. 22. Concurrent resolution providing for the use of the catafalque situated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center in connection with memorial services to be conducted in the rotunda of the Capitol for the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas. S. Con. Res. 23. Concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state of the remains of the Honorable Robert Joseph Dole, a Senator from the State of Kansas. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-09-pt1-PgS9092-3 | null | 3,688 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous consent, and placed on the calendar: H.R. 3743. An act to increase funding for the Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Administration and for the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-09-pt1-PgS9093-2 | null | 3,689 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-2928. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the ``Annual Report to the Congress on the Presidential $1 Coin Program'', November 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5112(p)(3)(B); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 109-145, Sec. 104); (119 Stat. 2670); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2929. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's Major final rule -- Facilitating the LIBOR Transition (Regulation Z) [Docket No.: CFPB-2020-0014] (RIN: 3170-AB01) received December 8, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2930. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Report to Congress on Community Services Block Grant Fiscal Year 2016; to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-2931. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2932. A letter from the Assistant to the President, Director, White House Management, Executive Office of the President -- Office of Administration, transmitting the accounting of transactions from the Unanticipated Needs Account for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 108(b); Public Law 95-570, Sec. 2(a); (92 Stat. 2449); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2933. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's Semiannual Report to Congress by the Office of Inspector General for the Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pursuant to the the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2934. A letter from the Federal Co-Chair, Denali Commission, transmitting the Commission's September 2021 Semi-Annual Inspector General report, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2935. A letter from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting five (5) notifications of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2936. A letter from the Acting Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049) and 31 U.S.C. 3516 note; Public Law 112-217, Sec. 2(c); (126 Stat. 1591); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2937. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting the Commission's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2938. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Record Administration, transmitting the Administration's Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2939. A letter from the Treasurer, National Gallery of Art, transmitting the Gallery's Performance and Accountability Report for the year ended September 30, 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2940. A letter from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, transmitting the Commission's Fiscal Year 2021 Performance and Accountability Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2941. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and the Management Response for the period of April 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021, pursuant to Sec. 5, Public Law 95-452; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2942. A letter from the Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's Agency Financial Report of FY 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107- 289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2943. A letter from the Chair, United States International Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's Agency Financial Report for FY 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2944. A letter from the Chair, United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, transmitting the Board's Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2945. A letter from the Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, transmitting a letter advising the Congress that the U.S. Copyright Office has determined to extend the adjustments to certain timing provisions of the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 710(c); Added by Public Law 116-136, Sec. 19011(a); (134 Stat. 581); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2946. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the ``Report to Congress: Summary of Review and Recommendations for the Medicare and Medicaid Programs to Prevent Opioid Addictions and Enhance Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment'', pursuant to Public Law 115-271, Sec. 6032(e); (132 Stat. 3979); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-2947. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a report entitled, ``Risk Adjustment in Medicare Advantage 2021'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-23 note; Public Law 114-255, Sec. 17006(f)(2)(A)(ii); (130 Stat. 1338); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgH7641-11 | null | 3,690 |
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-2928. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the ``Annual Report to the Congress on the Presidential $1 Coin Program'', November 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5112(p)(3)(B); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 109-145, Sec. 104); (119 Stat. 2670); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2929. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's Major final rule -- Facilitating the LIBOR Transition (Regulation Z) [Docket No.: CFPB-2020-0014] (RIN: 3170-AB01) received December 8, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2930. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Report to Congress on Community Services Block Grant Fiscal Year 2016; to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-2931. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2932. A letter from the Assistant to the President, Director, White House Management, Executive Office of the President -- Office of Administration, transmitting the accounting of transactions from the Unanticipated Needs Account for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 108(b); Public Law 95-570, Sec. 2(a); (92 Stat. 2449); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2933. A letter from the Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the Board's Semiannual Report to Congress by the Office of Inspector General for the Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pursuant to the the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2934. A letter from the Federal Co-Chair, Denali Commission, transmitting the Commission's September 2021 Semi-Annual Inspector General report, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2935. A letter from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting five (5) notifications of a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2936. A letter from the Acting Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049) and 31 U.S.C. 3516 note; Public Law 112-217, Sec. 2(c); (126 Stat. 1591); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2937. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting the Commission's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2938. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Record Administration, transmitting the Administration's Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2939. A letter from the Treasurer, National Gallery of Art, transmitting the Gallery's Performance and Accountability Report for the year ended September 30, 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2940. A letter from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, transmitting the Commission's Fiscal Year 2021 Performance and Accountability Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2941. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting the Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and the Management Response for the period of April 1, 2021, to September 30, 2021, pursuant to Sec. 5, Public Law 95-452; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2942. A letter from the Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's Agency Financial Report of FY 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107- 289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2943. A letter from the Chair, United States International Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's Agency Financial Report for FY 2021, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2944. A letter from the Chair, United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, transmitting the Board's Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Financial Report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3515(a)(1); Public Law 101-576, Sec. 303(a)(1) (as amended by Public Law 107-289, Sec. 2(a)); (116 Stat. 2049); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2945. A letter from the Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, transmitting a letter advising the Congress that the U.S. Copyright Office has determined to extend the adjustments to certain timing provisions of the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 710(c); Added by Public Law 116-136, Sec. 19011(a); (134 Stat. 581); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2946. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the ``Report to Congress: Summary of Review and Recommendations for the Medicare and Medicaid Programs to Prevent Opioid Addictions and Enhance Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment'', pursuant to Public Law 115-271, Sec. 6032(e); (132 Stat. 3979); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. EC-2947. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a report entitled, ``Risk Adjustment in Medicare Advantage 2021'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-23 note; Public Law 114-255, Sec. 17006(f)(2)(A)(ii); (130 Stat. 1338); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgH7641-11 | null | 3,691 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: PT-83. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the City and County of San Francisco, relative to Resolution No. 466-21, urging President Joseph R. Biden, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to sustain public assistance funding to the City and County of San Francisco through 2022 for the purpose of advancing and maintaining the Shelter-In- Place Hotel alternative housing program to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 among vulnerable homeless populations; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services. PT-84. Also, a petition of the City of Sheffield, Alabama, relative to a resolution requesting and strongly urging Governor Kay Ivey and the Alabama Legislature to amend the ``Good Time Law'' to require that no person who has been convicted of violent crimes be considered for early release from prison without due process and authorization by the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. PT-85. Also, a petition of the City of Miami, FL, relative to Resolution R-21-0394, urging President Joseph R. Biden and his administration to halt deportation flights to Haiti and to offer a fair and humane immigration process by supplying food, tents, and appropriate sanitation facilities to preserve the human dignity and health of Haitian immigrants awaiting processing and that they be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard to determine if they are entitled to the protections of the United States; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. PT-86. Also, a petition of the City of Lauderdale Lakes Commission, relative to Resolution 2021-106, condemning and opposing all illegal and inhumane treatment of persons from the country of Haiti engaging in otherwise lawful conduct to seek asylum in the United States; further entreating the President of the United States and the United States Government Agencies to cease and desist from all inhumane, illegal mass expulsions of Haitian citizens without opportunity for such individuals to exercise lawful rights to seek asylum and other humanitarian protections; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgH7644 | null | 3,692 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Judicial Nominations Madam President, on another matter, this week the Senate has a lot to get done as we approach the end of the year. Over the course of the week, we expect to hold a number of votes to confirm more of President Biden's nominees to serve lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. On that front, we will later vote this afternoon on the confirmation of Judge Lucy Koh to serve as a circuit judge for the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Her nomination was favorably reported out of the committee with bipartisan support. If confirmed, Judge Koh would be the first-ever Korean-American woman to sit on any circuit court in the country. The daughter of immigrants, her background is an inspiring testament to the American dream. Lucy's mom escaped as a child on foot from the oppression of North Korea, eventually coming to the States. Lucy spent the majority of her own upbringing in rural Mississippi, graduating from both Harvard and Harvard Law School. For the last 11 years, Lucy Koh has served admirably as a district judge for the District of Northern California. She has authored over 3,000 opinions and presided in 270 cases--everything from the rights of criminal defendants in seeking legal representation to the protection of online consumer data in the hands of companies, to ensuring that the Trump administration did not prematurely end its completion of the 2020 census. She did all those things. She wrote on all those things and offered opinions. All the while, she has conducted herself with impartiality, excellence, and above all, with fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. I have no doubt she will continue building on her excellent judicial record as an appellate judge on the Ninth Circuit, and I look forward to voting in favor of her confirmation later today. Later this week, we will hold votes on other nominees as well, including Samantha Elliott to serve as a judge for the District of New Hampshire and Jennifer Sung to serve as a circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. Once we confirm all three judges--Koh, Elliott, and Sung--the Senate will have confirmed a total of 31 judges to the Federal bench, 11 to the circuit courts, and 20 to the district courts. I am proud to say over half of them are women. Over half of them are people of color. All of them are outstanding, highly qualified, and they bring sorely needed diversity to the bench--not just personal diversity but professional diversity as well. In decades past, it would have been hard imagining many of these nominees getting a serious look in this Chamber, but one by one, Senate Democrats are working with President Biden to expand the possibilities of who can and who should serve as a judge in this country, and we will keep working. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9102-3 | null | 3,693 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | China Madam President, I come today to the floor to address another tragedy--a tragedy unfolding in China, where the Olympic Games are scheduled to begin on February 4. I come to the floor to applaud President Biden for speaking out and announcing a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 February Beijing Olympic Games. This is absolutely the right thing to do, and as Beijing's response has shown, it sends a clear signal to the world that the world will not silently stand by as human rights are so dramatically abused. For 2 weeks in February, the world will join together in the bask of the spectacle of the Winter Games. We will experience the highs and lows, as athletes from around the globe experience themselves the thrills of victory and the agony of defeat. Athletes heading to the Games dream of thrilling the world and winning medals, but they also dream of contributing to the Olympic spirit, a spirit often spoken of in terms of working to build a better world through sports, which is why it is so offensive that these Games are set to take place in the shadow of some of the world's most egregious assaults on human rights and human dignity. It is mind-boggling to me that the International Olympic Committee chose just this past March to characterize their strategic roadmap of the 5 years using such lofty goals as the Games will ``contribute to more inclusive society and to peace,'' and yet allowing the Games to go on in a nation where genocide is taking place at this very moment. It is mind-boggling because it is not some small abuse that is taking place but one of the worst the world has ever seen. The Chinese Government has been committing, and is continuing to commit, genocide against a religious minority, and they are stripping away the political rights of Hong Kong's citizens, and they are suppressing the free-rights speeches of Chinese activists and advocates and journalists and bullying China's critics at home and abroad. We cannot allow China to use the shine of the Olympic medals to blind the world to these facts. We have seen this before, and philosophers say that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. So let's return to 1936, the Olympic Stadium, the Olympic flag flying proudly not just in the stadium but throughout the city of Berlin for the summer Games right next to Nazi swastikas. It still shocks me to think of the world watching and cheering on as the Olympic torch was lit in a stadium filled with men and women giving the Nazi salute as Adolf Hitler watched on. The Nazi regime had already started carrying out their racist, genocidal policies. They had already persecuted Jewish, German, and LGBTQ men and women, and labor activists and other minorities. They had already rounded up and jailed political opponents other nondesirables, including some 800 Roma in and around Berlin, who, just weeks before the start of the Games, were locked away in a camp outside the city. But the world chose to look away from that unfolding horror. For 2 weeks during the Games, the Nazis took down their anti-Semitic signs, the propaganda ministry made newspapers ease up on hateful rhetoric, and the world praised the German government, legitimizing their regime with such fawning declarations as when the New York Times observed that the Games put Germany back in the fold of nations. The world allowed itself to be beguiled by the Nazi facade. Behind that facade stood a violent, racist regime. Behind that facade was a government that controlled what the people living within its power could do and what they could say. Behind that facade was a regime that had no belief in anyone's basic human rights and that within 3 years was seeking to conquer the world while simultaneously murdering 6 million Jewish individuals and millions of other non-Jewish men, women, and children. What if, instead of being taken in by the spectacle of the Games, and what if, instead of allowing the Nazis to use those Games for propaganda, the leaders of the world had stood up and pushed back? How much death and destruction might have been prevented? We will never know. But what we do know is that we have the opportunity right now to learn from that past mistake and to do better. Elie Wiesel once said: ``There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.'' We cannot fail to protest the Chinese Government's actions that stain the mission and purpose of the Olympics Games, because there is absolutely no question about the kinds of crimes and atrocities that are being committed by the Chinese Government at this very moment--atrocities like the enslavement and genocide against the Uighur Muslim minority being carried out in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. That genocide has been documented, it has been recognized, and it has been publicly announced by two different Presidential administrations. That genocide completely reflects the United Nations' official definition of ``a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part.'' At the direction of President Xi of China, at least a million Uighurs are being detained and enslaved in camps in Xinjiang. They are forced to toil and work for the Chinese Government, producing cotton and other goods while undergoing reeducation programs where they are forced to renounce their faith and pledge loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. This is a process described in one official Chinese document as ``washing brains, cleansing hearts, strengthening righteousness and eliminating evil.'' It certainly is one of the most dramatic forms of evil taking place at this moment. That is what the Chinese Government is doing to the Uighur people. The crimes against these individuals include torture, sleep deprivation, sexual abuse, rape, forced sterilizations, and abortions. One woman who fled the country after being released from a camp, who resides here now in the United States, recounted stories to reporters and human rights investigators of women being taken from their cells every night, brought to another room to be tortured and raped by one or more masked men. She, and another woman who was forced to help facilitate these assaults, have spoken about police officers paying good money to have their pick of the imprisoned women and girls. Those who are returned to their cells are threatened with even more pain and more torture if they say anything. And these crimes and this repression aren't contained just to the camps. Millions in Xinjiang are subjected to Orwellian surveillance and discrimination, restricted from traveling or going to school, from freely speaking or freely worshipping. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government is systematically ripping children from their parents' arms, forcing them to live in state-run facilities where they are being indoctrinated to renounce their faith, ethnicity, and culture; to view their parents as China's enemies; and to praise the Communist Party. All of that has been going on for years, at least since 2017, and all of it will still be going on as the International Olympic Committee and athletes from around the world gather in Beijing on February 4 for the opening ceremonies. And if the world is silent, if there are no protests or consequences, all that will serve simply to embolden the Chinese Government and their genocidal efforts. Beijing's egregious actions don't stop with crimes against the Uighur people. We see those crimes in Hong Kong, where the Chinese Government is stripping the rights of Hongkongers, one day after another. Back in 1998, China promised to adhere to the ``one country, two systems'' model. They signed a contract withGreat Britain to do so. They guaranteed freedom and rights to the citizens of Hong Kong. But we have watched in 2019 and 2020 as the Chinese Government has systematically dismantled the political rights of those in Hong Kong, working to silence any form of dissent, to silence any voice of opinion that might disagree with that of the Chinese Government. Demonstrators are beaten with batons and tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed and shot for asserting basic human rights--rights they were guaranteed when Hong Kong was reclaimed by China. It fills me with dismay and rage at what the citizens of Hong Kong have lost under this oppression. This time last year, the Hong Kong people were still protesting and fighting for their freedom. Hundreds of thousands gathered, watching as messages of support for their cause came in from around the world and played out on giant screens. There was a feeling of hope. But that hope lies shattered in the streets of Hong Kong today. Today, China has used the heavy hand of the national security law to ensure that only patriots loyal to Beijing can hold positions of power. They have crushed the hope. They have destroyed the freedom. They have destroyed the political rights of the 7.5 million citizens of Hong Kong. Rarely in the history of the world have so many people been together celebrating their elections, celebrating their free speeches, and seen it crushed in such short order. It is in this context that China is hosting the February Winter Olympic Games of 2022. And we, the free world, standing up for the rights of every individual