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 | thugs | null | racist | 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 | 3,700 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Remembering Robert J. Dole Madam President, having said that, I just want to talk a bit about Bob Dole, as our Nation continues to mourn his loss and celebrate the life of one of the greatest of the ``greatest generation.'' I rise today to add to the countless tributes benefiting the late, great Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole. Born Robert Joseph Dole on July 22, 1922, in Russell, KS, Bob Dole grew up during a period known as the Dust Bowl in the American heartland, where his family, like so many others, struggled to pay rent and put food on their table. Bob Dole was the star athlete in high school who wanted to pursue a career in medicine. He began his studies at the University of Kansas, but like many young Americans at the time, including my dad and uncles from West Virginia, like them, his plans were interrupted by the attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler's army marching across Europe. Bob Dole enlisted in the Army Reserve and was called up to Active Duty in 1943. Two years later, at the age of 21, as part of the 10th Mountain Division, Bob Dole was severely injured on the battlefield in Italy after bravely pulling a fellow soldier to safety. He sustained grave injuries to his spine, to his shoulder, to one of his hands, and by all accounts was left for dead on the battlefield. But Bob Dole, like the United States and our allies, didn't give up. He persevered. Despite long odds of recovery, Bob never gave up and wouldn't take no for an answer. He spent 39 months--let me repeat that. He spent 39 months recovering in a hospital bed undergoing numerous surgeries. When doctors told him that he was partially paralyzed, he built a device--he built a device--to help him regain his strength and was able not only to stand upright but eventually to walk again and to run for office many, many times. Bob Dole knew he was lucky to make it home. And the decades he spent in public service after sustaining his injuries, he dedicated much of his life to ensuring that our veterans, especially our fallen veterans during World War II, like my Uncle Bob, were honored and remembered for their sacrifices. My Uncle Bob was my mom's youngest brother, one of those sailors who wasn't lucky enough to make it home. He died at the age of 19 in 1944 during a kamikaze attack in the Western Pacific on his aircraft carrier, the USS Suwannee. His body was never recovered. But his memory lives on, thanks in no small part to Senator Bob Dole's work to establish the World War II Memorial on the National Mall. And for that, my family, the Patton family on my mother's side, are forever grateful. Though they never met, Bob Dole, like so many Americans of the ``greatest generation,'' understood that my Uncle Bob made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation and for the preservation of our democracy. That is why Senator Bob Dole spent so much of his time raising money for the World War II Memorial and why he spent so many Saturdays there, greeting veterans and thanking them for their service. This meant the world to those families, like mine, who lost a loved one during the war. When Bob Dole was finally able to stand on his own two feet again, the town of Russell, KS, rallied around him and encouraged him to run for office. And he did. After a short stint in local Kansas politics, Bob served in the U.S. House of Representatives for four terms before being elected to the Senate in 1968, the same year I was commissioned an ensign in the Navy. For 35 years, Bob Dole proudly served the people of Kansas in Washington--here. His time in Congress, especially as a Senator, is really where his legacy and public service started to takeshape. He was a proud Republican who ran three times for his party's nomination for the Presidency. But I believe that Bob Dole will be remembered most fondly for his ability to find common ground. I believe he said it best himself. He said: When we prioritize principles over party and humanity over personal legacy, we accomplish far more as a nation. I will read that again. This is worth repeating. When we prioritize principles over party and humanity over personal legacy, we accomplish far more as a nation. He was right. We can accomplish far more when we work together as one Nation rather than as Members of different political parties. Bob himself said his proudest political accomplishments were passing the bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act and working to find a principled compromise to save Social Security--a compromise that I was privileged to support as a newly elected freshman in the House of Representatives in 1983. I believe Bob Dole embodied the admonition of Matthew 25 to care for the ``least of these'' among us. He worked alongside the South Dakota Senator George McGovern, a liberal Democrat, who also ran for President, to improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Federal Food Stamp Program, to ensure that struggling families could feed themselves and their children. Bob Dole took Matthew 25--and Matthew 25 goes something like this: ``For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat''--and he turned it into the law that, to this day, helps lift Americans out of poverty and on to longer, healthier lives because, ultimately, Bob followed his moral compass, even when it wasn't politically convenient. He wasn't afraid to buck his party when he felt doing so was the right thing to do. He was a fiscal conservative, but he supported tax reforms to raise revenue. He also supported--get this. He also supported the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--landmark civil rights bills that sought to eliminate racial discrimination from our laws and sought to ensure equal access to the ballot box for all Americans. These accomplishments required hard-fought--hard-fought--negotiations and courageous votes. But Bob Dole never let that interfere with his commitment to doing what was right and, I might add, an incredible sense of humor. When Bob's wonderful wife--our former colleague here in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole--was in front of the Senate Labor Committee in 1989, having been nominated by then-President George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob accompanied her to her confirmation hearing and introduced her there as many of us introduce our own constituents when they are nominated for a particular position by a President. One of the things that he said, as he sat there next to his wife Elizabeth, he quipped--and he was great for quips--to his colleagues: ``I regret that I have but one wife to give for my country.'' I regret that I have but one wife to give for my country. And following his defeat in the 1988 Republican Presidential primary, he opened his remarks by saying: Not only do ``I regret that I have but one wife to give to my country,'' he wanted to add: ``If I had this much coverage in [my] primary, I would be writing my inaugural address.'' He then continued to say: I once dreamed of making a name for myself in Washington, but I never thought it would be as the husband of the Secretary of Labor, but I'll take what comes these days. The truth is, as much as Bob Dole probably learned while serving here in the Senate, the Senate could learn a lot more from the life and example of Bob Dole. And we could use more Bob Doles in this body today, on both sides of the aisle. While Bob Dole was a serious man, he didn't take himself too seriously. He didn't care for politicians who divided us just for the sake of division. He also didn't care for big egos of folks who wanted to do something just so they could take credit for it. He believed the words of Abraham Lincoln, one of his personal heroes, that ours is a ``government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.'' That is why he fought and nearly gave his life in defense of our Nation and our democracy. That is why he continued to serve our Nation also, always striving to improve the lives of Kansas and all of us. We owe it to Senator Dole, to my Uncle Bob, and to the entire ``greatest generation'' who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice for us to live in a free and democratic country, to uphold the ideals of our democracy, and to work together to create a brighter, better tomorrow for our children and our grandchildren. So as we mourn the passing of Bob Dole, I would challenge all of us to prioritize principles over party and humanity over personal legacy. We can all work better together to address the challenges of today and confront the challenges of tomorrow. (Mr. HEINRICH assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, some of us may recall the famous film, ``The Wizard of Oz.'' It took place in Bob Dole's proud home State of Kansas. Throughout the film, Dorothy is reminded that ``there is no place like home, no place like home.'' Well, Senator Dole entered these Halls one last time last week to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda, just down the hall over my right shoulder. And I, like many of our colleagues, had the chance to pay our respects to a man of integrity, passion, and wit. Now, it is time to send Bob home back to Russell, KS, as we have, one last time because there is truly no place like home. As the Presiding Officer knows, I like to--if we are not in session when somebody has a birthday, one of my colleagues has a birthday, I call them. I track them down or send them a text message. And I have done that with Elizabeth Dole, who served in this Chamber with us in more recent years, and I still call her on her birthday. And her birthday is July 29. I called her on July 29 this year to wish her a happy birthday and to see how she and Bob were doing. I got to talk with him as well as with her, and they both said to me--they said, ``Why don't you and Martha''--my wife Martha--``come down here sometime when we have some free time and you do as well, and we will just go out for dinner together.'' Sadly, we never got to do that. But we are going to take a raincheck. And I promise you, if you are listening out there, Bob, we plan to take full advantage of that raincheck and come and see you, with Elizabeth. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9111-3 | null | 3,701 |
formal | buck | null | racist | Remembering Robert J. Dole Madam President, having said that, I just want to talk a bit about Bob Dole, as our Nation continues to mourn his loss and celebrate the life of one of the greatest of the ``greatest generation.'' I rise today to add to the countless tributes benefiting the late, great Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole. Born Robert Joseph Dole on July 22, 1922, in Russell, KS, Bob Dole grew up during a period known as the Dust Bowl in the American heartland, where his family, like so many others, struggled to pay rent and put food on their table. Bob Dole was the star athlete in high school who wanted to pursue a career in medicine. He began his studies at the University of Kansas, but like many young Americans at the time, including my dad and uncles from West Virginia, like them, his plans were interrupted by the attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler's army marching across Europe. Bob Dole enlisted in the Army Reserve and was called up to Active Duty in 1943. Two years later, at the age of 21, as part of the 10th Mountain Division, Bob Dole was severely injured on the battlefield in Italy after bravely pulling a fellow soldier to safety. He sustained grave injuries to his spine, to his shoulder, to one of his hands, and by all accounts was left for dead on the battlefield. But Bob Dole, like the United States and our allies, didn't give up. He persevered. Despite long odds of recovery, Bob never gave up and wouldn't take no for an answer. He spent 39 months--let me repeat that. He spent 39 months recovering in a hospital bed undergoing numerous surgeries. When doctors told him that he was partially paralyzed, he built a device--he built a device--to help him regain his strength and was able not only to stand upright but eventually to walk again and to run for office many, many times. Bob Dole knew he was lucky to make it home. And the decades he spent in public service after sustaining his injuries, he dedicated much of his life to ensuring that our veterans, especially our fallen veterans during World War II, like my Uncle Bob, were honored and remembered for their sacrifices. My Uncle Bob was my mom's youngest brother, one of those sailors who wasn't lucky enough to make it home. He died at the age of 19 in 1944 during a kamikaze attack in the Western Pacific on his aircraft carrier, the USS Suwannee. His body was never recovered. But his memory lives on, thanks in no small part to Senator Bob Dole's work to establish the World War II Memorial on the National Mall. And for that, my family, the Patton family on my mother's side, are forever grateful. Though they never met, Bob Dole, like so many Americans of the ``greatest generation,'' understood that my Uncle Bob made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation and for the preservation of our democracy. That is why Senator Bob Dole spent so much of his time raising money for the World War II Memorial and why he spent so many Saturdays there, greeting veterans and thanking them for their service. This meant the world to those families, like mine, who lost a loved one during the war. When Bob Dole was finally able to stand on his own two feet again, the town of Russell, KS, rallied around him and encouraged him to run for office. And he did. After a short stint in local Kansas politics, Bob served in the U.S. House of Representatives for four terms before being elected to the Senate in 1968, the same year I was commissioned an ensign in the Navy. For 35 years, Bob Dole proudly served the people of Kansas in Washington--here. His time in Congress, especially as a Senator, is really where his legacy and public service started to takeshape. He was a proud Republican who ran three times for his party's nomination for the Presidency. But I believe that Bob Dole will be remembered most fondly for his ability to find common ground. I believe he said it best himself. He said: When we prioritize principles over party and humanity over personal legacy, we accomplish far more as a nation. I will read that again. This is worth repeating. When we prioritize principles over party and humanity over personal legacy, we accomplish far more as a nation. He was right. We can accomplish far more when we work together as one Nation rather than as Members of different political parties. Bob himself said his proudest political accomplishments were passing the bipartisan Americans with Disabilities Act and working to find a principled compromise to save Social Security--a compromise that I was privileged to support as a newly elected freshman in the House of Representatives in 1983. I believe Bob Dole embodied the admonition of Matthew 25 to care for the ``least of these'' among us. He worked alongside the South Dakota Senator George McGovern, a liberal Democrat, who also ran for President, to improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Federal Food Stamp Program, to ensure that struggling families could feed themselves and their children. Bob Dole took Matthew 25--and Matthew 25 goes something like this: ``For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat''--and he turned it into the law that, to this day, helps lift Americans out of poverty and on to longer, healthier lives because, ultimately, Bob followed his moral compass, even when it wasn't politically convenient. He wasn't afraid to buck his party when he felt doing so was the right thing to do. He was a fiscal conservative, but he supported tax reforms to raise revenue. He also supported--get this. He also supported the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965--landmark civil rights bills that sought to eliminate racial discrimination from our laws and sought to ensure equal access to the ballot box for all Americans. These accomplishments required hard-fought--hard-fought--negotiations and courageous votes. But Bob Dole never let that interfere with his commitment to doing what was right and, I might add, an incredible sense of humor. When Bob's wonderful wife--our former colleague here in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole--was in front of the Senate Labor Committee in 1989, having been nominated by then-President George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob accompanied her to her confirmation hearing and introduced her there as many of us introduce our own constituents when they are nominated for a particular position by a President. One of the things that he said, as he sat there next to his wife Elizabeth, he quipped--and he was great for quips--to his colleagues: ``I regret that I have but one wife to give for my country.'' I regret that I have but one wife to give for my country. And following his defeat in the 1988 Republican Presidential primary, he opened his remarks by saying: Not only do ``I regret that I have but one wife to give to my country,'' he wanted to add: ``If I had this much coverage in [my] primary, I would be writing my inaugural address.'' He then continued to say: I once dreamed of making a name for myself in Washington, but I never thought it would be as the husband of the Secretary of Labor, but I'll take what comes these days. The truth is, as much as Bob Dole probably learned while serving here in the Senate, the Senate could learn a lot more from the life and example of Bob Dole. And we could use more Bob Doles in this body today, on both sides of the aisle. While Bob Dole was a serious man, he didn't take himself too seriously. He didn't care for politicians who divided us just for the sake of division. He also didn't care for big egos of folks who wanted to do something just so they could take credit for it. He believed the words of Abraham Lincoln, one of his personal heroes, that ours is a ``government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.'' That is why he fought and nearly gave his life in defense of our Nation and our democracy. That is why he continued to serve our Nation also, always striving to improve the lives of Kansas and all of us. We owe it to Senator Dole, to my Uncle Bob, and to the entire ``greatest generation'' who fought and made the ultimate sacrifice for us to live in a free and democratic country, to uphold the ideals of our democracy, and to work together to create a brighter, better tomorrow for our children and our grandchildren. So as we mourn the passing of Bob Dole, I would challenge all of us to prioritize principles over party and humanity over personal legacy. We can all work better together to address the challenges of today and confront the challenges of tomorrow. (Mr. HEINRICH assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, some of us may recall the famous film, ``The Wizard of Oz.'' It took place in Bob Dole's proud home State of Kansas. Throughout the film, Dorothy is reminded that ``there is no place like home, no place like home.'' Well, Senator Dole entered these Halls one last time last week to lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda, just down the hall over my right shoulder. And I, like many of our colleagues, had the chance to pay our respects to a man of integrity, passion, and wit. Now, it is time to send Bob home back to Russell, KS, as we have, one last time because there is truly no place like home. As the Presiding Officer knows, I like to--if we are not in session when somebody has a birthday, one of my colleagues has a birthday, I call them. I track them down or send them a text message. And I have done that with Elizabeth Dole, who served in this Chamber with us in more recent years, and I still call her on her birthday. And her birthday is July 29. I called her on July 29 this year to wish her a happy birthday and to see how she and Bob were doing. I got to talk with him as well as with her, and they both said to me--they said, ``Why don't you and Martha''--my wife Martha--``come down here sometime when we have some free time and you do as well, and we will just go out for dinner together.'' Sadly, we never got to do that. But we are going to take a raincheck. And I promise you, if you are listening out there, Bob, we plan to take full advantage of that raincheck and come and see you, with Elizabeth. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9111-3 | null | 3,702 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on the list of people that my Democratic colleagues are claiming to help on this Build Back Better Act, there is a huge blank. I worked in education all my life. I worked around people all my life. What is missing from this list is American families, American families all over this country. For example, the childcare program in this tax-and-spend spree is really about only helping certain families. And that is fine--certain families--but we should help all families. But my colleagues want to help the ones that are structured toward the Democrats that they deem favorable, and that is not the American way. If you are in a two-parent, working household, my colleagues' plan would cost Mom and Dad thousands more each year to pay for their child's care. Think about that: thousands more. And this means tax many and give to a few. Well, that is not what we do here. Additionally, a once bipartisan initiative, the child tax credit, is being reworked. The cost of that dramatic expansion will be paid for by joint filers; meaning, in other words, couples--our families--will pay the cost. I want to take a moment to contrast this attack on the family. It is an attack on the family approach with actual American families around the country are facing as we speak. This anti-family bill is not only coming at a time when families have to pay more for groceries and pay more for gas and higher prices at the gas pump but also when families are silently fighting other unnamed pandemic and problems. Those are the worsening problems of mental health and drug addiction issues in our country today, of which they are abundant. So I ask my colleagues: Why this bill? It doesn't build families back better. It builds them back broke. It helps a few, not all. It doesn't create jobs or support working families. It creates more reliance on Big Government socialism. And why now, when inflation is so high and when so many of our friends and families are struggling to find the help that they need? It goes without saying that the COVID pandemic has played and is playing a large role in the staggering rise in drug overdoses and increase in mental health crises and homelessness over the past couple of years. Americans were locked down unnecessarily long periods of time. Jobs were lost. And the economic engine of our Nation was brought to a screeching halt. Children lost out on valuable education opportunities and wondered when they were going to be able to see their friends again. Students' college experiences were forever changed, and working parents had to juggle schooling and full-time childcare in addition to holding down their own jobs. Throughout this turbulent time, Americans felt lonelier and more detached than ever before, especially in my lifetime. It is a dream too often turned into a nightmare for an increasing number of Americans, a promising future robbed by deadly drug addiction. And sadly, it is more common now than ever before. According to the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost over 100,000 American lives due to drug overdoses from April 2020 to April 2021. That is not including the last 8 months. This is an increase of 30 percent from the year before. Think of all the open seats that will be at the dinner table for Christmas lunch or dinner, the futures that will never be fully realized, the families forever mourning the loss of a loved one. It is happening every day. We have these known issues made worse by a pandemic; there is no doubt. Yet Democrats' response has been to open our borders and allow cartels to profit off of trafficking fentanyl and other deadly substances into our country. It is hard to imagine. Through the first 9 months of this year, the monthly average of fentanyl seized was 830 pounds--a month, 830 pounds. Compare that to a monthly average of 321 pounds from 2018 to 2020. Now, that is way too many--but 830 pounds a month. Two thousand pounds can kill 200 million people--200 million. That is three-fourths of the people in this country. Instead, we need to look at how we can address mental health and break the cycle of drug addiction and homelessness. That should be a priority in this building. There are solutions out there if we approach the problem the right way. It is clear that the money we are spending and the programs that we have in place are not working. We need to open our eyes. We should be strengthening the family. We know strong families are the backbone of a strong community, and right now, Democrats are too focused on sneaking in these progressive wish list items--like climate policy and taxes that put us on par with communist countries--into a bill under the guise that it will help all Americans. I am here to help Americans but the right way--all Americans. Last year, Congress got to work on passing bills to help with COVID relief. While some relief funds were certainly necessary for those who needed it the most, the government's role quickly went from providing targeted stimulus to unchecked spending month by month. And this year, my Democratic colleagues assumed a predictable response to every problem they faced: Just throw money at it. Folks, money is not the answer. People are the answer. And the money they want to use will be paid for, yes, by the American people. It is not government money. It is the American people, and it is the taxpayers' money. But pumping more money into the economy is not the solution. It did not work for American families earlier this year when was passed a $1.9 trillion spending package that was passed off as COVID relief. It caused prices to rise and inflation to spike. It didn't address most of the issues families still face today. We spent all this money, and we have got worse problems. We throw money around in the name of solving problems. And if we do it this time, it won't work this time either. We are putting the country more in debt, and we are making problems worse. People are starting to figure it out. You know, as a football coach for 40 years, I know a little bit about strategy. I was a defensive guy. I like strategy. That is part of playing defense. A good defensive player must make a decision based on what is learned in practice and what their experience tells them, then they have the confidence to commit to that decision. But the key to winning the matchup is to always watch where the ball is if you are on defense. We always taught our players to play the game with your eyes. If you go to any practice, you will hear this: Defensive players, play with your eyes and trust your eyes. Offenses will throw motion across formation. They will run a trick play. They try to get your eye off the ball. You have the chance to go out there and stop the play if you trust your eyes. The same thing is happening right now. We are playing defense, and we cannot take our eye off--not the ball, but this bill. We have got to trust our eyes. The American people have to trust their eyes. Democratic colleagues are trying all sorts of tricks and political spin to convince Americans that their Build Back Better bill is a championship-caliber win. They are banking on Americans to be too busy and be too caught up in the holidays to understand what is really in this bill. But here is the thing: Americans should know that the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree is nothing more than a gimmick, a trick play designed to fool the defense or the American people, to help a few, not everybody. The American people should trust their eyes. This bill is not thoughtful policy that will change American lives. It is a way to increase Big Government socialism and pay for it by increasing taxes on not a few in the 1 percent, but everybody in this country. Because of the way they are doing this bill, using an obscure procedural tool that is called reconciliation, everything in this bill has to be budgetary, as in related to the budget. Sometimes, this is useful, when you are trying to create a fairer, simpler Tax Code or make tax cuts. It is also a tool used to bypass the majority because it only needs 51 votes. But the reconciliation process actually limits what Congress can do to address most issues facing Americans because everything in this bill has to be budget related. Reconciliation does not allow Congress to thoughtfully construct policy or to make improvements that do not spend money. Throwing money at existing programs or even creating new programs that simply send out checks is not the same as making meaningful change. So when my Democratic colleagues say that their bill will help Americans, it will--a few--but not very many. All it does is throw money at problems, which is, as we have seen, not what our country needs. This reckless tax-and-spend spree creates a cradle-to-grave entitlement society but does not actually help people in that society. If we really wanted to help American families, we would start with a bipartisan effort, meaning that we would discuss the needs of all Americans, not just a few. In this very tough time, all citizens need help. Everybody needs help. It has been a tough time. It has been a tough couple of years. But this has just been a one-way street. We have folks who represent urban and rural areas, talking with eachother about what American families actually need and what actually works. We could create targeted, thoughtful bills that didn't rely on budget gimmicks or party lines to pass. So we can't let our Democratic colleagues fool Americans. Their Build Back Better bill isn't making American families better. It is not helping Americans who are suffering from mental health issues. It is not helping our country's drug addiction problems. It is an anti-family bill that will make our country more dependent on Big Government, and it is spending money the wrong way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9112-2 | null | 3,703 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on the list of people that my Democratic colleagues are claiming to help on this Build Back Better Act, there is a huge blank. I worked in education all my life. I worked around people all my life. What is missing from this list is American families, American families all over this country. For example, the childcare program in this tax-and-spend spree is really about only helping certain families. And that is fine--certain families--but we should help all families. But my colleagues want to help the ones that are structured toward the Democrats that they deem favorable, and that is not the American way. If you are in a two-parent, working household, my colleagues' plan would cost Mom and Dad thousands more each year to pay for their child's care. Think about that: thousands more. And this means tax many and give to a few. Well, that is not what we do here. Additionally, a once bipartisan initiative, the child tax credit, is being reworked. The cost of that dramatic expansion will be paid for by joint filers; meaning, in other words, couples--our families--will pay the cost. I want to take a moment to contrast this attack on the family. It is an attack on the family approach with actual American families around the country are facing as we speak. This anti-family bill is not only coming at a time when families have to pay more for groceries and pay more for gas and higher prices at the gas pump but also when families are silently fighting other unnamed pandemic and problems. Those are the worsening problems of mental health and drug addiction issues in our country today, of which they are abundant. So I ask my colleagues: Why this bill? It doesn't build families back better. It builds them back broke. It helps a few, not all. It doesn't create jobs or support working families. It creates more reliance on Big Government socialism. And why now, when inflation is so high and when so many of our friends and families are struggling to find the help that they need? It goes without saying that the COVID pandemic has played and is playing a large role in the staggering rise in drug overdoses and increase in mental health crises and homelessness over the past couple of years. Americans were locked down unnecessarily long periods of time. Jobs were lost. And the economic engine of our Nation was brought to a screeching halt. Children lost out on valuable education opportunities and wondered when they were going to be able to see their friends again. Students' college experiences were forever changed, and working parents had to juggle schooling and full-time childcare in addition to holding down their own jobs. Throughout this turbulent time, Americans felt lonelier and more detached than ever before, especially in my lifetime. It is a dream too often turned into a nightmare for an increasing number of Americans, a promising future robbed by deadly drug addiction. And sadly, it is more common now than ever before. According to the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost over 100,000 American lives due to drug overdoses from April 2020 to April 2021. That is not including the last 8 months. This is an increase of 30 percent from the year before. Think of all the open seats that will be at the dinner table for Christmas lunch or dinner, the futures that will never be fully realized, the families forever mourning the loss of a loved one. It is happening every day. We have these known issues made worse by a pandemic; there is no doubt. Yet Democrats' response has been to open our borders and allow cartels to profit off of trafficking fentanyl and other deadly substances into our country. It is hard to imagine. Through the first 9 months of this year, the monthly average of fentanyl seized was 830 pounds--a month, 830 pounds. Compare that to a monthly average of 321 pounds from 2018 to 2020. Now, that is way too many--but 830 pounds a month. Two thousand pounds can kill 200 million people--200 million. That is three-fourths of the people in this country. Instead, we need to look at how we can address mental health and break the cycle of drug addiction and homelessness. That should be a priority in this building. There are solutions out there if we approach the problem the right way. It is clear that the money we are spending and the programs that we have in place are not working. We need to open our eyes. We should be strengthening the family. We know strong families are the backbone of a strong community, and right now, Democrats are too focused on sneaking in these progressive wish list items--like climate policy and taxes that put us on par with communist countries--into a bill under the guise that it will help all Americans. I am here to help Americans but the right way--all Americans. Last year, Congress got to work on passing bills to help with COVID relief. While some relief funds were certainly necessary for those who needed it the most, the government's role quickly went from providing targeted stimulus to unchecked spending month by month. And this year, my Democratic colleagues assumed a predictable response to every problem they faced: Just throw money at it. Folks, money is not the answer. People are the answer. And the money they want to use will be paid for, yes, by the American people. It is not government money. It is the American people, and it is the taxpayers' money. But pumping more money into the economy is not the solution. It did not work for American families earlier this year when was passed a $1.9 trillion spending package that was passed off as COVID relief. It caused prices to rise and inflation to spike. It didn't address most of the issues families still face today. We spent all this money, and we have got worse problems. We throw money around in the name of solving problems. And if we do it this time, it won't work this time either. We are putting the country more in debt, and we are making problems worse. People are starting to figure it out. You know, as a football coach for 40 years, I know a little bit about strategy. I was a defensive guy. I like strategy. That is part of playing defense. A good defensive player must make a decision based on what is learned in practice and what their experience tells them, then they have the confidence to commit to that decision. But the key to winning the matchup is to always watch where the ball is if you are on defense. We always taught our players to play the game with your eyes. If you go to any practice, you will hear this: Defensive players, play with your eyes and trust your eyes. Offenses will throw motion across formation. They will run a trick play. They try to get your eye off the ball. You have the chance to go out there and stop the play if you trust your eyes. The same thing is happening right now. We are playing defense, and we cannot take our eye off--not the ball, but this bill. We have got to trust our eyes. The American people have to trust their eyes. Democratic colleagues are trying all sorts of tricks and political spin to convince Americans that their Build Back Better bill is a championship-caliber win. They are banking on Americans to be too busy and be too caught up in the holidays to understand what is really in this bill. But here is the thing: Americans should know that the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree is nothing more than a gimmick, a trick play designed to fool the defense or the American people, to help a few, not everybody. The American people should trust their eyes. This bill is not thoughtful policy that will change American lives. It is a way to increase Big Government socialism and pay for it by increasing taxes on not a few in the 1 percent, but everybody in this country. Because of the way they are doing this bill, using an obscure procedural tool that is called reconciliation, everything in this bill has to be budgetary, as in related to the budget. Sometimes, this is useful, when you are trying to create a fairer, simpler Tax Code or make tax cuts. It is also a tool used to bypass the majority because it only needs 51 votes. But the reconciliation process actually limits what Congress can do to address most issues facing Americans because everything in this bill has to be budget related. Reconciliation does not allow Congress to thoughtfully construct policy or to make improvements that do not spend money. Throwing money at existing programs or even creating new programs that simply send out checks is not the same as making meaningful change. So when my Democratic colleagues say that their bill will help Americans, it will--a few--but not very many. All it does is throw money at problems, which is, as we have seen, not what our country needs. This reckless tax-and-spend spree creates a cradle-to-grave entitlement society but does not actually help people in that society. If we really wanted to help American families, we would start with a bipartisan effort, meaning that we would discuss the needs of all Americans, not just a few. In this very tough time, all citizens need help. Everybody needs help. It has been a tough time. It has been a tough couple of years. But this has just been a one-way street. We have folks who represent urban and rural areas, talking with eachother about what American families actually need and what actually works. We could create targeted, thoughtful bills that didn't rely on budget gimmicks or party lines to pass. So we can't let our Democratic colleagues fool Americans. Their Build Back Better bill isn't making American families better. It is not helping Americans who are suffering from mental health issues. It is not helping our country's drug addiction problems. It is an anti-family bill that will make our country more dependent on Big Government, and it is spending money the wrong way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9112-2 | null | 3,704 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on the list of people that my Democratic colleagues are claiming to help on this Build Back Better Act, there is a huge blank. I worked in education all my life. I worked around people all my life. What is missing from this list is American families, American families all over this country. For example, the childcare program in this tax-and-spend spree is really about only helping certain families. And that is fine--certain families--but we should help all families. But my colleagues want to help the ones that are structured toward the Democrats that they deem favorable, and that is not the American way. If you are in a two-parent, working household, my colleagues' plan would cost Mom and Dad thousands more each year to pay for their child's care. Think about that: thousands more. And this means tax many and give to a few. Well, that is not what we do here. Additionally, a once bipartisan initiative, the child tax credit, is being reworked. The cost of that dramatic expansion will be paid for by joint filers; meaning, in other words, couples--our families--will pay the cost. I want to take a moment to contrast this attack on the family. It is an attack on the family approach with actual American families around the country are facing as we speak. This anti-family bill is not only coming at a time when families have to pay more for groceries and pay more for gas and higher prices at the gas pump but also when families are silently fighting other unnamed pandemic and problems. Those are the worsening problems of mental health and drug addiction issues in our country today, of which they are abundant. So I ask my colleagues: Why this bill? It doesn't build families back better. It builds them back broke. It helps a few, not all. It doesn't create jobs or support working families. It creates more reliance on Big Government socialism. And why now, when inflation is so high and when so many of our friends and families are struggling to find the help that they need? It goes without saying that the COVID pandemic has played and is playing a large role in the staggering rise in drug overdoses and increase in mental health crises and homelessness over the past couple of years. Americans were locked down unnecessarily long periods of time. Jobs were lost. And the economic engine of our Nation was brought to a screeching halt. Children lost out on valuable education opportunities and wondered when they were going to be able to see their friends again. Students' college experiences were forever changed, and working parents had to juggle schooling and full-time childcare in addition to holding down their own jobs. Throughout this turbulent time, Americans felt lonelier and more detached than ever before, especially in my lifetime. It is a dream too often turned into a nightmare for an increasing number of Americans, a promising future robbed by deadly drug addiction. And sadly, it is more common now than ever before. According to the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost over 100,000 American lives due to drug overdoses from April 2020 to April 2021. That is not including the last 8 months. This is an increase of 30 percent from the year before. Think of all the open seats that will be at the dinner table for Christmas lunch or dinner, the futures that will never be fully realized, the families forever mourning the loss of a loved one. It is happening every day. We have these known issues made worse by a pandemic; there is no doubt. Yet Democrats' response has been to open our borders and allow cartels to profit off of trafficking fentanyl and other deadly substances into our country. It is hard to imagine. Through the first 9 months of this year, the monthly average of fentanyl seized was 830 pounds--a month, 830 pounds. Compare that to a monthly average of 321 pounds from 2018 to 2020. Now, that is way too many--but 830 pounds a month. Two thousand pounds can kill 200 million people--200 million. That is three-fourths of the people in this country. Instead, we need to look at how we can address mental health and break the cycle of drug addiction and homelessness. That should be a priority in this building. There are solutions out there if we approach the problem the right way. It is clear that the money we are spending and the programs that we have in place are not working. We need to open our eyes. We should be strengthening the family. We know strong families are the backbone of a strong community, and right now, Democrats are too focused on sneaking in these progressive wish list items--like climate policy and taxes that put us on par with communist countries--into a bill under the guise that it will help all Americans. I am here to help Americans but the right way--all Americans. Last year, Congress got to work on passing bills to help with COVID relief. While some relief funds were certainly necessary for those who needed it the most, the government's role quickly went from providing targeted stimulus to unchecked spending month by month. And this year, my Democratic colleagues assumed a predictable response to every problem they faced: Just throw money at it. Folks, money is not the answer. People are the answer. And the money they want to use will be paid for, yes, by the American people. It is not government money. It is the American people, and it is the taxpayers' money. But pumping more money into the economy is not the solution. It did not work for American families earlier this year when was passed a $1.9 trillion spending package that was passed off as COVID relief. It caused prices to rise and inflation to spike. It didn't address most of the issues families still face today. We spent all this money, and we have got worse problems. We throw money around in the name of solving problems. And if we do it this time, it won't work this time either. We are putting the country more in debt, and we are making problems worse. People are starting to figure it out. You know, as a football coach for 40 years, I know a little bit about strategy. I was a defensive guy. I like strategy. That is part of playing defense. A good defensive player must make a decision based on what is learned in practice and what their experience tells them, then they have the confidence to commit to that decision. But the key to winning the matchup is to always watch where the ball is if you are on defense. We always taught our players to play the game with your eyes. If you go to any practice, you will hear this: Defensive players, play with your eyes and trust your eyes. Offenses will throw motion across formation. They will run a trick play. They try to get your eye off the ball. You have the chance to go out there and stop the play if you trust your eyes. The same thing is happening right now. We are playing defense, and we cannot take our eye off--not the ball, but this bill. We have got to trust our eyes. The American people have to trust their eyes. Democratic colleagues are trying all sorts of tricks and political spin to convince Americans that their Build Back Better bill is a championship-caliber win. They are banking on Americans to be too busy and be too caught up in the holidays to understand what is really in this bill. But here is the thing: Americans should know that the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree is nothing more than a gimmick, a trick play designed to fool the defense or the American people, to help a few, not everybody. The American people should trust their eyes. This bill is not thoughtful policy that will change American lives. It is a way to increase Big Government socialism and pay for it by increasing taxes on not a few in the 1 percent, but everybody in this country. Because of the way they are doing this bill, using an obscure procedural tool that is called reconciliation, everything in this bill has to be budgetary, as in related to the budget. Sometimes, this is useful, when you are trying to create a fairer, simpler Tax Code or make tax cuts. It is also a tool used to bypass the majority because it only needs 51 votes. But the reconciliation process actually limits what Congress can do to address most issues facing Americans because everything in this bill has to be budget related. Reconciliation does not allow Congress to thoughtfully construct policy or to make improvements that do not spend money. Throwing money at existing programs or even creating new programs that simply send out checks is not the same as making meaningful change. So when my Democratic colleagues say that their bill will help Americans, it will--a few--but not very many. All it does is throw money at problems, which is, as we have seen, not what our country needs. This reckless tax-and-spend spree creates a cradle-to-grave entitlement society but does not actually help people in that society. If we really wanted to help American families, we would start with a bipartisan effort, meaning that we would discuss the needs of all Americans, not just a few. In this very tough time, all citizens need help. Everybody needs help. It has been a tough time. It has been a tough couple of years. But this has just been a one-way street. We have folks who represent urban and rural areas, talking with eachother about what American families actually need and what actually works. We could create targeted, thoughtful bills that didn't rely on budget gimmicks or party lines to pass. So we can't let our Democratic colleagues fool Americans. Their Build Back Better bill isn't making American families better. It is not helping Americans who are suffering from mental health issues. It is not helping our country's drug addiction problems. It is an anti-family bill that will make our country more dependent on Big Government, and it is spending money the wrong way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9112-2 | null | 3,705 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on the list of people that my Democratic colleagues are claiming to help on this Build Back Better Act, there is a huge blank. I worked in education all my life. I worked around people all my life. What is missing from this list is American families, American families all over this country. For example, the childcare program in this tax-and-spend spree is really about only helping certain families. And that is fine--certain families--but we should help all families. But my colleagues want to help the ones that are structured toward the Democrats that they deem favorable, and that is not the American way. If you are in a two-parent, working household, my colleagues' plan would cost Mom and Dad thousands more each year to pay for their child's care. Think about that: thousands more. And this means tax many and give to a few. Well, that is not what we do here. Additionally, a once bipartisan initiative, the child tax credit, is being reworked. The cost of that dramatic expansion will be paid for by joint filers; meaning, in other words, couples--our families--will pay the cost. I want to take a moment to contrast this attack on the family. It is an attack on the family approach with actual American families around the country are facing as we speak. This anti-family bill is not only coming at a time when families have to pay more for groceries and pay more for gas and higher prices at the gas pump but also when families are silently fighting other unnamed pandemic and problems. Those are the worsening problems of mental health and drug addiction issues in our country today, of which they are abundant. So I ask my colleagues: Why this bill? It doesn't build families back better. It builds them back broke. It helps a few, not all. It doesn't create jobs or support working families. It creates more reliance on Big Government socialism. And why now, when inflation is so high and when so many of our friends and families are struggling to find the help that they need? It goes without saying that the COVID pandemic has played and is playing a large role in the staggering rise in drug overdoses and increase in mental health crises and homelessness over the past couple of years. Americans were locked down unnecessarily long periods of time. Jobs were lost. And the economic engine of our Nation was brought to a screeching halt. Children lost out on valuable education opportunities and wondered when they were going to be able to see their friends again. Students' college experiences were forever changed, and working parents had to juggle schooling and full-time childcare in addition to holding down their own jobs. Throughout this turbulent time, Americans felt lonelier and more detached than ever before, especially in my lifetime. It is a dream too often turned into a nightmare for an increasing number of Americans, a promising future robbed by deadly drug addiction. And sadly, it is more common now than ever before. According to the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost over 100,000 American lives due to drug overdoses from April 2020 to April 2021. That is not including the last 8 months. This is an increase of 30 percent from the year before. Think of all the open seats that will be at