to exercise the fundamental freedoms and the equal and inalienable right of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights that we are all born with, must speak out against these actions. None of what China is doing is a major surprise because it has unfolded in such a systematic way now for so many years. China engaged in a campaign of controlling its citizens and silencing dissent, including silencing dissent within its borders. Human rights organizations have long and well documented the abuses. This picture is of Chang Weiping, a Chinese lawyer who the government says was detained for allegedly inciting subversion of state power because he participated in a protest. After he was released on bail, Chang released a video statement describing the physical and psychological torture that he experienced while being detained. So authorities arrested him again and charged him with subverting state power. He is now one of those heroes who have stood up for the freedom of all the people of Hong Kong, and he is being held by the Chinese Government for standing up and speaking out for what is right. It is not only lawyers and advocates who are detained when they speak out against the Government in China; it is also a three-time Chinese Olympic tennis star who disappeared from the public eye after accusing a party official of sexual assault. ``Where is Tennis Star Peng Shuai?'' The International Olympic Committee says that she is safe and well after two video calls with the Olympian. Critics say these calls and emails supposedly from her and videos of her dining in a restaurant are ``obviously staged'' by the Chinese Government to counter criticism. Where is she really? Is she OK? Nobody but the Chinese Government can say for sure. The International Olympic Committee, as an organization whose mission, according to its own president, Thomas Bach, ``to put sport at the service of humanity goes hand-in-hand with human rights''--those are the very words of the president of the IOC. An organization that puts sport at the service of humanity and goes hand in hand with human rights should be, like the Women's Tennis Association, refusing to hold events in China until human rights are honored. I give great, great compliments to the WTA for standing up for this abuse of one of their own and more broadly the abuse we see throughout China. I am thrilled with the administration's announcement of a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics. I am thrilled that Great Britain and Canada and Australia and Lithuania have joined in this effort. But I say to you right now: Where is the rest of the world? Where is France? Where is Germany? Where is Spain? Where are all the governments of the world that believe in the rights of free speech and free assembly? The chorus must be broader. The free world must join together and stand up for the vision of what it means to be in the free world and how horrific abuses would involve genocide or the obliteration of democratic rights. The International Olympic Committee says: Well, the Games are all about athletes, so we don't get involved in politics. It is all about the athletes. Well, I tell you today that staging the Games in the shadow of genocide and the stripping of political rights from those in Hong Kong is putting the athletes in the position of helping build the facade that disguises those assaults on human dignity and human rights. That is a horrific thing to do to the athletes of the world. It is an unacceptable thing to do to the athletes of the world. You cannot force the athletes of the world to be complicit in covering up these crimes. It is wrong, and the Olympic Committee needs to stand up and call out these crimes and know that they are not in keeping with the Olympic spirit. They are not in keeping with human rights, although the president of the IOC has said that is their mission. It is quite clear the Olympic Committee could have done far more to avert this situation because when the Games were awarded, they received promises on human rights--promises that were not honored. They could have moved the Games years ago. They could have clarified that would happen, but they did nothing. They did nothing except help cover up the genocide in China by leaving the Games as they are and failing to note or criticize or observe the horror that has been unfolding. Business as usual is unacceptable in the face of genocide. Business as usual is immoral in the face of genocide. Business as usual in any dimension in a country committing crimes against humanity is just wrong. I say to the IOC today: Stand up. Call out this crime and say never again will you ever stage Olympic Games in a country committing gross violations of human rights. That statement would be in keeping with the Olympic spirit. It would be in keeping with the Olympic spirit to say that they will defend the freedom of every single athlete at the Olympic Games to stand up and speak their mind in defense of the oppressed people of Tibet, in defense of the enslaved people of Xinjiang Province, in defense of the citizens of Hong Kong who have lost their political rights. Lay out clearly before the world that the Olympic Games will not be a place where freedom of speech is crushed as it is being crushed across China. Colleagues, I think this viewpoint I am expressing today of the world standing up to the horrors of Chinese atrocities is shared by every Member of this Chamber and every Member of the House of Representatives down the hall. Not a one of us would rise to defend these horrific acts, which is why every one of us should stand together today to condemn Chinese genocide and Chinese destruction of political liberties and make sure that these Games are not ones where the world leaders are silenced; that these Games are not ones where the sponsors look the other way; that these Games are not ones where the athletes are not free to express how tragic they consider it to be that these terrible things are happening and need to end. Let us not repeat the mistakes of 1936 and look the other way. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9103-2 | null | 3,694 |
formal | Google | null | racist | EAGLES Act Madam President, today, I come to the floor to once again talk about the tragic shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, now a long time back--February 14, 2018--and the Justice Department's response to it. Part of my oversight work is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Before I get to that, I want to express, as we all have done, I am sure, manytimes, our condolences to those victims and families of the school shooting in Michigan last month. The shooting was an act of evil, and we ought to pray for the affected victims. Recently, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the families involved in the Parkland shooting for a reported $130 million. The school shooting was another evil act. It took the lives of 17 innocent students and teachers. Based on reports, the Justice Department settled because the FBI failed to properly investigate tips warning Federal law enforcement personnel about the coming attack that happened on February 14. This was a concern of mine from the beginning. Even though the Justice Department has settled the matter, the Department hasn't been fully transparent with the Congress on this issue, and they ought to be because this taxpayers' money--however it is used, the public ought to know it. The public's business ought to be public. I am going to highlight some of the oversight steps that I have taken and how the FBI still hasn't done what they said they need to do. Two days after the shooting, while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wrote to the FBI asking about its failure to act on tips that they had received about the dangers that this shooter might cause against the public at large. I also wrote to Google about the threats made in a YouTube comment that the shooter apparently made. After that, I brought the FBI in to brief the full Judiciary Committee on February 23, 2018. That was just 9 days after the accident happened--the shooting happened. It was not an accident; it was intended. I am sorry I used the word ``accident.'' I did the same thing with Google and Facebook staff to discuss their cooperation with law enforcement. On March 14, 2018, I led a full committee