the dinner table for Christmas lunch or dinner, the futures that will never be fully realized, the families forever mourning the loss of a loved one. It is happening every day. We have these known issues made worse by a pandemic; there is no doubt. Yet Democrats' response has been to open our borders and allow cartels to profit off of trafficking fentanyl and other deadly substances into our country. It is hard to imagine. Through the first 9 months of this year, the monthly average of fentanyl seized was 830 pounds--a month, 830 pounds. Compare that to a monthly average of 321 pounds from 2018 to 2020. Now, that is way too many--but 830 pounds a month. Two thousand pounds can kill 200 million people--200 million. That is three-fourths of the people in this country. Instead, we need to look at how we can address mental health and break the cycle of drug addiction and homelessness. That should be a priority in this building. There are solutions out there if we approach the problem the right way. It is clear that the money we are spending and the programs that we have in place are not working. We need to open our eyes. We should be strengthening the family. We know strong families are the backbone of a strong community, and right now, Democrats are too focused on sneaking in these progressive wish list items--like climate policy and taxes that put us on par with communist countries--into a bill under the guise that it will help all Americans. I am here to help Americans but the right way--all Americans. Last year, Congress got to work on passing bills to help with COVID relief. While some relief funds were certainly necessary for those who needed it the most, the government's role quickly went from providing targeted stimulus to unchecked spending month by month. And this year, my Democratic colleagues assumed a predictable response to every problem they faced: Just throw money at it. Folks, money is not the answer. People are the answer. And the money they want to use will be paid for, yes, by the American people. It is not government money. It is the American people, and it is the taxpayers' money. But pumping more money into the economy is not the solution. It did not work for American families earlier this year when was passed a $1.9 trillion spending package that was passed off as COVID relief. It caused prices to rise and inflation to spike. It didn't address most of the issues families still face today. We spent all this money, and we have got worse problems. We throw money around in the name of solving problems. And if we do it this time, it won't work this time either. We are putting the country more in debt, and we are making problems worse. People are starting to figure it out. You know, as a football coach for 40 years, I know a little bit about strategy. I was a defensive guy. I like strategy. That is part of playing defense. A good defensive player must make a decision based on what is learned in practice and what their experience tells them, then they have the confidence to commit to that decision. But the key to winning the matchup is to always watch where the ball is if you are on defense. We always taught our players to play the game with your eyes. If you go to any practice, you will hear this: Defensive players, play with your eyes and trust your eyes. Offenses will throw motion across formation. They will run a trick play. They try to get your eye off the ball. You have the chance to go out there and stop the play if you trust your eyes. The same thing is happening right now. We are playing defense, and we cannot take our eye off--not the ball, but this bill. We have got to trust our eyes. The American people have to trust their eyes. Democratic colleagues are trying all sorts of tricks and political spin to convince Americans that their Build Back Better bill is a championship-caliber win. They are banking on Americans to be too busy and be too caught up in the holidays to understand what is really in this bill. But here is the thing: Americans should know that the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree is nothing more than a gimmick, a trick play designed to fool the defense or the American people, to help a few, not everybody. The American people should trust their eyes. This bill is not thoughtful policy that will change American lives. It is a way to increase Big Government socialism and pay for it by increasing taxes on not a few in the 1 percent, but everybody in this country. Because of the way they are doing this bill, using an obscure procedural tool that is called reconciliation, everything in this bill has to be budgetary, as in related to the budget. Sometimes, this is useful, when you are trying to create a fairer, simpler Tax Code or make tax cuts. It is also a tool used to bypass the majority because it only needs 51 votes. But the reconciliation process actually limits what Congress can do to address most issues facing Americans because everything in this bill has to be budget related. Reconciliation does not allow Congress to thoughtfully construct policy or to make improvements that do not spend money. Throwing money at existing programs or even creating new programs that simply send out checks is not the same as making meaningful change. So when my Democratic colleagues say that their bill will help Americans, it will--a few--but not very many. All it does is throw money at problems, which is, as we have seen, not what our country needs. This reckless tax-and-spend spree creates a cradle-to-grave entitlement society but does not actually help people in that society. If we really wanted to help American families, we would start with a bipartisan effort, meaning that we would discuss the needs of all Americans, not just a few. In this very tough time, all citizens need help. Everybody needs help. It has been a tough time. It has been a tough couple of years. But this has just been a one-way street. We have folks who represent urban and rural areas, talking with eachother about what American families actually need and what actually works. We could create targeted, thoughtful bills that didn't rely on budget gimmicks or party lines to pass. So we can't let our Democratic colleagues fool Americans. Their Build Back Better bill isn't making American families better. It is not helping Americans who are suffering from mental health issues. It is not helping our country's drug addiction problems. It is an anti-family bill that will make our country more dependent on Big Government, and it is spending money the wrong way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9112-2 | null | 3,706 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on the list of people that my Democratic colleagues are claiming to help on this Build Back Better Act, there is a huge blank. I worked in education all my life. I worked around people all my life. What is missing from this list is American families, American families all over this country. For example, the childcare program in this tax-and-spend spree is really about only helping certain families. And that is fine--certain families--but we should help all families. But my colleagues want to help the ones that are structured toward the Democrats that they deem favorable, and that is not the American way. If you are in a two-parent, working household, my colleagues' plan would cost Mom and Dad thousands more each year to pay for their child's care. Think about that: thousands more. And this means tax many and give to a few. Well, that is not what we do here. Additionally, a once bipartisan initiative, the child tax credit, is being reworked. The cost of that dramatic expansion will be paid for by joint filers; meaning, in other words, couples--our families--will pay the cost. I want to take a moment to contrast this attack on the family. It is an attack on the family approach with actual American families around the country are facing as we speak. This anti-family bill is not only coming at a time when families have to pay more for groceries and pay more for gas and higher prices at the gas pump but also when families are silently fighting other unnamed pandemic and problems. Those are the worsening problems of mental health and drug addiction issues in our country today, of which they are abundant. So I ask my colleagues: Why this bill? It doesn't build families back better. It builds them back broke. It helps a few, not all. It doesn't create jobs or support working families. It creates more reliance on Big Government socialism. And why now, when inflation is so high and when so many of our friends and families are struggling to find the help that they need? It goes without saying that the COVID pandemic has played and is playing a large role in the staggering rise in drug overdoses and increase in mental health crises and homelessness over the past couple of years. Americans were locked down unnecessarily long periods of time. Jobs were lost. And the economic engine of our Nation was brought to a screeching halt. Children lost out on valuable education opportunities and wondered when they were going to be able to see their friends again. Students' college experiences were forever changed, and working parents had to juggle schooling and full-time childcare in addition to holding down their own jobs. Throughout this turbulent time, Americans felt lonelier and more detached than ever before, especially in my lifetime. It is a dream too often turned into a nightmare for an increasing number of Americans, a promising future robbed by deadly drug addiction. And sadly, it is more common now than ever before. According to the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost over 100,000 American lives due to drug overdoses from April 2020 to April 2021. That is not including the last 8 months. This is an increase of 30 percent from the year before. Think of all the open seats that will be at the dinner table for Christmas lunch or dinner, the futures that will never be fully realized, the families forever mourning the loss of a loved one. It is happening every day. We have these known issues made worse by a pandemic; there is no doubt. Yet Democrats' response has been to open our borders and allow cartels to profit off of trafficking fentanyl and other deadly substances into our country. It is hard to imagine. Through the first 9 months of this year, the monthly average of fentanyl seized was 830 pounds--a month, 830 pounds. Compare that to a monthly average of 321 pounds from 2018 to 2020. Now, that is way too many--but 830 pounds a month. Two thousand pounds can kill 200 million people--200 million. That is three-fourths of the people in this country. Instead, we need to look at how we can address mental health and break the cycle of drug addiction and homelessness. That should be a priority in this building. There are solutions out there if we approach the problem the right way. It is clear that the money we are spending and the programs that we have in place are not working. We need to open our eyes. We should be strengthening the family. We know strong families are the backbone of a strong community, and right now, Democrats are too focused on sneaking in these progressive wish list items--like climate policy and taxes that put us on par with communist countries--into a bill under the guise that it will help all Americans. I am here to help Americans but the right way--all Americans. Last year, Congress got to work on passing bills to help with COVID relief. While some relief funds were certainly necessary for those who needed it the most, the government's role quickly went from providing targeted stimulus to unchecked spending month by month. And this year, my Democratic colleagues assumed a predictable response to every problem they faced: Just throw money at it. Folks, money is not the answer. People are the answer. And the money they want to use will be paid for, yes, by the American people. It is not government money. It is the American people, and it is the taxpayers' money. But pumping more money into the economy is not the solution. It did not work for American families earlier this year when was passed a $1.9 trillion spending package that was passed off as COVID relief. It caused prices to rise and inflation to spike. It didn't address most of the issues families still face today. We spent all this money, and we have got worse problems. We throw money around in the name of solving problems. And if we do it this time, it won't work this time either. We are putting the country more in debt, and we are making problems worse. People are starting to figure it out. You know, as a football coach for 40 years, I know a little bit about strategy. I was a defensive guy. I like strategy. That is part of playing defense. A good defensive player must make a decision based on what is learned in practice and what their experience tells them, then they have the confidence to commit to that decision. But the key to winning the matchup is to always watch where the ball is if you are on defense. We always taught our players to play the game with your eyes. If you go to any practice, you will hear this: Defensive players, play with your eyes and trust your eyes. Offenses will throw motion across formation. They will run a trick play. They try to get your eye off the ball. You have the chance to go out there and stop the play if you trust your eyes. The same thing is happening right now. We are playing defense, and we cannot take our eye off--not the ball, but this bill. We have got to trust our eyes. The American people have to trust their eyes. Democratic colleagues are trying all sorts of tricks and political spin to convince Americans that their Build Back Better bill is a championship-caliber win. They are banking on Americans to be too busy and be too caught up in the holidays to understand what is really in this bill. But here is the thing: Americans should know that the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree is nothing more than a gimmick, a trick play designed to fool the defense or the American people, to help a few, not everybody. The American people should trust their eyes. This bill is not thoughtful policy that will change American lives. It is a way to increase Big Government socialism and pay for it by increasing taxes on not a few in the 1 percent, but everybody in this country. Because of the way they are doing this bill, using an obscure procedural tool that is called reconciliation, everything in this bill has to be budgetary, as in related to the budget. Sometimes, this is useful, when you are trying to create a fairer, simpler Tax Code or make tax cuts. It is also a tool used to bypass the majority because it only needs 51 votes. But the reconciliation process actually limits what Congress can do to address most issues facing Americans because everything in this bill has to be budget related. Reconciliation does not allow Congress to thoughtfully construct policy or to make improvements that do not spend money. Throwing money at existing programs or even creating new programs that simply send out checks is not the same as making meaningful change. So when my Democratic colleagues say that their bill will help Americans, it will--a few--but not very many. All it does is throw money at problems, which is, as we have seen, not what our country needs. This reckless tax-and-spend spree creates a cradle-to-grave entitlement society but does not actually help people in that society. If we really wanted to help American families, we would start with a bipartisan effort, meaning that we would discuss the needs of all Americans, not just a few. In this very tough time, all citizens need help. Everybody needs help. It has been a tough time. It has been a tough couple of years. But this has just been a one-way street. We have folks who represent urban and rural areas, talking with eachother about what American families actually need and what actually works. We could create targeted, thoughtful bills that didn't rely on budget gimmicks or party lines to pass. So we can't let our Democratic colleagues fool Americans. Their Build Back Better bill isn't making American families better. It is not helping Americans who are suffering from mental health issues. It is not helping our country's drug addiction problems. It is an anti-family bill that will make our country more dependent on Big Government, and it is spending money the wrong way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9112-2 | null | 3,707 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, on the list of people that my Democratic colleagues are claiming to help on this Build Back Better Act, there is a huge blank. I worked in education all my life. I worked around people all my life. What is missing from this list is American families, American families all over this country. For example, the childcare program in this tax-and-spend spree is really about only helping certain families. And that is fine--certain families--but we should help all families. But my colleagues want to help the ones that are structured toward the Democrats that they deem favorable, and that is not the American way. If you are in a two-parent, working household, my colleagues' plan would cost Mom and Dad thousands more each year to pay for their child's care. Think about that: thousands more. And this means tax many and give to a few. Well, that is not what we do here. Additionally, a once bipartisan initiative, the child tax credit, is being reworked. The cost of that dramatic expansion will be paid for by joint filers; meaning, in other words, couples--our families--will pay the cost. I want to take a moment to contrast this attack on the family. It is an attack on the family approach with actual American families around the country are facing as we speak. This anti-family bill is not only coming at a time when families have to pay more for groceries and pay more for gas and higher prices at the gas pump but also when families are silently fighting other unnamed pandemic and problems. Those are the worsening problems of mental health and drug addiction issues in our country today, of which they are abundant. So I ask my colleagues: Why this bill? It doesn't build families back better. It builds them back broke. It helps a few, not all. It doesn't create jobs or support working families. It creates more reliance on Big Government socialism. And why now, when inflation is so high and when so many of our friends and families are struggling to find the help that they need? It goes without saying that the COVID pandemic has played and is playing a large role in the staggering rise in drug overdoses and increase in mental health crises and homelessness over the past couple of years. Americans were locked down unnecessarily long periods of time. Jobs were lost. And the economic engine of our Nation was brought to a screeching halt. Children lost out on valuable education opportunities and wondered when they were going to be able to see their friends again. Students' college experiences were forever changed, and working parents had to juggle schooling and full-time childcare in addition to holding down their own jobs. Throughout this turbulent time, Americans felt lonelier and more detached than ever before, especially in my lifetime. It is a dream too often turned into a nightmare for an increasing number of Americans, a promising future robbed by deadly drug addiction. And sadly, it is more common now than ever before. According to the latest data from the National Center for Health Statistics, we lost over 100,000 American lives due to drug overdoses from April 2020 to April 2021. That is not including the last 8 months. This is an increase of 30 percent from the year before. Think of all the open seats that will be at the dinner table for Christmas lunch or dinner, the futures that will never be fully realized, the families forever mourning the loss of a loved one. It is happening every day. We have these known issues made worse by a pandemic; there is no doubt. Yet Democrats' response has been to open our borders and allow cartels to profit off of trafficking fentanyl and other deadly substances into our country. It is hard to imagine. Through the first 9 months of this year, the monthly average of fentanyl seized was 830 pounds--a month, 830 pounds. Compare that to a monthly average of 321 pounds from 2018 to 2020. Now, that is way too many--but 830 pounds a month. Two thousand pounds can kill 200 million people--200 million. That is three-fourths of the people in this country. Instead, we need to look at how we can address mental health and break the cycle of drug addiction and homelessness. That should be a priority in this building. There are solutions out there if we approach the problem the right way. It is clear that the money we are spending and the programs that we have in place are not working. We need to open our eyes. We should be strengthening the family. We know strong families are the backbone of a strong community, and right now, Democrats are too focused on sneaking in these progressive wish list items--like climate policy and taxes that put us on par with communist countries--into a bill under the guise that it will help all Americans. I am here to help Americans but the right way--all Americans. Last year, Congress got to work on passing bills to help with COVID relief. While some relief funds were certainly necessary for those who needed it the most, the government's role quickly went from providing targeted stimulus to unchecked spending month by month. And this year, my Democratic colleagues assumed a predictable response to every problem they faced: Just throw money at it. Folks, money is not the answer. People are the answer. And the money they want to use will be paid for, yes, by the American people. It is not government money. It is the American people, and it is the taxpayers' money. But pumping more money into the economy is not the solution. It did not work for American families earlier this year when was passed a $1.9 trillion spending package that was passed off as COVID relief. It caused prices to rise and inflation to spike. It didn't address most of the issues families still face today. We spent all this money, and we have got worse problems. We throw money around in the name of solving problems. And if we do it this time, it won't work this time either. We are putting the country more in debt, and we are making problems worse. People are starting to figure it out. You know, as a football coach for 40 years, I know a little bit about strategy. I was a defensive guy. I like strategy. That is part of playing defense. A good defensive player must make a decision based on what is learned in practice and what their experience tells them, then they have the confidence to commit to that decision. But the key to winning the matchup is to always watch where the ball is if you are on defense. We always taught our players to play the game with your eyes. If you go to any practice, you will hear this: Defensive players, play with your eyes and trust your eyes. Offenses will throw motion across formation. They will run a trick play. They try to get your eye off the ball. You have the chance to go out there and stop the play if you trust your eyes. The same thing is happening right now. We are playing defense, and we cannot take our eye off--not the ball, but this bill. We have got to trust our eyes. The American people have to trust their eyes. Democratic colleagues are trying all sorts of tricks and political spin to convince Americans that their Build Back Better bill is a championship-caliber win. They are banking on Americans to be too busy and be too caught up in the holidays to understand what is really in this bill. But here is the thing: Americans should know that the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend spree is nothing more than a gimmick, a trick play designed to fool the defense or the American people, to help a few, not everybody. The American people should trust their eyes. This bill is not thoughtful policy that will change American lives. It is a way to increase Big Government socialism and pay for it by increasing taxes on not a few in the 1 percent, but everybody in this country. Because of the way they are doing this bill, using an obscure procedural tool that is called reconciliation, everything in this bill has to be budgetary, as in related to the budget. Sometimes, this is useful, when you are trying to create a fairer, simpler Tax Code or make tax cuts. It is also a tool used to bypass the majority because it only needs 51 votes. But the reconciliation process actually limits what Congress can do to address most issues facing Americans because everything in this bill has to be budget related. Reconciliation does not allow Congress to thoughtfully construct policy or to make improvements that do not spend money. Throwing money at existing programs or even creating new programs that simply send out checks is not the same as making meaningful change. So when my Democratic colleagues say that their bill will help Americans, it will--a few--but not very many. All it does is throw money at problems, which is, as we have seen, not what our country needs. This reckless tax-and-spend spree creates a cradle-to-grave entitlement society but does not actually help people in that society. If we really wanted to help American families, we would start with a bipartisan effort, meaning that we would discuss the needs of all Americans, not just a few. In this very tough time, all citizens need help. Everybody needs help. It has been a tough time. It has been a tough couple of years. But this has just been a one-way street. We have folks who represent urban and rural areas, talking with eachother about what American families actually need and what actually works. We could create targeted, thoughtful bills that didn't rely on budget gimmicks or party lines to pass. So we can't let our Democratic colleagues fool Americans. Their Build Back Better bill isn't making American families better. It is not helping Americans who are suffering from mental health issues. It is not helping our country's drug addiction problems. It is an anti-family bill that will make our country more dependent on Big Government, and it is spending money the wrong way. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-13-pt1-PgS9112-2 | null | 3,708 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 848) relating to the consideration of House Report 117-216 and an accompanying resolution, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7663 | null | 3,709 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia.) Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 849) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5665) to establish in the Department of State the Office to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7665-2 | null | 3,710 |
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-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7804 | null | 3,711 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 851) recommending that the House of Representatives find Mark Randall Meadows in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7814-2 | null | 3,712 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-2948. A letter from the Program Specialist, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Collective Investment Funds: Prior Notice Period for Withdrawals [Docket ID: OCC-2020-0031] (RIN: 1557- AE99) received December 2, 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-2949. A letter from the Program Specialist, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rules -- Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold [Docket No.: OCC-2021-0019] (RIN: 1557- AF13) received December 2, 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-2950. A letter from the Program Specialist, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Computer-Security Incident Notification Requirements for Banking Organizations and Their Bank Service Providers [Docket ID: OCC-2020-0038] (RIN: 1557-AF02) received December 2, 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-2951. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting an update regarding the Treasury Department's ability to continue to finance the operations of the federal government under the constraints of the debt limit; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-2952. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory [EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390; FRL-5879-02-OCSPP] (RIN: 2070-AK16) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2953. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA- R09-OAR-2021-0543; FRL-8846-02-R9] received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2954. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 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 [EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0260; FRL-8644-01-R9] received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2955. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Louisiana: Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Program [EPA-R06-RCRA-2020-0261; FRL-9240-02-R6] received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2956. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Additional Revised Air Quality Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: El Paso County, Texas and Weld County, Colorado [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548; FRL: 8260.1-02-OAR] received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2957. A letter from the Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Procedures for Commission Review of State Opt-Out Requests from the FirstNet Radio Access Network [PS Docket No.: 16- 269] December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2958. A letter from the Deputy Division Chief, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018 [WC Docket No.: 18- 336] received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2959. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Report Number: 004511, Progress Report on the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, pursuant to Public Law 104-45; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2960. A letter from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Syrian Sanctions Regulations received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-2961. A letter from the Director, President's Pay Agent, Office of Personnel Management, transmitting a detailed report justifying the reasons for the extension of locality- based comparability payments to non-General Schedule categories of positions that are in more than one executive agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5304(h)(2)(C); Public Law 89- 554, Sec. 5304(h) (as added by Public Law 102-378, Sec. 2(26)(E)(ii)); (106 Stat. 1349); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2962. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's FY 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-2963. A letter from the Director, Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting the Commission'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-2964. 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 Section 5, Public Law 95-452; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2965. A letter from the Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, transmitting the Administration's Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the period April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021, pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2966. A letter from the Director, Regulation and Disclosure Law Division, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Extension and Amendment of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological and Ethnological Material of Greece [CBP Dec.: 21-16] (RIN: 1515-AE68) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-2967. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Homeowner Assistant Fund safe harbor (Rev. Proc. 2021-47) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-2968. A letter from the Regulations Writer -- Federal Register Liaison, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Extension of Expiration Dates for Three Body System Listings [Docket No.: SSA-2021-0035] (RIN: 0960-AI56) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7820-3 | null | 3,713 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: ML-127. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the General Assembly of the State of North Dakota, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 3049, recognizing parents as the chief stakeholder of the future and education to their children; to the Committee on Education and Labor. ML-128. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 177, to demand that President Biden and the United States Congress provide no support to the Taliban, either direct or indirect, including but not limited to aid; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-129. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 88, to support the religious liberty of Michigan citizens; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-130. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 89, urging the Federal Government to allow persons under the age of 21 to operate commercial vehicles on interstate routes; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. ML-131. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution No. 195, urging the Congress of the United States to oppose the proposal to make an unnecessary and harmful change to Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements that affect financial institutions and their customers in this Commonwealth; to the Committee on Ways and Means. ML-132. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, relative to House Resolution No. 157, urging the members of Congress to take action to mitigate the depletion of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds; jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7824 | null | 3,714 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: PT-87. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 444-21, supporting the Green New Deal for Public Schools Act of 2021 (H.R. 4442), to invest $1.43 trillion to provide green renovations and retrofits to public schools to meet health, accessibility, safety needs, identify and alleviate educational and economic disparities among students, and provide funding for special education services; to the Committee on Education and Labor. PT-88. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 443-21, retroactively declaring August 30 as International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, and observing this date every year thereafter, and condemning enforced disappearances in El Salvador; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. PT-89. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 509-21, urging the United States Senate to reauthorize the Violence Against Woman Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary. PT-90. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 409-21, supporting California State Senate Joint Resolution No. 8, introduced by Senator Caballero to urge the President and the Congress of the United States to amend specified provisions of the federal Social Security Act to allow recipients of disabled adult child benefits under the act to continue to receive those benefits upon marriage; to the Committee on Ways and Means. PT-91. Also, a petition of the City Commission of Miami, FL, relative to Resolution R-21-0430, urging President Joseph R. Biden and his administration, including United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, to designate the Frente Sandinista De Liberacion Nacional as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7827 | null | 3,715 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: PT-87. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 444-21, supporting the Green New Deal for Public Schools Act of 2021 (H.R. 4442), to invest $1.43 trillion to provide green renovations and retrofits to public schools to meet health, accessibility, safety needs, identify and alleviate educational and economic disparities among students, and provide funding for special education services; to the Committee on Education and Labor. PT-88. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 443-21, retroactively declaring August 30 as International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, and observing this date every year thereafter, and condemning enforced disappearances in El Salvador; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. PT-89. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 509-21, urging the United States Senate to reauthorize the Violence Against Woman Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary. PT-90. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 409-21, supporting California State Senate Joint Resolution No. 8, introduced by Senator Caballero to urge the President and the Congress of the United States to amend specified provisions of the federal Social Security Act to allow recipients of disabled adult child benefits under the act to continue to receive those benefits upon marriage; to the Committee on Ways and Means. PT-91. Also, a petition of the City Commission of Miami, FL, relative to Resolution R-21-0430, urging President Joseph R. Biden and his administration, including United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, to designate the Frente Sandinista De Liberacion Nacional as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgH7827 | null | 3,716 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, on judges and nominations, in addition to our legislative agenda, the Senate will also work today and the rest of the week on confirming more of President Biden's nominees to serve on the Federal bench. First, we will hold a vote this morning to proceed on the nomination of Samantha Elliott to serve as a district judge for the District of New Hampshire. As soon as today, we also hope to vote on the confirmation of Jennifer Sung of Oregon, nominated to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Senate invoked cloture on Ms. Sung at the end of last week, and I want to say a few words in support of this remarkable nominee. Throughout her career, Ms. Sung has proven herself to be an exceptionally impartial adjudicator, a valiant advocate for working Americans, and I am confident she will be an excellent judge who adds to the personal and professional diversity of the Ninth Circuit. A graduate of Oberlin and Yale Law School, Ms. Sung's first experience with the Ninth Circuit came while she served as a clerk for Judge Betty Fletcher before embarking on a career in private practice focused on employment and on labor law. For over a decade, she regularly represented low-income workers, minority workers, and underserved communities in disputes against their employers. As a member of the Oregon Employment Relations Board, she struck a difficult balance between protecting the rights of working Americans while applying the law without prejudice--the key ingredients for any successful Federal judge. If confirmed, Ms. Sung will be one of the very few Asian Americans to sit on the Federal judiciary. Along with Ms. Elliott, she would be the 31st judge whom the Senate Democratic majority has confirmed this year--the most under any President's first year in decades--and we are doing it with outstanding, impartial, and diverse nominees, and we are going to keep working in the months ahead. Today, article III judges are still overwhelmingly White, overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmingly from big law firms or prosecutorial backgrounds. Many of these individuals have served admirably on the bench, but we hope the trailblazers of today can be closer to the norm of tomorrow. We want our courts to include more women, more diverse candidates, both demographically and professionally, and more judges who come from unique walks of life. That is how we can strengthen Americans' trust in an independent and impartial judiciary--so important to the vitality of our democracy. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgS9128 | null | 3,717 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | National Defense Authorization Act Mr. President, now, on one final matter, for months, while our colleagues have been writing their reckless taxing-and-spending spree behind closed doors, the Democratic majority let the National Defense Authorization Act sit in limbo. This week, 4\1/2\ months after it was cleared by the Armed Services Committee, the Senate should finally--finally--finish this legislation. Unfortunately, those who mean America harm haven't been waiting around for us to act. Threats to our national security are grave and getting graver. Since the Biden administration's disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, according to our top commander in the region, the U.S. military has but a small fraction of the actionable intelligence they had before the coalition withdrew. But the predictable, avoidable resurgence of terrorist networks, of course, has continued apace. We also know that more American citizens and permanent residents remain stranded under Taliban rule than the Biden administration is willing to admit. Meanwhile, the threat of further Russian aggression toward Ukraine is testing whether this White House and our allies in Europe will avoid misguided half measures to deter and defend against grave and growing threats. So at the risk of stating the obvious, the United States needs to follow through with promises of urgent, substantive assistance to Ukraine and encourage other NATO allies to do the same thing. This should not be controversial. Only in the warped world of Kremlin propaganda is giving Ukraine the means to defend itself considered provocative. These real threats to national security and others too numerous to name should serve as a reminder of the need for America to lead by example and commit to modernizing our own military capabilities, which in turn means taking the National Defense Authorization Act seriously. So I am glad the Senate is finally set to vote on this crucial legislation. While the process has been imperfect, I am glad that bipartisan work has produced a bill that authorizes an increase in top-line funding for our national defense. After months of delays, our colleagues have an opportunity to begin showing that America is serious about keeping pace with adversaries like Russia that have spent literally decades modernizing their militaries with a singular focus on countering our military advantage. We have an opportunity to pay more than just lip service to competition with China. We have an opportunity to lay a foundation that we ought to follow through with robust and full-year Defense appropriations. I would encourage all Senators to advance this legislation today. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgS9129-2 | null | 3,718 |
formal | entitlements | null | racist | Inflation Now, Mr. President, on a totally different matter, Washington Democrats' printing, borrowing, and spending addiction is directly hurting American families. Two-thirds of the American people, a supermajority, are worried about inflation. About half the middle class and 70 percent of low-income families say soaring prices have personally hurt their household. And it isn't getting better, like the Biden administration promised it would. It is actually getting worse. Last Friday, the Labor Department released a jaw-dropping report: The consumer price index has shot up 6.8 percent over the past year; 6.8 percent inflation, the worst inflation--listen to this--the worst inflation in 40 years. Now, it is true that the average American worker has gotten a pay increase since 2020, but rising prices have more--more--than wiped that totally out. We have a remarkable situation where American workers are earning raises, but their bigger paychecks buy their families even less than what their smaller paychecks bought before the Democrats took power. The net effect is a nearly 2-percent pay cut for the average American. Now, our citizens do know what is happening. Sixty-seven percent of the country says Washington needs to ``cut back on spending and printing money.'' Let me say that again. Sixty-seven percent of the country says Washington needs to ``cut back on spending and printing money.'' But here in Washington, leading Democrats want to plow ahead and double down on the reckless taxing-and-spending spree that got us here. They want to respond to this stunning inflation report by printing, borrowing, and spending trillions upon trillions more on new entitlements and far-left programs. If that weren't bad enough, on Friday, a new report showed their socialist shopping spree could cost the country trillions more than Democrats are willing to admit. You see, as one of our Democratic colleagues explained last month, his party's bill is packed full of ``shell games'' and ``budget gimmicks''--``shell games'' and ``budget gimmicks.'' For example, their bill pretends that major new entitlements would simply expire after a few years. Of course, that never happens. As a wise man once said, ``Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.'' And Democrats aren't even pretending they think the spending would stop. They are boasting about a permanent transformation. The fake expiration dates are just an accounting trick so the pricetag looks artificially low. And last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that if we acknowledge the permanent entitlements would be permanent--in other words, tell the truth--their bill would actually cost $4.9 trillion in the first decade alone. That is the truth of the situation. It would explode the deficit by $3 trillion in that same 10-year period. Democrats are trying to reassure their alarmed Members that they would find new ways to offset future extensions. But let's think about it. They have just spent months shoveling every possible pay-for into this existing bill. They already burned through huge permanent tax hikes just to partially offset the bill with the gimmicks. Extending these programs further would either explode our national debt or it would take even further trillions and even further gigantic tax hikes that Democrats are simply unwilling to specify. So which is it, historic deficits or trillions more in secret tax hikes? The right answer for the country is neither. Later today, every Senate Democrat is going to vote along party lines to raise our Nation's debt limit by trillions of dollars. If they jam through another reckless taxing-and-spending spree, this massive debt increase will just be the beginning: more printing and borrowing to set up more reckless spending, to cause more inflation, to hurt working families even more. What the American people need is a break. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgS9129 | null | 3,719 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Inflation Now, Mr. President, on a totally different matter, Washington Democrats' printing, borrowing, and spending addiction is directly hurting American families. Two-thirds of the American people, a supermajority, are worried about inflation. About half the middle class and 70 percent of low-income families say soaring prices have personally hurt their household. And it isn't getting better, like the Biden administration promised it would. It is actually getting worse. Last Friday, the Labor Department released a jaw-dropping report: The consumer price index has shot up 6.8 percent over the past year; 6.8 percent inflation, the worst inflation--listen to this--the worst inflation in 40 years. Now, it is true that the average American worker has gotten a pay increase since 2020, but rising prices have more--more--than wiped that totally out. We have a remarkable situation where American workers are earning raises, but their bigger paychecks buy their families even less than what their smaller paychecks bought before the Democrats took power. The net effect is a nearly 2-percent pay cut for the average American. Now, our citizens do know what is happening. Sixty-seven percent of the country says Washington needs to ``cut back on spending and printing money.'' Let me say that again. Sixty-seven percent of the country says Washington needs to ``cut back on spending and printing money.'' But here in Washington, leading Democrats want to plow ahead and double down on the reckless taxing-and-spending spree that got us here. They want to respond to this stunning inflation report by printing, borrowing, and spending trillions upon trillions more on new entitlements and far-left programs. If that weren't bad enough, on Friday, a new report showed their socialist shopping spree could cost the country trillions more than Democrats are willing to admit. You see, as one of our Democratic colleagues explained last month, his party's bill is packed full of ``shell games'' and ``budget gimmicks''--``shell games'' and ``budget gimmicks.'' For example, their bill pretends that major new entitlements would simply expire after a few years. Of course, that never happens. As a wise man once said, ``Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.'' And Democrats aren't even pretending they think the spending would stop. They are boasting about a permanent transformation. The fake expiration dates are just an accounting trick so the pricetag looks artificially low. And last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that if we acknowledge the permanent entitlements would be permanent--in other words, tell the truth--their bill would actually cost $4.9 trillion in the first decade alone. That is the truth of the situation. It would explode the deficit by $3 trillion in that same 10-year period. Democrats are trying to reassure their alarmed Members that they would find new ways to offset future extensions. But let's think about it. They have just spent months shoveling every possible pay-for into this existing bill. They already burned through huge permanent tax hikes just to partially offset the bill with the gimmicks. Extending these programs further would either explode our national debt or it would take even further trillions and even further gigantic tax hikes that Democrats are simply unwilling to specify. So which is it, historic deficits or trillions more in secret tax hikes? The right answer for the country is neither. Later today, every Senate Democrat is going to vote along party lines to raise our Nation's debt limit by trillions of dollars. If they jam through another reckless taxing-and-spending spree, this massive debt increase will just be the beginning: more printing and borrowing to set up more reckless spending, to cause more inflation, to hurt working families even more. What the American people need is a break. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgS9129 | null | 3,720 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Insulin Mr. President, it turns out it is an anniversary, just this month. You see, in 1921, 100 years ago, a Canadian scientist named Frederick Banting discovered insulin. He sold the patent for this discovery to the University of Toronto for $1. He declared that this lifesaving drug didn't belong to him: ``It belongs to the world.'' He wasn't the only unselfish scientist I can remember. I remember, as a kid, our fear of polio, and along came Dr. Jonas Salk--bless his soul--who discovered the vaccine that we needed to protect ourselves. There was no great political debate. People weren't threatening lawsuits. My mom and dad said: Line up and roll up your sleeve, kid; we are going to do what needs to be done to protect you from polio. Dr. Jonas Salk gave away the patent to that drug as well. It was a different era, perhaps, when insulin was discovered or the polio vaccine, but we should reflect on the state of play today of that drug, insulin. One hundred years later, there are 8.4 million diabetics in the United States who rely on insulin. They have to pay--many of them--an exorbitant amount of money for a drug that supposedly belongs to them, according to its discoverer. As the cost of insulin has risen, average list prices increased 40 percent for insulin between 2014 and 2018. I am quoting from an article in today's USA Today by Katie Wedell. Patients and their families shell out hundreds of dollars a month even if they have good insurance. Rod Regalado is a father of a teen with type 1 diabetes. Do you know what he calls the insulin pricing system? Legal extortion. This article tells the story of what he went through. He had never heard of a pharmacy benefit manager before 2 years ago, but it was 2 years ago that his son Matt, then 14 years old, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and Mr. Regalado got a crash course in insulin pricing in America today. His first trip to the pharmacy when his son was released from a hospital came with a $1,000 price tag for all the testing supplies and insulin he'd never purchased before. The next month, when all he had to do was buy more insulin, the price was still north of $400 after insurance. The single dad of two said he thought he had good insurance until he found himself having to redo his entire household budget to afford the insulin to keep his son alive. ``I thought how do people do this?'' he said. He is a resident of Tekamah, NE. He started making calls to his insurance company, the pharmacy, and doctors, trying to figure out a way to lower his out-of-pocket expenses for the insulin that his son needed to survive. Then he called his Congressman. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican of Nebraska, said in July: ``The harsh reality is that the cost of insulin is artificially high and ever-escalating.'' He has introduced a bill for capping the prices. They call it Matt's Act, after Mr. Regalado's son. Matt's Act would make insulin prices fair for everyone by capping the price at $60 a vial and $20 a vial for those on insurance. What a dramatic difference that would make for the Regalado family in Nebraska--instead of $400, $20. The reason I raise that is that the provision in law that we are trying to enact is in the same bill that the Republican leader just came to the floor and told us America cannot afford. The tax increases in that bill--and there will be tax increases--will only apply to people making over $400,000 a year. And yet the Republican leader comes to the floor and talks about this terrible idea of raising taxes. So let's step back and measure the difference here. Should Mr. Regalado--a single dad, father of two, with a 14-year-old son who needs insulin to live--be paying $400 a month or $20 a month for the insulin--the lifesaving insulin? And to make up the difference, is it unfair to ask someone making over $400,000 a year to pay more in taxes? You be the judge. I don't even think it is a close call. What we need to do is to get down to business. I don't know that there will be a single Republican voting to support this effort to reduce the cost of insulin for diabetics. That is just the way politics works in this Chamber, I am afraid. But I do hope that the 8 million families who have a diabetic son or daughter, father or mother will step up and speak up in the next few days because we have a chance to bring this measure to the floor this year--a measure that will affect many different areas of the law but, specifically, the cost of insulin for American families. If those 8 million families will stand up and speak up and say to Members of the U.S. Senate, ``Enough, you have negotiated enough; close the deal; do something that will be helpful to our families,'' just maybe that can make a difference. Maybe the endless negotiations that have gone on for month after month after month will finally come to an end. Now is the time to get it done. We have work to do in the Senate at clearing the bill for final passage. But I think we are on track to get that done. What we need to have is a groundswell of support from across the America. When you take a look at the other provisions in the bill, helping working families to pay for daycare--for goodness' sake, there is hardly a family around, unless they are very wealthy, that isn't concerned about the cost and quality of daycare available. We have a provision in this bill, the same bill that Senator McConnell spoke against just a few minutes ago, to help families pay for daycare. Is it important to these families? Well, it is important to my family. I visited with my granddaughter over the weekend, and I am sure there are many people in my situation, with grandchildren, who look at those kids and realize they should be in a safe, nurturing, affordable environment every single day so mom and dad don't have to think twice. Is it important to have a provision in the law which says we are going to provide home healthcare services to elderly members of our family or disabled members of our family? I will tell you this. The elderly folks whom I spoke to, the senior citizens, want to stay independent as long as possible, and they want to stay home as long as possible. If we can help them stay home and be independent, why wouldn't we do it? If it means a tax increase for people making over $400,000 a year, so be it. Sign me up for that increase. That is the sort of thing I think we do in America. Those who are well off pay a little bit more in taxes so those who are struggling can get a helping hand. So when the Republicans come to the floor and tell us how terrible this bill is, well, tell it to 8 million families in America with someone who needs insulin to stay alive each month. Tell it to the millions of families with kids who want to make sure they have peace of mind that these kids are being taken care of while they go to work. Tell it to the families with elderly parents or people who are disabled in their household who need a helping hand to be able to stay home and have quality healthcare. All of these things are addressed in this bill. It is important that we pass it, and I hope we do it soon. But we need to hear from America to create the momentum to get that job done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this entire article, from USA Today, on insulin. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgS9130-2 | null | 3,721 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Insulin Mr. President, it turns out it is an anniversary, just this month. You see, in 1921, 100 years ago, a Canadian scientist named Frederick Banting discovered insulin. He sold the patent for this discovery to the University of Toronto for $1. He declared that this lifesaving drug didn't belong to him: ``It belongs to the world.'' He wasn't the only unselfish scientist I can remember. I remember, as a kid, our fear of polio, and along came Dr. Jonas Salk--bless his soul--who discovered the vaccine that we needed to protect ourselves. There was no great political debate. People weren't threatening lawsuits. My mom and dad said: Line up and roll up your sleeve, kid; we are going to do what needs to be done to protect you from polio. Dr. Jonas Salk gave away the patent to that drug as well. It was a different era, perhaps, when insulin was discovered or the polio vaccine, but we should reflect on the state of play today of that drug, insulin. One hundred years later, there are 8.4 million diabetics in the United States who rely on insulin. They have to pay--many of them--an exorbitant amount of money for a drug that supposedly belongs to them, according to its discoverer. As the cost of insulin has risen, average list prices increased 40 percent for insulin between 2014 and 2018. I am quoting from an article in today's USA Today by Katie Wedell. Patients and their families shell out hundreds of dollars a month even if they have good insurance. Rod Regalado is a father of a teen with type 1 diabetes. Do you know what he calls the insulin pricing system? Legal extortion. This article tells the story of what he went through. He had never heard of a pharmacy benefit manager before 2 years ago, but it was 2 years ago that his son Matt, then 14 years old, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and Mr. Regalado got a crash course in insulin pricing in America today. His first trip to the pharmacy when his son was released from a hospital came with a $1,000 price tag for all the testing supplies and insulin he'd never purchased before. The next month, when all he had to do was buy more insulin, the price was still north of $400 after insurance. The single dad of two said he thought he had good insurance until he found himself having to redo his entire household budget to afford the insulin to keep his son alive. ``I thought how do people do this?'' he said. He is a resident of Tekamah, NE. He started making calls to his insurance company, the pharmacy, and doctors, trying to figure out a way to lower his out-of-pocket expenses for the insulin that his son needed to survive. Then he called his Congressman. Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, a Republican of Nebraska, said in July: ``The harsh reality is that the cost of insulin is artificially high and ever-escalating.'' He has introduced a bill for capping the prices. They call it Matt's Act, after Mr. Regalado's son. Matt's Act would make insulin prices fair for everyone by capping the price at $60 a vial and $20 a vial for those on insurance. What a dramatic difference that would make for the Regalado family in Nebraska--instead of $400, $20. The reason I raise that is that the provision in law that we are trying to enact is in the same bill that the Republican leader just came to the floor and told us America cannot afford. The tax increases in that bill--and there will be tax increases--will only apply to people making over $400,000 a year. And yet the Republican leader comes to the floor and talks about this terrible idea of raising taxes. So let's step back and measure the difference here. Should Mr. Regalado--a single dad, father of two, with a 14-year-old son who needs insulin to live--be paying $400 a month or $20 a month for the insulin--the lifesaving insulin? And to make up the difference, is it unfair to ask someone making over $400,000 a year to pay more in taxes? You be the judge. I don't even think it is a close call. What we need to do is to get down to business. I don't know that there will be a single Republican voting to support this effort to reduce the cost of insulin for diabetics. That is just the way politics works in this Chamber, I am afraid. But I do hope that the 8 million families who have a diabetic son or daughter, father or mother will step up and speak up in the next few days because we have a chance to bring this measure to the floor this year--a measure that will affect many different areas of the law but, specifically, the cost of insulin for American families. If those 8 million families will stand up and speak up and say to Members of the U.S. Senate, ``Enough, you have negotiated enough; close the deal; do something that will be helpful to our families,'' just maybe that can make a difference. Maybe the endless negotiations that have gone on for month after month after month will finally come to an end. Now is the time to get it done. We have work to do in the Senate at clearing the bill for final passage. But I think we are on track to get that done. What we need to have is a groundswell of support from across the America. When you take a look at the other provisions in the bill, helping working families to pay for daycare--for goodness' sake, there is hardly a family around, unless they are very wealthy, that isn't concerned about the cost and quality of daycare available. We have a provision in this bill, the same bill that Senator McConnell spoke against just a few minutes ago, to help families pay for daycare. Is it important to these families? Well, it is important to my family. I visited with my granddaughter over the weekend, and I am sure there are many people in my situation, with grandchildren, who look at those kids and realize they should be in a safe, nurturing, affordable environment every single day so mom and dad don't have to think twice. Is it important to have a provision in the law which says we are going to provide home healthcare services to elderly members of our family or disabled members of our family? I will tell you this. The elderly folks whom I spoke to, the senior citizens, want to stay independent as long as possible, and they want to stay home as long as possible. If we can help them stay home and be independent, why wouldn't we do it? If it means a tax increase for people making over $400,000 a year, so be it. Sign me up for that increase. That is the sort of thing I think we do in America. Those who are well off pay a little bit more in taxes so those who are struggling can get a helping hand. So when the Republicans come to the floor and tell us how terrible this bill is, well, tell it to 8 million families in America with someone who needs insulin to stay alive each month. Tell it to the millions of families with kids who want to make sure they have peace of mind that these kids are being taken care of while they go to work. Tell it to the families with elderly parents or people who are disabled in their household who need a helping hand to be able to stay home and have quality healthcare. All of these things are addressed in this bill. It is important that we pass it, and I hope we do it soon. But we need to hear from America to create the momentum to get that job done. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this entire article, from USA Today, on insulin. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-14-pt1-PgS9130-2 | null | 3,722 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Crossfire Hurricane Mr. President, on another matter, on January 19 of this year, then-President Trump issued a memorandum to the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligent Agency. That memo directed these Agencies to declassify certain Crossfire Hurricane records for public dissemination. We all know about the fatal defects and political decisions that were made during Crossfire Hurricane. That type of improper government conduct demands maximum transparency. The only way you can trust the government is to make sure that everything that can be made public ought to be made public, and the only exceptions to that would be personal privacy, national security issues, and intelligence matters. Everything else is the public's business and can be made public without hurting people or hurting national security. On February 25 this year, my staff and Senator Johnson's staff requested an update from the Justice Department on what has been declassified. We want to know when a full and complete set of declassified records will be provided to the Congress of the United States. Since February, our respective staffs have followed up with the Justice Department on countless emails and phone calls. Attorney General Garland has consistently failed to provide a substantive update. We are now in December, and Attorney General Garland hasn't produced a single declassified record to Congress relating to Crossfire Hurricane. More importantly, Attorney General Garland has kept the American people in the dark. Now, the Justice Department hasn't claimed that the Durham investigation is a basis for refusing to provide these records, so what is the delay all about? Is the Attorney General trying to shield the Justice Department and the FBI from further embarrassment? Because that is why we don't get a lot of stuff public. It is because some bureaucrat is going to be embarrassed by the information coming out. The other week, it was reported that an alternative Mueller report has been located at the Justice Department. Now, I don't know what that is all about. Reportedly, DOJ could release it soon. This report, if you want to call it a report, was drafted by Andrew Weissmann's team while he served on Special Counsel Mueller's Trump investigation. Now, I want you to know this is the same Andrew Weissmann who wiped his government phone while working on that investigation. Many of his colleagues did the same thing to over a dozen phones. These acts may have deleted Federal records that could be key to better understanding their decision-making process as they pursued their investigation and wrote their report. On September 11 last year, I wrote to the Justice Department, asking about the potential violation of the Federal recordkeeping laws. I also asked what steps the Justice Department had taken to recover these deleted records. In response, then, the usual response: The Department failed to answer these questions. Instead, it provided a letter from the inspector general rather than providing a full and complete answer for itself. The inspector general said that 96 phones were assigned to the Mueller team, but the Justice Department can't locate 59 of those phones. Initially, the Justice Department took possession of 79 of 96 phones. Based on the information provided to me and Senator Johnson from the inspector general, it appears, then, that 74 were reviewed for official recordkeeping purposes; that is, only 74 out of 96 phones. Accordingly, 22 of Mueller's team's phones weren't reviewed for Federal recordkeeping purposes so we need to know who those phones belong to. This is beyond suspicious, and the Attorney General doesn't seem to have a care in the world. The inspector general told us there is a document called the SCO Inventory and Property Transfer Document. That would give us a better idea of the Federal recordkeeping process during the Mueller investigation. To date, Attorney General Garland has failed to produce that document. So what we have here is yet another example of a complete and total Justice Department failure. On the one hand, the Biden Justice Department has no idea what records should be classified--should be declassified pursuant to President Trump's January 2021 declassification order. The Biden Justice Department has failed to tell Congress what, if anything, it has done to retrieve the missing Mueller phones. The Biden Justice Department has also failed to provide the Mueller team's existing text messages and other records. Yet, can you believe it, on the other hand, the Justice Department will reportedly soon release an alternative Mueller report because a Federal court made them do it. Congress has an independent constitutional oversight authority, and that authority requires the executive branch to be responsive to oversight requests, irrespective of any Federal litigation. The obvious message from the Biden Justice Department is that it will stiff-arm congressional oversight that could prove embarrassing to the Federal Government--or it is like Garland saying: Screw you, Senators. Our institutions won't survive with that way of doing the people's business. Transparency brings accountability. Probably my colleagues are tired of my saying that--transparency brings accountability. But none of us should stop working to hold government officials accountable for their improper conduct, regardless of their political party. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-15-pt1-PgS9177 | null | 3,723 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Crossfire Hurricane Mr. President, on another matter, on January 19 of this year, then-President Trump issued a memorandum to the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Central Intelligent Agency. That memo directed these Agencies to declassify certain Crossfire Hurricane records for public dissemination. We all know about the fatal defects and political decisions that were made during Crossfire Hurricane. That type of improper government conduct demands maximum transparency. The only way you can trust the government is to make sure that everything that can be made public ought to be made public, and the only exceptions to that would be personal privacy, national security issues, and intelligence matters. Everything else is the public's business and can be made public without hurting people or hurting national security. On February 25 this year, my staff and Senator Johnson's staff requested an update from the Justice Department on what has been declassified. We want to know when a full and complete set of declassified records will be provided to the Congress of the United States. Since February, our respective staffs have followed up with the Justice Department on countless emails and phone calls. Attorney General Garland has consistently failed to provide a substantive update. We are now in December, and Attorney General Garland hasn't produced a single declassified record to Congress relating to Crossfire Hurricane. More importantly, Attorney General Garland has kept the American people in the dark. Now, the Justice Department hasn't claimed that the Durham investigation is a basis for refusing to provide these records, so what is the delay all about? Is the Attorney General trying to shield the Justice Department and the FBI from further embarrassment? Because that is why we don't get a lot of stuff public. It is because some bureaucrat is going to be embarrassed by the information coming out. The other week, it was reported that an alternative Mueller report has been located at the Justice Department. Now, I don't know what that is all about. Reportedly, DOJ could release it soon. This report, if you want to call it a report, was drafted by Andrew Weissmann's team while he served on Special Counsel Mueller's Trump investigation. Now, I want you to know this is the same Andrew Weissmann who wiped his government phone while working on that investigation. Many of his colleagues did the same thing to over a dozen phones. These acts may have deleted Federal records that could be key to better understanding their decision-making process as they pursued their investigation and wrote their report. On September 11 last year, I wrote to the Justice Department, asking about the potential violation of the Federal recordkeeping laws. I also asked what steps the Justice Department had taken to recover these deleted records. In response, then, the usual response: The Department failed to answer these questions. Instead, it provided a letter from the inspector general rather than providing a full and complete answer for itself. The inspector general said that 96 phones were assigned to the Mueller team, but the Justice Department can't locate 59 of those phones. Initially, the Justice Department took possession of 79 of 96 phones. Based on the information provided to me and Senator Johnson from the inspector general, it appears, then, that 74 were reviewed for official recordkeeping purposes; that is, only 74 out of 96 phones. Accordingly, 22 of Mueller's team's phones weren't reviewed for Federal recordkeeping purposes so we need to know who those phones belong to. This is beyond suspicious, and the Attorney General doesn't seem to have a care in the world. The inspector general told us there is a document called the SCO Inventory and Property Transfer Document. That would give us a better idea of the Federal recordkeeping process during the Mueller investigation. To date, Attorney General Garland has failed to produce that document. So what we have here is yet another example of a complete and total Justice Department failure. On the one hand, the Biden Justice Department has no idea what records should be classified--should be declassified pursuant to President Trump's January 2021 declassification order. The Biden Justice Department has failed to tell Congress what, if anything, it has done to retrieve the missing Mueller phones. The Biden Justice Department has also failed to provide the Mueller team's existing text messages and other records. Yet, can you believe it, on the other hand, the Justice Department will reportedly soon release an alternative Mueller report because a Federal court made them do it. Congress has an independent constitutional oversight authority, and that authority requires the executive branch to be responsive to oversight requests, irrespective of any Federal litigation. The obvious message from the Biden Justice Department is that it will stiff-arm congressional oversight that could prove embarrassing to the Federal Government--or it is like Garland saying: Screw you, Senators. Our institutions won't survive with that way of doing the people's business. Transparency brings accountability. Probably my colleagues are tired of my saying that--transparency brings accountability. But none of us should stop working to hold government officials accountable for their improper conduct, regardless of their political party. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-15-pt1-PgS9177 | null | 3,724 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Nomination of Samantha D. Elliott Madam President, I also rise today to support Samantha Elliott's nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Our court system was established to serve as an independent arbiter that would deliver equal justice under the law, and our democracy requires an independent and impartial judiciary for us to continue moving forward as a nation. I am confident that, if confirmed, Samantha Elliott will bring the necessary impartiality, experience, and commitment to justice to the Federal bench. A resident of Concord, NH, Ms. Elliott has spent years representing Granite Staters and has been a leader within the New Hampshire legal community. In her legal practice, she has represented clients at every level of New Hampshire's State court, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Throughout her career, Ms. Elliott has earned the respect and admiration of those within the legal community. With the support of her peers, she has been selected for inclusion in the ``Best Lawyers in America'' as well as in the ``New England Super Lawyers.'' These awards are a testament to the reputation that she has built in and outside the courtroom. For this role on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire in particular, members of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee unanimously found Ms. Elliott to be ``well qualified''--a distinction that reflects Ms. Elliott's integrity, professional competence, and temperament. I also want to note Ms. Elliott's impressive record of using her professional expertise to give back to her community and to our State. She has served on the board of New Hampshire Legal Assistance and with the Legal Advice and Referral Center, which is dedicated to providing legal services to low-income Granite Staters. This year, she became cochair of the founding board of directors for 603 Legal Aid--another critical resource and legal support system for those in need. She has taken on all of these roles while also fulfilling leadership roles within her own firm and tending to a robust legal practice of her own. Members of New Hampshire's small and tight-knit legal community marvel at Ms. Elliott's time management skills as well as her wide-ranging practice and capacity as an attorney. But what drives her colleagues' respect and admiration is her clear-eyed and passionate commitment to ensuring that everyone in our democracy has access to justice and her understanding that lawyers are privileged to be able to provide it. Samantha Elliott will be a fairminded, balanced, and intellectually curious judge who will serve Granite Staters with distinction on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. I look forward to voting in favor of her nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I know that my colleague Senator Shaheen is here today to speak about Ms. Elliott's experience as well. I yield the floor to the Senator. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-15-pt1-PgS9179 | null | 3,725 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, today I rise to highlight the 100th anniversary of the 117th Air Refueling Wing based in Birmingham, AL, and to honor the patriotic men and women, past and present, of this storied National Guard unit. For a century, the 117th has defended our freedoms by providing worldwide air refueling, airlift, logistics, intelligence, and medical services. It is a profound honor to represent these great Americans in their nation's capital. The United States hosts the world's most powerful Air Force, which gives our country the ability to project strength and defend freedom around the globe. This capability is made possible by a heavy reliance on our air refueling tankers that create bridges across the sky for our fighters and bombers. Since October 1994, the 117th Air Refueling Wing has proudly and effectively performed this critical air refueling mission with the KC-135 Stratotanker, a mainstay of our tanker fleet. The 117th Air Refueling Wing is heavily utilized and often deployed. Their reliability and dedication has led them to take part in some of the most consequential military actions of our time. During the Kosovo conflict of 1999, the wing flew operational missions over the Balkans following its deployment of six KC-135 aircraft to Brize-Norton Royal Air Force Base, England, in support of Operation Allied Force. After the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 117th deployed to MacDill Air Force Base, FL, as part of Operation Noble Eagle to refuel F-15 and F-16 aircraft that were flying around-the-clock protective combat air patrol missions over major cities in the United States. The wing deployed KC-135 aircraft to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to fly operational missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and later played a key role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Each of these deployments supported and directly contributed to the success of our air operations, keeping Americans in the air and on the ground safer while imposing our will on the enemy. But, even decades before taking on the air refueling mission, the wing had a storied beginning and a long history of service to our country. In 1918, Major James A. Meissner, a World War I flying ace, returned home to Birmingham to lead the formation of a flying unit based at Roberts Field. As a result of his efforts, on January 21, 1922, the U.S. Department of War identified the Birmingham Aero Club as the first Air National Guard Unit in Alabama. The unit was originally designated as the 135th Observation Squadron, Alabama National Guard, and received Federal recognition as a Corps Aviation unit. The flying squadron was nicknamed the ``Birmingham Escadrille's,'' and Major Meissner served as the first commander. On January 30, 1944, the unit, by then redesignated to the 106th Reconnaissance Squadron, flew its first combat sorties in B-25 Mitchell aircraft against the Japanese from Sterling Island in the South Pacific. In 1961, the unit was federalized in support of the Berlin Crisis. For 10 months, 20 RF-84F Thunderstreak aircraft flew missions from Dreux Air Base, France. Also in 1961, roughly 80 members of the Alabama Air National Guard secretly took part in the operation to support the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. These individuals bravely defended the U.S. and Cuban people against the communist regime and were sworn to secrecy until the declassification of the mission in 1998. In November 1971, the unit was selected to be the first Air National Guard unit to receive the RF-4C Phantom II aircraft, redesignated as the 117th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, and assigned to the U.S. Air Force's Tactical Air Command. Following Saddam Hussein's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, six Alabama National Guard RF-4C aircraft equipped with special long-range cameras deployed on August 24, 1990, to Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates. Their mission was to obtain high-resolution images ofobjects 100 miles away to aid prewar surveillance and photo-reconnaissance mapping of Iraqi forces in occupied Kuwait and along the Saudi Arabia-Iraq border. Though the missions and the aircraft have changed over the 100-year history of the flying squadron, one thing has remained constant: The men and women of the 117th have always answered the call to service. That tradition has been proudly carried on by the nearly 1,000 men and women who comprise the 117th Air Refueling Wing. Today, we honor the airmen and women, maintainers, medical crews, and support staff of the 117th Air Refueling Wing on this important anniversary and remember those that have given their lives as part of the wing's operations. I salute them for their sacrifice and service to the great State of Alabama and the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2021-12-15-pt1-PgS9208-2 | null | 3,726 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, today I rise to highlight the 100th anniversary of the 117th Air Refueling Wing based in Birmingham, AL, and to honor the patriotic men and women, past and present, of this storied National Guard unit. For a century, the 117th has defended our freedoms by providing worldwide air refueling, airlift, logistics, intelligence, and medical services. It is a profound honor to represent these great Americans in their nation's capital. The United States hosts the world's most powerful Air Force, which gives our country the ability to project strength and defend freedom around the globe. This capability is made possible by a heavy reliance on our air refueling tankers that create bridges across the sky for our fighters and bombers. Since October 1994, the 117th Air Refueling Wing has proudly and effectively performed this critical air refueling mission with the KC-135 Stratotanker, a mainstay of our tanker fleet. The 117th Air Refueling Wing is heavily utilized and often deployed. Their reliability and dedication has led them to take part in some of the most consequential military actions of our time. During the Kosovo conflict of 1999, the wing flew operational missions over the Balkans following its deployment of six KC-135 aircraft to Brize-Norton Royal Air Force Base, England, in support of Operation Allied Force. After the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the 117th deployed to MacDill Air Force Base, FL, as part of Operation Noble Eagle to refuel F-15 and F-16 aircraft that were flying around-the-clock protective combat air patrol missions over major cities in the United States. The wing deployed KC-135 aircraft to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, to fly operational missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and later played a key role in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Each of these deployments supported and directly contributed to the success of our air operations, keeping Americans in the air and on the ground safer while imposing our will on the enemy. But, even decades before taking on the air refueling mission, the wing had a storied beginning and a long history of service to our country. In 1918, Major James A. Meissner, a World War I flying ace, returned home to Birmingham to lead the formation of a flying unit based at Roberts Field. As a result of his efforts, on January 21, 1922, the U.S. Department of War identified the Birmingham Aero Club as the first Air National Guard Unit in Alabama. The unit was originally designated as the 135th Observation Squadron, Alabama National Guard, and received Federal recognition as a Corps Aviation unit. The flying squadron was nicknamed the ``Birmingham Escadrille's,'' and Major Meissner served as the first commander. On January 30, 1944, the unit, by then redesignated to the 106th Reconnaissance Squadron, flew its first combat sorties in B-25 Mitchell aircraft against the Japanese from Sterling Island in the South Pacific. In 1961, the unit was federalized in support of the Berlin Crisis. For 10 months, 20 RF-84F Thunderstreak aircraft flew missions from Dreux Air Base, France. Also in 1961, roughly 80 members of the Alabama Air National Guard secretly took part in the operation to support the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. These individuals bravely defended the U.S. and Cuban people against the communist regime and were sworn to secrecy until the declassification of the mission in 1998. In November 1971, the unit was selected to be the first Air National Guard unit to receive the RF-4C Phantom II aircraft, redesignated as the 117th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, and assigned to the U.S. Air Force's Tactical Air Command. Following Saddam Hussein's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, six Alabama National Guard RF-4C aircraft equipped with special long-range cameras deployed on August 24, 1990, to Al Dhafra Air Base, United Arab Emirates. Their mission was to obtain high-resolution images ofobjects 100 miles away to aid prewar surveillance and photo-reconnaissance mapping of Iraqi forces in occupied Kuwait and along the Saudi Arabia-Iraq border. Though the missions and the aircraft have changed over the 100-year history of the flying squadron, one thing has remained constant: The men and women of the 117th have always answered the call to service. That tradition has been proudly carried on by the nearly 1,000 men and women who comprise the 117th Air Refueling Wing. Today, we honor the airmen and women, maintainers, medical crews, and support staff of the 117th Air Refueling Wing on this important anniversary and remember those that have given their lives as part of the wing's operations. I salute them for their sacrifice and service to the great State of Alabama and the United States of America. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2021-12-15-pt1-PgS9208-2 | null | 3,727 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 10:04 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 3377. An act to empower the Chief of the United States Capitol Police to unilaterally request the assistance of the DC National Guard or Federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without prior approval of the Capitol Police Board. The message further announced that the House has passed the following joint resolution, without amendment: S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 5665. An act to establish in the Department of State the Office to Monitor and Combat lslamophobia, and for other purposes. H.R. 6256. An act to ensure 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. Enrolled Joint Resolution and Bills Signed At 10:26 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled joint resolution and bills: S.J. Res. 33. A joint resolution joint resolution relating to increasing the debt limit. H.R. 390. An act to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''. H.R. 4660. An act to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ``Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. The enrolled joint resolution and bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-15-pt1-PgS9209-4 | null | 3,728 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 4 of rule I, the following enrolled bills were signed by the Speaker on Tuesday, December 14, 2021: H.R. 390, to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''; H.R. 4660, to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ``Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgH7829-7 | null | 3,729 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Kevin F. McCumber, Deputy Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were thereupon signed by the Speaker on Tuesday, December 14, 2021: H.R. 390. An act to redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''. H.R. 4660. An act to designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ``Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgH7830-2 | null | 3,730 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-2969. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's 1st quarter FY 2022 Quarterly Briefing on Progress of the Chemical Demilitarization Program; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-2970. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rule -- Consumer Leasing (Regulation M) [Docket No.: R-1756] (RIN: 7100-AG19) 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-2971. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rules -- Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold 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-2972. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Legal Division, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rule -- Fair Credit Reporting Act Disclosures 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-2973. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rules -- Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) 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-2974. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final rule -- Computer-Security Incident Notification Requirements for Banking Organizations and Their Bank Service Providers (RIN: 3064-AF59) received December 2, 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-2975. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Universal Proxy [Release No.: 34-93596; IC-34419; File No.: S7-24-16] (RIN: 3235-AL84) received December 9, 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-2976. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act Disclosure [Release No.: 34-93701; IC-34431; File No.: S7-03-21] (RIN: 3235-AM84) received December 9, 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-2977. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Sulfur Dioxide Clean Data Determination for St. Clair [EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0385; FRL-8826-02-R5] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2978. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; TN; Montgomery County Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0428; FRL-8911-02-R04] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2979. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; FL, GA, NC, SC; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard [EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0156; FRL-8697- 02-R4] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2980. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Mecklenburg Air Quality Permit Rules Revisions [EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0354; FRL-8958-02-R4] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2981. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 2,5-Furandione, Polymer With Ethenylbenzene, Octyl Imide, Imide With Polyethylene-Polypropylene Glycol 2-Aminopropyl Me Ether; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0639; FRL-9233-01-OCSPP] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2982. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Isoprothiolane; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0424; FRL-9063-01- OCSPP] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2983. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Illinois; 2008 Ozone Moderate VOC RACT for Chicago; Correction [EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0031; FRL-8822-03-R5] received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2984. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's NRC management directive -- Management Directive 12.6, ``NRC Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Program'' received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2985. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's issuance of regulatory guide -- RG 1.91 Revision 3, ``Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur at Nearby Facilities or on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants'' received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-2986. A letter from the President of the United States, transmitting notification that the National Emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, is to continue in effect beyond December 20, 2021, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 202(d); (90 Stat. 1257) (H. Doc. No. 117--78); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. EC-2987. A letter from the President of the United States, transmitting an Executive Order imposing sanctions on foreign persons involved in the global illicit drug trade, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1703(b); Public Law 95-223, Sec. 204(b); (91 Stat. 1627) (H. Doc. No. 117--79); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. EC-2988. A letter from the Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the period April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2989. A letter from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a notification of a nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2990. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination and discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2991. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination and discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2992. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-2993. A letter from the Agency Representative, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2020 [Docket No.: PTO-P-2018-0031] (RIN: 0651-AD31) received December 2, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2994. A letter from the Branch Chief, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Timing of Tax- Exempt Income Relating to Forgiven Paycheck Protection Program Loans (Rev. Proc. 2021-48) received December 9, 2021, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-2995. 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: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; Price Transparency of Hospital Standard Charges; Radiation Oncology Model [CMS-1753-FC] (RIN: 0938- AU43) 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-2996. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Secretary's determination that a debt issuance suspension period (DISP) would continue through December 3, 2021, with respect to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8348(l)(2); Public Law 89-554, Sec. 8348(l)(2) (as added by Public Law 99-509, Sec. 6002(c)); (100 Stat. 1933); jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and Reform. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgH7830-5 | null | 3,731 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight because I want to remind our colleagues and the people of the United States of America that we did pass an infrastructure bill, and it was bipartisan. But we are here tonight because the very people that it takes to implement that bill, the very people that work at the Department of Commerce, the very people who work at the Department of Transportation are being held up in notbeing able to be fully confirmed by this body to do the work that it takes to implement that legislation. I know this is incredibly important to people across the United States of America because we know how popular that bill was. My colleagues are with me tonight--two members of the Commerce Committee--who worked hard and contributed mightily to the Surface Transportation Act that passed out of the Commerce Committee in a robust bipartisan fashion to come here to the floor. It was added with other legislation from other committees. So we are here tonight--myself, my colleague from Montana, who has a State as big as any State in the United States. It probably is the largest State. All I know is it takes me at least an hour to fly over it. So I guarantee you that is a lot of roads, that is a lot of bridges, that is a lot of railroad, that is a lot of infrastructure. If it is not fixed and it is not taken care of, then the Montana economy is hurt. My colleague from Wisconsin is here, and she played a major role in the infrastructure bill as well. She made sure that we focused on at-grade crossings and the safety of our rail system. Why? Because we have to move products from the Midwest to reach Asian markets. If they can't get there because they are stuck in congestion, then, we aren't going to be competitive as a nation. It is ridiculous that we are in this position tonight, ridiculous that there are dozens of nominees from the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce that the majority of our colleagues support, but they are being held up by one or two people who don't want to see them move through the process. I am talking about nominees that are part of the Federal Railroad Administration--the Administrator. We are giving a bunch of money to the Federal Railroad Administration so they can put grants out, authorize this new program for at-grade crossings to improve the speed of moving our product, and people don't want the FRA, or the Federal Railroad Administration, to have an Administrator. I don't know what possibly could be wrong with that. Someone doesn't want us to have the CFO for the Department of Transportation. The CFO--you don't want us to have a CFO? How political could the CFO of the Department of Transportation be? I guarantee you, not very political. The CFO is a person who is going to make sure that we spend the money correctly, administer the new programs as they get set up, and make sure the money goes out the door. It is hard to imagine a lot of money will go out the door of the Department of Transportation if we don't have a CFO. There are other people here that are part of the transportation system on analysis. There are people I am pretty sure my colleague from Montana will talk about. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--why? Again, because I guarantee you there are a lot of trucks in Montana. There is a lot of moving of product. You have to have trucking safety, and you have to have help in administering that. And if you have to have help administering that, then, you need to have an Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. These are basic positions. These are positions that are part of the infrastructure that we need for the Department of Transportation and, as I mentioned, the Department of Commerce. These are issues that are important to us. Let me just say a few words about Commerce nominees. We have someone who is supposed to do the analysis of industry for the Department of Commerce. We have someone who is supposed to help us with trade and international matters. I am pretty sure my colleague from Florida, who is objecting to some of these nominees, is going to say: It is about the supply chain. These are the very people that we need for the supply chain. You need the analysis and the construct of the Department of Commerce to say: These are the problems that we have with the Department moving forward on various issues that we have with a major focus on our infrastructure. The infrastructure bill provided $1.2 trillion in funding for transportation, for energy, for disparities that we have in our infrastructure and that has to get spent, and it has to get spent as soon as possible. Markets in China and India are expected to be worth $26 trillion by 2030, but some people think: Well, we will just take that money we gave to move ahead on our infrastructure--something that has been dilapidated for a long time. That is what people don't understand. Over several administrations, our investment in transportation infrastructure fell to less than 1 percent of GDP, and we didn't correct it. The last administration didn't correct it, but this administration came in--a Democratic administration--and said we are going to correct that because economists will tell you that you are not keeping pace if your infrastructure investment is less than 1 percent. Now President Biden is going to get that number up over the next several years, and that is the kind of investment we need to make. We don't need to slow down because there is a big world economy, and 95 percent of consumers live outside the United States. But, OK, let's just take our sweet time in implementing this bill and getting U.S. products to international markets, when 95 percent of consumers are outside the United States. Let's just take our sweet time because someone wants to object to these nominees--the CFO, the Administrator, these people who have been moved out of committee in a bipartisan fashion. This is a once-in-a-lifetime, once-in-a-generation investment that we have to make. But they have to have people over there to make the investment and they have to have people to be fully staffed. And we have to make sure that these important steps that the President is taking on supply chain are met. That is why these issues of working on various logistics of operations, of pricing, of transparency, and overseeing shippers and making sure that some of our largest shippers are committed to moving cargo during off-peak hours are important. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know how important agricultural products being delivered to market on time is. And we need to make sure that our farmers, our people who have U.S.-manufactured products, like in the State of Wisconsin, are getting a fair deal on their shipping. And that is why we also have to have the nominee for the Federal Maritime Commission and get somebody on the Commission who is going to hold people accountable to make sure that our products get somewhere safely and securely and in a timely fashion. So these issues that we are facing on the supply chain are complex. They are not going to be fixed overnight, but they have to have people in the jobs. They have to have people who are going to answer the questions, work together, and to get this done. So I would ask my colleagues, who I know are going to join me in making several nominations, I ask unanimous consent to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 315, Karen Jean Hedlund, of Colorado, to be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board for a term expiring December 31, 2025; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9242-4 | null | 3,732 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, while I was necessarily absent for the confirmation votes of Ramin Toloui and Rashad Hussain, I want the Congressional Record to reflect my support for their confirmations. Had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative. Ramin Toloui is nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. He is the professor of the Practice for International Finance at Stanford University, and the Tad and Diane Taube Policy Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. His teaching and research focus on international economic policy, financial crises, and the economic impact of artificial intelligence. He began his career as a civil servant at the Department of the Treasury. His nomination was favorably reported by the Foreign Relations Committee, and he is superbly qualified to hold this position. Rashad Hussain is nominated to be Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom. He is a senior counsel at the Department of Justice's National Security Division. He previously served as President Obama's Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation--OIC--as U.S. Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and as Deputy Associate White House Counsel. In his role as OIC Envoy, Professor Hussain helped develop U.S policy and deepen and expand partnerships with Muslim-majority countries, civil society organizations, and the OIC, the world's second largest multilateral organization after the UN. As Special Envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, Professor Hussain led an interagency body that worked with international partners to amplify credible narratives in countering terrorist propaganda. Having been reported favorably by the Foreign Relations Committee, I have no doubt of his qualifications for this position. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9250-3 | null | 3,733 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in Vermont, the general store is the epicenter of a community. It is where people not only buy their groceries and newspapers, but also tools and hardware, mittens and hats, axes and chainsaws, gas for their cars, and too many other things to name. But just as important, general stores are where Vermonters meet their neighbors, and when the weather is good, pass the time and talk about their families, things going on in town, or the state of the world. Marcelle and I have been to just about every general store in Vermont, and each one has its own history and character. One of them, Dan & Whit's, stands out. Located in Norwich about halfway up the eastern side of the State bordering on the Connecticut River, the store that became Dan & Whit's has been operating since 1891. It was originally called Merrill's Store, and the old Merrill's sign is still affixed to the front. The same neon clock, mounted high on the front of the store's facade, has told the time to the town since the 1950s. Made by the Electric Neon Clock Co. in Cleveland, it was recently restored and made energy efficient. In 1955, Dan Fraser and Whit Hicks, who had both worked at the store for over 20 years, bought it from Mr. Merrill. Since then, Dan & Whit's has been open for business 365 days a year, including a half day on Christmas and a half day on Thanksgiving. Dan and Whit ran the store as partners, and Dan's wife Eliza, known to all as ``Bunnie'', did the bookkeeping in the raised office near the stationery and greeting cards until Whit retired and sold out in 1972. Dan, who from what I am told hardly took a day off during all those years, retired in 1993, and turned the management of the store over to his sons George and Jack, and their sister Jane pitched in off and on. George's wife Susan took over Bunnie's job in the office, which hadn't changed in decades, except the typewriter was replaced by a computer. Ownership of the store is currently shared between George and his two sons Dan and Matt. Dan, after a 14-year career as a special education teacher, has taken over the day-to-day management. Most townspeople have an account, so they can simply sign the register and pay the bill at the end of the month. At no charge for local calls, anyone can use the push-button phone with its long cord by the ice machine, and before cell phones, it was a vital link from the magical abundance of the store to the outside world: ``Do we need anything at Dan & Whit's?'' There is a reason why the sign in the store window says, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it,'' because when you walk in and keep walking, the store never seems to end. Dan & Whit's has got absolutely everything, at least everything a person could reasonably want or need. There is fresh fruit and vegetables, a selection of wines, kitchen utensils, bins of nails and boxes of screws, fishing tackle, ladders and rakes, paint, bags of horse feed, maple syrup and candy, toys, ice cream scooped on the premises in summertime, home-brewed beer, bright orange hunting caps, snow boots, plumbing and electrical supplies, shovels and wheelbarrows, wood stoves, birdseed, the local and national newspapers, a deli, gasoline pumps and an electric vehicle charging station, and lots more. The place is kept warm in the winter by a wood-fired furnace in the basement, requiring cords and cords of wood--delivered, split, and stacked behind the Frasers' homes, and there are solar panels on the roof. Dan & Whit's has long been a favored stop for hikers on the Appalachian Trail, which passes through the center of Norwich. Over the years, Dan & Whit's has hired local high school students to run the cash registers, and there was a time not that long ago when the employees who stocked the shelves and helped you find what you were looking for were long-timers like Larry Smith, who worked there for over 50 years. Recently, like so many other businesses in our State and around the country, it has been hard to find help. In fact, Dan & Whit's was facing the real possibility of closing, which would have been devastating for the people of Norwich, as well as countless others who come there to shop, as well as former residents of Norwich who stop at the store just to be sure that it is the same as it always was. As many have remarked, Dan & Whit's is the heart of Norwich, and losing it would have changed everything. I can't imagine Norwich without Dan & Whit's, and I suspect just about everyone who knows the store feels the same way. Real estate listings for property sales in the town include the distance from Dan & Whit's. Hundreds of notices are along the wall by the entrance: dog lost, secondhand items for sale, yoga lessons, a free concert, snow plowing. It all happens at the general store. Fortunately, but not surprisingly, when word got out that the store might close, the people of Norwich came to the rescue, and Dan & Whit's has not lost a day of business. I want to add my thanks to Dan and the volunteers who saved the heart of Norwich. They have reminded us of what is best about Vermont and, in doing so, have set an example for people everywhere. I ask unanimous consent that a piece written on December 7 by Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, be printed in the Record. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9253 | null | 3,734 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022. The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a 2.7 percent pay increase for our servicemembers and DOD civilian employees, parental and bereavement leave for servicemembers, and the creation of basic needs allowance. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland, including over $500 million in authorized military construction projects across the State. This legislation also includes several important pieces of legislation that I introduced to strengthen our Foreign Service, ensure that all students have a fair shot at attending one of our Federal service academies, and support our Federal firefighters. While there are parts of this legislation that I have concerns with and important priorities that were left out, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest. In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA includes the Foreign Service Families Act of 2021, which I introduced with Senator Sullivan, with whom I cochair the Foreign Service Caucus. As the son of a Foreign Service Officer, I know the challenges that Foreign Service families face in accessing education and employment when they accompany our diplomats abroad. That is why I introduced this legislation, which authorizes expanded employment services for the spouses of Foreign Service officers serving overseas. It also extends in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for Foreign Service members and their families after 30 days of residency in a State and allows Foreign Service families to terminate leases without penalty when ordered to move for work. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of our Foreign Service families and will help reduce attrition and attract the talented and diverse diplomatic workforce we need to compete on the global stage. It is modeled after benefits we extend to military families, who also have to move frequently in service to our country. I am also glad that this legislation includes the SERVE Act, which I introduced with Senator Cardin and Representative Brown. This bill ensures that high school students applying to attend one of our Federal service academies do not lose out on opportunities to be nominated because of a vacancy in Congress. After the tragic loss of my friend and colleague, Representative Elijah Cummings, my office learned that nomination slots at our service academies, like the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, cease to exist if a seat in Congress is vacant at the time nominations are due. This meant that a student from Congressman Cummings' district had one-third fewer opportunities to receive a nomination to a service academy. As a result of this new law, Senators may make nominations on behalf of a vacant seat, ensuring that students do not lose an opportunity to serve their country through no fault of their own. Further, I am glad Armed Services Committee agreed to include the Federal Firefighter Flexibility and Fairness Act, which I introduced with Senators Tester, Collins, and Carper and Representatives Sarbanes and Wittman. This legislation grants additionalflexibility to our Federal firefighters that their State and local counterparts have enjoyed for many years. As a result of this bill, Federal firefighters will be able to trade shifts across pay periods without negatively affecting their pay. This NDAA also establishes a consortium on irregular warfare threats, a critical step in the transfer of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism--START--from the sponsorship of the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Defense, which has the resources to maintain this national security research. I previously worked to secure funding for this transition in the FY21 defense appropriations bill. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, better known as START, is a university-based research and education center based at the University of Maryland and comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. I am also glad the NDAA incorporates the Enhancing Military Base Resilience and Conserving Ecosystems through Stormwater Management Act, which I introduced with Senators Kaine, Cardin, and Warner. This bill authorizes the Defense Department to carry out stormwater management projects on military installations. These projects will improve installation resilience and essential infrastructure that supports military installations and protect nearby waterways like the Chesapeake Bay. In August, I worked to secure language in the FY22 Military Construction-VA Appropriations bill encouraging the Department of Defense to use Energy Resilience and Conservation Program funds to support stormwater management projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in order to better protect and conserve the health of the bay. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee for working with me to address the Army's incorrect application of the law pertaining to the Prisoner of War Medal, which has negatively affected a Maryland veteran. In 2020, I asked the Army to award the POW Medal to Marylander Ronald Dolecki for his military service in Ethiopia in 1965, which he has been denied for over a decade. Mr. Dolecki clearly qualifies for the Medal under the criteria established by Congress in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, but the Army continued to incorrectly apply the previous standard to his case. I am grateful to Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe for including language directing the Army to rectify its incorrect application of the law to ensure that this Marylander who served his country with honor and distinction and others like him are appropriately recognized. Lastly, this bill includes funding and language that is critical to supporting Maryland's military installations, including more than $350 million for Fort Meade, more than $150 million for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and more than $30 million for Joint Base Andrews. The bill also includes report language ensuring the Army's continued support for the demolition of contaminated facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground and provisions to continue responding to the recent crisis in privatized military housing which affected installations in Maryland and across the country. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. I appreciate that this bill codifies the GAO's recommendations related to tactical vehicle rollover accidents in response to the tragic loss of lLT Conor McDowell, a U.S. marine who lost his life in a training accident at Camp Pendleton. 1LT McDowell showed extraordinary bravery, saving the life of a fellow marine, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these preventable crashes end. The bill also includes a directive that the Department of Defense report on the cost and feasibility of a pilot program that Senators Cardin and Representatives Brown and Wittman and I proposed in the the 1LT Hugh Conor McDowell Safety in Armed Forces Equipment Act of 2021. This simple, straightforward bill directs the Departments of the Army and the Navy to jointly implement a 5-year pilot program to evaluate the prospect of using data recorders to monitor, assess, and improve the readiness and safety of the operation of military tactical vehicles. This commonsense program will improve the safety of our men and women in uniform and save lives. I believe we could have proceeded with this pilot today, but look forward to receiving the mandated report no later than March 1, 2022, as directed, and I will continue to advocate vigorously for the implementation of this program. I am disappointed that the NOAA does not include my amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the research and development, production or deployment of the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile--SLCM-N--and its associated nuclear warhead. The United States already possesses an array of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities that fulfill our theater nuclear deterrence missions and reassure our allies of our extended deterrence commitments. In its 2019 cost estimate of U.S. nuclear weapons programs, the CBO projected that the SLCM-N would cost $9 billion through 2028. This projection does not account for production costs after 2028, nor does it factor in costs associated with integrating the missile on ships, nuclear weapons training for personnel, and storage and security for nuclear warheads on naval bases. Not only is the program a waste of money, it will also dangerously raise the risk of nuclear miscalculation and escalation. I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country. In the midst of a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 800,000 of our fellow Americans, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I oppose the decision to invest an additional $25 billion over the President's budget request for defense while we continue to underinvest in diplomacy, development, and a wide range of critical domestic priorities. Lastly, I am disappointed that the bill did not include my amendment with Representative Jacobs to close a loophole that allows some U.S. security assistance to foreign forces without being subject to Leahy law restrictions that bar U.S. military assistance to units credibly believed to have engaged in gross violations of human rights. This is a simple, straightforward matter of the United States living up to our most basic commitments as a member of the international community. The accompanying NDAA report language does require the presentation of a report detailing the processes through which the Defense Department seeks to ensure that consideration is given to any credible information relating to violations of human rights by such entities, before support is given to them. I will be reviewing that report closely to determine what further action is necessary to safeguard human rights and ensure that no U.S. security assistance is exempt from these commonsense restrictions. While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9254-2 | null | 3,735 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022. The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a 2.7 percent pay increase for our servicemembers and DOD civilian employees, parental and bereavement leave for servicemembers, and the creation of basic needs allowance. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland, including over $500 million in authorized military construction projects across the State. This legislation also includes several important pieces of legislation that I introduced to strengthen our Foreign Service, ensure that all students have a fair shot at attending one of our Federal service academies, and support our Federal firefighters. While there are parts of this legislation that I have concerns with and important priorities that were left out, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest. In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA includes the Foreign Service Families Act of 2021, which I introduced with Senator Sullivan, with whom I cochair the Foreign Service Caucus. As the son of a Foreign Service Officer, I know the challenges that Foreign Service families face in accessing education and employment when they accompany our diplomats abroad. That is why I introduced this legislation, which authorizes expanded employment services for the spouses of Foreign Service officers serving overseas. It also extends in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for Foreign Service members and their families after 30 days of residency in a State and allows Foreign Service families to terminate leases without penalty when ordered to move for work. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of our Foreign Service families and will help reduce attrition and attract the talented and diverse diplomatic workforce we need to compete on the global stage. It is modeled after benefits we extend to military families, who also have to move frequently in service to our country. I am also glad that this legislation includes the SERVE Act, which I introduced with Senator Cardin and Representative Brown. This bill ensures that high school students applying to attend one of our Federal service academies do not lose out on opportunities to be nominated because of a vacancy in Congress. After the tragic loss of my friend and colleague, Representative Elijah Cummings, my office learned that nomination slots at our service academies, like the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, cease to exist if a seat in Congress is vacant at the time nominations are due. This meant that a student from Congressman Cummings' district had one-third fewer opportunities to receive a nomination to a service academy. As a result of this new law, Senators may make nominations on behalf of a vacant seat, ensuring that students do not lose an opportunity to serve their country through no fault of their own. Further, I am glad Armed Services Committee agreed to include the Federal Firefighter Flexibility and Fairness Act, which I introduced with Senators Tester, Collins, and Carper and Representatives Sarbanes and Wittman. This legislation grants additionalflexibility to our Federal firefighters that their State and local counterparts have enjoyed for many years. As a result of this bill, Federal firefighters will be able to trade shifts across pay periods without negatively affecting their pay. This NDAA also establishes a consortium on irregular warfare threats, a critical step in the transfer of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism--START--from the sponsorship of the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Defense, which has the resources to maintain this national security research. I previously worked to secure funding for this transition in the FY21 defense appropriations bill. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, better known as START, is a university-based research and education center based at the University of Maryland and comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. I am also glad the NDAA incorporates the Enhancing Military Base Resilience and Conserving Ecosystems through Stormwater Management Act, which I introduced with Senators Kaine, Cardin, and Warner. This bill authorizes the Defense Department to carry out stormwater management projects on military installations. These projects will improve installation resilience and essential infrastructure that supports military installations and protect nearby waterways like the Chesapeake Bay. In August, I worked to secure language in the FY22 Military Construction-VA Appropriations bill encouraging the Department of Defense to use Energy Resilience and Conservation Program funds to support stormwater management projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in order to better protect and conserve the health of the bay. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee for working with me to address the Army's incorrect application of the law pertaining to the Prisoner of War Medal, which has negatively affected a Maryland veteran. In 2020, I asked the Army to award the POW Medal to Marylander Ronald Dolecki for his military service in Ethiopia in 1965, which he has been denied for over a decade. Mr. Dolecki clearly qualifies for the Medal under the criteria established by Congress in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, but the Army continued to incorrectly apply the previous standard to his case. I am grateful to Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe for including language directing the Army to rectify its incorrect application of the law to ensure that this Marylander who served his country with honor and distinction and others like him are appropriately recognized. Lastly, this bill includes funding and language that is critical to supporting Maryland's military installations, including more than $350 million for Fort Meade, more than $150 million for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and more than $30 million for Joint Base Andrews. The bill also includes report language ensuring the Army's continued support for the demolition of contaminated facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground and provisions to continue responding to the recent crisis in privatized military housing which affected installations in Maryland and across the country. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. I appreciate that this bill codifies the GAO's recommendations related to tactical vehicle rollover accidents in response to the tragic loss of lLT Conor McDowell, a U.S. marine who lost his life in a training accident at Camp Pendleton. 1LT McDowell showed extraordinary bravery, saving the life of a fellow marine, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these preventable crashes end. The bill also includes a directive that the Department of Defense report on the cost and feasibility of a pilot program that Senators Cardin and Representatives Brown and Wittman and I proposed in the the 1LT Hugh Conor McDowell Safety in Armed Forces Equipment Act of 2021. This simple, straightforward bill directs the Departments of the Army and the Navy to jointly implement a 5-year pilot program to evaluate the prospect of using data recorders to monitor, assess, and improve the readiness and safety of the operation of military tactical vehicles. This commonsense program will improve the safety of our men and women in uniform and save lives. I believe we could have proceeded with this pilot today, but look forward to receiving the mandated report no later than March 1, 2022, as directed, and I will continue to advocate vigorously for the implementation of this program. I am disappointed that the NOAA does not include my amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the research and development, production or deployment of the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile--SLCM-N--and its associated nuclear warhead. The United States already possesses an array of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities that fulfill our theater nuclear deterrence missions and reassure our allies of our extended deterrence commitments. In its 2019 cost estimate of U.S. nuclear weapons programs, the CBO projected that the SLCM-N would cost $9 billion through 2028. This projection does not account for production costs after 2028, nor does it factor in costs associated with integrating the missile on ships, nuclear weapons training for personnel, and storage and security for nuclear warheads on naval bases. Not only is the program a waste of money, it will also dangerously raise the risk of nuclear miscalculation and escalation. I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country. In the midst of a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 800,000 of our fellow Americans, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I oppose the decision to invest an additional $25 billion over the President's budget request for defense while we continue to underinvest in diplomacy, development, and a wide range of critical domestic priorities. Lastly, I am disappointed that the bill did not include my amendment with Representative Jacobs to close a loophole that allows some U.S. security assistance to foreign forces without being subject to Leahy law restrictions that bar U.S. military assistance to units credibly believed to have engaged in gross violations of human rights. This is a simple, straightforward matter of the United States living up to our most basic commitments as a member of the international community. The accompanying NDAA report language does require the presentation of a report detailing the processes through which the Defense Department seeks to ensure that consideration is given to any credible information relating to violations of human rights by such entities, before support is given to them. I will be reviewing that report closely to determine what further action is necessary to safeguard human rights and ensure that no U.S. security assistance is exempt from these commonsense restrictions. While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9254-2 | null | 3,736 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022. The National Defense Authorization Act provides crucial resources for our Armed Forces and our national defense, including a 2.7 percent pay increase for our servicemembers and DOD civilian employees, parental and bereavement leave for servicemembers, and the creation of basic needs allowance. I am glad that the Senate was able to come together on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation to support our servicemembers, strengthen our national security, and invest in critical projects in my home State of Maryland, including over $500 million in authorized military construction projects across the State. This legislation also includes several important pieces of legislation that I introduced to strengthen our Foreign Service, ensure that all students have a fair shot at attending one of our Federal service academies, and support our Federal firefighters. While there are parts of this legislation that I have concerns with and important priorities that were left out, I believe that, on balance, this bill serves our national interest. In particular, I am pleased that this NDAA includes the Foreign Service Families Act of 2021, which I introduced with Senator Sullivan, with whom I cochair the Foreign Service Caucus. As the son of a Foreign Service Officer, I know the challenges that Foreign Service families face in accessing education and employment when they accompany our diplomats abroad. That is why I introduced this legislation, which authorizes expanded employment services for the spouses of Foreign Service officers serving overseas. It also extends in-state tuition at public colleges and universities for Foreign Service members and their families after 30 days of residency in a State and allows Foreign Service families to terminate leases without penalty when ordered to move for work. This legislation will make a real difference in the lives of our Foreign Service families and will help reduce attrition and attract the talented and diverse diplomatic workforce we need to compete on the global stage. It is modeled after benefits we extend to military families, who also have to move frequently in service to our country. I am also glad that this legislation includes the SERVE Act, which I introduced with Senator Cardin and Representative Brown. This bill ensures that high school students applying to attend one of our Federal service academies do not lose out on opportunities to be nominated because of a vacancy in Congress. After the tragic loss of my friend and colleague, Representative Elijah Cummings, my office learned that nomination slots at our service academies, like the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, cease to exist if a seat in Congress is vacant at the time nominations are due. This meant that a student from Congressman Cummings' district had one-third fewer opportunities to receive a nomination to a service academy. As a result of this new law, Senators may make nominations on behalf of a vacant seat, ensuring that students do not lose an opportunity to serve their country through no fault of their own. Further, I am glad Armed Services Committee agreed to include the Federal Firefighter Flexibility and Fairness Act, which I introduced with Senators Tester, Collins, and Carper and Representatives Sarbanes and Wittman. This legislation grants additionalflexibility to our Federal firefighters that their State and local counterparts have enjoyed for many years. As a result of this bill, Federal firefighters will be able to trade shifts across pay periods without negatively affecting their pay. This NDAA also establishes a consortium on irregular warfare threats, a critical step in the transfer of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism--START--from the sponsorship of the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Defense, which has the resources to maintain this national security research. I previously worked to secure funding for this transition in the FY21 defense appropriations bill. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, better known as START, is a university-based research and education center based at the University of Maryland and comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the causes and human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. I am also glad the NDAA incorporates the Enhancing Military Base Resilience and Conserving Ecosystems through Stormwater Management Act, which I introduced with Senators Kaine, Cardin, and Warner. This bill authorizes the Defense Department to carry out stormwater management projects on military installations. These projects will improve installation resilience and essential infrastructure that supports military installations and protect nearby waterways like the Chesapeake Bay. In August, I worked to secure language in the FY22 Military Construction-VA Appropriations bill encouraging the Department of Defense to use Energy Resilience and Conservation Program funds to support stormwater management projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in order to better protect and conserve the health of the bay. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee for working with me to address the Army's incorrect application of the law pertaining to the Prisoner of War Medal, which has negatively affected a Maryland veteran. In 2020, I asked the Army to award the POW Medal to Marylander Ronald Dolecki for his military service in Ethiopia in 1965, which he has been denied for over a decade. Mr. Dolecki clearly qualifies for the Medal under the criteria established by Congress in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, but the Army continued to incorrectly apply the previous standard to his case. I am grateful to Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe for including language directing the Army to rectify its incorrect application of the law to ensure that this Marylander who served his country with honor and distinction and others like him are appropriately recognized. Lastly, this bill includes funding and language that is critical to supporting Maryland's military installations, including more than $350 million for Fort Meade, more than $150 million for Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, and more than $30 million for Joint Base Andrews. The bill also includes report language ensuring the Army's continued support for the demolition of contaminated facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground and provisions to continue responding to the recent crisis in privatized military housing which affected installations in Maryland and across the country. While I am pleased with many of the provisions included in this bill and voted for its passage, I do have significant reservations. I appreciate that this bill codifies the GAO's recommendations related to tactical vehicle rollover accidents in response to the tragic loss of lLT Conor McDowell, a U.S. marine who lost his life in a training accident at Camp Pendleton. 1LT McDowell showed extraordinary bravery, saving the life of a fellow marine, and Congress has a responsibility to ensure that these preventable crashes end. The bill also includes a directive that the Department of Defense report on the cost and feasibility of a pilot program that Senators Cardin and Representatives Brown and Wittman and I proposed in the the 1LT Hugh Conor McDowell Safety in Armed Forces Equipment Act of 2021. This simple, straightforward bill directs the Departments of the Army and the Navy to jointly implement a 5-year pilot program to evaluate the prospect of using data recorders to monitor, assess, and improve the readiness and safety of the operation of military tactical vehicles. This commonsense program will improve the safety of our men and women in uniform and save lives. I believe we could have proceeded with this pilot today, but look forward to receiving the mandated report no later than March 1, 2022, as directed, and I will continue to advocate vigorously for the implementation of this program. I am disappointed that the NOAA does not include my amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the research and development, production or deployment of the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile--SLCM-N--and its associated nuclear warhead. The United States already possesses an array of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities that fulfill our theater nuclear deterrence missions and reassure our allies of our extended deterrence commitments. In its 2019 cost estimate of U.S. nuclear weapons programs, the CBO projected that the SLCM-N would cost $9 billion through 2028. This projection does not account for production costs after 2028, nor does it factor in costs associated with integrating the missile on ships, nuclear weapons training for personnel, and storage and security for nuclear warheads on naval bases. Not only is the program a waste of money, it will also dangerously raise the risk of nuclear miscalculation and escalation. I also believe that this bill fails to tackle the long-term budget challenges facing our country. In the midst of a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 800,000 of our fellow Americans, we simply cannot afford to continue this level of investment in defense at the expense of other critical national priorities. I oppose the decision to invest an additional $25 billion over the President's budget request for defense while we continue to underinvest in diplomacy, development, and a wide range of critical domestic priorities. Lastly, I am disappointed that the bill did not include my amendment with Representative Jacobs to close a loophole that allows some U.S. security assistance to foreign forces without being subject to Leahy law restrictions that bar U.S. military assistance to units credibly believed to have engaged in gross violations of human rights. This is a simple, straightforward matter of the United States living up to our most basic commitments as a member of the international community. The accompanying NDAA report language does require the presentation of a report detailing the processes through which the Defense Department seeks to ensure that consideration is given to any credible information relating to violations of human rights by such entities, before support is given to them. I will be reviewing that report closely to determine what further action is necessary to safeguard human rights and ensure that no U.S. security assistance is exempt from these commonsense restrictions. While I am opposed to some of the provisions in this bill and disappointed by the omission of others, I believe that, on balance, the NDAA will strengthen our national security and advance other important national priorities. For that reason, I voted in support of final passage. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9254-2 | null | 3,737 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my strong support for Dilawar Syed to serve as Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Syed, he is a highly qualified and widely-supported nominee for Deputy Administrator, who has the backing of numerous business groups and organizations. In many ways, he is the very picture of the American Dream, a businessowner, entrepreneur, and job creator who was born in Pakistan and educated in the United States. Mr. Syed also has firsthand experience dealing with challenges small businesses have faced during this pandemic. As Deputy Administrator, he would largely be responsible for running the day-to-day operations at SBA. He has repeatedly made himself available to discuss any concerns Republicans may still have related to his background and qualifications, things that actually matter in his ability to do his job. However, for reasons completely unrelated to his background and qualifications, Republicans on the Small Business Committee have continued to block his nomination, for months. Earlier this summer, they disputed the results of a committee meeting we held to advance the nominee based on a technicality, even though Mr. Syed was approved during that meeting by voice vote. Since then, they have taken a different approach, deciding to boycott committee meetings on five separate occasions, denying a quorum to consider the nominee. We are now at the point where Senate Republicans, even on this normally very bipartisan committee, will not even show up to provide fair consideration for this nominee. Not one Republican will show up. Over the course of the process, Republicans have changed their reasons for blocking the nominee. First, they were concerned about SBA loans his company received during the pandemic, even though these loans were lawfully obtained and fully repaid before he was even nominated to be Deputy Administrator. Then, they insinuated he was somehow anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, despite broad support he has received from within these communities. Now, they are concerned about lawful SBA loans to Planned Parenthood health centers. Just to be crystal clear, these health centers lawfully received loans through bipartisan COVID legislation that was signed by President Trump. It is unacceptable to unfairly and unlawfully target organizations for political reasons. And it is even worse to then stall a qualified nominee because of this. When it comes down to it, Mr. Syed would be an asset to SBA and the businesses they serve. He deserves fair consideration in the U.S. Senate. If Republicans actually cared about helping the small businesses struggling during the pandemic, they would stop blocking nominees to fill positions that are critical to helping them. Republicans should do their job and let us consider his nomination. Every day they continue this obstruction, they are doing a disservice to businesses in our country, which cannot afford uncertainty at this time. Enough is enough. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HIRONO | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9254 | null | 3,738 |
formal | job creator | null | conservative | Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my strong support for Dilawar Syed to serve as Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Syed, he is a highly qualified and widely-supported nominee for Deputy Administrator, who has the backing of numerous business groups and organizations. In many ways, he is the very picture of the American Dream, a businessowner, entrepreneur, and job creator who was born in Pakistan and educated in the United States. Mr. Syed also has firsthand experience dealing with challenges small businesses have faced during this pandemic. As Deputy Administrator, he would largely be responsible for running the day-to-day operations at SBA. He has repeatedly made himself available to discuss any concerns Republicans may still have related to his background and qualifications, things that actually matter in his ability to do his job. However, for reasons completely unrelated to his background and qualifications, Republicans on the Small Business Committee have continued to block his nomination, for months. Earlier this summer, they disputed the results of a committee meeting we held to advance the nominee based on a technicality, even though Mr. Syed was approved during that meeting by voice vote. Since then, they have taken a different approach, deciding to boycott committee meetings on five separate occasions, denying a quorum to consider the nominee. We are now at the point where Senate Republicans, even on this normally very bipartisan committee, will not even show up to provide fair consideration for this nominee. Not one Republican will show up. Over the course of the process, Republicans have changed their reasons for blocking the nominee. First, they were concerned about SBA loans his company received during the pandemic, even though these loans were lawfully obtained and fully repaid before he was even nominated to be Deputy Administrator. Then, they insinuated he was somehow anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, despite broad support he has received from within these communities. Now, they are concerned about lawful SBA loans to Planned Parenthood health centers. Just to be crystal clear, these health centers lawfully received loans through bipartisan COVID legislation that was signed by President Trump. It is unacceptable to unfairly and unlawfully target organizations for political reasons. And it is even worse to then stall a qualified nominee because of this. When it comes down to it, Mr. Syed would be an asset to SBA and the businesses they serve. He deserves fair consideration in the U.S. Senate. If Republicans actually cared about helping the small businesses struggling during the pandemic, they would stop blocking nominees to fill positions that are critical to helping them. Republicans should do their job and let us consider his nomination. Every day they continue this obstruction, they are doing a disservice to businesses in our country, which cannot afford uncertainty at this time. Enough is enough. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HIRONO | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9254 | null | 3,739 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-2833. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, 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-2834. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and a Management Report for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2835. A communication from the Chair, Securities and Exchange 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-2836. A communication from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2021, including the Office of Inspector General's Auditor's Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2837. A communication from the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board'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-2838. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 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-2839. A communication from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Review 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-2840. A communication from the Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors'' (RIN1235-AA41) received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2841. A communication from the Chairman of the United States International Trade 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-2842. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-238, ``Sense of the Council Medicare for All Support Resolution of 2021''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2843. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, the President's Pay Agent, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of locality based comparability payments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2844. A communication from the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021 and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2845. A communication from the Chairman, Board of Governors, United States Postal Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Postal Services' 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-2846. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Management's Response for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2847. A communication from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's Semiannual Report of the Office of Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2848. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 8, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2849. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semiannual Reports from the Treasury Inspector General and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration for the period from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2850. A communication from the Treasurer, National Gallery of Art, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Gallery's Performance and Accountability Report for the year ended September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2851. A communication from the Director, Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2852. A communication from the Director of Financial Management, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2853. A joint communication from the Secretary of Labor and the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Corporation's Annual Report for fiscal year 2021 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2854. A communication from the Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of adjustments to certain timing provisions of the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2855. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Awards Under the Nehmer Court Orders for Disability or Death Caused by a Condition Presumptively Associated with Herbicide Exposure; Implementing Court Order'' (RIN2900-AR40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2856. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Release of Information from Department of Veterans Affairs' Records'' (RIN2900-AR39) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2857. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Kosakonia cowanii strain SYM00028; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9216-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2858. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9218-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2859. A communication from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Biofuel Producer Program for Fiscal Year 2021'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2860. A communication from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2861. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Management Directive 12.6, NRC Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Program'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2862. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements'' (FRL No. 8967-02-R1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2863. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-2.5e)'' ((RIN2070-AB27) (FRL No. 7842-02- OCSPP)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2864. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021-0146 - 2021-0153); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-2865. A communication from the Assistant Legal Advisor for Treaty Affairs, Department to State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of International Agreements other than Treaties entered into with Taiwan by the American Institute in Taiwan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-2866. A communication from the Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Assistance Provided to Foreign Aviation Authorities for FY 2020''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2867. A communication from the Deputy Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018'' ((FCC 21-119) (Docket Nos. WC18-336)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2868. A communication from the Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Procedures for Commission Review of State Opt-Out Requests from the FirstNet radio Access Network'' ((FCC 19-155) (PS Docket No. 16-269)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9257 | null | 3,740 |
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-2833. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, 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-2834. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General and a Management Report for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2835. A communication from the Chair, Securities and Exchange 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-2836. A communication from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2021, including the Office of Inspector General's Auditor's Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2837. A communication from the Chairman of the Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Board'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-2838. A communication from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 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-2839. A communication from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and Health Review 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-2840. A communication from the Acting Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors'' (RIN1235-AA41) received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2841. A communication from the Chairman of the United States International Trade 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-2842. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-238, ``Sense of the Council Medicare for All Support Resolution of 2021''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2843. A communication from the Director, Office of Personnel Management, the President's Pay Agent, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of locality based comparability payments; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2844. A communication from the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021 and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2845. A communication from the Chairman, Board of Governors, United States Postal Service, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Postal Services' 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-2846. A communication from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Management's Response for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2847. A communication from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's Semiannual Report of the Office of Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2848. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 8, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2849. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semiannual Reports from the Treasury Inspector General and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration for the period from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2850. A communication from the Treasurer, National Gallery of Art, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Gallery's Performance and Accountability Report for the year ended September 30, 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2851. A communication from the Director, Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Commission's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2852. A communication from the Director of Financial Management, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-2853. A joint communication from the Secretary of Labor and the Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Corporation's Annual Report for fiscal year 2021 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-2854. A communication from the Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office, Library of Congress, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the extension of adjustments to certain timing provisions of the Copyright Act for persons affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-2855. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Awards Under the Nehmer Court Orders for Disability or Death Caused by a Condition Presumptively Associated with Herbicide Exposure; Implementing Court Order'' (RIN2900-AR40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2856. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Release of Information from Department of Veterans Affairs' Records'' (RIN2900-AR39) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-2857. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Kosakonia cowanii strain SYM00028; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9216-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2858. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Trichoderma harzianum strain T-78; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9218-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2859. A communication from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Biofuel Producer Program for Fiscal Year 2021'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2860. A communication from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan Program'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2861. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Management Directive 12.6, NRC Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Program'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2862. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport Requirements'' (FRL No. 8967-02-R1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2863. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (20-2.5e)'' ((RIN2070-AB27) (FRL No. 7842-02- OCSPP)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 13, 2021; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-2864. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, the report of the texts and background statements of international agreements, other than treaties (List 2021-0146 - 2021-0153); to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-2865. A communication from the Assistant Legal Advisor for Treaty Affairs, Department to State, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of International Agreements other than Treaties entered into with Taiwan by the American Institute in Taiwan; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-2866. A communication from the Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Assistance Provided to Foreign Aviation Authorities for FY 2020''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2867. A communication from the Deputy Division Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018'' ((FCC 21-119) (Docket Nos. WC18-336)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-2868. A communication from the Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Procedures for Commission Review of State Opt-Out Requests from the FirstNet radio Access Network'' ((FCC 19-155) (PS Docket No. 16-269)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on November 30, 2021; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-16-pt1-PgS9257 | null | 3,741 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, Senate Democrats are working to pass Build Back Better and send it to the President's desk as soon as possible so we can strengthen the middle class, create opportunity in the 21st century, and fight the climate crisis. Yesterday, I had a good discussion with the President and the Speaker, where we talked about ongoing negotiations on finalizing the Build Back Better Act so we can pass it through the Senate. The President requested more time to continue his negotiations, and so we will keep working with him, hand in hand, to bring this bill over the finish line and deliver on these must needed provisions. At its core, Build Back Better is about making the greatest investment in the American people that we have seen in generations. It is about building new ladders to help people climb into the middle class and providing them stability to thrive in the middle class once they get there. That means lowering the costs of prescription drugs, extending the child tax credit, making childcare more affordable for tens of millions of families, expanding housing, early education, and affordable healthcare. And it means taking unprecedented steps to fight climate change and lay the groundwork for greater action in the future. These are all things that the American people want. These are things Democrats are fighting to secure. And it cannot be forgotten that not a single Republican--not one--has joined us in making them happen. They are opposed to making childcare more affordable; they are opposed to fighting the climate crisis; and they are possibly even considering fighting provisions like making drugs like insulin more affordable. If Republicans won't fight to help everyday Americans afford the basics, Democrats will. We are going to keep working to achieve our goal of passing Build Back Better into law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9274-2 | null | 3,742 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Build Back Better Act Mr. President, now on Build Back Better, Senate Democrats are working to pass Build Back Better and send it to the President's desk as soon as possible so we can strengthen the middle class, create opportunity in the 21st century, and fight the climate crisis. Yesterday, I had a good discussion with the President and the Speaker, where we talked about ongoing negotiations on finalizing the Build Back Better Act so we can pass it through the Senate. The President requested more time to continue his negotiations, and so we will keep working with him, hand in hand, to bring this bill over the finish line and deliver on these must needed provisions. At its core, Build Back Better is about making the greatest investment in the American people that we have seen in generations. It is about building new ladders to help people climb into the middle class and providing them stability to thrive in the middle class once they get there. That means lowering the costs of prescription drugs, extending the child tax credit, making childcare more affordable for tens of millions of families, expanding housing, early education, and affordable healthcare. And it means taking unprecedented steps to fight climate change and lay the groundwork for greater action in the future. These are all things that the American people want. These are things Democrats are fighting to secure. And it cannot be forgotten that not a single Republican--not one--has joined us in making them happen. They are opposed to making childcare more affordable; they are opposed to fighting the climate crisis; and they are possibly even considering fighting provisions like making drugs like insulin more affordable. If Republicans won't fight to help everyday Americans afford the basics, Democrats will. We are going to keep working to achieve our goal of passing Build Back Better into law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9274-2 | null | 3,743 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nominations of Larry Edward Andre, Jr., of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Somalia; Elizabeth Moore Aubin, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria; Maria E. Brewer, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Lesotho; Christopher John Lamora, of Rhode Island, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Cameroon; Tulinabo S. Mushingi, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Angola, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe; Eugene S. Young, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of the Congo; Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Ambassador, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization Affairs); Christopher P. Lu, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador; Christopher P. Lu, of Virginia, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during his tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform; Alexia MarieGabrielle Latortue, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Steven C. Bondy, of New Jersey, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Bahrain; Michael Raynor, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Senegal, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau; Adam Scheinman, of Virginia, to be Special Representative of the President for Nuclear Nonproliferation, with the rank of Ambassador; Sharon L. Cromer, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of The Gambia; Troy Damian Fitrell, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Guinea; Marc Ostfield, of Pennsylvania, a Career Member of the Senior Executive Service, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Paraguay; Cynthia Ann Telles, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Costa Rica; Kent Doyle Logsdon, of Pennsylvania, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Moldova; Caryn R. McClelland, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Brunei Darussalam; Michael J. Murphy, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Bosnia and Herzegovina; Laura S.H. Holgate, of Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Vienna Office of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador; Peter D. Haas, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the People's Republic of Bangladesh; Julie Chung, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka; Patricia Mahoney, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Central African Republic; Peter Hendrick Vrooman, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Mozambique; Elizabeth Anne Noseworthy Fitzsimmons, of Delaware, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Togolese Republic; Brian Wesley Shukan, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Benin; David R. Gilmour, of the District of Columbia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea; Jamie L. Harpootlian, of South Carolina, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Slovenia; Mark Brzezinski, of Virginia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Poland; Marc R. Stanley, of Texas, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Argentine Republic; Scott Miller, of Colorado, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Swiss Confederation, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Principality of Liechtenstein; Michael M. Adler, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Belgium; Erik D. Ramanathan, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Sweden; John R. Bass, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an Under Secretary of State (Management); and Elizabeth Rosenberg, of Vermont, to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing, Department of the Treasury. The nominations were confirmed en bloc. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9296-3 | null | 3,744 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. REED. Mr. President. I rise today to honor one of our Nation's most distinguished and honorable military and diplomatic leaders, Colin Powell. Few American leaders have served their nation more, from combat overseas as a young officer to the heights of military command and diplomacy on the world stage. Colin Powell will and should hold a renowned place in our country's history. Throughout his life, Colin Powell was the epitome of selfless service and courageous leadership. He gave everything he had to America--and then some. And he always did what many profess but few do: He took responsibility. Colin Powell was a trailblazer for countless Americans. He paved much of the way on his own. Raised in the South Bronx as the son of Jamaican immigrants, he joined ROTC at the City College of New York and went on to serve with incredible bravery in Vietnam, sustaining wounds on two tours and saving the lives of many fellow soldiers. Colin Powell's remarkable skill as a military commander was clear to everyone around him, and he rose quickly through the ranks, eventually becoming National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and, later, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for President George H.W. Bush. The ``Powell Doctrine,'' as his theory of warfare would become known, guided the United States to its most decisive military victory since World War II through Operation Desert Storm. Colin Powell insisted that war should be the last resort in any national conflict, but, when necessary, it should be focused, overwhelming for the enemy, and controlled with clear objectives. We would do well to remember that vision today. Colin Powell reached the summit of his career when he was named Secretary of State for President George W. Bush. Once again, he served his country selflessly and demonstrated his innate decency and integrity. A distinct honor of my life was the opportunity to work with and learn from Colin Powell in the years afterward. I made a point to call him when I was named chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. His advice was deeply appreciated. Indeed, both in and out of uniform, he advised generations of Presidents, diplomats, military leaders, and lawmakers with wisdom and candor. Colin did not shrink from the truth, and he will be remembered as one of our Nation's most thoughtful strategists. Perhaps most importantly, to the countless Americans who looked up to him, Colin Powell leaves a legacy of courage and integrity. He was the first leader of color in many of the land's highest offices, including National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State. He was beloved by his troops, respected by his peers, and trusted more than any other American of his day. Colin Powell was resolute and honorable throughout his life and career, and America is fortunate to have benefited from his leadership. I offer my sincere condolences to Alma and his wonderful family, whom I know he loved deeply and fiercely. May we all strive for the wisdom, courage, and humility that Colin Powell imparted upon this great Nation. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. REED | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9300-5 | null | 3,745 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as this year draws to a close, I rise today to recognize my staff and their exemplary service to Pennsylvania in the face of immense challenges. Even under the best of circumstances, public service can be challenging work. For the past 2 years my staff have, like all Americans, grappled with the daunting uncertainty and isolation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and grief for the more than 800,000 lives lost. Despite these difficulties, they have risen to the demands of the moment to support, advocate for, and empower the people of Pennsylvania. The end of the year is a time for reflection on all that we have overcome and an opportunity to express gratitude for those we hold dear. This December, I would like to express my gratitude for the men and women who have served in my office--some of whom have since moved on--and their indelible contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during such an extraordinary time. I am grateful for my administrative staff, who build and maintain the solid foundation on which an effective congressional office is built. These are the people who tirelessly ensure that everyone on our team has the support and resources needed to do their jobs effectively. While the work that they do may not be noticeable to everyone, they are truly the connective tissue which allows the rest of the office to function. Similarly, the office's executive staff are tasked with ensuring my time is used as efficiently as possible and that my day runs smoothly. From building schedules that balance constituent engagements, committee hearings, floor votes, and travel; to managing the flurry of briefing memos on any given day and drafting my constituent greetings, I could not be nearly as effective on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania without their hard work. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the work of the constituent services team, who walk with constituents in their darkest moments in pursuit of a brighter resolution. Day in and day out, these are the men and women who help Pennsylvania seniors navigate issues with Social Security checks, help veterans secure benefits owed to them and medals they have earned, among so many other things. During COVID, they have continued to assist with routine cases while also working tirelessly to connect Pennsylvanians with testing and other resources, apply for small business relief, navigate unemployment systems, and so much more. The outreach staff, spread out over seven offices across the Commonwealth, serve as a vital resource in ensuring the needs of all 67 counties are met. These individuals are my liaisons to local communities across Pennsylvania, representing me in their regions every single day. Throughout the pandemic, they have been in constant contact with local elected officials, sharing information back and forth and bringing to bear Federal resources when they have been needed most. Their relationships across the Commonwealth, and their granular knowledge of communities large and small are extraordinary. I am grateful for innumerable phone calls and meetings that they lead and attend every year and the thousands of miles that they drive as they crisscross their regions to show up for the communities they represent. The legislative staff fight daily for policies that will improve life for every American, but especially those who are too often overlooked and left behind. These men and women bring their expertise to bear to help inform my policy positions and floor votes. In answering constituent correspondence, they parse through complex matters of policy to help constituents better understand how critical legislation will impact Pennsylvania. I am deeply grateful for the benefit of their extraordinary minds and their dedication to improving the lives of working families with sound policy. It is through the tireless work of the communications staff that Pennsylvanians understand how I am representing them in Washington. These men and women are a vital bridge between the work that I do in the Senate and the people of Pennsylvania, helping me connect the voices of the Commonwealth to the halls of Congress, and in turn bringing our legislative work back into communities across Pennsylvania. Since 2017, I have had the privilege of serving as the lead Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging. During the pandemic, this team has relentlessly demanded accountability from the programs and institutions that serve older adults and people with disabilities. As COVID devastated nursing homes, they pushed for increased transparency to protect residents and workers. They now lead the call for transformative investments in life-changing home and community-based services. There is an inscription on the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, that has guided me during my time as a public official. It reads: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' Each and every day, my staff demonstrate their commitment to that trust with tireless work and personal sacrifice. They are hard-working and talented individuals who form a distinguished collective of honorable public servants whom I respect and whom I am grateful to work alongside. Today, I am proud to list them alphabetically by name to memorialize their service to our Commonwealth and our country during this pandemic: Tad Abramowich Natalie Adams Sandra Aguilera Garcia Jennifer Baker Jordan Ball Rob Bielunas Kim Bierly Hulan Bikales Regina Brennan Sydney Brooks Jessica Butherus Kathi Caber Jenna Carmen Alyssa Charney McKenzie Cliatt Christian Clesi Bob Coomber Connor Corpora Rory Daly Stephanie DeLuca Teresa Dennis Josh Dubensky Thomas Eagen Micah Escobedo Erika Felix Marlon Ferguson Lara Flynn Adam Fountaine Michael Gamel-McCormick Peter Gartrell Kristen Gentile Ben Gilsdorf Jasmine Goodman Veronica Goodman Ian Graham Rashage Green Jack Groarke Andrea Guscott Kyle Hannon Hans Hansen Kristen Harfield Doug Hartman Corey Husak Sean Hyland Maurya Incavido Narda Ipakchi Brian Jennings Aisha Johnson Christopher Johnson Robert Joyce Liz Kishbaugh Samantha Koehler Molly Krafcik Josh Kramer Trace Ledgard James Lee Jose Leoncio Nefetia Lundy Mairead Lynn Ian Madigan Kristin Magnotta Shoshana Marin Ben Martin Lindsay Martin Sara Maskornick Robbie Matesic Cindy Matos Beltre Jae'Von McClain Jake Medvitz Alina Meltaus Carolyn Mendez-Luck Leah Mercik Datnilza Metz Kate Mevis Derek Miller Keith Miller Gillian Mueller Janet Murphy Grace Nelson Paul Nestler Stephen O'Brion Kennedy O'Dell Max Olender Hector Ortiz Panini Pandya Reecha Patel Isabel Perez Joycelyn Pickens Nikki Rai John Rizzo Rahmon Ross Ryan Ross Kate Samuelson Stacy Sanders Valli Sanmugalingam Judy Schaechter Abigail Seibert Julia Sferlazzo Zach Shaw Livia Shmavonian Sara-Paige Silvestro Madison Sloat Allegra Smith Cam Thompson Amanda Toth Jenna Valle-Riestra Lieke van Heumen Landy Wade Caitlin Warner Tia Watson Aimee Wechsler Ebony Staton Weidman Madison West Wesley Whistle | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9301 | null | 3,746 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as this year draws to a close, I rise today to recognize my staff and their exemplary service to Pennsylvania in the face of immense challenges. Even under the best of circumstances, public service can be challenging work. For the past 2 years my staff have, like all Americans, grappled with the daunting uncertainty and isolation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and grief for the more than 800,000 lives lost. Despite these difficulties, they have risen to the demands of the moment to support, advocate for, and empower the people of Pennsylvania. The end of the year is a time for reflection on all that we have overcome and an opportunity to express gratitude for those we hold dear. This December, I would like to express my gratitude for the men and women who have served in my office--some of whom have since moved on--and their indelible contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during such an extraordinary time. I am grateful for my administrative staff, who build and maintain the solid foundation on which an effective congressional office is built. These are the people who tirelessly ensure that everyone on our team has the support and resources needed to do their jobs effectively. While the work that they do may not be noticeable to everyone, they are truly the connective tissue which allows the rest of the office to function. Similarly, the office's executive staff are tasked with ensuring my time is used as efficiently as possible and that my day runs smoothly. From building schedules that balance constituent engagements, committee hearings, floor votes, and travel; to managing the flurry of briefing memos on any given day and drafting my constituent greetings, I could not be nearly as effective on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania without their hard work. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the work of the constituent services team, who walk with constituents in their darkest moments in pursuit of a brighter resolution. Day in and day out, these are the men and women who help Pennsylvania seniors navigate issues with Social Security checks, help veterans secure benefits owed to them and medals they have earned, among so many other things. During COVID, they have continued to assist with routine cases while also working tirelessly to connect Pennsylvanians with testing and other resources, apply for small business relief, navigate unemployment systems, and so much more. The outreach staff, spread out over seven offices across the Commonwealth, serve as a vital resource in ensuring the needs of all 67 counties are met. These individuals are my liaisons to local communities across Pennsylvania, representing me in their regions every single day. Throughout the pandemic, they have been in constant contact with local elected officials, sharing information back and forth and bringing to bear Federal resources when they have been needed most. Their relationships across the Commonwealth, and their granular knowledge of communities large and small are extraordinary. I am grateful for innumerable phone calls and meetings that they lead and attend every year and the thousands of miles that they drive as they crisscross their regions to show up for the communities they represent. The legislative staff fight daily for policies that will improve life for every American, but especially those who are too often overlooked and left behind. These men and women bring their expertise to bear to help inform my policy positions and floor votes. In answering constituent correspondence, they parse through complex matters of policy to help constituents better understand how critical legislation will impact Pennsylvania. I am deeply grateful for the benefit of their extraordinary minds and their dedication to improving the lives of working families with sound policy. It is through the tireless work of the communications staff that Pennsylvanians understand how I am representing them in Washington. These men and women are a vital bridge between the work that I do in the Senate and the people of Pennsylvania, helping me connect the voices of the Commonwealth to the halls of Congress, and in turn bringing our legislative work back into communities across Pennsylvania. Since 2017, I have had the privilege of serving as the lead Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging. During the pandemic, this team has relentlessly demanded accountability from the programs and institutions that serve older adults and people with disabilities. As COVID devastated nursing homes, they pushed for increased transparency to protect residents and workers. They now lead the call for transformative investments in life-changing home and community-based services. There is an inscription on the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, that has guided me during my time as a public official. It reads: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' Each and every day, my staff demonstrate their commitment to that trust with tireless work and personal sacrifice. They are hard-working and talented individuals who form a distinguished collective of honorable public servants whom I respect and whom I am grateful to work alongside. Today, I am proud to list them alphabetically by name to memorialize their service to our Commonwealth and our country during this pandemic: Tad Abramowich Natalie Adams Sandra Aguilera Garcia Jennifer Baker Jordan Ball Rob Bielunas Kim Bierly Hulan Bikales Regina Brennan Sydney Brooks Jessica Butherus Kathi Caber Jenna Carmen Alyssa Charney McKenzie Cliatt Christian Clesi Bob Coomber Connor Corpora Rory Daly Stephanie DeLuca Teresa Dennis Josh Dubensky Thomas Eagen Micah Escobedo Erika Felix Marlon Ferguson Lara Flynn Adam Fountaine Michael Gamel-McCormick Peter Gartrell Kristen Gentile Ben Gilsdorf Jasmine Goodman Veronica Goodman Ian Graham Rashage Green Jack Groarke Andrea Guscott Kyle Hannon Hans Hansen Kristen Harfield Doug Hartman Corey Husak Sean Hyland Maurya Incavido Narda Ipakchi Brian Jennings Aisha Johnson Christopher Johnson Robert Joyce Liz Kishbaugh Samantha Koehler Molly Krafcik Josh Kramer Trace Ledgard James Lee Jose Leoncio Nefetia Lundy Mairead Lynn Ian Madigan Kristin Magnotta Shoshana Marin Ben Martin Lindsay Martin Sara Maskornick Robbie Matesic Cindy Matos Beltre Jae'Von McClain Jake Medvitz Alina Meltaus Carolyn Mendez-Luck Leah Mercik Datnilza Metz Kate Mevis Derek Miller Keith Miller Gillian Mueller Janet Murphy Grace Nelson Paul Nestler Stephen O'Brion Kennedy O'Dell Max Olender Hector Ortiz Panini Pandya Reecha Patel Isabel Perez Joycelyn Pickens Nikki Rai John Rizzo Rahmon Ross Ryan Ross Kate Samuelson Stacy Sanders Valli Sanmugalingam Judy Schaechter Abigail Seibert Julia Sferlazzo Zach Shaw Livia Shmavonian Sara-Paige Silvestro Madison Sloat Allegra Smith Cam Thompson Amanda Toth Jenna Valle-Riestra Lieke van Heumen Landy Wade Caitlin Warner Tia Watson Aimee Wechsler Ebony Staton Weidman Madison West Wesley Whistle | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9301 | null | 3,747 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, as this year draws to a close, I rise today to recognize my staff and their exemplary service to Pennsylvania in the face of immense challenges. Even under the best of circumstances, public service can be challenging work. For the past 2 years my staff have, like all Americans, grappled with the daunting uncertainty and isolation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and grief for the more than 800,000 lives lost. Despite these difficulties, they have risen to the demands of the moment to support, advocate for, and empower the people of Pennsylvania. The end of the year is a time for reflection on all that we have overcome and an opportunity to express gratitude for those we hold dear. This December, I would like to express my gratitude for the men and women who have served in my office--some of whom have since moved on--and their indelible contributions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during such an extraordinary time. I am grateful for my administrative staff, who build and maintain the solid foundation on which an effective congressional office is built. These are the people who tirelessly ensure that everyone on our team has the support and resources needed to do their jobs effectively. While the work that they do may not be noticeable to everyone, they are truly the connective tissue which allows the rest of the office to function. Similarly, the office's executive staff are tasked with ensuring my time is used as efficiently as possible and that my day runs smoothly. From building schedules that balance constituent engagements, committee hearings, floor votes, and travel; to managing the flurry of briefing memos on any given day and drafting my constituent greetings, I could not be nearly as effective on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania without their hard work. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the work of the constituent services team, who walk with constituents in their darkest moments in pursuit of a brighter resolution. Day in and day out, these are the men and women who help Pennsylvania seniors navigate issues with Social Security checks, help veterans secure benefits owed to them and medals they have earned, among so many other things. During COVID, they have continued to assist with routine cases while also working tirelessly to connect Pennsylvanians with testing and other resources, apply for small business relief, navigate unemployment systems, and so much more. The outreach staff, spread out over seven offices across the Commonwealth, serve as a vital resource in ensuring the needs of all 67 counties are met. These individuals are my liaisons to local communities across Pennsylvania, representing me in their regions every single day. Throughout the pandemic, they have been in constant contact with local elected officials, sharing information back and forth and bringing to bear Federal resources when they have been needed most. Their relationships across the Commonwealth, and their granular knowledge of communities large and small are extraordinary. I am grateful for innumerable phone calls and meetings that they lead and attend every year and the thousands of miles that they drive as they crisscross their regions to show up for the communities they represent. The legislative staff fight daily for policies that will improve life for every American, but especially those who are too often overlooked and left behind. These men and women bring their expertise to bear to help inform my policy positions and floor votes. In answering constituent correspondence, they parse through complex matters of policy to help constituents better understand how critical legislation will impact Pennsylvania. I am deeply grateful for the benefit of their extraordinary minds and their dedication to improving the lives of working families with sound policy. It is through the tireless work of the communications staff that Pennsylvanians understand how I am representing them in Washington. These men and women are a vital bridge between the work that I do in the Senate and the people of Pennsylvania, helping me connect the voices of the Commonwealth to the halls of Congress, and in turn bringing our legislative work back into communities across Pennsylvania. Since 2017, I have had the privilege of serving as the lead Democrat on the Senate Special Committee on Aging. During the pandemic, this team has relentlessly demanded accountability from the programs and institutions that serve older adults and people with disabilities. As COVID devastated nursing homes, they pushed for increased transparency to protect residents and workers. They now lead the call for transformative investments in life-changing home and community-based services. There is an inscription on the Finance Building in Harrisburg, PA, that has guided me during my time as a public official. It reads: ``All public service is a trust, given in faith and accepted in honor.'' Each and every day, my staff demonstrate their commitment to that trust with tireless work and personal sacrifice. They are hard-working and talented individuals who form a distinguished collective of honorable public servants whom I respect and whom I am grateful to work alongside. Today, I am proud to list them alphabetically by name to memorialize their service to our Commonwealth and our country during this pandemic: Tad Abramowich Natalie Adams Sandra Aguilera Garcia Jennifer Baker Jordan Ball Rob Bielunas Kim Bierly Hulan Bikales Regina Brennan Sydney Brooks Jessica Butherus Kathi Caber Jenna Carmen Alyssa Charney McKenzie Cliatt Christian Clesi Bob Coomber Connor Corpora Rory Daly Stephanie DeLuca Teresa Dennis Josh Dubensky Thomas Eagen Micah Escobedo Erika Felix Marlon Ferguson Lara Flynn Adam Fountaine Michael Gamel-McCormick Peter Gartrell Kristen Gentile Ben Gilsdorf Jasmine Goodman Veronica Goodman Ian Graham Rashage Green Jack Groarke Andrea Guscott Kyle Hannon Hans Hansen Kristen Harfield Doug Hartman Corey Husak Sean Hyland Maurya Incavido Narda Ipakchi Brian Jennings Aisha Johnson Christopher Johnson Robert Joyce Liz Kishbaugh Samantha Koehler Molly Krafcik Josh Kramer Trace Ledgard James Lee Jose Leoncio Nefetia Lundy Mairead Lynn Ian Madigan Kristin Magnotta Shoshana Marin Ben Martin Lindsay Martin Sara Maskornick Robbie Matesic Cindy Matos Beltre Jae'Von McClain Jake Medvitz Alina Meltaus Carolyn Mendez-Luck Leah Mercik Datnilza Metz Kate Mevis Derek Miller Keith Miller Gillian Mueller Janet Murphy Grace Nelson Paul Nestler Stephen O'Brion Kennedy O'Dell Max Olender Hector Ortiz Panini Pandya Reecha Patel Isabel Perez Joycelyn Pickens Nikki Rai John Rizzo Rahmon Ross Ryan Ross Kate Samuelson Stacy Sanders Valli Sanmugalingam Judy Schaechter Abigail Seibert Julia Sferlazzo Zach Shaw Livia Shmavonian Sara-Paige Silvestro Madison Sloat Allegra Smith Cam Thompson Amanda Toth Jenna Valle-Riestra Lieke van Heumen Landy Wade Caitlin Warner Tia Watson Aimee Wechsler Ebony Staton Weidman Madison West Wesley Whistle | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9301 | null | 3,748 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | By Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Warnock, and Mr. Ossoff): S. Res. 483. A resolution remembering the December 6, 2019, terrorist attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola and commemorating those who lost their lives, and those who were injured, in the line of duty; considered and agreed to. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2021-12-17-pt1-PgS9304 | null | 3,749 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | A message from the Senate by Ms. Byrd, one of its clerks, announced that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 1664. An act to authorize the National Medal of Honor Museum Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the Senate has passed with an amendment a bill of the House of the following title: H.R. 1192. An act to impose requirements on the payment of compensation to professional persons employed in voluntary cases commenced under title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (commonly known as ``PROMESA''). The message also announced that the Senate has passed bills and a concurrent resolution of the following titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 1760. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs planned to be built in Oahu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel Kahikina Akaka Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic''. S. 2514. An act to rename the Provo Veterans Center in Orem, Utah, as the ``Col. Gail S. Halvorsen `Candy Bomber' Veterans Center''. S. 2551. An act to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish or otherwise provide an artificial intelligence training program for the acquisition workforce, and for other purposes. S. 3437. An act to extend certain COVID-19 bankruptcy relief provisions through March 2, 2022. S. Con. Res. 24. Concurrent Resolution directing the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the enrollment of the bill S. 1605. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2021-12-20-pt1-PgH7835-6 | null | 3,750 |
formal | government spending | null | racist | Remembering Harry Reid Mr. President, I also want to mention the loss of former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who also passed away this Christmas, and also extend my thoughts and prayers to his wife Landra and his family. 2021 Mr. President, the end of 2021 marks the end of a year of Democratic governance, and the picture is sobering. If we were issuing a report card for 2021, I am afraid Democrats would earn a ``D'' for ``dreadful'' or ``disaster'' or an ``F'' for ``failure'' because 2021 was filled with one Democratic-led crisis after another. Take our current inflation crisis. When Democrats took office last January, inflation was well within an acceptable range or what is known as the target inflation rate. It might have stayed there had Democrats not decided they needed to pass a massive government spending spree under the guise of COVID relief mere weeks after Congress had already passed a major COVID bill. That is right. In December of 2020, Congress passed its fifth bipartisan COVID relief bill, a nearly $1 trillion piece of legislation that met essentially all current, pressing COVID needs. But the ink was barely dry on the page before Democrats decided that they needed to take advantage of the COVID situation to pass another bill--this time, a hyperpartisan $1.9 trillion piece of legislation packed with unnecessary government spending and payoffs to Democratic interest groups. That unnecessary government spending, of course, had serious consequences. The definition of ``inflation'' is too many dollars chasing too few goods andservices, and that is exactly the situation Democrats created. They sent too many Federal dollars into the economy, and the economy overheated as a result. Since Democrats passed their so-called American Rescue Plan, inflation has gone up and up again. In November, inflation hit its highest level in nearly 40 years--40 years--and American families are dealing with the consequences: spikes in food prices, rent prices, utility prices, used car and truck prices, propane, kerosene, and firewood prices, and the list goes on. Inflation is so bad that despite wage growth in 2021, Americans saw a de facto pay cut. You would think that the economic pain Americans are experiencing would be giving Democrats pause, but in fact, despite massive inflation, Democrats have been trying to double down on the reckless spending strategy that helped cause so much inflation in the first place. Fortunately, they have so far been unable to summon a majority in the Senate to support their latest reckless spending plan, but their unconcern with the dangerous economic consequences of their proposed new spending spree is deeply troubling. I wish I could say that our inflation crisis was the only Democratic disaster to come out of 2021, but that wouldn't be true. Democrats have also presided over a massive crisis at our southern border--a crisis that Democrats are apparently completely content to ignore. The illegal migration across our southern border picked up in the wake of the President's inauguration and reached stratospheric levels in 2021. The crisis shows no signs of abating. In November, the latest month for which we have statistics, Customs and Border Protection encountered 173,620 people attempting to cross our southern border illegally. That is well over double the number who tried to cross illegally in November of 2020 and more than four times the number who attempted to cross in November of 2019. But you would never know it from listening to the President or congressional Democrats. It has become very clear that the President doesn't care about what is happening at our southern border despite the very real security and humanitarian crisis that this massive wave of illegal immigration represents. But our ongoing inflation and border disasters still don't represent the total of Democrats' 2021 failures. There was also the President's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The President's arbitrary, chaotic withdrawal was a real low point for our country. Thirteen of our military men and women died in a terrorist attack during the evacuation of Kabul. We abandoned thousands of individuals who had worked with us in Afghanistan and whom we had promised to protect. They are bracing for life under the brutal control of the Taliban, if they haven't been forced into hiding or met an even more grim fate. The President also left behind hundreds of American citizens, and the latest report suggests that some of them may still be trying to find a way out of the country. Meanwhile, the President, who was supposed to restore our standing on the world stage, left our allies wondering if our word could be relied on. Most of all, the President's disastrous withdrawal has left our country in a more precarious national security position. Afghanistan is well on its way to once again becoming a terrorist haven. But, as with our border crisis, the dangers of our current Afghanistan situation barely seem to register on the President's radar. I could go on and talk about how the President, who promised to be a President for all Americans, has instead been a President for the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. I could talk about how congressional Democrats, despite holding a razor-thin majority in Congress, have governed in a relentlessly partisan and extreme manner, attempting to force through far-left legislation, including a Federal takeover of election law and perhaps the most radical abortion legislation ever considered in Congress. I could talk about how Democrats are even now plotting to overturn a decades-old Senate rule in an attempt to force their partisan priorities through the Senate. But I will stop this discussion here. Thanks to Democrats' disasters, 2021 was a very rough year for the country. I would love to think that Democratic governance in 2022 would be better, that Democrats would get serious about inflation, abandon their plans for another reckless spending spree, address our border crisis, and commit to bipartisanship, but given the way things have been going, I am not getting my hopes up. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS11-2 | null | 3,751 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Remembering Harry Reid Mr. President, I also want to mention the loss of former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who also passed away this Christmas, and also extend my thoughts and prayers to his wife Landra and his family. 2021 Mr. President, the end of 2021 marks the end of a year of Democratic governance, and the picture is sobering. If we were issuing a report card for 2021, I am afraid Democrats would earn a ``D'' for ``dreadful'' or ``disaster'' or an ``F'' for ``failure'' because 2021 was filled with one Democratic-led crisis after another. Take our current inflation crisis. When Democrats took office last January, inflation was well within an acceptable range or what is known as the target inflation rate. It might have stayed there had Democrats not decided they needed to pass a massive government spending spree under the guise of COVID relief mere weeks after Congress had already passed a major COVID bill. That is right. In December of 2020, Congress passed its fifth bipartisan COVID relief bill, a nearly $1 trillion piece of legislation that met essentially all current, pressing COVID needs. But the ink was barely dry on the page before Democrats decided that they needed to take advantage of the COVID situation to pass another bill--this time, a hyperpartisan $1.9 trillion piece of legislation packed with unnecessary government spending and payoffs to Democratic interest groups. That unnecessary government spending, of course, had serious consequences. The definition of ``inflation'' is too many dollars chasing too few goods andservices, and that is exactly the situation Democrats created. They sent too many Federal dollars into the economy, and the economy overheated as a result. Since Democrats passed their so-called American Rescue Plan, inflation has gone up and up again. In November, inflation hit its highest level in nearly 40 years--40 years--and American families are dealing with the consequences: spikes in food prices, rent prices, utility prices, used car and truck prices, propane, kerosene, and firewood prices, and the list goes on. Inflation is so bad that despite wage growth in 2021, Americans saw a de facto pay cut. You would think that the economic pain Americans are experiencing would be giving Democrats pause, but in fact, despite massive inflation, Democrats have been trying to double down on the reckless spending strategy that helped cause so much inflation in the first place. Fortunately, they have so far been unable to summon a majority in the Senate to support their latest reckless spending plan, but their unconcern with the dangerous economic consequences of their proposed new spending spree is deeply troubling. I wish I could say that our inflation crisis was the only Democratic disaster to come out of 2021, but that wouldn't be true. Democrats have also presided over a massive crisis at our southern border--a crisis that Democrats are apparently completely content to ignore. The illegal migration across our southern border picked up in the wake of the President's inauguration and reached stratospheric levels in 2021. The crisis shows no signs of abating. In November, the latest month for which we have statistics, Customs and Border Protection encountered 173,620 people attempting to cross our southern border illegally. That is well over double the number who tried to cross illegally in November of 2020 and more than four times the number who attempted to cross in November of 2019. But you would never know it from listening to the President or congressional Democrats. It has become very clear that the President doesn't care about what is happening at our southern border despite the very real security and humanitarian crisis that this massive wave of illegal immigration represents. But our ongoing inflation and border disasters still don't represent the total of Democrats' 2021 failures. There was also the President's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. The President's arbitrary, chaotic withdrawal was a real low point for our country. Thirteen of our military men and women died in a terrorist attack during the evacuation of Kabul. We abandoned thousands of individuals who had worked with us in Afghanistan and whom we had promised to protect. They are bracing for life under the brutal control of the Taliban, if they haven't been forced into hiding or met an even more grim fate. The President also left behind hundreds of American citizens, and the latest report suggests that some of them may still be trying to find a way out of the country. Meanwhile, the President, who was supposed to restore our standing on the world stage, left our allies wondering if our word could be relied on. Most of all, the President's disastrous withdrawal has left our country in a more precarious national security position. Afghanistan is well on its way to once again becoming a terrorist haven. But, as with our border crisis, the dangers of our current Afghanistan situation barely seem to register on the President's radar. I could go on and talk about how the President, who promised to be a President for all Americans, has instead been a President for the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. I could talk about how congressional Democrats, despite holding a razor-thin majority in Congress, have governed in a relentlessly partisan and extreme manner, attempting to force through far-left legislation, including a Federal takeover of election law and perhaps the most radical abortion legislation ever considered in Congress. I could talk about how Democrats are even now plotting to overturn a decades-old Senate rule in an attempt to force their partisan priorities through the Senate. But I will stop this discussion here. Thanks to Democrats' disasters, 2021 was a very rough year for the country. I would love to think that Democratic governance in 2022 would be better, that Democrats would get serious about inflation, abandon their plans for another reckless spending spree, address our border crisis, and commit to bipartisanship, but given the way things have been going, I am not getting my hopes up. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS11-2 | null | 3,752 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Biden Administration Mr. President, on a related matter, fortunately for the country, before Christmas, one of those far-left distractions was dealt a setback. The Democrats' wasteful spending last spring helped ignite the worst inflation in 40 years, but our colleagues spent the rest of 2021 trying to assemble yet another even bigger, even more reckless tax-and-spending spree. Their reaction to rising prices and family hardships their policies caused was to try to inflate their way out of inflation. The experts say that when you strip away the budget gimmick, their proposal would cost almost $5 trillion. And all of that reckless borrowing and money-printing was for far-left policies that would hurt American families and actually help China. The supposedly ``green'' subsidies would just dump money in China-dominated supply chains. America takes on massive debt to ``Build Back Beijing.'' The childcare plan was actually an unworkable and discriminatory toddler takeover that would drive up daycare costs and let woke bureaucrats drive out faith-based providers. They even wanted to distort American parents' child tax credit and turn it into an old-school cash welfare program with no work requirements at all--now, all of this paired with historic, crushing tax hikes and trillions more dollars to make inflation even worse. It was a merrier Christmas for American families because this awful bill was actually put aside. Working Americans need it to actually stay on the shelf. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS20-2 | null | 3,753 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Biden Administration Mr. President, on a related matter, fortunately for the country, before Christmas, one of those far-left distractions was dealt a setback. The Democrats' wasteful spending last spring helped ignite the worst inflation in 40 years, but our colleagues spent the rest of 2021 trying to assemble yet another even bigger, even more reckless tax-and-spending spree. Their reaction to rising prices and family hardships their policies caused was to try to inflate their way out of inflation. The experts say that when you strip away the budget gimmick, their proposal would cost almost $5 trillion. And all of that reckless borrowing and money-printing was for far-left policies that would hurt American families and actually help China. The supposedly ``green'' subsidies would just dump money in China-dominated supply chains. America takes on massive debt to ``Build Back Beijing.'' The childcare plan was actually an unworkable and discriminatory toddler takeover that would drive up daycare costs and let woke bureaucrats drive out faith-based providers. They even wanted to distort American parents' child tax credit and turn it into an old-school cash welfare program with no work requirements at all--now, all of this paired with historic, crushing tax hikes and trillions more dollars to make inflation even worse. It was a merrier Christmas for American families because this awful bill was actually put aside. Working Americans need it to actually stay on the shelf. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS20-2 | null | 3,754 |