oversight hearing to hold the Justice Department and the FBI accountable for their failures. In the FBI briefing and at the committee's March 14, 2018, hearing, then-FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said that the FBI had begun a review of the internal process failures. Those failures related to the intake procedure for call-in tips and what transpired in the Parkland case in regard to those call-in tipoffs. For months after the hearing, my staff asked for updates regarding the FBI's investigation report. In May 2018, they were told--my staff was told it would be final by approximately mid-June 2018. On August 27, 2018, I wrote to FBI Director Wray noting that up to this point, ``Committee staff have requested a copy of the report seven times from the FBI.'' Here we are now, 3 years later, 2021, and the FBI still hasn't produced the report to Congress. Time and again, the Justice Department and the FBI have failed to live up to the standards of transparency required of them. The Parkland shooting and the Department's response to it is another example from a growing list of shortcomings. Simply put, there is no basis for the Department and the FBI to withhold the Parkland report from Congress, and by withholding it from Congress, they are withholding it from the American people. That is especially true for those families who suffered the tragic loss. Transparency brings accountability, and the more the Department fights that principle, the brighter light will be shined on them. Going forward, while we can't take back the terrible events of that day, we can and we must take steps to make sure such horrific acts don't ever happen again. That is why earlier this year, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, I introduced a bill that I call the EAGLES Act. It is the EAGLES Act because that is the mascot of the Parkland High School. The EAGLES Act will help fund and reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center. That is where the U.S. Secret Service studies targeted violence and proactively identifies and manages threats before they result in more tragedies. It would also establish a Safe School Initiative to look at school violence prevention and expand research on school violence. The EAGLES Act is a commonsense bill supported by over 40 State attorneys general and representatives from both sides. In other words, for decades, the Secret Service has been instructing people how to recognize people who may be a threat to the public at large or a threat to themselves so that there can be intervention. So if we do the same thing for people in education--the school teachers, the administrators, other support staff--they could have the same training that the Secret Service gives to other people but not to school people. Then maybe we can have interventions on future school shootings so that they don't happen again. I ask and encourage all of my Senate colleagues to help pass this bill. Then, on a shorter version of another subject, I would like to say to my colleagues, last week, all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Attorney General Garland a letter. We said he should withdraw his memo from October 4 that made parents feel like domestic terrorists for going to local school board meetings to express their views on anything that they have a constitutional right to have their express views on, and there is no limit in the Constitution. Also, the members of this Senate Republican minority agreed that true criminal acts should be prosecuted. Now, unfortunately, the Attorney General is going in the wrong direction. A whistleblower revealed that FBI's Counterterrorism Division is involved in the Department of Justice's effort of intimidation and is keeping track of what goes on at local school board levels, whether it is criminal or not. This flies in the face of what Attorney General Garland testified to the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General has insisted to the committee that his instructions to law enforcement have nothing to do with stopping parents from criticizing school boards and that he doesn't think parents are domestic terrorists, but his own FBI doesn't see it that way. Last week, one of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee defended the Attorney General and his memo. That member talked about school board members getting angry emails and being threatened. If the facts discussed by my colleague rise to being crimes, they should--they sound like the sort of things local law enforcement can handle just fine on their own. There is no need for FBI involvement or National Security Division involvement, which ought to be involved with strictly terrorism. But we should all agree that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division should have nothing to do with it. If you are a parent who is upset with how your child's school is being run, you should be able to say so to the very school board making decisions on how that school should be run. But will the FBI's Counterterrorism Division keep a record of what you say at the school board meetings? If so, that ought to concern all of us. I have gotten many letters from constituents worried about this sort of thing. Mr. Attorney General, parents are not terrorists, not domestic terrorists. You said so yourself; now prove that you mean it. So the simple way to prove it is, call off the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. Withdraw your October 4 memo. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9104 | null | 3,695 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | EAGLES Act Madam President, today, I come to the floor to once again talk about the tragic shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, now a long time back--February 14, 2018--and the Justice Department's response to it. Part of my oversight work is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Before I get to that, I want to express, as we all have done, I am sure, manytimes, our condolences to those victims and families of the school shooting in Michigan last month. The shooting was an act of evil, and we ought to pray for the affected victims. Recently, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the families involved in the Parkland shooting for a reported $130 million. The school shooting was another evil act. It took the lives of 17 innocent students and teachers. Based on reports, the Justice Department settled because the FBI failed to properly investigate tips warning Federal law enforcement personnel about the coming attack that happened on February 14. This was a concern of mine from the beginning. Even though the Justice Department has settled the matter, the Department hasn't been fully transparent with the Congress on this issue, and they ought to be because this taxpayers' money--however it is used, the public ought to know it. The public's business ought to be public. I am going to highlight some of the oversight steps that I have taken and how the FBI still hasn't done what they said they need to do. Two days after the shooting, while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wrote to the FBI asking about its failure to act on tips that they had received about the dangers that this shooter might cause against the public at large. I also wrote to Google about the threats made in a YouTube comment that the shooter apparently made. After that, I brought the FBI in to brief the full Judiciary Committee on February 23, 2018. That was just 9 days after the accident happened--the shooting happened. It was not an accident; it was intended. I am sorry I used the word ``accident.'' I did the same thing with Google and Facebook staff to discuss their cooperation with law enforcement. On March 14, 2018, I led a full committee oversight hearing to hold the Justice Department and the FBI accountable for their failures. In the FBI briefing and at the committee's March 14, 2018, hearing, then-FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said that the FBI had begun a review of the internal process failures. Those failures related to the intake procedure for call-in tips and what transpired in the Parkland case in regard to those call-in tipoffs. For months after the hearing, my staff asked for updates regarding the FBI's investigation report. In May 2018, they were told--my staff was told it would be final by approximately mid-June 2018. On August 27, 2018, I wrote to FBI Director Wray noting that up to this point, ``Committee staff have requested a copy of the report seven times from the FBI.'' Here we are now, 3 years later, 2021, and the FBI still hasn't produced the report to Congress. Time and again, the Justice Department and the FBI have failed to live up to the standards of transparency required of them. The Parkland shooting and the Department's response to it is another example from a growing list of shortcomings. Simply put, there is no basis for the Department and the FBI to withhold the Parkland report from Congress, and by withholding it from Congress, they are withholding it from the American people. That is especially true for those families who suffered the tragic loss. Transparency brings accountability, and the more the Department fights that principle, the brighter light will be shined on them. Going forward, while we can't take back the terrible events of that day, we can and we must take steps to make sure such horrific acts don't ever happen again. That is why earlier this year, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, I introduced a bill that I call the EAGLES Act. It is the EAGLES Act because that is the mascot of the Parkland High School. The EAGLES Act will help fund and reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center. That is where the U.S. Secret Service studies targeted violence and proactively identifies and manages threats before they result in more tragedies. It would also establish a Safe School Initiative to look at school violence prevention and expand research on school violence. The EAGLES Act is a commonsense bill supported by over 40 State attorneys general and representatives from both sides. In other words, for decades, the Secret Service has been instructing people how to recognize people who may be a threat to the public at large or a threat to themselves so that there can be intervention. So if we do the same thing for people in education--the school teachers, the administrators, other support staff--they could have the same training that the Secret Service gives to other people but not to school people. Then maybe we can have interventions on future school shootings so that they don't happen again. I ask and encourage all of my Senate colleagues to help pass this bill. Then, on a shorter version of another subject, I would like to say to my colleagues, last week, all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Attorney General Garland a letter. We said he should withdraw his memo from October 4 that made parents feel like domestic terrorists for going to local school board meetings to express their views on anything that they have a constitutional right to have their express views on, and there is no limit in the Constitution. Also, the members of this Senate Republican minority agreed that true criminal acts should be prosecuted. Now, unfortunately, the Attorney General is going in the wrong direction. A whistleblower revealed that FBI's Counterterrorism Division is involved in the Department of Justice's effort of intimidation and is keeping track of what goes on at local school board levels, whether it is criminal or not. This flies in the face of what Attorney General Garland testified to the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General has insisted to the committee that his instructions to law enforcement have nothing to do with stopping parents from criticizing school boards and that he doesn't think parents are domestic terrorists, but his own FBI doesn't see it that way. Last week, one of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee defended the Attorney General and his memo. That member talked about school board members getting angry emails and being threatened. If the facts discussed by my colleague rise to being crimes, they should--they sound like the sort of things local law enforcement can handle just fine on their own. There is no need for FBI involvement or National Security Division involvement, which ought to be involved with strictly terrorism. But we should all agree that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division should have nothing to do with it. If you are a parent who is upset with how your child's school is being run, you should be able to say so to the very school board making decisions on how that school should be run. But will the FBI's Counterterrorism Division keep a record of what you say at the school board meetings? If so, that ought to concern all of us. I have gotten many letters from constituents worried about this sort of thing. Mr. Attorney General, parents are not terrorists, not domestic terrorists. You said so yourself; now prove that you mean it. So the simple way to prove it is, call off the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. Withdraw your October 4 memo. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9104 | null | 3,696 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | EAGLES Act Madam President, today, I come to the floor to once again talk about the tragic shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, now a long time back--February 14, 2018--and the Justice Department's response to it. Part of my oversight work is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Before I get to that, I want to express, as we all have done, I am sure, manytimes, our condolences to those victims and families of the school shooting in Michigan last month. The shooting was an act of evil, and we ought to pray for the affected victims. Recently, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the families involved in the Parkland shooting for a reported $130 million. The school shooting was another evil act. It took the lives of 17 innocent students and teachers. Based on reports, the Justice Department settled because the FBI failed to properly investigate tips warning Federal law enforcement personnel about the coming attack that happened on February 14. This was a concern of mine from the beginning. Even though the Justice Department has settled the matter, the Department hasn't been fully transparent with the Congress on this issue, and they ought to be because this taxpayers' money--however it is used, the public ought to know it. The public's business ought to be public. I am going to highlight some of the oversight steps that I have taken and how the FBI still hasn't done what they said they need to do. Two days after the shooting, while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wrote to the FBI asking about its failure to act on tips that they had received about the dangers that this shooter might cause against the public at large. I also wrote to Google about the threats made in a YouTube comment that the shooter apparently made. After that, I brought the FBI in to brief the full Judiciary Committee on February 23, 2018. That was just 9 days after the accident happened--the shooting happened. It was not an accident; it was intended. I am sorry I used the word ``accident.'' I did the same thing with Google and Facebook staff to discuss their cooperation with law enforcement. On March 14, 2018, I led a full committee oversight hearing to hold the Justice Department and the FBI accountable for their failures. In the FBI briefing and at the committee's March 14, 2018, hearing, then-FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said that the FBI had begun a review of the internal process failures. Those failures related to the intake procedure for call-in tips and what transpired in the Parkland case in regard to those call-in tipoffs. For months after the hearing, my staff asked for updates regarding the FBI's investigation report. In May 2018, they were told--my staff was told it would be final by approximately mid-June 2018. On August 27, 2018, I wrote to FBI Director Wray noting that up to this point, ``Committee staff have requested a copy of the report seven times from the FBI.'' Here we are now, 3 years later, 2021, and the FBI still hasn't produced the report to Congress. Time and again, the Justice Department and the FBI have failed to live up to the standards of transparency required of them. The Parkland shooting and the Department's response to it is another example from a growing list of shortcomings. Simply put, there