formal | steroids | null | transphobic | Voting Mr. President, on one final matter, when our colleagues' reckless taxing-and-spending spree began to falter, some Democrats started saying a totally different issue was actually really their top priority. If they don't get to blow $5 trillion on low-quality socialism, our colleagues are now demanding a consolation prize: breaking the Senate's rules in order to give themselves sweeping control over all 50 States' election laws. This is what some of our colleagues want so desperately. This is what they have sought for years. Even as their pretexts and justifications kept shifting, the goal stayed consistent. Most Washington Democrats want to appoint themselves a nationwide board of elections on steroids, and they want to shatter the Senate's rules and traditions to make it happen. After Democrats lost the White House in 2016, they said this takeover was necessary because our democracy was fundamentally broken. Now that they have won the White House, the story has totally flipped. Now our democracy is in perfect shape, beyond reproach--except when States that Democrats don't control dare to pass mainstream voting laws. The political left keeps pitching their big lie that mainstream State voting laws are somehow ``Jim Crow 2.0'' if the Governor who signs the bill happens to be a Republican. The left's big lie insults the intelligence of the American people. All the facts disprove it. In one of the States that triggered this meltdown, the new profiles mandated more days--more days--of early voting than many Democrat-run States provide today. Our democracy is not in crisis. Repeating this rhetoric doesn't make it factual. The 2020 elections saw the highest turnout in more than 100 years. Only 33 percent of American adults think it is too hard for eligible voters to vote. A larger share actually think current rules aren't strict enough. This is fake--fake--hysteria ginned up by partisans, and our citizens actually know it. They figured it out. Last November, even in New York, the State's overwhelmingly Democratic voters rejected several left-wing ballot measures to change voting laws. This big lie that democracy is dying because Democrats sometimes lose elections is a completely astro-turfed sense of crisis. The emperor has no clothes. It is even more ironic that on this most sensitive subject--our democracy itself--some Senate Democrats want to drop a procedural nuclear bomb on the Senate itself to get their way. Our colleagues have no principled opposition to the filibuster--none at all. This is not about principle. In 2020 alone, Senate Democrats used the filibuster repeatedly to block the CARES Act, delaying help at the start of the pandemic. They used it to kill Senator Tim Scott's police reform bill. In 2017, 32 Senate Democrats, including then-Senator Harris, signed an open letter insisting the legislative filibuster should not change. A few years before that, the current Democratic leader said this about the prospect of nuking the filibuster. This is from the current Democratic leader: The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the ``cooling saucer of democracy'' into the rubberstamp of dictatorship. He went on: They believe if you get 51 percent of the vote, there should be one party rule. He went on: They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don't get your way, you change the rules. He went on: It will be a doomsday for democracy if we do. That is the Senate Democratic leader on the possibility of nuking the Senate. Some people's tunes change when they happen to be in the majority versus the minority, but some Senatorsmean what they say. There are Senators on both sides of the aisle who have had the courage to stand up for these important rules when we have been in the minority and when we have been in the majority. I don't have to remind the Senate that the previous President frequently harangued me to nuke the Senate. On every occasion, I had a one-word answer: No. No. There are Senators on both sides who understand that any supposedly limited ``carve-out'' would bring the whole house crashing down. There are Senators on both sides who understand that the entirety of Federal law shouldn't go radically boomeranging back and forth every time the Senate narrowly changes hands. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS20-3 | null | 3,755 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Voting Rights Mr. President, now, about January 6 and defending democracy, at the same time the Senate will also proceed on another urgent and fundamental matter: protecting our democracy and strengthening the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later today, I will meet with a number of my colleagues to continue our conversation on voting rights, and I will meet with our entire caucus for the first time this year to talk about how we are going to move forward. There has been constant discussion among Members over the break--constant. I must have made a minimum of 10 phone calls every day, with maybe the exception of Christmas, in respect for my colleagues. But we have to keep moving forward. And, a few days from now, our country will observe a dark and troubling milestone: the 1-year anniversary of January 6, the day that thousands of rioters, urged on by the vicious lies of the disgraced former President, waged a violent assault upon the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. This was no just peaceful demonstration; this was aimed at undoing our democracy. Thank God they failed. As I said hours after the attack, January 6, 2021, will be forever remembered as a day of enduring infamy, a permanent blemish in the story of American democracy, and the final, bitter act of the worst President--the worst President--in modern times. Of course, over the course of this week, we will pay tribute to the heroes who stepped up that fateful day: our Capitol Police, the DC Metro Police, our National Guard who kept watch for months, and everyone who acted quickly that day to save the lives and save our democracy. But this week--this week--we must also acknowledge that the attack on January 6 was not a one-off. It did not materialize out of the blue. On the contrary, January 6 was a symptom of a much broader illness that has now infected the modern Republican Party: an effort to delegitimize our elections, rooted in Donald Trump's Big Lie. While January 6 was only 1 day, the Big Lie lives on and has only grown stronger. The Big Lie lives on in Republican-dominated State legislatures, where at least 19 States have passed 33 new laws that will potentially make it harder--harder--for millions to vote in our elections. They say they want to prevent fraud, and they have no evidence of fraud. We all know what they are up to: vitiating, poisoning our elections, this sacred part of American democracy. And the violence and threats of violence continue. The Big Lie lives on through the troubling wave of violent threats that election workers across the country have endured over the course of the last year, all simply for the audacity of having done their job to count the votes fairly and without bias. If left alone--if left alone--the Big Lie threatens the very future of our Republic. If people don't believe in the sanctity of our elections, what is going to happen to this Republic? The sanctity of elections, the fairness of elections, the fact that after election day we abide by the results has been the cornerstone of our entire democracy. It is what democracy is all about. It is what the Founding Fathers constructed. Are we going to let that go by the wayside? Are we going to let it be poisoned and vitiated, with huge consequences to the effect of this Nation, probably greater than any we have seen since the Civil War? So, as we remember January 6 this week and as we confront State-level voter suppression, we must be clear that they are not isolated developments; they are all directly linked to the same anti-democratic poison of the Big Lie. Let me say that one more time. The insurrection of January 6, the flurry of new voter restriction laws, and the State-level efforts to subvert democracy are not isolated developments but manifestations of the same anti-democratic poison of Donald Trump's Big Lie, and they all demand the same solution: The Senate must advance legislation to protect our democracy and safeguard the right to vote. Over the coming weeks, the Senate will thus consider legislation we can pass to achieve this goal. Democrats for months have tried to bring Republicans to the table, but every single time, Republicans use the rules of the Senate to prevent even a debate. Voting rights in the past was a bipartisan issue. How quickly they forget. Republican Presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush--supported voting rights. When voting rights extensions came up in this body in the past, they passed by large majorities--bipartisan. The resistance we see from modern-day Republicans is a beast of an entirely different nature. Maybe some of them were scared of Trump. But too many of them see this as a way to win advantage, to get their hard-right views enacted, even though the public doesn't support them, by jaundicing our election process and putting barriers in the way of particular people--not all people--of voting: people of color, poor people, people who live in big cities, young people, handicapped people, elderly people. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague'' earlier this week, if Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the Chamber to prevent action on something as critical as protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Over the course of history, the Senate has debated voting rights many times and done what was necessary to take action, but rarely did our predecessors face the sort of malice that now confronts our democracy from within. One final point. I mean, the arguments from the other side--they are saying: Federalize the elections. That is in the Constitution, that Federal elections can be determined by Federal legislation. That is what some of our great post-Civil War amendments were all about. That is what the history of voting rights legislation has been about. When State legislatures, for reasons often bigoted and racist, said people couldn't vote for one reason or another or stopped them from voting, the Congress stepped in. That is nothing new. It is unbelievable the arguments they come up with--just totally false. Totally false. So as we hold this debate, I ask my colleagues to consider this question: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we Democrats permit a situation in which Republicans can pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same? And I ask that of my Democratic colleagues--my Democratic colleagues. This asymmetry cannot hold. If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster to prevent this body from acting, then the Senate must adapt. The Senate always has. Robert C. Byrd, one of this Chamber's great traditionalists, acknowledged that Senate rules that seemed appropriate in the past ``must be changed to reflect changed circumstances.'' Boy oh boy, do we have changed circumstances now with this abandonment of voting rights by the Republican Party and a willingness to let voters from one end of the country to the other be suppressed. As times change and circumstances evolve, the Senate must follow the suit of changed circumstances when necessary. So we are going to work towards that goal in the coming weeks. To downplay the threat against our democracy is dangerous--dangerous. We have seen this in history forever. When people try to subvert democracy, when they use threats of violence to do so, if good people don't stand up, the democracy can wither. We cannot let that happen to our wonderful country. There is no better way to heal the damage of January 6 than to act so that our constitutional order is preserved for the future. If we do not act to protect our elections, the horrors of January 6 will risk becoming not the exception but the norm. The stakes could not be higher. So we are going to move forward. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6-2 | null | 3,756 |
formal | every single time | null | white supremacist | Voting Rights Mr. President, now, about January 6 and defending democracy, at the same time the Senate will also proceed on another urgent and fundamental matter: protecting our democracy and strengthening the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later today, I will meet with a number of my colleagues to continue our conversation on voting rights, and I will meet with our entire caucus for the first time this year to talk about how we are going to move forward. There has been constant discussion among Members over the break--constant. I must have made a minimum of 10 phone calls every day, with maybe the exception of Christmas, in respect for my colleagues. But we have to keep moving forward. And, a few days from now, our country will observe a dark and troubling milestone: the 1-year anniversary of January 6, the day that thousands of rioters, urged on by the vicious lies of the disgraced former President, waged a violent assault upon the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. This was no just peaceful demonstration; this was aimed at undoing our democracy. Thank God they failed. As I said hours after the attack, January 6, 2021, will be forever remembered as a day of enduring infamy, a permanent blemish in the story of American democracy, and the final, bitter act of the worst President--the worst President--in modern times. Of course, over the course of this week, we will pay tribute to the heroes who stepped up that fateful day: our Capitol Police, the DC Metro Police, our National Guard who kept watch for months, and everyone who acted quickly that day to save the lives and save our democracy. But this week--this week--we must also acknowledge that the attack on January 6 was not a one-off. It did not materialize out of the blue. On the contrary, January 6 was a symptom of a much broader illness that has now infected the modern Republican Party: an effort to delegitimize our elections, rooted in Donald Trump's Big Lie. While January 6 was only 1 day, the Big Lie lives on and has only grown stronger. The Big Lie lives on in Republican-dominated State legislatures, where at least 19 States have passed 33 new laws that will potentially make it harder--harder--for millions to vote in our elections. They say they want to prevent fraud, and they have no evidence of fraud. We all know what they are up to: vitiating, poisoning our elections, this sacred part of American democracy. And the violence and threats of violence continue. The Big Lie lives on through the troubling wave of violent threats that election workers across the country have endured over the course of the last year, all simply for the audacity of having done their job to count the votes fairly and without bias. If left alone--if left alone--the Big Lie threatens the very future of our Republic. If people don't believe in the sanctity of our elections, what is going to happen to this Republic? The sanctity of elections, the fairness of elections, the fact that after election day we abide by the results has been the cornerstone of our entire democracy. It is what democracy is all about. It is what the Founding Fathers constructed. Are we going to let that go by the wayside? Are we going to let it be poisoned and vitiated, with huge consequences to the effect of this Nation, probably greater than any we have seen since the Civil War? So, as we remember January 6 this week and as we confront State-level voter suppression, we must be clear that they are not isolated developments; they are all directly linked to the same anti-democratic poison of the Big Lie. Let me say that one more time. The insurrection of January 6, the flurry of new voter restriction laws, and the State-level efforts to subvert democracy are not isolated developments but manifestations of the same anti-democratic poison of Donald Trump's Big Lie, and they all demand the same solution: The Senate must advance legislation to protect our democracy and safeguard the right to vote. Over the coming weeks, the Senate will thus consider legislation we can pass to achieve this goal. Democrats for months have tried to bring Republicans to the table, but every single time, Republicans use the rules of the Senate to prevent even a debate. Voting rights in the past was a bipartisan issue. How quickly they forget. Republican Presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush--supported voting rights. When voting rights extensions came up in this body in the past, they passed by large majorities--bipartisan. The resistance we see from modern-day Republicans is a beast of an entirely different nature. Maybe some of them were scared of Trump. But too many of them see this as a way to win advantage, to get their hard-right views enacted, even though the public doesn't support them, by jaundicing our election process and putting barriers in the way of particular people--not all people--of voting: people of color, poor people, people who live in big cities, young people, handicapped people, elderly people. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague'' earlier this week, if Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the Chamber to prevent action on something as critical as protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Over the course of history, the Senate has debated voting rights many times and done what was necessary to take action, but rarely did our predecessors face the sort of malice that now confronts our democracy from within. One final point. I mean, the arguments from the other side--they are saying: Federalize the elections. That is in the Constitution, that Federal elections can be determined by Federal legislation. That is what some of our great post-Civil War amendments were all about. That is what the history of voting rights legislation has been about. When State legislatures, for reasons often bigoted and racist, said people couldn't vote for one reason or another or stopped them from voting, the Congress stepped in. That is nothing new. It is unbelievable the arguments they come up with--just totally false. Totally false. So as we hold this debate, I ask my colleagues to consider this question: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we Democrats permit a situation in which Republicans can pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same? And I ask that of my Democratic colleagues--my Democratic colleagues. This asymmetry cannot hold. If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster to prevent this body from acting, then the Senate must adapt. The Senate always has. Robert C. Byrd, one of this Chamber's great traditionalists, acknowledged that Senate rules that seemed appropriate in the past ``must be changed to reflect changed circumstances.'' Boy oh boy, do we have changed circumstances now with this abandonment of voting rights by the Republican Party and a willingness to let voters from one end of the country to the other be suppressed. As times change and circumstances evolve, the Senate must follow the suit of changed circumstances when necessary. So we are going to work towards that goal in the coming weeks. To downplay the threat against our democracy is dangerous--dangerous. We have seen this in history forever. When people try to subvert democracy, when they use threats of violence to do so, if good people don't stand up, the democracy can wither. We cannot let that happen to our wonderful country. There is no better way to heal the damage of January 6 than to act so that our constitutional order is preserved for the future. If we do not act to protect our elections, the horrors of January 6 will risk becoming not the exception but the norm. The stakes could not be higher. So we are going to move forward. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6-2 | null | 3,757 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Voting Rights Mr. President, now, about January 6 and defending democracy, at the same time the Senate will also proceed on another urgent and fundamental matter: protecting our democracy and strengthening the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later today, I will meet with a number of my colleagues to continue our conversation on voting rights, and I will meet with our entire caucus for the first time this year to talk about how we are going to move forward. There has been constant discussion among Members over the break--constant. I must have made a minimum of 10 phone calls every day, with maybe the exception of Christmas, in respect for my colleagues. But we have to keep moving forward. And, a few days from now, our country will observe a dark and troubling milestone: the 1-year anniversary of January 6, the day that thousands of rioters, urged on by the vicious lies of the disgraced former President, waged a violent assault upon the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. This was no just peaceful demonstration; this was aimed at undoing our democracy. Thank God they failed. As I said hours after the attack, January 6, 2021, will be forever remembered as a day of enduring infamy, a permanent blemish in the story of American democracy, and the final, bitter act of the worst President--the worst President--in modern times. Of course, over the course of this week, we will pay tribute to the heroes who stepped up that fateful day: our Capitol Police, the DC Metro Police, our National Guard who kept watch for months, and everyone who acted quickly that day to save the lives and save our democracy. But this week--this week--we must also acknowledge that the attack on January 6 was not a one-off. It did not materialize out of the blue. On the contrary, January 6 was a symptom of a much broader illness that has now infected the modern Republican Party: an effort to delegitimize our elections, rooted in Donald Trump's Big Lie. While January 6 was only 1 day, the Big Lie lives on and has only grown stronger. The Big Lie lives on in Republican-dominated State legislatures, where at least 19 States have passed 33 new laws that will potentially make it harder--harder--for millions to vote in our elections. They say they want to prevent fraud, and they have no evidence of fraud. We all know what they are up to: vitiating, poisoning our elections, this sacred part of American democracy. And the violence and threats of violence continue. The Big Lie lives on through the troubling wave of violent threats that election workers across the country have endured over the course of the last year, all simply for the audacity of having done their job to count the votes fairly and without bias. If left alone--if left alone--the Big Lie threatens the very future of our Republic. If people don't believe in the sanctity of our elections, what is going to happen to this Republic? The sanctity of elections, the fairness of elections, the fact that after election day we abide by the results has been the cornerstone of our entire democracy. It is what democracy is all about. It is what the Founding Fathers constructed. Are we going to let that go by the wayside? Are we going to let it be poisoned and vitiated, with huge consequences to the effect of this Nation, probably greater than any we have seen since the Civil War? So, as we remember January 6 this week and as we confront State-level voter suppression, we must be clear that they are not isolated developments; they are all directly linked to the same anti-democratic poison of the Big Lie. Let me say that one more time. The insurrection of January 6, the flurry of new voter restriction laws, and the State-level efforts to subvert democracy are not isolated developments but manifestations of the same anti-democratic poison of Donald Trump's Big Lie, and they all demand the same solution: The Senate must advance legislation to protect our democracy and safeguard the right to vote. Over the coming weeks, the Senate will thus consider legislation we can pass to achieve this goal. Democrats for months have tried to bring Republicans to the table, but every single time, Republicans use the rules of the Senate to prevent even a debate. Voting rights in the past was a bipartisan issue. How quickly they forget. Republican Presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush--supported voting rights. When voting rights extensions came up in this body in the past, they passed by large majorities--bipartisan. The resistance we see from modern-day Republicans is a beast of an entirely different nature. Maybe some of them were scared of Trump. But too many of them see this as a way to win advantage, to get their hard-right views enacted, even though the public doesn't support them, by jaundicing our election process and putting barriers in the way of particular people--not all people--of voting: people of color, poor people, people who live in big cities, young people, handicapped people, elderly people. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague'' earlier this week, if Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the Chamber to prevent action on something as critical as protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Over the course of history, the Senate has debated voting rights many times and done what was necessary to take action, but rarely did our predecessors face the sort of malice that now confronts our democracy from within. One final point. I mean, the arguments from the other side--they are saying: Federalize the elections. That is in the Constitution, that Federal elections can be determined by Federal legislation. That is what some of our great post-Civil War amendments were all about. That is what the history of voting rights legislation has been about. When State legislatures, for reasons often bigoted and racist, said people couldn't vote for one reason or another or stopped them from voting, the Congress stepped in. That is nothing new. It is unbelievable the arguments they come up with--just totally false. Totally false. So as we hold this debate, I ask my colleagues to consider this question: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we Democrats permit a situation in which Republicans can pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same? And I ask that of my Democratic colleagues--my Democratic colleagues. This asymmetry cannot hold. If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster to prevent this body from acting, then the Senate must adapt. The Senate always has. Robert C. Byrd, one of this Chamber's great traditionalists, acknowledged that Senate rules that seemed appropriate in the past ``must be changed to reflect changed circumstances.'' Boy oh boy, do we have changed circumstances now with this abandonment of voting rights by the Republican Party and a willingness to let voters from one end of the country to the other be suppressed. As times change and circumstances evolve, the Senate must follow the suit of changed circumstances when necessary. So we are going to work towards that goal in the coming weeks. To downplay the threat against our democracy is dangerous--dangerous. We have seen this in history forever. When people try to subvert democracy, when they use threats of violence to do so, if good people don't stand up, the democracy can wither. We cannot let that happen to our wonderful country. There is no better way to heal the damage of January 6 than to act so that our constitutional order is preserved for the future. If we do not act to protect our elections, the horrors of January 6 will risk becoming not the exception but the norm. The stakes could not be higher. So we are going to move forward. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6-2 | null | 3,758 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Voting Rights Mr. President, now, about January 6 and defending democracy, at the same time the Senate will also proceed on another urgent and fundamental matter: protecting our democracy and strengthening the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later today, I will meet with a number of my colleagues to continue our conversation on voting rights, and I will meet with our entire caucus for the first time this year to talk about how we are going to move forward. There has been constant discussion among Members over the break--constant. I must have made a minimum of 10 phone calls every day, with maybe the exception of Christmas, in respect for my colleagues. But we have to keep moving forward. And, a few days from now, our country will observe a dark and troubling milestone: the 1-year anniversary of January 6, the day that thousands of rioters, urged on by the vicious lies of the disgraced former President, waged a violent assault upon the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. This was no just peaceful demonstration; this was aimed at undoing our democracy. Thank God they failed. As I said hours after the attack, January 6, 2021, will be forever remembered as a day of enduring infamy, a permanent blemish in the story of American democracy, and the final, bitter act of the worst President--the worst President--in modern times. Of course, over the course of this week, we will pay tribute to the heroes who stepped up that fateful day: our Capitol Police, the DC Metro Police, our National Guard who kept watch for months, and everyone who acted quickly that day to save the lives and save our democracy. But this week--this week--we must also acknowledge that the attack on January 6 was not a one-off. It did not materialize out of the blue. On the contrary, January 6 was a symptom of a much broader illness that has now infected the modern Republican Party: an effort to delegitimize our elections, rooted in Donald Trump's Big Lie. While January 6 was only 1 day, the Big Lie lives on and has only grown stronger. The Big Lie lives on in Republican-dominated State legislatures, where at least 19 States have passed 33 new laws that will potentially make it harder--harder--for millions to vote in our elections. They say they want to prevent fraud, and they have no evidence of fraud. We all know what they are up to: vitiating, poisoning our elections, this sacred part of American democracy. And the violence and threats of violence continue. The Big Lie lives on through the troubling wave of violent threats that election workers across the country have endured over the course of the last year, all simply for the audacity of having done their job to count the votes fairly and without bias. If left alone--if left alone--the Big Lie threatens the very future of our Republic. If people don't believe in the sanctity of our elections, what is going to happen to this Republic? The sanctity of elections, the fairness of elections, the fact that after election day we abide by the results has been the cornerstone of our entire democracy. It is what democracy is all about. It is what the Founding Fathers constructed. Are we going to let that go by the wayside? Are we going to let it be poisoned and vitiated, with huge consequences to the effect of this Nation, probably greater than any we have seen since the Civil War? So, as we remember January 6 this week and as we confront State-level voter suppression, we must be clear that they are not isolated developments; they are all directly linked to the same anti-democratic poison of the Big Lie. Let me say that one more time. The insurrection of January 6, the flurry of new voter restriction laws, and the State-level efforts to subvert democracy are not isolated developments but manifestations of the same anti-democratic poison of Donald Trump's Big Lie, and they all demand the same solution: The Senate must advance legislation to protect our democracy and safeguard the right to vote. Over the coming weeks, the Senate will thus consider legislation we can pass to achieve this goal. Democrats for months have tried to bring Republicans to the table, but every single time, Republicans use the rules of the Senate to prevent even a debate. Voting rights in the past was a bipartisan issue. How quickly they forget. Republican Presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush--supported voting rights. When voting rights extensions came up in this body in the past, they passed by large majorities--bipartisan. The resistance we see from modern-day Republicans is a beast of an entirely different nature. Maybe some of them were scared of Trump. But too many of them see this as a way to win advantage, to get their hard-right views enacted, even though the public doesn't support them, by jaundicing our election process and putting barriers in the way of particular people--not all people--of voting: people of color, poor people, people who live in big cities, young people, handicapped people, elderly people. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague'' earlier this week, if Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the Chamber to prevent action on something as critical as protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Over the course of history, the Senate has debated voting rights many times and done what was necessary to take action, but rarely did our predecessors face the sort of malice that now confronts our democracy from within. One final point. I mean, the arguments from the other side--they are saying: Federalize the elections. That is in the Constitution, that Federal elections can be determined by Federal legislation. That is what some of our great post-Civil War amendments were all about. That is what the history of voting rights legislation has been about. When State legislatures, for reasons often bigoted and racist, said people couldn't vote for one reason or another or stopped them from voting, the Congress stepped in. That is nothing new. It is unbelievable the arguments they come up with--just totally false. Totally false. So as we hold this debate, I ask my colleagues to consider this question: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we Democrats permit a situation in which Republicans can pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same? And I ask that of my Democratic colleagues--my Democratic colleagues. This asymmetry cannot hold. If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster to prevent this body from acting, then the Senate must adapt. The Senate always has. Robert C. Byrd, one of this Chamber's great traditionalists, acknowledged that Senate rules that seemed appropriate in the past ``must be changed to reflect changed circumstances.'' Boy oh boy, do we have changed circumstances now with this abandonment of voting rights by the Republican Party and a willingness to let voters from one end of the country to the other be suppressed. As times change and circumstances evolve, the Senate must follow the suit of changed circumstances when necessary. So we are going to work towards that goal in the coming weeks. To downplay the threat against our democracy is dangerous--dangerous. We have seen this in history forever. When people try to subvert democracy, when they use threats of violence to do so, if good people don't stand up, the democracy can wither. We cannot let that happen to our wonderful country. There is no better way to heal the damage of January 6 than to act so that our constitutional order is preserved for the future. If we do not act to protect our elections, the horrors of January 6 will risk becoming not the exception but the norm. The stakes could not be higher. So we are going to move forward. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6-2 | null | 3,759 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Voting Rights Mr. President, now, about January 6 and defending democracy, at the same time the Senate will also proceed on another urgent and fundamental matter: protecting our democracy and strengthening the right to vote in free and fair elections. Later today, I will meet with a number of my colleagues to continue our conversation on voting rights, and I will meet with our entire caucus for the first time this year to talk about how we are going to move forward. There has been constant discussion among Members over the break--constant. I must have made a minimum of 10 phone calls every day, with maybe the exception of Christmas, in respect for my colleagues. But we have to keep moving forward. And, a few days from now, our country will observe a dark and troubling milestone: the 1-year anniversary of January 6, the day that thousands of rioters, urged on by the vicious lies of the disgraced former President, waged a violent assault upon the U.S. Capitol in order to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. This was no just peaceful demonstration; this was aimed at undoing our democracy. Thank God they failed. As I said hours after the attack, January 6, 2021, will be forever remembered as a day of enduring infamy, a permanent blemish in the story of American democracy, and the final, bitter act of the worst President--the worst President--in modern times. Of course, over the course of this week, we will pay tribute to the heroes who stepped up that fateful day: our Capitol Police, the DC Metro Police, our National Guard who kept watch for months, and everyone who acted quickly that day to save the lives and save our democracy. But this week--this week--we must also acknowledge that the attack on January 6 was not a one-off. It did not materialize out of the blue. On the contrary, January 6 was a symptom of a much broader illness that has now infected the modern Republican Party: an effort to delegitimize our elections, rooted in Donald Trump's Big Lie. While January 6 was only 1 day, the Big Lie lives on and has only grown stronger. The Big Lie lives on in Republican-dominated State legislatures, where at least 19 States have passed 33 new laws that will potentially make it harder--harder--for millions to vote in our elections. They say they want to prevent fraud, and they have no evidence of fraud. We all know what they are up to: vitiating, poisoning our elections, this sacred part of American democracy. And the violence and threats of violence continue. The Big Lie lives on through the troubling wave of violent threats that election workers across the country have endured over the course of the last year, all simply for the audacity of having done their job to count the votes fairly and without bias. If left alone--if left alone--the Big Lie threatens the very future of our Republic. If people don't believe in the sanctity of our elections, what is going to happen to this Republic? The sanctity of elections, the fairness of elections, the fact that after election day we abide by the results has been the cornerstone of our entire democracy. It is what democracy is all about. It is what the Founding Fathers constructed. Are we going to let that go by the wayside? Are we going to let it be poisoned and vitiated, with huge consequences to the effect of this Nation, probably greater than any we have seen since the Civil War? So, as we remember January 6 this week and as we confront State-level voter suppression, we must be clear that they are not isolated developments; they are all directly linked to the same anti-democratic poison of the Big Lie. Let me say that one more time. The insurrection of January 6, the flurry of new voter restriction laws, and the State-level efforts to subvert democracy are not isolated developments but manifestations of the same anti-democratic poison of Donald Trump's Big Lie, and they all demand the same solution: The Senate must advance legislation to protect our democracy and safeguard the right to vote. Over the coming weeks, the Senate will thus consider legislation we can pass to achieve this goal. Democrats for months have tried to bring Republicans to the table, but every single time, Republicans use the rules of the Senate to prevent even a debate. Voting rights in the past was a bipartisan issue. How quickly they forget. Republican Presidents--Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush--supported voting rights. When voting rights extensions came up in this body in the past, they passed by large majorities--bipartisan. The resistance we see from modern-day Republicans is a beast of an entirely different nature. Maybe some of them were scared of Trump. But too many of them see this as a way to win advantage, to get their hard-right views enacted, even though the public doesn't support them, by jaundicing our election process and putting barriers in the way of particular people--not all people--of voting: people of color, poor people, people who live in big cities, young people, handicapped people, elderly people. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague'' earlier this week, if Republicans continue to hijack the rules of the Chamber to prevent action on something as critical as protecting our democracy, then the Senate will debate and consider changes to the rules on or before January 17, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Over the course of history, the Senate has debated voting rights many times and done what was necessary to take action, but rarely did our predecessors face the sort of malice that now confronts our democracy from within. One final point. I mean, the arguments from the other side--they are saying: Federalize the elections. That is in the Constitution, that Federal elections can be determined by Federal legislation. That is what some of our great post-Civil War amendments were all about. That is what the history of voting rights legislation has been about. When State legislatures, for reasons often bigoted and racist, said people couldn't vote for one reason or another or stopped them from voting, the Congress stepped in. That is nothing new. It is unbelievable the arguments they come up with--just totally false. Totally false. So as we hold this debate, I ask my colleagues to consider this question: If the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we Democrats permit a situation in which Republicans can pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote but not allow the U.S. Senate to do the same? And I ask that of my Democratic colleagues--my Democratic colleagues. This asymmetry cannot hold. If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster to prevent this body from acting, then the Senate must adapt. The Senate always has. Robert C. Byrd, one of this Chamber's great traditionalists, acknowledged that Senate rules that seemed appropriate in the past ``must be changed to reflect changed circumstances.'' Boy oh boy, do we have changed circumstances now with this abandonment of voting rights by the Republican Party and a willingness to let voters from one end of the country to the other be suppressed. As times change and circumstances evolve, the Senate must follow the suit of changed circumstances when necessary. So we are going to work towards that goal in the coming weeks. To downplay the threat against our democracy is dangerous--dangerous. We have seen this in history forever. When people try to subvert democracy, when they use threats of violence to do so, if good people don't stand up, the democracy can wither. We cannot let that happen to our wonderful country. There is no better way to heal the damage of January 6 than to act so that our constitutional order is preserved for the future. If we do not act to protect our elections, the horrors of January 6 will risk becoming not the exception but the norm. The stakes could not be higher. So we are going to move forward. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6-2 | null | 3,760 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Business Before the Senate Now, Mr. President, the Senate gavels in on this icy January morning to mark the beginning of a new year, and there is much we must accomplish. At the start of 2020, few could have foreseen the awful trials our country has endured over the past 2 years. But, against adversity, the American people responded. Last year, over 200 million Americans got vaccinated against COVID, 6 million jobs were added back to the economy, and Congress delivered on historic legislation that gave Americans a much needed lifeline to get through the worst of COVID. In a 50-50 Senate, we passed the first stand-alone infrastructure bill in decades, passed historic funding for the sciences and tech innovation, and confirmed the most judicial nominees in a President's first year since Ronald Reagan. Despite the immense challenges before us, we now begin 2022 better off compared to where we were 1 year ago. But, of course, there is much, much still left to do. So let us continue. To begin this week, the Senate will vote to confirm Gabriel Sanchez as U.S. circuit court judge for the Ninth Circuit. A graduate of Yale, a Fulbright scholar, and a current associate justice of the California Court of Appeals, Justice Sanchez has presided in hundreds of cases and has the experience and expertise necessary to be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. Off the floor, the negotiations will continue with Members of our caucus and with the White House on finding a path forward on Build Back Better. As I mentioned before Christmas, I intend to hold a vote in the Senate on BBB, and we will keep voting until we get a bill passed. The stakes are high for us to find common ground on this legislation. The climate crisis continues to worsen. Families and children continue dealing with the impacts of COVID, and too many Americans still struggle to pay the high cost of healthcare and prescription drugs. We will keep working until we get something done. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6 | null | 3,761 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Business Before the Senate Now, Mr. President, the Senate gavels in on this icy January morning to mark the beginning of a new year, and there is much we must accomplish. At the start of 2020, few could have foreseen the awful trials our country has endured over the past 2 years. But, against adversity, the American people responded. Last year, over 200 million Americans got vaccinated against COVID, 6 million jobs were added back to the economy, and Congress delivered on historic legislation that gave Americans a much needed lifeline to get through the worst of COVID. In a 50-50 Senate, we passed the first stand-alone infrastructure bill in decades, passed historic funding for the sciences and tech innovation, and confirmed the most judicial nominees in a President's first year since Ronald Reagan. Despite the immense challenges before us, we now begin 2022 better off compared to where we were 1 year ago. But, of course, there is much, much still left to do. So let us continue. To begin this week, the Senate will vote to confirm Gabriel Sanchez as U.S. circuit court judge for the Ninth Circuit. A graduate of Yale, a Fulbright scholar, and a current associate justice of the California Court of Appeals, Justice Sanchez has presided in hundreds of cases and has the experience and expertise necessary to be an excellent addition to the Federal bench. Off the floor, the negotiations will continue with Members of our caucus and with the White House on finding a path forward on Build Back Better. As I mentioned before Christmas, I intend to hold a vote in the Senate on BBB, and we will keep voting until we get a bill passed. The stakes are high for us to find common ground on this legislation. The climate crisis continues to worsen. Families and children continue dealing with the impacts of COVID, and too many Americans still struggle to pay the high cost of healthcare and prescription drugs. We will keep working until we get something done. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-04-pt1-PgS6 | null | 3,762 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Violent Crime Mr. President, on another matter and the last issue I am going to speak to, I want to visit with my colleagues on the continuing rise of violent crime across the country. We have all heard about the unprecedented 30-percent spike in murders that began in the summer of 2020. It continues to this very day. Over a dozen cities set new homicide records in the year just passed. The rise of violent crimes coincides with the defund the police movement and widespread de-policing. Cutting police budgets combined with an antipolice sentiment fostered by local elected officials has led to violence against our police officers, so we have seen a dramatic increase in on-duty deaths in the last year. I want to quote the Fraternal Order of Police. That organization says that 63 officers were murdered and 346 officers were shot. This organization also reported ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers spiked 115 percent from 2020. The FBI has reported that unprovoked attacks against officers in which the officers had no official contact with the offender prior to the attack ``continued to outpace all circumstances of felonious officers' death.'' Other forms of violent crime are also up, as police are forced to retreat from the streets, including carjackings. Chicago saw 1,646 carjackings, compared to 603 incidents in 2019. Minneapolis Police report that carjacking shot up by 537 percent. Carjackings in New Orleans have doubled since 2019. Oakland Police say carjackings increased by 85 percent. Washington, DC, reports a 141-percent increase from last year. In Louisville, KY, carjackings have increased 185 percent. And similar reports come out of cities across the country. So, you see, criminals are emboldened by what is going on in our country, either through not showing respect for law enforcement or from efforts to cut the budgets of police departments. Flash mobs--another sort of new lingo that is just new because of the increase in crime--flash mobs have made large organized smash-and-grab robberies a way of life in many cities. You have seen this on television--break down the doors, go in with the hammers, steal everything you can, do it within 2 or 3 minutes, and get out of there. So in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston, Houston, Atlanta, Sacramento, Baltimore, Las Vegas, and Seattle, groups of dozens make off with hundreds of thousands in merchandise. I requested a briefing from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security on these organized retail crime groups. This rise in violent crime ought to be unacceptable to everybody, and I am stepping up to find solutions to these issues. This past December, Chairman Durbin of the Judiciary Committee held a field hearing in Chicago concerning gun trafficking and violent crime. I submitted questions for witnesses concerning the crisis level of carjackings, the terrible attacks on police, like the murder of Chicago Police Officer Ella French, and failed policies in blue cities that allow violent crime to continue. I hope the Judiciary Committee will hold a full committee hearing here in Washington on the spike in violence and the challenges that law enforcement is facing, including ineffective bail policies, the cumbersome restraint on police officers, and the impact of the progressive prosecutor movement. Every minority member of the committee, led by myself as ranking member, has written to the chairman to request that we do have this hearing. I look forward to working with him on setting that up. I hope my colleagues will join me in looking for ways that we can do more to combat violent crime--from carjackings, to organized retail crime, to an unspeakable rise in murders and the murders of police officers. Let's have a hearing where we can learn more about these trends and how we can support police officers. Let's look for ways that we can strengthen Federal criminal laws and Agencies to fight this violent crime. We can't continue down this path or it is going to lead to vigilante law enforcement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-05-pt1-PgS43-2 | null | 3,763 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Violent Crime Mr. President, on another matter and the last issue I am going to speak to, I want to visit with my colleagues on the continuing rise of violent crime across the country. We have all heard about the unprecedented 30-percent spike in murders that began in the summer of 2020. It continues to this very day. Over a dozen cities set new homicide records in the year just passed. The rise of violent crimes coincides with the defund the police movement and widespread de-policing. Cutting police budgets combined with an antipolice sentiment fostered by local elected officials has led to violence against our police officers, so we have seen a dramatic increase in on-duty deaths in the last year. I want to quote the Fraternal Order of Police. That organization says that 63 officers were murdered and 346 officers were shot. This organization also reported ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers spiked 115 percent from 2020. The FBI has reported that unprovoked attacks against officers in which the officers had no official contact with the offender prior to the attack ``continued to outpace all circumstances of felonious officers' death.'' Other forms of violent crime are also up, as police are forced to retreat from the streets, including carjackings. Chicago saw 1,646 carjackings, compared to 603 incidents in 2019. Minneapolis Police report that carjacking shot up by 537 percent. Carjackings in New Orleans have doubled since 2019. Oakland Police say carjackings increased by 85 percent. Washington, DC, reports a 141-percent increase from last year. In Louisville, KY, carjackings have increased 185 percent. And similar reports come out of cities across the country. So, you see, criminals are emboldened by what is going on in our country, either through not showing respect for law enforcement or from efforts to cut the budgets of police departments. Flash mobs--another sort of new lingo that is just new because of the increase in crime--flash mobs have made large organized smash-and-grab robberies a way of life in many cities. You have seen this on television--break down the doors, go in with the hammers, steal everything you can, do it within 2 or 3 minutes, and get out of there. So in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston, Houston, Atlanta, Sacramento, Baltimore, Las Vegas, and Seattle, groups of dozens make off with hundreds of thousands in merchandise. I requested a briefing from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security on these organized retail crime groups. This rise in violent crime ought to be unacceptable to everybody, and I am stepping up to find solutions to these issues. This past December, Chairman Durbin of the Judiciary Committee held a field hearing in Chicago concerning gun trafficking and violent crime. I submitted questions for witnesses concerning the crisis level of carjackings, the terrible attacks on police, like the murder of Chicago Police Officer Ella French, and failed policies in blue cities that allow violent crime to continue. I hope the Judiciary Committee will hold a full committee hearing here in Washington on the spike in violence and the challenges that law enforcement is facing, including ineffective bail policies, the cumbersome restraint on police officers, and the impact of the progressive prosecutor movement. Every minority member of the committee, led by myself as ranking member, has written to the chairman to request that we do have this hearing. I look forward to working with him on setting that up. I hope my colleagues will join me in looking for ways that we can do more to combat violent crime--from carjackings, to organized retail crime, to an unspeakable rise in murders and the murders of police officers. Let's have a hearing where we can learn more about these trends and how we can support police officers. Let's look for ways that we can strengthen Federal criminal laws and Agencies to fight this violent crime. We can't continue down this path or it is going to lead to vigilante law enforcement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-05-pt1-PgS43-2 | null | 3,764 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Violent Crime Mr. President, on another matter and the last issue I am going to speak to, I want to visit with my colleagues on the continuing rise of violent crime across the country. We have all heard about the unprecedented 30-percent spike in murders that began in the summer of 2020. It continues to this very day. Over a dozen cities set new homicide records in the year just passed. The rise of violent crimes coincides with the defund the police movement and widespread de-policing. Cutting police budgets combined with an antipolice sentiment fostered by local elected officials has led to violence against our police officers, so we have seen a dramatic increase in on-duty deaths in the last year. I want to quote the Fraternal Order of Police. That organization says that 63 officers were murdered and 346 officers were shot. This organization also reported ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers spiked 115 percent from 2020. The FBI has reported that unprovoked attacks against officers in which the officers had no official contact with the offender prior to the attack ``continued to outpace all circumstances of felonious officers' death.'' Other forms of violent crime are also up, as police are forced to retreat from the streets, including carjackings. Chicago saw 1,646 carjackings, compared to 603 incidents in 2019. Minneapolis Police report that carjacking shot up by 537 percent. Carjackings in New Orleans have doubled since 2019. Oakland Police say carjackings increased by 85 percent. Washington, DC, reports a 141-percent increase from last year. In Louisville, KY, carjackings have increased 185 percent. And similar reports come out of cities across the country. So, you see, criminals are emboldened by what is going on in our country, either through not showing respect for law enforcement or from efforts to cut the budgets of police departments. Flash mobs--another sort of new lingo that is just new because of the increase in crime--flash mobs have made large organized smash-and-grab robberies a way of life in many cities. You have seen this on television--break down the doors, go in with the hammers, steal everything you can, do it within 2 or 3 minutes, and get out of there. So in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Boston, Houston, Atlanta, Sacramento, Baltimore, Las Vegas, and Seattle, groups of dozens make off with hundreds of thousands in merchandise. I requested a briefing from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security on these organized retail crime groups. This rise in violent crime ought to be unacceptable to everybody, and I am stepping up to find solutions to these issues. This past December, Chairman Durbin of the Judiciary Committee held a field hearing in Chicago concerning gun trafficking and violent crime. I submitted questions for witnesses concerning the crisis level of carjackings, the terrible attacks on police, like the murder of Chicago Police Officer Ella French, and failed policies in blue cities that allow violent crime to continue. I hope the Judiciary Committee will hold a full committee hearing here in Washington on the spike in violence and the challenges that law enforcement is facing, including ineffective bail policies, the cumbersome restraint on police officers, and the impact of the progressive prosecutor movement. Every minority member of the committee, led by myself as ranking member, has written to the chairman to request that we do have this hearing. I look forward to working with him on setting that up. I hope my colleagues will join me in looking for ways that we can do more to combat violent crime--from carjackings, to organized retail crime, to an unspeakable rise in murders and the murders of police officers. Let's have a hearing where we can learn more about these trends and how we can support police officers. Let's look for ways that we can strengthen Federal criminal laws and Agencies to fight this violent crime. We can't continue down this path or it is going to lead to vigilante law enforcement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-05-pt1-PgS43-2 | null | 3,765 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Recognizing January 6 Workers Madam President, I want to start by thanking my colleagues Leader Schumer and Senator Klobuchar for their work to honor the police officers who risked their lives to protect this country 1 year ago tomorrow. In the year since that dark day, we have learned more about all that those officers endured from the terrorists who stormed the Capitol--the racist slurs, the physical abuse, the mental injuries. We know things were so much worse than they appeared in the original reporting as more and more details have come out. These terrorists gouged someone's eyes out. They killed a Capitol Police officer and injured 140 others. They threatened to kill the Vice President. They brought a noose to the Capitol and paraded symbols of White supremacy. In fact, the people who broke into the office upstairs from my office in the Capitol--we have this on film--used flagpoles with Confederate flags and Trump flags attached to them. They brought equipment to take hostages. It wasn't only Capitol Police officers who endured this attack and put their lives on the line serving our Republic on January 6. Workers throughout the Capitol risked everything that day, workers who do the radio and television broadcast and work in the media center, workers who work the floor, workers who clean up, and workers who do food service. They often don't get noticed, like the Capitol support staff. Every day, Capitol janitorial and maintenance and other workers, essential workers, do their jobs with skill and dedication and dignity. They have shown up for work during this pandemic. Those workers were here on January 6 doing their jobs when the insurrectionists, when the rioters, when the--call it what you want--traitors stormed this building, barging into this Chamber, acting as if no one would ever hold them responsible or accountable for their violence, for their disregard for American values and for U.S. laws. When the rampage was over, we know it was the largely Black and Brown custodial maintenance workers who were left to restore dignity to the Capitol. Their work, first of all, allowed us to come back and continue our work at 8 that night certifying the electoral votes and securing our democracy. As we know, domestic terrorists destroyed; Black and Brown custodians cleaned up; and maintenance workers, carpenters, painters, and union members rebuilt. Today, we honor them. Some of the most enduring and moving images of that day are the pictures of these workers sweeping up the mess that terrorists made in the people's houses. That night, after we voted--the Senator from Minnesota was there. We were all here voting in this Chamber. After the police and the National Guard--the DC Police, the Capitol Police, and others--after they cleared the terrorists out of this building, we came back at 8 and voted. I spent the night in the basement in my office. I live a 20-minute walk away. I really didn't want to walk home that night. But I walked around about midnight, walked around this building, over in the House and the Senate. I saw the destruction. I saw the window right upstairs from me, the half-moon window that terrorists, with their flagpoles with their Confederate flags and their Trump flags attached, broke through. When I was back there at midnight that night, already the cleanup from the custodians had started, cleaning up after they had been threatened. After they had been called names as Black women, as immigrant women, after they had been called names by the terrorists, they were back there cleaning up. Already, a carpenter had cut a half-moon piece of plywood and nailed it to that window to keep this building safe and keep the elements out. We honor those people today. It is what service looks like. It is what love of country looks like. It is what the dignity of work looks like. It tells you a lot about what is wrong with our economy. These essential workers--the people who prepare the food, the people who clean up, the people who provide security--the essential workers, like so many of their fellow service workers around this country, don't make a lot of money. They don't get much attention. They don't get much reward. They don't have much power. We simply don't value and respect all work the way we should. I think of the words of Dr. King. One of my favorite Dr. King quotes is this: If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, ``Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.'' Dr. King said: No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance. He later said that no job with adequate compensation is menial. Look at the words of Pope Francis a few days ago in his Christmas Eve address or think back 100 years, 120 years, to Pope Leo, the labor Pope, in Rerum Novarum, where he first introduced--at least in my view--first introduced the term, I assume in Latin, ``dignity of work.'' Pope Francis, in his Christmas Eve address just a few days ago, said: [God] reminds us of the importance of granting dignity to men and women through [their] labour, [and] also . . . granting dignity to human labour itself. Those are Pope Francis's words. No work is insignificant. All labor has dignity. We ought to treat it thatway, starting with honoring these workers. Last year, I joined my colleagues in a resolution to honor all the workers who risked their lives that day: custodians, maintenance workers, Capitol Police officers, journalists, the floor staff, the workers in our offices. All of them served this country. All of them risked their safety to preserve our democracy. All of them deserve our gratitude. Today, though, or tomorrow, actually, but I will ask tonight because my colleagues--because of Senator Isakson's funeral, many will be there tomorrow. I ask my colleagues to join me and Senators Klobuchar and Schumer and Senators Casey and Booker in a resolution honoring specifically the Capitol janitorial and maintenance staff--all essential workers--for their bravery and service to our country on January 6. One of my favorite parts of this job--and the Presiding Officer knows this because we have had these conversations and because of her appreciation for work and for the people who work so hard and get so little--one of the joys of this job is to do what Abraham Lincoln used to do. When staff wanted him to stay in the White House and win the war and free the slaves and preserve the Union, Lincoln said: No, I have to go out and get my public opinion bath. One of the joys of this job is to talk to the workers here just about their lives or about what happened on January 6. One custodial worker and I were talking. She has been in this country for 30 years. She has been a citizen for 20 years, and she has worked in this job for 30 years. She has been a citizen for 20 years. She and a number of others were locked in a room where terrorists were pounding on the walls and were screaming racial epithets and were screaming anti-immigrant utterances, all of that. Yet she still works here. She was one of the ones who had to clean up after them. As I said, the terrorists destroyed; the Black and Brown maintenance workers cleaned up; and the union trades people rebuilt. This resolution that I am going to offer tomorrow reaffirms the Senate's commitment to strengthening their rights as workers and providing support and resources to ensure their health, well-being, safety, and protection from further attacks. Their support should include higher pay. It should include collective bargaining rights for all of them. It should include paid sick leave and vacation leave. It should include comprehensive health insurance with mental health resources. Don't think that many of these--you all understand that many of these police officers, many of these custodial workers, many of the movers and the plumbers and the others who were locked in their rooms or offices or buildings during this--I am not a mental health expert at all, but many of them, I am sure, suffer from issues of nightmares and other kinds of anxieties that we need to help them with. I hope my colleagues will join me, not as Republicans or Democrats but as Americans, as Members of this body. These workers serve us all. They allowed us to do our work for America that night. After we essentially were run out of this room and were safe for several hours, they allowed us, because of their work, to come back here and be safe and do our jobs that we took an oath of office on January 3, 2021, to do. This building wouldn't function without them. No one should have to endure what they did at the hands of domestic terrorists. To all of the Capitol custodians and service workers who come to work in this building each day to ensure our democracy functions, thank you, thank you, thank you. I have this resolution honoring the Capitol's essential workers, applauding them for their service. I had intended to try to pass this resolution by unanimous consent tomorrow, but I recognize that many of my colleagues are out of town at the funeral honoring one of the really good men who served in this body, Johnny Isakson from Georgia. I hope we can take this resolution up and pass this commonsense resolution next week when we return. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-05-pt1-PgS45 | null | 3,766 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. The Chair will address the Chamber. Today, one year ago, the Capitol and those who work in it were targeted in a violent insurrection that sought to undermine democracy. As we acknowledge the horror of that day, we honor the heroism of so many, particularly the U.S. Capitol Police; and the institutional staff; floor, leadership, committee, and Member staff. We had a session this morning where we could say thank you to many of them. Unfortunately, COVID did not enable us to have the full House. We will have another time when the attending physician allows. As we acknowledge the horror of that day, in the face of extreme danger, they all risked their safety for our democracy by protecting the Capitol complex, Members, staff, and press within; safeguarding the ballots in those mahogany boxes to validate the election; and ensuring that Congress could accomplish our purpose and honor our duty to the Constitution and to our country. That day, and in the days after, they were the defenders of our democracy, and their courage and patriotism remain an inspiration. Because of them, Congress was able to defeat the insurrection and return to the Capitol that same night to ensure that the peaceful transfer of power took place. Because of them and our Members, the insurrection failed. One year ago, this sacred space--where Members legislate, children learn, and visitors are welcomed--was defiled and damaged. As we reflect on that darkest day, we remember that the insurrectionists sought not only to attack the building but to undermine democracy itself. When the violent assault was made on the Capitol, its purpose was to thwart Congress' constitutional duty to validate the electoral count and to ensure the peaceful transfer of power. But the assault did not deter us from our duty. In this Capitol, a symbol of democracy to the world, that evening, because of the courage of all of you, the Congress rose to honor our oath and to protect our democracy. We did so honoring the words of President Lincoln during the Civil War: Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We . . . will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. We hold the power; therefore, we bear the responsibility. Today, we accept a responsibility as daunting and demanding as any that previous generations of leadership have faced. Since the January 6 insurrection, there have been continued assaults onour democracy, undermining the sanctity of the vote and the integrity of our elections, which are the bases of our democracy. Let us be true to the vision of our Founders, who brilliantly established our democracy and made it a model for the world. Let us honor the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform who protect that freedom with their lives. Let us remember the words of another President, our patriarch, President George Washington, when he delivered the Constitution to Congress: The Constitution represents the creation of a government which would allow for the continuation of rigorous debate but relies upon the common sense and good faith of the American people to find the better angels of their nature. As we proceed, let us find our common ground and reach our Nation's heights, with liberty and justice for all, remembering the words of our great patriarch and in the spirit that our Chaplain referenced of President Lincoln, with malice toward none, with charity toward all. As I conclude, I want to acknowledge our fallen heroes of that day: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick; U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood; Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith; U.S. Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, of a later assault. Now I ask all Members to rise for a moment of silence in their memory. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-01-06-pt1-PgH3-6 | null | 3,767 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Amitabha Bose, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-01-06-pt1-PgS55-6 | null | 3,768 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, several months ago, I spoke of the hope we all felt that after decades of civil war, famine, and political turmoil, after millions were killed and millions more became refugees including thousands of ``lost boys'' and ``lost girls,'' South Sudan's independence and a peace agreement would be the beginning of a period of lasting stability and progress. Regrettably, what has unfolded since then is the antithesis of stability orprogress. The past decade has been plagued by continued ethnic violence, widespread hunger, and ongoing disputes between rival politicians who have been motivated by their own personal ambitions rather than building a democratic country or improving the lives of the South Sudanese people. Two individuals, President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar, are primarily to blame for fueling tensions and mobilizing support along ethnic lines and for failing in their responsibility to invest in public infrastructure, basic services, and the institutions of a multi-party democracy. The country remains divided, violent, and impoverished. The Parliament is nothing more than a hand-picked rubberstamp. In S. Res. 380, which passed unanimously on December 9, 2021, we recounted the failure of leadership that continues to plague South Sudan. We said: Whereas despite years of fighting, widespread suffering of South Sudanese civilians, punitive actions by the international community, and 2 peace agreements, the leaders of South Sudan have failed to build sustainable peace, and critical provisions of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict [R-ARCSS] . . . remain unimplemented; Whereas the leaders of South Sudan have consistently failed to uphold their responsibilities to create the conditions for peace and prosperity, have prioritized self-preservation and corruption over the needs of the people they represent, have acted in bad faith in the implementation of cease fire and peace agreements, and have betrayed the cause of freedom, resulting in the loss of millions of lives; and Whereas South Sudan has not held an election since its independence and the current leaders of South Sudan were appointed or installed through transitional arrangements based on peace agreements. The people of South Sudan deserve better. Their children are hungry. They live in constant fear that the country will again erupt into civil war, and they will be forced to flee their homes yet again. It is a travesty that, despite billions of dollars in international aid, oil revenues, and black market loans, so little has been accomplished due to the whims and greed of two politicians. Where did all that money go, when the government does not pay teachers, or health workers, diplomats, or war veterans, or build schools, health clinics, housing, or roads, or otherwise address the basic needs of the people of South Sudan? Where did the money go when the government does nothing to protect its citizens and their livestock from drowning from the yearly flooding of the Nile River? Does anyone doubt that it ended up in secret bank accounts or to purchase properties far away from South Sudan? I have spoken before of the People's Coalition for Civil Action--PCCA--a pro-democracy civil rights movement that seeks to mobilize the people of South Sudan in their pursuit of peaceful political change, which is their right. The PCCA and similar peaceful organizations represent a rejection of war, corruption, insecurity, and poverty. They are calling for new, honest, and capable leadership that is committed to improving the lives of their people, to providing stability and security, rather than self-enrichment. I note that S. Res. 380 calls on the Secretary of State to ``lead a comprehensive interagency process to develop a revitalized United States policy toward South Sudan that . . . identifies South Sudanese political and civilian stakeholders, beyond President Kiir and First Vice President Machar, with whom the United States may work for the promotion of peace, democracy, development, accountability, transparency, and anti-corruption efforts.'' Supporting the PCCA would be a good place to start. How has President Kiir responded to this praiseworthy demand for nothing more than that he and Vice President Machar keep their promise to lead the country out of poverty? Several of the PCCA's leaders have been arrested. Others live in exile, fearing that they too would be jailed if they return home. I think of Abraham Awolich, one of the lost boys. One of his brothers was killed fighting for the liberation of South Sudan, and Abraham nearly died himself for the same cause, but he was fortunate to be educated in a refugee camp in Kenya and resettled in my State of Vermont, where he graduated from the university. He is one of the dedicated leaders of the PCCA who have called for free and fair elections so the country can finally have new leadership and leave behind a generation of corruption, violence, and misery. Abraham left the comfort of living in America and chose to go back to South Sudan to help build a new democratic society, but he has had to flee his country, and his assets have been frozen for speaking out and standing up for democracy and civil rights. This is wrong. Others who are in jail for their peaceful advocacy are Kuel Aguer Kuel, Pastor Abraham Chol Maketh, Malik Angok, and Fadhia Ngor. Rajab Mohandis, Wani Michael, Joseph Akol Makeer, and Jame David Kolok are on the run for the same reason, their assets also frozen. Other advocacy organizations the government has targeted besides the PCCA include the Organization for Responsive Governance, the Okay Africa Foundation, and the Foundation for Democracy and Accountable Governance. These individuals and organizations deserve and need our support. I urge the South Sudanese authorities to release Kuel Aguer Kuel and all the political prisoners mentioned so they can begin this new year with their families. The government should also unfreeze the assets of the individuals and organizations affected and issue a public statement revoking any further threats against them and their organizations. The repressive actions of the South Sudanese Government should outrage each of us, especially considering the billions of dollars American taxpayers contributed to secure South Sudan's independence and put the country on a path to a prosperous future. President Kiir and Vice President Machar have a duty to provide the political and civic space for their people to exercise their rights of free expression, association, and assembly and to petition for free and fair elections and for honest and competent governance. Ever since independence 10 years ago, the people of South Sudan have struggled to survive under the suffocating oppression of the same two disgraced leaders. President Kiir and Vice President Machar have an opportunity to show real statesmanship, but time is running out. They should listen to the voices of their people expressed through the National Dialogue and step aside and give South Sudan a new beginning. The two could end the unrest in South Sudan with a public declaration of their intention not to contest the next election. Rather than delay elections as they have done repeatedly before, President Kiir and Vice President Machar should set a date for national and Parliamentary elections, in accordance with the R-ARCSS, and declare their unconditional commitment to relinquish power as soon as South Sudan's new leaders are sworn in. In acting on this advice, President Kiir and Vice President Machar would receive international support for an honorable exit from power. Ignoring this advice, however, would result in further condemnation and consequences from the United States and the rest of the international community. The text of S. Res. 380 bears repeating, because it identifies some, but by no means all, of the consequences that could result. It ``urges the Secretary of the Treasury-- (A) to prioritize investigations into illicit financial flows fueling violence in South Sudan; (B) to work with the Secretary of State to update, on a regular basis, the list of individuals and entities designated under the South Sudan sanctions program, including individuals at the highest levels of leadership in South Sudan and from within the National Security Service; and (C) to coordinate, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, with the United Kingdom and the European Union on South Sudan-related sanctions designations and enforcement.'' What has befallen the people of South Sudan in the 10 years since independence is a travesty. Their dreams of a better future have been crushed. Their rights have been trampled. Many have paid with their lives or their freedom. Their government has become a subject of ridicule by the same international donors that staked so much on the good faith of leaders who have failed them. Time has run out for President Kiir and Vice President Machar. The patience of the South Sudanese peoplehas run out. The tolerance of the international community has run out. They have squandered and abused their authority for far too long. They would be well-advised to stand aside so that others, chosen in a free and fair election, can begin the process of uniting and rebuilding the country. To that end, the United States can work with regional allies, Canada, Norway, the UK, other European nations, and church leaders to achieve a democratic and peaceful solution in South Sudan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2022-01-06-pt1-PgS78-2 | null | 3,769 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Hassan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1848, a bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), and marital status in the administration and provision of child welfare services, to improve safety, well-being, and permanency for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning foster youth, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-06-pt1-PgS81-2 | null | 3,770 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Amitabha Bose, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. | 2020-01-06 | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-01-07-pt1-PgS83-9 | null | 3,771 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Democracy Madam President, now on defending democracy, last week, the Nation observed the 1-year anniversary of the greatest violent assault against our democracy since the time of the American Civil War. Though the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, was confined to a single day, the attacks on our democracy have not ceased. The Big Lie--the terrible fantasy that our elections are rife with voter fraud and that Donald Trump won the 2020 election--lives on to this day and is spreading throughout our country, used to undermine our democracy. Donald Trump has such an infantile ego that he cannot accept that he lost. So he spreads the Big Lie. But just as bad--or almost as bad--are all those in politics, in the media, and elsewhere who know it is a lie but continue to spread it, to the grave detriment of the fundamental roots of this country, its democracy. Tomorrow, President Biden will travel to Georgia and make the moral case to the Nation that the time has come to act to defend democracy and protect voting rights, even if it means changing Senate rules to restore the Senate. Every single lover of democracy across America, especially those of us in this Chamber, should take heart of the President's message and ask ourselves: What can we do to protect free and fair elections in this country? The Senate, I believe, stands ready to follow through on the President's call. Later this week, we will hold a vote yet again on legislation to protect our democracy and protect the sacred right to vote. Everyone in this Chamber will have a chance to go on record. Will Republicans join Democrats in a bipartisan manner to move forward on defending democracy or will they once again mount a filibuster and offer their implicit endorsement of the Big Lie? I hope they join us, but to date, unfortunately, I have seen precious little suggesting they will do so. On the contrary, our Republican colleagues have gone to great lengths recently to distract from the dangers of Donald Trump's Big Lie. Senate Republicans are so stung by our arguments about voter fraud and the Big Lie that the Republican leader has actually tried to argue that it is actually Democrats pushing a big lie when we warn about voter suppression. The threats of voter suppression are not false; they are dangerous. The Republican leader's line of argument is gas-lighting, pure and simple. The Republican leader has pointed repeatedly to the experience of the 2020 election as proof, somehow, that there exists no effort to suppress the vote. But he ignores that the problem today is not just about what happened during the 2020 election. It is about what happened after, and it is happening today. If Leader McConnell doesn't want to get into specifics about the laws passed by Republican legislators across this country to limit the right to vote, then we Democrats will. Despite the fact that the 2020 election was free, fair, and accurate, in the year that followed at least 19 States suddenly decided to rewrite the rules that govern the way people voted in their respective States. At least 33--33--new laws have passed across the country that will make it harder to vote, harder to register to vote, and, worst of all, potentially empower partisans to arbitrate outcomes of future elections instead of nonpartisan election workers. And that may be just the beginning because legislatures in various States are preparing new laws as they enter the 2022 sessions of their legislatures. I ask my Republican colleagues: Take a look at what has happened in many of the Republican-led State legislatures. When Republicans in States like Texas reduce polling hours and polling locations, how does that not make it harder for people to vote? When Republicans in States like Florida, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas make it harder for people to even register to vote--even to register to vote--how is that not suppressing their fundamental right to vote at all? What does that have to do with election security? When Republicans in States like Georgia, Indiana, and Florida cut back on the number and availability of locations where people can drop off their absentee ballots, how can Republicans say that voting hasn't been made harder? And when Republicans in States like Georgia make it a crime to give food and water to people waiting in line at the polls, how is that not making it harder for them to cast a ballot? Some of the examples are especially egregious. According to one recent report, Lincoln County in Georgia is looking to eliminate all but one polling location in the entire county before the next election--one location in a whole big county. That is disgusting. Some voters who live in the county would have to drive 23 miles just to drop off a ballot. This in no way makes voting more convenient. It makes it an enormous burden. Let's be abundantly clear. These new anti-voter laws are on the books today because their authors cited the Big Lie, cited the fictitious bugaboo of voter fraud, and are trying to succeed where the insurrection failed. It is a slow-motion insurrection but a very, very pernicious one. We have yet to hear, on substance, any serious attempt from Senate Republicans defending these terrible new laws. They don't mention them. The truth is our Republican colleagues cannot defend them because the goal of these laws is very clear: They are deliberately targeting all the ways that younger, poorer, and non-White Americans typically access the ballot. And by blocking this Chamber from taking any action, Senate Republicans are implicitly offering their own endorsement of the Big Lie. Senate Democrats have been clear of our intentions from the start: The Senate must pass legislation that will safeguard our democracy and protect people's right to vote. It is why we have pushed the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act numerous times here on the floor, only for Republicans to filibuster them and prevent the Chamber from having so much as a debate. By hijacking the rules of the Senate and preventing any movement, Republicans are saying they oppose policies that guarantee same-day voter registration, policies that safeguard against election subversion, policies that protect poll workers, and policies that prevent faulty and dangerous voter roll purges. By blocking action in the Senate, Republicans are saying they oppose efforts to fight the power of dark money and efforts to end partisan gerrymandering. Senate Republicans are saying they are perfectly fine with laws that limit voter registration, limit early voting, and limit the number of polling places and drop boxes. They are even fine with policies that criminalize giving food and drink to voters at the polls. These laws are anathema to the very spirit of our democracy. They are Jim Crow 2, and it is the Republican Party, by and large in this Senate, supporting the reenactment of those Jim Crow laws. If Republicans refuse to join us in a bipartisan spirit, if they continue to hijack the rules of the Senate to turn this Chamber into a deep freezer, we are going to consider the appropriate steps necessary to restore the Senate so we can pass these proposals and send them to the President's desk. On this month--the same month we mark the 1-year anniversary of an armed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol--the question before the Senate is a simple one: How will we find a path forward on protecting our freedoms in the 21st century? Members of this body must now face a choice: They can follow in the footsteps of our patriotic predecessors in this Chamber or they can sit by as the fabric of our democracy unravels before their very eyes. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-10-pt1-PgS105 | null | 3,772 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Democracy Madam President, now on defending democracy, last week, the Nation observed the 1-year anniversary of the greatest violent assault against our democracy since the time of the American Civil War. Though the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, was confined to a single day, the attacks on our democracy have not ceased. The Big Lie--the terrible fantasy that our elections are rife with voter fraud and that Donald Trump won the 2020 election--lives on to this day and is spreading throughout our country, used to undermine our democracy. Donald Trump has such an infantile ego that he cannot accept that he lost. So he spreads the Big Lie. But just as bad--or almost as bad--are all those in politics, in the media, and elsewhere who know it is a lie but continue to spread it, to the grave detriment of the fundamental roots of this country, its democracy. Tomorrow, President Biden will travel to Georgia and make the moral case to the Nation that the time has come to act to defend democracy and protect voting rights, even if it means changing Senate rules to restore the Senate. Every single lover of democracy across America, especially those of us in this Chamber, should take heart of the President's message and ask ourselves: What can we do to protect free and fair elections in this country? The Senate, I believe, stands ready to follow through on the President's call. Later this week, we will hold a vote yet again on legislation to protect our democracy and protect the sacred right to vote. Everyone in this Chamber will have a chance to go on record. Will Republicans join Democrats in a bipartisan manner to move forward on defending democracy or will they once again mount a filibuster and offer their implicit endorsement of the Big Lie? I hope they join us, but to date, unfortunately, I have seen precious little suggesting they will do so. On the contrary, our Republican colleagues have gone to great lengths recently to distract from the dangers of Donald Trump's Big Lie. Senate Republicans are so stung by our arguments about voter fraud and the Big Lie that the Republican leader has actually tried to argue that it is actually Democrats pushing a big lie when we warn about voter suppression. The threats of voter suppression are not false; they are dangerous. The Republican leader's line of argument is gas-lighting, pure and simple. The Republican leader has pointed repeatedly to the experience of the 2020 election as proof, somehow, that there exists no effort to suppress the vote. But he ignores that the problem today is not just about what happened during the 2020 election. It is about what happened after, and it is happening today. If Leader McConnell doesn't want to get into specifics about the laws passed by Republican legislators across this country to limit the right to vote, then we Democrats will. Despite the fact that the 2020 election was free, fair, and accurate, in the year that followed at least 19 States suddenly decided to rewrite the rules that govern the way people voted in their respective States. At least 33--33--new laws have passed across the country that will make it harder to vote, harder to register to vote, and, worst of all, potentially empower partisans to arbitrate outcomes of future elections instead of nonpartisan election workers. And that may be just the beginning because legislatures in various States are preparing new laws as they enter the 2022 sessions of their legislatures. I ask my Republican colleagues: Take a look at what has happened in many of the Republican-led State legislatures. When Republicans in States like Texas reduce polling hours and polling locations, how does that not make it harder for people to vote? When Republicans in States like Florida, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas make it harder for people to even register to vote--even to register to vote--how is that not suppressing their fundamental right to vote at all? What does that have to do with election security? When Republicans in States like Georgia, Indiana, and Florida cut back on the number and availability of locations where people can drop off their absentee ballots, how can Republicans say that voting hasn't been made harder? And when Republicans in States like Georgia make it a crime to give food and water to people waiting in line at the polls, how is that not making it harder for them to cast a ballot? Some of the examples are especially egregious. According to one recent report, Lincoln County in Georgia is looking to eliminate all but one polling location in the entire county before the next election--one location in a whole big county. That is disgusting. Some voters who live in the county would have to drive 23 miles just to drop off a ballot. This in no way makes voting more convenient. It makes it an enormous burden. Let's be abundantly clear. These new anti-voter laws are on the books today because their authors cited the Big Lie, cited the fictitious bugaboo of voter fraud, and are trying to succeed where the insurrection failed. It is a slow-motion insurrection but a very, very pernicious one. We have yet to hear, on substance, any serious attempt from Senate Republicans defending these terrible new laws. They don't mention them. The truth is our Republican colleagues cannot defend them because the goal of these laws is very clear: They are deliberately targeting all the ways that younger, poorer, and non-White Americans typically access the ballot. And by blocking this Chamber from taking any action, Senate Republicans are implicitly offering their own endorsement of the Big Lie. Senate Democrats have been clear of our intentions from the start: The Senate must pass legislation that will safeguard our democracy and protect people's right to vote. It is why we have pushed the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act numerous times here on the floor, only for Republicans to filibuster them and prevent the Chamber from having so much as a debate. By hijacking the rules of the Senate and preventing any movement, Republicans are saying they oppose policies that guarantee same-day voter registration, policies that safeguard against election subversion, policies that protect poll workers, and policies that prevent faulty and dangerous voter roll purges. By blocking action in the Senate, Republicans are saying they oppose efforts to fight the power of dark money and efforts to end partisan gerrymandering. Senate Republicans are saying they are perfectly fine with laws that limit voter registration, limit early voting, and limit the number of polling places and drop boxes. They are even fine with policies that criminalize giving food and drink to voters at the polls. These laws are anathema to the very spirit of our democracy. They are Jim Crow 2, and it is the Republican Party, by and large in this Senate, supporting the reenactment of those Jim Crow laws. If Republicans refuse to join us in a bipartisan spirit, if they continue to hijack the rules of the Senate to turn this Chamber into a deep freezer, we are going to consider the appropriate steps necessary to restore the Senate so we can pass these proposals and send them to the President's desk. On this month--the same month we mark the 1-year anniversary of an armed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol--the question before the Senate is a simple one: How will we find a path forward on protecting our freedoms in the 21st century? Members of this body must now face a choice: They can follow in the footsteps of our patriotic predecessors in this Chamber or they can sit by as the fabric of our democracy unravels before their very eyes. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-10-pt1-PgS105 | null | 3,773 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Democracy Madam President, now on defending democracy, last week, the Nation observed the 1-year anniversary of the greatest violent assault against our democracy since the time of the American Civil War. Though the Capitol attack of January 6, 2021, was confined to a single day, the attacks on our democracy have not ceased. The Big Lie--the terrible fantasy that our elections are rife with voter fraud and that Donald Trump won the 2020 election--lives on to this day and is spreading throughout our country, used to undermine our democracy. Donald Trump has such an infantile ego that he cannot accept that he lost. So he spreads the Big Lie. But just as bad--or almost as bad--are all those in politics, in the media, and elsewhere who know it is a lie but continue to spread it, to the grave detriment of the fundamental roots of this country, its democracy. Tomorrow, President Biden will travel to Georgia and make the moral case to the Nation that the time has come to act to defend democracy and protect voting rights, even if it means changing Senate rules to restore the Senate. Every single lover of democracy across America, especially those of us in this Chamber, should take heart of the President's message and ask ourselves: What can we do to protect free and fair elections in this country? The Senate, I believe, stands ready to follow through on the President's call. Later this week, we will hold a vote yet again on legislation to protect our democracy and protect the sacred right to vote. Everyone in this Chamber will have a chance to go on record. Will Republicans join Democrats in a bipartisan manner to move forward on defending democracy or will they once again mount a filibuster and offer their implicit endorsement of the Big Lie? I hope they join us, but to date, unfortunately, I have seen precious little suggesting they will do so. On the contrary, our Republican colleagues have gone to great lengths recently to distract from the dangers of Donald Trump's Big Lie. Senate Republicans are so stung by our arguments about voter fraud and the Big Lie that the Republican leader has actually tried to argue that it is actually Democrats pushing a big lie when we warn about voter suppression. The threats of voter suppression are not false; they are dangerous. The Republican leader's line of argument is gas-lighting, pure and simple. The Republican leader has pointed repeatedly to the experience of the 2020 election as proof, somehow, that there exists no effort to suppress the vote. But he ignores that the problem today is not just about what happened during the 2020 election. It is about what happened after, and it is happening today. If Leader McConnell doesn't want to get into specifics about the laws passed by Republican legislators across this country to limit the right to vote, then we Democrats will. Despite the fact that the 2020 election was free, fair, and accurate, in the year that followed at least 19 States suddenly decided to rewrite the rules that govern the way people voted in their respective States. At least 33--33--new laws have passed across the country that will make it harder to vote, harder to register to vote, and, worst of all, potentially empower partisans to arbitrate outcomes of future elections instead of nonpartisan election workers. And that may be just the beginning because legislatures in various States are preparing new laws as they enter the 2022 sessions of their legislatures. I ask my Republican colleagues: Take a look at what has happened in many of the Republican-led State legislatures. When Republicans in States like Texas reduce polling hours and polling locations, how does that not make it harder for people to vote? When Republicans in States like Florida, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas make it harder for people to even register to vote--even to register to vote--how is that not suppressing their fundamental right to vote at all? What does that have to do with election security? When Republicans in States like Georgia, Indiana, and Florida cut back on the number and availability of locations where people can drop off their absentee ballots, how can Republicans say that voting hasn't been made harder? And when Republicans in States like Georgia make it a crime to give food and water to people waiting in line at the polls, how is that not making it harder for them to cast a ballot? Some of the examples are especially egregious. According to one recent report, Lincoln County in Georgia is looking to eliminate all but one polling location in the entire county before the next election--one location in a whole big county. That is disgusting. Some voters who live in the county would have to drive 23 miles just to drop off a ballot. This in no way makes voting more convenient. It makes it an enormous burden. Let's be abundantly clear. These new anti-voter laws are on the books today because their authors cited the Big Lie, cited the fictitious bugaboo of voter fraud, and are trying to succeed where the insurrection failed. It is a slow-motion insurrection but a very, very pernicious one. We have yet to hear, on substance, any serious attempt from Senate Republicans defending these terrible new laws. They don't mention them. The truth is our Republican colleagues cannot defend them because the goal of these laws is very clear: They are deliberately targeting all the ways that younger, poorer, and non-White Americans typically access the ballot. And by blocking this Chamber from taking any action, Senate Republicans are implicitly offering their own endorsement of the Big Lie. Senate Democrats have been clear of our intentions from the start: The Senate must pass legislation that will safeguard our democracy and protect people's right to vote. It is why we have pushed the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act numerous times here on the floor, only for Republicans to filibuster them and prevent the Chamber from having so much as a debate. By hijacking the rules of the Senate and preventing any movement, Republicans are saying they oppose policies that guarantee same-day voter registration, policies that safeguard against election subversion, policies that protect poll workers, and policies that prevent faulty and dangerous voter roll purges. By blocking action in the Senate, Republicans are saying they oppose efforts to fight the power of dark money and efforts to end partisan gerrymandering. Senate Republicans are saying they are perfectly fine with laws that limit voter registration, limit early voting, and limit the number of polling places and drop boxes. They are even fine with policies that criminalize giving food and drink to voters at the polls. These laws are anathema to the very spirit of our democracy. They are Jim Crow 2, and it is the Republican Party, by and large in this Senate, supporting the reenactment of those Jim Crow laws. If Republicans refuse to join us in a bipartisan spirit, if they continue to hijack the rules of the Senate to turn this Chamber into a deep freezer, we are going to consider the appropriate steps necessary to restore the Senate so we can pass these proposals and send them to the President's desk. On this month--the same month we mark the 1-year anniversary of an armed insurrection at the U.S. Capitol--the question before the Senate is a simple one: How will we find a path forward on protecting our freedoms in the 21st century? Members of this body must now face a choice: They can follow in the footsteps of our patriotic predecessors in this Chamber or they can sit by as the fabric of our democracy unravels before their very eyes. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-10-pt1-PgS105 | null | 3,774 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Russia Madam President, on my last topic, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin once famously called the collapse of the Soviet Union ``the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' That ought to tell you very much. He regrets the collapse of the evil empire that killed, that tortured, and that repressed millions of Russians, and he is in the process of trying to reconstitute that empire by threatening Russia's neighbors, regardless of the wishes of the people he seeks to rule over. Putin is on the precipice of greatly escalating his war on Ukraine, upset that Ukrainians, as is their right, increasingly seek to leave the Soviet past behind them and reclaim their European heritage. Ukraine wants to renew historic ties with their western neighbor while building democracy and the rule of law. Now, we saw over the week, particularly this weekend, Putin sending troops into Kazakhstan at the invitation of that country's allied dictator to repress an unexpected popular uprising. All this empire building rests on convincing the Russian people that despite their misery and his misrule, Putin is restoring Russia's past glory, just like they could have a good economic future based on that past glory. Now, this work of Putin requires a war on history. Putin recently gave a speech absurdly claiming Ukraine is not a real country, based on ignoring--or, rather, Russia's co-opting--the much older history of civilization in Ukraine. He has also rehabilitated the memory of the sadistic mass murderer Joseph Stalin. There is a book about how Putin's Russia views the Stalinist past. Its title says it all. The title of the book is ``It Was a Long Time Ago, and It Never Happened Anyway.'' Now they have taken action in recent weeks to make sure that history of Russia's past, particularly the abuse of its population, never is known. And I will cover that in just a minute. Stalin's horrific crimes against the Russian people are a big obstacle to Putin's narrative about the Soviet Union, as part of some sort of a proud Russian imperial tradition. So it comes as no surprise that Putin's regime has forced the closure of a respected Russian human rights organization dedicated to the truth--the truth--about the victims of Soviet communism. The independent human rights organization known as Memorial was cofounded by Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrei Sakharov in the waning days of the Soviet Union. Sakharov was a brave dissident who risked everything to call attention to the evils of the Soviet system. As some of my colleagues may recall, I led the effort in this U.S. Senate to name the street in front of the old Soviet Embassy in his Honor--Sakharov Plaza. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Sakharov embodied the hope of a brighter, more democratic future for all of Russia, built on understanding and reckoning with its past. The forced closure of Memorial after decades of noble work to bring awareness and to bring healing around the victims of Soviet communism is emblematic of the state of Putin's Russia, but not the state of the Russian people. Moreover, the next day, he moved even further in this direction of trying to rewrite history or stop the truth from coming out. Putin shut down the separate but related Memorial Human Rights Center, which focused on political prisoners this very day who are being abused under Putin's regime. This is a major setback for what is left of Russia's civil society that started to emerge out of the wreckage of communism. A robust civil society will be essential if Russia is ever to become a free, prosperous modern nation. Today, only President Putin stands in the way of that accomplishment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-10-pt1-PgS110 | null | 3,775 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | The following bills were read the first time: S. 3452. A bill to ensure that State and local law enforcement may cooperate with Federal officials to protect our communities from violent criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present in the United States. S. 3453. A bill to prohibit the payment of certain legal settlements to individuals who unlawfully entered the United States. S. 3454. A bill to clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act. S. 3455. A bill to prohibit the implementation of new requirements to report bank account deposits and withdrawals. S. 3456. A bill to enact the definition of ``waters of the United States'' into law, and for other purposes. S. 3457. A bill to codify the temporary scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances by adding fentanyl-related substances to schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. S. 3458. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide enhanced penalties for convicted murderers who kill or target America's public safety officers. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-10-pt1-PgS116-6 | null | 3,776 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At the request of Mr. Lee, the name of the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines) was added as a cosponsor of S. 251, a bill to provide that for purposes of determining compliance with title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 in athletics, sex shall be recognized based solely on a person's reproductive biology and genetics at birth. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-10-pt1-PgS118-2 | null | 3,777 |