is no basis for the Department and the FBI to withhold the Parkland report from Congress, and by withholding it from Congress, they are withholding it from the American people. That is especially true for those families who suffered the tragic loss. Transparency brings accountability, and the more the Department fights that principle, the brighter light will be shined on them. Going forward, while we can't take back the terrible events of that day, we can and we must take steps to make sure such horrific acts don't ever happen again. That is why earlier this year, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, I introduced a bill that I call the EAGLES Act. It is the EAGLES Act because that is the mascot of the Parkland High School. The EAGLES Act will help fund and reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center. That is where the U.S. Secret Service studies targeted violence and proactively identifies and manages threats before they result in more tragedies. It would also establish a Safe School Initiative to look at school violence prevention and expand research on school violence. The EAGLES Act is a commonsense bill supported by over 40 State attorneys general and representatives from both sides. In other words, for decades, the Secret Service has been instructing people how to recognize people who may be a threat to the public at large or a threat to themselves so that there can be intervention. So if we do the same thing for people in education--the school teachers, the administrators, other support staff--they could have the same training that the Secret Service gives to other people but not to school people. Then maybe we can have interventions on future school shootings so that they don't happen again. I ask and encourage all of my Senate colleagues to help pass this bill. Then, on a shorter version of another subject, I would like to say to my colleagues, last week, all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Attorney General Garland a letter. We said he should withdraw his memo from October 4 that made parents feel like domestic terrorists for going to local school board meetings to express their views on anything that they have a constitutional right to have their express views on, and there is no limit in the Constitution. Also, the members of this Senate Republican minority agreed that true criminal acts should be prosecuted. Now, unfortunately, the Attorney General is going in the wrong direction. A whistleblower revealed that FBI's Counterterrorism Division is involved in the Department of Justice's effort of intimidation and is keeping track of what goes on at local school board levels, whether it is criminal or not. This flies in the face of what Attorney General Garland testified to the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General has insisted to the committee that his instructions to law enforcement have nothing to do with stopping parents from criticizing school boards and that he doesn't think parents are domestic terrorists, but his own FBI doesn't see it that way. Last week, one of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee defended the Attorney General and his memo. That member talked about school board members getting angry emails and being threatened. If the facts discussed by my colleague rise to being crimes, they should--they sound like the sort of things local law enforcement can handle just fine on their own. There is no need for FBI involvement or National Security Division involvement, which ought to be involved with strictly terrorism. But we should all agree that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division should have nothing to do with it. If you are a parent who is upset with how your child's school is being run, you should be able to say so to the very school board making decisions on how that school should be run. But will the FBI's Counterterrorism Division keep a record of what you say at the school board meetings? If so, that ought to concern all of us. I have gotten many letters from constituents worried about this sort of thing. Mr. Attorney General, parents are not terrorists, not domestic terrorists. You said so yourself; now prove that you mean it. So the simple way to prove it is, call off the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. Withdraw your October 4 memo. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9104 | null | 3,697 |
formal | take back | null | white supremacist | EAGLES Act Madam President, today, I come to the floor to once again talk about the tragic shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, now a long time back--February 14, 2018--and the Justice Department's response to it. Part of my oversight work is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Before I get to that, I want to express, as we all have done, I am sure, manytimes, our condolences to those victims and families of the school shooting in Michigan last month. The shooting was an act of evil, and we ought to pray for the affected victims. Recently, the Justice Department reached a settlement with the families involved in the Parkland shooting for a reported $130 million. The school shooting was another evil act. It took the lives of 17 innocent students and teachers. Based on reports, the Justice Department settled because the FBI failed to properly investigate tips warning Federal law enforcement personnel about the coming attack that happened on February 14. This was a concern of mine from the beginning. Even though the Justice Department has settled the matter, the Department hasn't been fully transparent with the Congress on this issue, and they ought to be because this taxpayers' money--however it is used, the public ought to know it. The public's business ought to be public. I am going to highlight some of the oversight steps that I have taken and how the FBI still hasn't done what they said they need to do. Two days after the shooting, while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I wrote to the FBI asking about its failure to act on tips that they had received about the dangers that this shooter might cause against the public at large. I also wrote to Google about the threats made in a YouTube comment that the shooter apparently made. After that, I brought the FBI in to brief the full Judiciary Committee on February 23, 2018. That was just 9 days after the accident happened--the shooting happened. It was not an accident; it was intended. I am sorry I used the word ``accident.'' I did the same thing with Google and Facebook staff to discuss their cooperation with law enforcement. On March 14, 2018, I led a full committee oversight hearing to hold the Justice Department and the FBI accountable for their failures. In the FBI briefing and at the committee's March 14, 2018, hearing, then-FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said that the FBI had begun a review of the internal process failures. Those failures related to the intake procedure for call-in tips and what transpired in the Parkland case in regard to those call-in tipoffs. For months after the hearing, my staff asked for updates regarding the FBI's investigation report. In May 2018, they were told--my staff was told it would be final by approximately mid-June 2018. On August 27, 2018, I wrote to FBI Director Wray noting that up to this point, ``Committee staff have requested a copy of the report seven times from the FBI.'' Here we are now, 3 years later, 2021, and the FBI still hasn't produced the report to Congress. Time and again, the Justice Department and the FBI have failed to live up to the standards of transparency required of them. The Parkland shooting and the Department's response to it is another example from a growing list of shortcomings. Simply put, there is no basis for the Department and the FBI to withhold the Parkland report from Congress, and by withholding it from Congress, they are withholding it from the American people. That is especially true for those families who suffered the tragic loss. Transparency brings accountability, and the more the Department fights that principle, the brighter light will be shined on them. Going forward, while we can't take back the terrible events of that day, we can and we must take steps to make sure such horrific acts don't ever happen again. That is why earlier this year, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, I introduced a bill that I call the EAGLES Act. It is the EAGLES Act because that is the mascot of the Parkland High School. The EAGLES Act will help fund and reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center. That is where the U.S. Secret Service studies targeted violence and proactively identifies and manages threats before they result in more tragedies. It would also establish a Safe School Initiative to look at school violence prevention and expand research on school violence. The EAGLES Act is a commonsense bill supported by over 40 State attorneys general and representatives from both sides. In other words, for decades, the Secret Service has been instructing people how to recognize people who may be a threat to the public at large or a threat to themselves so that there can be intervention. So if we do the same thing for people in education--the school teachers, the administrators, other support staff--they could have the same training that the Secret Service gives to other people but not to school people. Then maybe we can have interventions on future school shootings so that they don't happen again. I ask and encourage all of my Senate colleagues to help pass this bill. Then, on a shorter version of another subject, I would like to say to my colleagues, last week, all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Attorney General Garland a letter. We said he should withdraw his memo from October 4 that made parents feel like domestic terrorists for going to local school board meetings to express their views on anything that they have a constitutional right to have their express views on, and there is no limit in the Constitution. Also, the members of this Senate Republican minority agreed that true criminal acts should be prosecuted. Now, unfortunately, the Attorney General is going in the wrong direction. A whistleblower revealed that FBI's Counterterrorism Division is involved in the Department of Justice's effort of intimidation and is keeping track of what goes on at local school board levels, whether it is criminal or not. This flies in the face of what Attorney General Garland testified to the Judiciary Committee. The Attorney General has insisted to the committee that his instructions to law enforcement have nothing to do with stopping parents from criticizing school boards and that he doesn't think parents are domestic terrorists, but his own FBI doesn't see it that way. Last week, one of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee defended the Attorney General and his memo. That member talked about school board members getting angry emails and being threatened. If the facts discussed by my colleague rise to being crimes, they should--they sound like the sort of things local law enforcement can handle just fine on their own. There is no need for FBI involvement or National Security Division involvement, which ought to be involved with strictly terrorism. But we should all agree that the FBI's Counterterrorism Division should have nothing to do with it. If you are a parent who is upset with how your child's school is being run, you should be able to say so to the very school board making decisions on how that school should be run. But will the FBI's Counterterrorism Division keep a record of what you say at the school board meetings? If so, that ought to concern all of us. I have gotten many letters from constituents worried about this sort of thing. Mr. Attorney General, parents are not terrorists, not domestic terrorists. You said so yourself; now prove that you mean it. So the simple way to prove it is, call off the FBI's Counterterrorism Division. Withdraw your October 4 memo. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9104 | null | 3,698 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Russia Now, Madam President, this not only makes for an extremely discontented group of people, it makes us vulnerable as a nation. The new ``axis of evil,'' as I like to call them, is watching. Communist China, Iran, and North Korea are all watching the chaos here in Washington play out with great interest, and, if the past few weeks have taught us anything, so is their counterpart in the ``axis of evil''--Russia. On Sunday, we saw a flood of so-called strong signals coming from the G7 following a meeting to discuss Russia's aggression toward Ukraine. Now, I don't discount the importance of these statements--I do hope Vladimir Putin heard us loud and clear--but I also know that statements mean nothing unless they come from a position of strength and unless they are accompanied by action, and right now, that is not what the Biden administration is projecting or doing. President Biden's refusal to lead by example is putting us in danger, and it is putting our partners in Kiev in danger. His administration has spent thepast year throwing policy spaghetti against the wall, trying to get something to stick. The American people, of course, aren't interested in what he has to offer. Nevertheless, he persists, pivoting when he needs to recapture the mainstream media's attention. Meanwhile, over in Russia, Putin is enjoying every single minute of this. He is probably laughing. He knows he can be as belligerent as he pleases because his most powerful and lethal adversary is totally distracted. Today, I sent a letter to the White House, asking them to clarify the spin they have been putting out on our posture concerning Ukraine. Here is the problem I am trying to get to the bottom of. On December 9, the Associated Press reported on a diplomatic phone call between Biden and the Ukrainian President. During the call, the White House allegedly made it clear that we support Ukrainian sovereignty. That is good. However, that report also revealed a supposed plan, concocted by the White House, to persuade Ukraine to cede territory--cede their territory--to Russia because it is currently controlled by Russian separatists. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has denied the latter. I still have some questions about what is going on behind the scenes. History tells us that autocrats and thugs like Putin find their greatest power in the weaknesses of their adversaries. That is right. When they see weakness, they pounce. Strength is the only thing that deters them. Have my colleagues across the aisle ever heard of ``peace through strength''? Have they looked at that as a policy? President Biden must summon the strength to stop playing political games for the cameras and confront this direct challenge to Ukraine's sovereignty. My Democratic colleagues must join him. This will require more than strong words. It does require action. This year's yet-to-be-passed NDAA authorizes $75 million in lethal assistance to Ukraine. It is time to pass this bill. And I would add, that the fiscal year 2022 NDAA is the most bipartisan thing that has come out of the Senate all year. It is a no-brainer. Let's get this done and not just for Ukraine, but also the future of Western Europe. That is also at stake. The Biden administration must stand firm and reimpose meaningful sanctions on Nord Stream 2. This one pipeline will double the total capacity of Russian gas exports and hand even more economic leverage to the Kremlin. Why would we want to do that? Ukraine, on the other hand, will lose an estimated $3 billion each year in transit fees. Putin is weaponizing energy in Europe. Our partners in Ukraine are living under the constant threat of invasion, and the Biden administration is just sitting there and letting it happen. So here we are, at the eleventh hour, Christmas is coming, and we are still waiting for Biden and the Democrats to do the job the American people elected them to do. They have squandered an entire year trying to conjure up support for their disastrous socialist agenda. We are never going to get this time back, and the American people who are suffering are not going to get this year back. But now is not the moment to just let things go. We can't afford weakness and spin, not when it comes to the economy, not when it comes to foreign policy, and certainly not when it comes to proving to the American people that there is someone in Washington watching out for them. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9110-3 | null | 3,699 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.