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 titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 450. An act to award posthumously the Congressional Gold Medal to Emmett Till and Mamie Till-Mobley. S. 3451. An act to include certain computer-related projects in the Federal permitting program under title XLI of the FAST Act, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-01-11-pt1-PgH20-6 | null | 3,778 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Today's opening prayer will be offered by Rabbi Moshe Feller, the director, Upper Midwest Merkos Chabad-Lubavitch, from St. Paul, MN. The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer: Almighty God, Master of the Universe, the Members of this august body, the U.S. Senate, convene here today to fulfill one of the Seven Commandments which You issued to Noah and his family after the Great Flood: the commandment that all society be governed by just laws. As stated in the book of Genesis and its sacred commentaries, You issued at that time the following seven laws: to worship You and You alone; never to blaspheme Your Holy Name; not to commit murder; not to commit adultery, incest, or any sexual misdeeds; not to steal, lie, or cheat; not to be cruel to any living creature; and that every society be governed by just laws based on the recognition and acknowledgement of You, O God, as the sovereign Ruler of all humankind and all nations. Grant, Almighty God, that the Members of the Senate constantly realize that by enacting just laws they are doing Your will. Almighty God, I beseech You today to bless the Senate and our entire Nation in the merit of two spiritual giants of our time and of our country, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson of saintly blessed memory--the sixth Lubavitch Rebbe--and his successor, the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, of saintly blessed memory. Tomorrow, the 10th day of the Hebrew month of Shevat, is the anniversary of the transition of their leadership. It is a day of reflection and action and one which should energize us to be God-conscious beings. Their holy mission continues through our acts of goodness and kindness, hastening the harmonious era of the messianic redemption. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-01-11-pt1-PgS123-2 | null | 3,779 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The bill clerk read the nomination of Amitabha Bose, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2022-01-11-pt1-PgS132-2 | null | 3,780 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Amitabha Bose, of New Jersey, to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS165-6 | null | 3,781 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Filibuster Mr. President, I want to talk about two subjects today, and the first is this question of the rules of the Senate because I have listened with great interest over the last few days as my Republican colleagues have come down to the floor to extol the virtues of Senate tradition. They explained the danger of changing the rules so that the majority vote in the Senate can pass legislation. It doesn't sound like a radical idea; that if the majority of Senators want a piece of legislation to pass, it should pass. But this idea that the filibuster is part of the original design of our democracy or our Senate or that the current use of the filibuster is consistent with Senate tradition is just not true. Our Founding Fathers--yes, they built a system of government that was designed to make rapid change, even change supported by the majority of voters, really, really hard to implement. They designed two different legislative Chambers, the President with veto power, staggered terms for Senators, but our Founding Fathers considered a supermajority requirement for legislation in the Congress, and they rejected it as too great a limitation on the will of the people. Now, admittedly, at the time of our founding, there were other checks on the voters' will being quickly transformed into policy changes. Back then, for instance, only White men could vote. The citizenry at the time wasn't even trusted to directly elect the Members of this body. But in the decades that followed, the American people demanded more democracy, and they got it. Why? Because as our grand experiment of democracy continues, we saw proof of concept. The people could be trusted to govern themselves. They could choose leaders who were more able, more honest, more effective than any King or Queen or Sultan or Emperor. So we extended the franchise universally. We decided to have the Senate be directly elected, and as America expanded, the new States out in the West, they gobbled up even more democracy. The West decided to elect not just legislators but judges and prosecutors, dog catchers and insurance commissioners. The majoritarian rule, as America grew, became addictive, and as our country grew, our citizens demanded more of it. Now, in the context of the Founders' intentions and the long-term trend toward more democracy, this 60-vote requirement, this supermajority requirement in the Senate, which doesn't exist in any other high-income democracy--it stands out like a sore, rotting thumb. This anti-majoritarian drain clog is designed intentionally to stop the majority of Americans from getting what they want from government because that is what it is. Why should it not be up to the voters and not politicians to decide the laws of this Nation? With a 60-vote threshold, that decision is robbed from voters. Given that only one-third of the Senate is up for election every 2 years, it is just impossible for voters on their own to move one party from, say, 46 or 48 Members of this body to 60 Members in one election, and we all know this. But right now the American public is in no mood for the choices of elites to be continually substituted for their collective judgment. Right now, Americans are in a pretty revolutionary mood, and you can understand why. More Americans today than at any time in recent history see themselveson the precipice of financial and spiritual ruin. So why on Earth would our message amidst this growing populous tempest be to tell voters that rules are required to protect them from their bad judgment, to take from them purposely the ability to change policies whenever and however they wish? Now, Senate Republicans will say that even though the filibuster is anti-majoritarian--right, it is. It says that even if the public installs a majority in the Senate that wants policy A, the rules are going to be constructed in the Senate to prevent it from happening. Senate Republicans will say that even though it is anti-majoritarian, it is for good reason because, as I have heard many of my colleagues say, it promotes compromise. Well, I have been in the Senate now for 8, 9 years. Once in a blue Moon, like this summer on the infrastructure bill, there is a big bipartisan achievement. But anyone who believes that the rules of the Senate right now incentivizes bipartisanship should just watch the Senate for, like, a few days. Today, the 60-vote threshold just allows the minority to sit back and say, no, no, no, over and over again, in large part, because its usage has changed so much. It didn't used to be that the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold, was applied to everything. Up until the 1970s, cloture votes were almost nonexistent in the Senate. Big things routinely passed with 50 votes. Think about this. In 1994, Senator Feinstein forced a vote here on one of the most controversial topics that we could talk about--a ban on assault weapons. It received, in 1994, fewer votes than did the Manchin-Toomey background checks bill 30 years later. But the assault weapons ban, arguably way more controversial than the background checks bill, passed and became law while the background checks bill didn't. Why? Because in 1994, many important votes, even the assault weapons ban, were allowed to proceed on a majority-vote basis. That all changed, mostly when Democrats won the Senate in 2007, and Barack Obama was elected President. But no matter who started this policy of applying the 60-vote threshold to everything, today both parties use it. Democrats used it when we were in the minority. The practice of the filibuster doesn't jibe with this clarion call of adhering to Senate tradition because Senate tradition is not to use the 60-vote threshold on everything. Let's be honest. We are not going back to a world in which Senators self-regulate the filibuster. And there is no sign that the claim the filibuster is an incentive for bipartisanship is going to suddenly become true. Today, millions of voters are wondering why they vote to change the people who get elected but then nothing actually changes. We should have a better answer than just Senate tradition. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS169 | null | 3,782 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Afghanistan Mr. President, President Biden's decision to remove our remaining troops from Afghanistan was the right one, no question about it. President Trump set the Biden administration up for failure. Trump's agreement with the Taliban committed us to withdrawing all of our troops, and had Biden torn up that agreement, he would have had to send tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan to push back the Trump-era Taliban gains. The American public would not have supported another Afghanistan troop surge and for good reason. The overnight collapse of the Afghan Army and Government was, frankly, proof that 20 years of nation building had failed, and another 20 years wasn't going to result in a different outcome. President Biden made the right decision to leave. The American people, by a large margin, support that decision. But right now we need to be honest. The question of what to do now, as Afghanistan crumbles into a nightmarish failed state, is a moral knot almost impossible to untangle. As chair of the Foreign Relations subcommittee that oversees Afghanistan policy, I thought a lot about this question, and I have come to a few conclusions that I want to share quickly with my colleagues. First, let's just take a minute to talk about what it is like to be living in Afghanistan right now. It is a nightmare. Once the U.S. military occupation and all the foreign aid that came with it disappeared, the Afghanistan economy collapsed, predictably. Today, winter is setting in, and more than half of the population--23 million people--don't have enough food to eat. By this summer, 97 percent of Afghans will be living below the poverty line, trying to survive on less than $2 a day. With 9 million people just one step away from famine, this humanitarian crisis could kill more Afghans than the past 20 years of war. And herein lies the quandary. On one side is what sounds like a pretty clear and convincing argument. Essentially, the Taliban has to own this. We warned the Taliban that this collapse would occur if they took the nation by force. That is why we sat at a table with them and tried to explain that it was in their best interests and the best interests of the nation for the Taliban to share power with the elected Afghan Government. But the Taliban did not listen. They took Kabul and should own the results. To send billions to solve the humanitarian crisis they caused would be to bail the Taliban out and incentivize other insurgent groups to make similar, rash decisions. But on the other hand is an equally clear and convincing argument. We stood by the Afghan people for two decades--protecting them, working with them. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars helping to raise up the future of millions Afghan families, women, and girls. And now those same Afghans, those same families, the ones who, frankly, have nothing to do with the Taliban are dying, potentially, by the tens of thousands. And we have the power to do something about it. How could we let the Afghan people die needlessly if we have the power to stop it? Now, we possess this power because it is U.S. policy toward the Taliban government that is contributory toward this crisis. It is not the proximate cause, but it is contributory. When Kabul fell suddenly last August, the administration sensibly froze $7 billion of the former Afghan Government's assets that are held at the Federal Reserve that we didn't want the Taliban to control. But that money isn't ours; it rightfully belongs to the Afghan people. Further, our sanctions on the Taliban--completely justified because of the Taliban's embrace of terrorism--essentially handcuffs the Afghan economy and therefore contributes to the country's economic descent. So we need to understand that our policies are contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. But what if these two points--that the Taliban should own this and that we can't stand by, idly, while people die--what if they aren't in 100-percent contrast? What if we could help the Afghan people without directly empowering the Taliban? Wouldn't that be the best possible answer? The good news is, is that the middle road is possible. I am going to be honest. It is not easy, but it is possible. Over the last 20 years, the United States has spent billions in our taxpayer dollars to build schools and health clinics and a robust civil service. The number of schools today, for instance, is five times higher in Afghanistan than it was in 2001. That is because of American investment. We can and we should find ways to pay the salaries of those who work at these nonpolitical institutions through the U.N. and NGOs on the ground, going around the Taliban-led government to keep those essential services running and to inject some much needed money into the economy. Again, this isn't easy to do, but it is worthwhile given the stakes. We can also support the U.N. directly. Yesterday, the U.N. asked for a $4.5 billion call in humanitarian aid to stave off catastrophe in Afghanistan. This is the largest single-country appeal in history. That should tell you about the scale of the crisis that we are facing. It is larger than what we see in Syria or Yemen or Ethiopia. I support the administration's decision to dedicate an additional $308 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. That money can help save lives. But Congress should authorize more. Make no mistake, the Taliban and, frankly, 20 years of corrupt Afghan Government do own this debacle. The choices they made have led to this day.But our hands aren't clean. Our mismanaged occupation is part of the story. Right now, as the Afghan economy collapses and families face starvation, burying our heads in the sand is not a solution. We can find ways to save lives without unreasonably empowering the Taliban. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS170 | null | 3,783 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Afghanistan Mr. President, President Biden's decision to remove our remaining troops from Afghanistan was the right one, no question about it. President Trump set the Biden administration up for failure. Trump's agreement with the Taliban committed us to withdrawing all of our troops, and had Biden torn up that agreement, he would have had to send tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan to push back the Trump-era Taliban gains. The American public would not have supported another Afghanistan troop surge and for good reason. The overnight collapse of the Afghan Army and Government was, frankly, proof that 20 years of nation building had failed, and another 20 years wasn't going to result in a different outcome. President Biden made the right decision to leave. The American people, by a large margin, support that decision. But right now we need to be honest. The question of what to do now, as Afghanistan crumbles into a nightmarish failed state, is a moral knot almost impossible to untangle. As chair of the Foreign Relations subcommittee that oversees Afghanistan policy, I thought a lot about this question, and I have come to a few conclusions that I want to share quickly with my colleagues. First, let's just take a minute to talk about what it is like to be living in Afghanistan right now. It is a nightmare. Once the U.S. military occupation and all the foreign aid that came with it disappeared, the Afghanistan economy collapsed, predictably. Today, winter is setting in, and more than half of the population--23 million people--don't have enough food to eat. By this summer, 97 percent of Afghans will be living below the poverty line, trying to survive on less than $2 a day. With 9 million people just one step away from famine, this humanitarian crisis could kill more Afghans than the past 20 years of war. And herein lies the quandary. On one side is what sounds like a pretty clear and convincing argument. Essentially, the Taliban has to own this. We warned the Taliban that this collapse would occur if they took the nation by force. That is why we sat at a table with them and tried to explain that it was in their best interests and the best interests of the nation for the Taliban to share power with the elected Afghan Government. But the Taliban did not listen. They took Kabul and should own the results. To send billions to solve the humanitarian crisis they caused would be to bail the Taliban out and incentivize other insurgent groups to make similar, rash decisions. But on the other hand is an equally clear and convincing argument. We stood by the Afghan people for two decades--protecting them, working with them. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars helping to raise up the future of millions Afghan families, women, and girls. And now those same Afghans, those same families, the ones who, frankly, have nothing to do with the Taliban are dying, potentially, by the tens of thousands. And we have the power to do something about it. How could we let the Afghan people die needlessly if we have the power to stop it? Now, we possess this power because it is U.S. policy toward the Taliban government that is contributory toward this crisis. It is not the proximate cause, but it is contributory. When Kabul fell suddenly last August, the administration sensibly froze $7 billion of the former Afghan Government's assets that are held at the Federal Reserve that we didn't want the Taliban to control. But that money isn't ours; it rightfully belongs to the Afghan people. Further, our sanctions on the Taliban--completely justified because of the Taliban's embrace of terrorism--essentially handcuffs the Afghan economy and therefore contributes to the country's economic descent. So we need to understand that our policies are contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. But what if these two points--that the Taliban should own this and that we can't stand by, idly, while people die--what if they aren't in 100-percent contrast? What if we could help the Afghan people without directly empowering the Taliban? Wouldn't that be the best possible answer? The good news is, is that the middle road is possible. I am going to be honest. It is not easy, but it is possible. Over the last 20 years, the United States has spent billions in our taxpayer dollars to build schools and health clinics and a robust civil service. The number of schools today, for instance, is five times higher in Afghanistan than it was in 2001. That is because of American investment. We can and we should find ways to pay the salaries of those who work at these nonpolitical institutions through the U.N. and NGOs on the ground, going around the Taliban-led government to keep those essential services running and to inject some much needed money into the economy. Again, this isn't easy to do, but it is worthwhile given the stakes. We can also support the U.N. directly. Yesterday, the U.N. asked for a $4.5 billion call in humanitarian aid to stave off catastrophe in Afghanistan. This is the largest single-country appeal in history. That should tell you about the scale of the crisis that we are facing. It is larger than what we see in Syria or Yemen or Ethiopia. I support the administration's decision to dedicate an additional $308 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. That money can help save lives. But Congress should authorize more. Make no mistake, the Taliban and, frankly, 20 years of corrupt Afghan Government do own this debacle. The choices they made have led to this day.But our hands aren't clean. Our mismanaged occupation is part of the story. Right now, as the Afghan economy collapses and families face starvation, burying our heads in the sand is not a solution. We can find ways to save lives without unreasonably empowering the Taliban. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS170 | null | 3,784 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Afghanistan Mr. President, President Biden's decision to remove our remaining troops from Afghanistan was the right one, no question about it. President Trump set the Biden administration up for failure. Trump's agreement with the Taliban committed us to withdrawing all of our troops, and had Biden torn up that agreement, he would have had to send tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan to push back the Trump-era Taliban gains. The American public would not have supported another Afghanistan troop surge and for good reason. The overnight collapse of the Afghan Army and Government was, frankly, proof that 20 years of nation building had failed, and another 20 years wasn't going to result in a different outcome. President Biden made the right decision to leave. The American people, by a large margin, support that decision. But right now we need to be honest. The question of what to do now, as Afghanistan crumbles into a nightmarish failed state, is a moral knot almost impossible to untangle. As chair of the Foreign Relations subcommittee that oversees Afghanistan policy, I thought a lot about this question, and I have come to a few conclusions that I want to share quickly with my colleagues. First, let's just take a minute to talk about what it is like to be living in Afghanistan right now. It is a nightmare. Once the U.S. military occupation and all the foreign aid that came with it disappeared, the Afghanistan economy collapsed, predictably. Today, winter is setting in, and more than half of the population--23 million people--don't have enough food to eat. By this summer, 97 percent of Afghans will be living below the poverty line, trying to survive on less than $2 a day. With 9 million people just one step away from famine, this humanitarian crisis could kill more Afghans than the past 20 years of war. And herein lies the quandary. On one side is what sounds like a pretty clear and convincing argument. Essentially, the Taliban has to own this. We warned the Taliban that this collapse would occur if they took the nation by force. That is why we sat at a table with them and tried to explain that it was in their best interests and the best interests of the nation for the Taliban to share power with the elected Afghan Government. But the Taliban did not listen. They took Kabul and should own the results. To send billions to solve the humanitarian crisis they caused would be to bail the Taliban out and incentivize other insurgent groups to make similar, rash decisions. But on the other hand is an equally clear and convincing argument. We stood by the Afghan people for two decades--protecting them, working with them. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars helping to raise up the future of millions Afghan families, women, and girls. And now those same Afghans, those same families, the ones who, frankly, have nothing to do with the Taliban are dying, potentially, by the tens of thousands. And we have the power to do something about it. How could we let the Afghan people die needlessly if we have the power to stop it? Now, we possess this power because it is U.S. policy toward the Taliban government that is contributory toward this crisis. It is not the proximate cause, but it is contributory. When Kabul fell suddenly last August, the administration sensibly froze $7 billion of the former Afghan Government's assets that are held at the Federal Reserve that we didn't want the Taliban to control. But that money isn't ours; it rightfully belongs to the Afghan people. Further, our sanctions on the Taliban--completely justified because of the Taliban's embrace of terrorism--essentially handcuffs the Afghan economy and therefore contributes to the country's economic descent. So we need to understand that our policies are contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. But what if these two points--that the Taliban should own this and that we can't stand by, idly, while people die--what if they aren't in 100-percent contrast? What if we could help the Afghan people without directly empowering the Taliban? Wouldn't that be the best possible answer? The good news is, is that the middle road is possible. I am going to be honest. It is not easy, but it is possible. Over the last 20 years, the United States has spent billions in our taxpayer dollars to build schools and health clinics and a robust civil service. The number of schools today, for instance, is five times higher in Afghanistan than it was in 2001. That is because of American investment. We can and we should find ways to pay the salaries of those who work at these nonpolitical institutions through the U.N. and NGOs on the ground, going around the Taliban-led government to keep those essential services running and to inject some much needed money into the economy. Again, this isn't easy to do, but it is worthwhile given the stakes. We can also support the U.N. directly. Yesterday, the U.N. asked for a $4.5 billion call in humanitarian aid to stave off catastrophe in Afghanistan. This is the largest single-country appeal in history. That should tell you about the scale of the crisis that we are facing. It is larger than what we see in Syria or Yemen or Ethiopia. I support the administration's decision to dedicate an additional $308 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. That money can help save lives. But Congress should authorize more. Make no mistake, the Taliban and, frankly, 20 years of corrupt Afghan Government do own this debacle. The choices they made have led to this day.But our hands aren't clean. Our mismanaged occupation is part of the story. Right now, as the Afghan economy collapses and families face starvation, burying our heads in the sand is not a solution. We can find ways to save lives without unreasonably empowering the Taliban. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS170 | null | 3,785 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Afghanistan Mr. President, President Biden's decision to remove our remaining troops from Afghanistan was the right one, no question about it. President Trump set the Biden administration up for failure. Trump's agreement with the Taliban committed us to withdrawing all of our troops, and had Biden torn up that agreement, he would have had to send tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan to push back the Trump-era Taliban gains. The American public would not have supported another Afghanistan troop surge and for good reason. The overnight collapse of the Afghan Army and Government was, frankly, proof that 20 years of nation building had failed, and another 20 years wasn't going to result in a different outcome. President Biden made the right decision to leave. The American people, by a large margin, support that decision. But right now we need to be honest. The question of what to do now, as Afghanistan crumbles into a nightmarish failed state, is a moral knot almost impossible to untangle. As chair of the Foreign Relations subcommittee that oversees Afghanistan policy, I thought a lot about this question, and I have come to a few conclusions that I want to share quickly with my colleagues. First, let's just take a minute to talk about what it is like to be living in Afghanistan right now. It is a nightmare. Once the U.S. military occupation and all the foreign aid that came with it disappeared, the Afghanistan economy collapsed, predictably. Today, winter is setting in, and more than half of the population--23 million people--don't have enough food to eat. By this summer, 97 percent of Afghans will be living below the poverty line, trying to survive on less than $2 a day. With 9 million people just one step away from famine, this humanitarian crisis could kill more Afghans than the past 20 years of war. And herein lies the quandary. On one side is what sounds like a pretty clear and convincing argument. Essentially, the Taliban has to own this. We warned the Taliban that this collapse would occur if they took the nation by force. That is why we sat at a table with them and tried to explain that it was in their best interests and the best interests of the nation for the Taliban to share power with the elected Afghan Government. But the Taliban did not listen. They took Kabul and should own the results. To send billions to solve the humanitarian crisis they caused would be to bail the Taliban out and incentivize other insurgent groups to make similar, rash decisions. But on the other hand is an equally clear and convincing argument. We stood by the Afghan people for two decades--protecting them, working with them. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars helping to raise up the future of millions Afghan families, women, and girls. And now those same Afghans, those same families, the ones who, frankly, have nothing to do with the Taliban are dying, potentially, by the tens of thousands. And we have the power to do something about it. How could we let the Afghan people die needlessly if we have the power to stop it? Now, we possess this power because it is U.S. policy toward the Taliban government that is contributory toward this crisis. It is not the proximate cause, but it is contributory. When Kabul fell suddenly last August, the administration sensibly froze $7 billion of the former Afghan Government's assets that are held at the Federal Reserve that we didn't want the Taliban to control. But that money isn't ours; it rightfully belongs to the Afghan people. Further, our sanctions on the Taliban--completely justified because of the Taliban's embrace of terrorism--essentially handcuffs the Afghan economy and therefore contributes to the country's economic descent. So we need to understand that our policies are contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. But what if these two points--that the Taliban should own this and that we can't stand by, idly, while people die--what if they aren't in 100-percent contrast? What if we could help the Afghan people without directly empowering the Taliban? Wouldn't that be the best possible answer? The good news is, is that the middle road is possible. I am going to be honest. It is not easy, but it is possible. Over the last 20 years, the United States has spent billions in our taxpayer dollars to build schools and health clinics and a robust civil service. The number of schools today, for instance, is five times higher in Afghanistan than it was in 2001. That is because of American investment. We can and we should find ways to pay the salaries of those who work at these nonpolitical institutions through the U.N. and NGOs on the ground, going around the Taliban-led government to keep those essential services running and to inject some much needed money into the economy. Again, this isn't easy to do, but it is worthwhile given the stakes. We can also support the U.N. directly. Yesterday, the U.N. asked for a $4.5 billion call in humanitarian aid to stave off catastrophe in Afghanistan. This is the largest single-country appeal in history. That should tell you about the scale of the crisis that we are facing. It is larger than what we see in Syria or Yemen or Ethiopia. I support the administration's decision to dedicate an additional $308 million in humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. That money can help save lives. But Congress should authorize more. Make no mistake, the Taliban and, frankly, 20 years of corrupt Afghan Government do own this debacle. The choices they made have led to this day.But our hands aren't clean. Our mismanaged occupation is part of the story. Right now, as the Afghan economy collapses and families face starvation, burying our heads in the sand is not a solution. We can find ways to save lives without unreasonably empowering the Taliban. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS170 | null | 3,786 |
formal | thugs | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, yesterday marked 6 months since July 11--a day when brave Cubans all across that island marched for democracy, cried out for freedom, and sent a clear message that the time was up for the illegitimate communist regime. From Havana to Santa Clara to Santiago de Cuba, the message of ``Patria y Vida!'' could be heard from the people. Cuban families and demonstrators stood against the revolution's motto of ``Patria o Muerte'' to once again declare that the revolution had failed. That failed revolution promised prosperity and equality for all, but the only equal thing about it was poverty, suffering, and oppression for all. We watched as families gathered outside the headquarters of the Cuban Communist Party to chant ``Cuba isn't yours!'' Their message was clear: It is time for a new day of freedom and democracy in Cuba. Instead of listening to the cries of their people, the communist Cuban regime lashed out with violence and the oppression it has used for more than 60 years to silence opposition to its reign. The regime and its thugs kidnapped innocent democracy activists and kept others trapped in their homes. Right now, hundreds of Cubans have been indefinitely detained or unjustly sentenced to prison simply for demanding basic human rights. Some of these protesters are facing prison sentences as long as 30 years. One of them is Jose Daniel Ferrer, the leader of the pro-democracy UNPACU group and a dedicated freedom and human rights activist. Since his detainment, I have had the chance to talk to his family several times. Each time we speak, the stories they tell me are more heartbreaking. Jose Daniel is being tortured by the communist regime in an attempt to end his life. He is suffering from severe headaches, mouth bleeding, malnutrition, cough, and insomnia--all products of the cruel torture and inhumane treatment from the regime. We can also think about Felix Navarro, another longtime freedom activist who helps lead a pro-democracy group on the island. He was arrested, not for demonstrating but for asking police about the status of some of the members of his group who had been detained. Reports indicate even young teenagers are being detained indefinitely. The unjust imprisonment, beatings, and torture of the Cuban people is abhorrent. It is inhumane, and it cannot be tolerated. It is clear that these actions stem from the regime's paralyzing fear over the freedom movement spreading across Cuba. They are terrified that there is a new day of freedom on the rise for the Cuban people, so they resort to total oppression and to the silencing of any mention of independence or freedom. As the greatest beacon of freedom and democracy in the world, the United States must stand against the communist regime and with the Cuban people. I am thankful that U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols recently called for the immediate release of the July 11 demonstrators. Along with his calls, we need the voices of President Biden and Secretary Blinken, and their calls need to be coupled with action that actually pressures the illegitimate communist Cuban regime now. It was only a couple of weeks ago when I called the White House to talk about the case of Jose Daniel Ferrer. The first time I called, they asked me to leave a message, so I did. When I called the next day, the White House hung up on me. Throughout his entire first year in office, Joe Biden has been shamefully silent about Cuba. Just like he does with communist China, Biden's strategy on Cuba is to do the bare minimum. Even while the protests were ongoing, he did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Cuban people. Compare that to the Organization of American States. After I spoke with them a few weeks ago, Secretary General Luis Almagro issued a statement demanding the immediate release of all arbitrarily imprisoned political prisoners. He expressed special concern for the well-being of Jose Daniel Ferrer and urged the Cuban regime to allow a humanitarian mission that can immediately verify the state and situation of political prisoners in the country. Why can't Joe Biden make that same request? Where is the President? He has had 6 months to help provide internet to the Cuban people to help disseminate information and help the freedom movement, but he has done nothing. His silence is appeasement, and those of us who love freedom will not simply sit by idly while he refuses to act. As long as the illegitimate communist Cuban regime continues to deny the people their freedom, democracy, and basic human rights, I am going to fight alongside them and demand action. Today, the Senate can do something. Today, the U.S. Senate can pass a resolution honoring Cuban activists like Jose Daniel Ferrer, condemning the Cuban dictatorship's repression, and calling for the international community to stand with the Cuban people. I have introduced a resolution that does exactly that, and it is something that everyone in the Chamber should agree with. I am thankful for Senators Marco Rubio and Mike Braun for cosponsoring this resolution. I am also thankful for Mario Diaz-Balart, Congresswoman Salazar, and Congressman Gimenez for introducing the companion resolution in the House. We must make sure our message to the Cuban people is clear: America has not and will not forget you. We have seen your bravery and courage. We have heard your calls for freedom. You have risked everything for the freedom of Cubans across the island. You are an inspiration to us all. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in Spanish. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of Florida | Senate | CREC-2022-01-12-pt1-PgS183 | null | 3,787 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, reported that on December 15, 2021, she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bills: H.R. 390. To redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee as the ``Odell Horton Federal Building''. H.R. 4660. To designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ``Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, further reported that on December 20, 2021, she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bills: H.R. 5545. 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. 6256. To ensure 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. Cheryl L. Johnson, Clerk of the House, further reported that on December 23, 2021, she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, the following bills: H.R. 1664. To authorize the National Medal of Honor Museum Foundation to establish a commemorative work in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes. 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-01-13-pt1-PgH192 | null | 3,788 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on defending democracy--something Leader Reid would have been passionate about, if he were still with us here, and he is telling us that now--over the next few days, the U.S. Senate will face a critical and unavoidable question: Are its Members going to act to protect our democracy and protect voting rights or will its Members choose the path of obstruction, inaction, and side with the Big Lie overtaking our precious experiment in self-rule? We had two professors come to us 2 days ago, the authors of ``How Democracies Die,'' and one of the main ways that democracies die is when one political party refuses to accept the results of an election that was run freely and fairly. That is what is happening here. They showed how important this is and how there is unfortunate historical precedent in doing what we did. And earlier this week, President Biden made that clear. He made clear to the Nation--and to all of us who serve in the Senate--that the time to answer the question about whether allowing the Big Lie, so ruinous to a democracy, to overtake our precious experiment in self-rule will prevail. As the Senate has done many times in its history, it must soon act again to safeguard democracy from the dangers of the present day: the power of dark money, voter suppression, and efforts to subvert the democratic process from the bottom up. I commend President Biden for offering a strong speech, and I look forward to having him join Senate Democrats later today at our caucus meeting to discuss the path forward. Yesterday, I shared with my Democratic colleagues our plan for what the next few days are going to look like in this Chamber and how I, as majority leader, will move to finally begin, at last, a floor debate on the voting rights legislation. Later today, the House of Representatives will pass a message that will include the language of the two bills Republicans have filibustered for months--the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. As permitted under the existing rules, we will have the ability to proceed to the legislation and debate it on a simple majority basis--something that has been denied to us four times in the last several months because Republicans didn't want to move forward. Then the Senate will finally hold a debate on the voting rights legislation for the first time in this Congress, and every Senator will be faced with a choice of whether or not to pass this legislation to protect our democracy. There has been a lot of gas-lighting here on the floor lately from the other side about power grabs, about takeovers, but precious little in terms of substance. I have not heard them mention what Republican legislatures aredoing. That is not the thrust of their speech. They say: Oh, it is a power grab. Oh, it is a takeover. Well, my friends, if there was ever a power grab, it is what is happening in the State legislatures right now, where Republican legislators are taking away people's sacred right to vote and aiming it particularly at certain groups--people of color, young people, people in urban areas, older people, disabled people. So let me remind my colleagues what these bills actually do. The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act are balanced, effective, and commonsense bills that build on the work that this Chamber has done in the past to protect democracy, and it was often done with bipartisan votes. The transformation of the Republican Party in the era of Donald Trump is apparent and nasty, and, most importantly, really dangerous to our democracy. These laws set basic standards for all American citizens to vote safely and vote securely, while protecting elections from attempts at subversion. What is wrong with that? How is that a power grab, to allow people to vote? It is the people who should have the power, not politicians and State legislative bodies to take it away. The bill also fights against the power of Big Money that has cascaded into our system, and so much of it is now being used to try and intimidate legislators, Senators, and Congressmen from preserving this right to vote. And the bill ends partisan gerrymandering. We have all seen situations--the legislature of Wisconsin, the State Assembly, where 53 percent of the people voted for Democratic legislators in 2020, but only about a third of the seats are Democratic due the severe nature of this gerrymandering. And, so importantly, these bills restore the critical preclearance provisions that were once part of the Voting Rights Act that many of my Republican colleagues supported in the past, which a conservative majority on the Supreme Court shamefully gutted roughly a decade ago. Democrats have tried for months--months--to convince our Republican colleagues to join us on a bipartisan basis to begin debate on these bills, to no avail. We presented these reasonable, commonsense proposals, as I said, many of which had been voted on by Republicans in the past. We presented them on the floor in June, August, October, and November. Each time I promised my Republican colleagues they would have the opportunity to voice their concerns and offer germane amendments. I wouldn't limit the germane amendments that they wished to offer. We have lobbied Republicans privately and tried to engage them in both the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every step of the way--every step of the way--we have been met with near total resistance. To date, none of our efforts have produced any meaningful engagement from the other side of the aisle. But Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy as this. I have said for months that just because Republicans have refused to work with us to protect voting rights does not mean Democrats would stop working to move forward on our own. The matter is simply too important. It is the wellspring of our democracy, the right by which all other rights are secured--voting. I am reading the biography of Grant, by Chernow. The No. 1 thing the southern segregationists, who happened to be Democrats at the time, wanted to take away from the newly freed slaves was the right to vote. They knew that, if Black people didn't have the right to vote in the South, they would have no power--no power over our laws, no power of where resources go, no power to decide the directions of the country. And that was the No. 1 thing they wanted to prevent. So it is so vital to keep people's right to vote, particularly when some of the laws--too many--are aimed at the people of color, reminding us that racism is the poison of America still. So we will move forward. The path I have laid out sets up a process by which Senators can finally make clear to the American people where they stand on protecting our democracy. Republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on preserving the right of every eligible citizen to cast a ballot. Republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting efforts to empower partisan actors to subvert the election process and create more Big Lies in the future. Republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting the power of dark money, which so many Americans oppose--Democrats and Republicans. And Republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on ending partisan gerrymandering. Of course, to ultimately end debate and pass anything, we will also need 10 Republicans to join us, ultimately, on cloture. If they don't, we will be left with no choice but to consider changes to Senate rules so we can move forward. And changing Senate rules has been done many times before in this Chamber. This is not the first, second, or third time that this is happening. All of us must make a choice about whether or not we will do our part to preserve our democratic Republic this day and age. We cannot be satisfied in thinking that democracy will win out in the end if we are not willing to put in the work, strength, and courage to defend it. Last night, I read the op-ed published by President Obama that eloquently laid out what really is at stake here. I encourage my colleagues to read it if they haven't already. He reminded us that democracy is not a given. It is not self-executing. But it can indeed survive and thrive if we are prepared to follow in the footsteps of the great Americans who did their part to defend democracy before us, many of them giving their lives. We are now being called upon to do our part. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Obama op-ed, which I will bring to the desk shortly. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-01-13-pt1-PgS195-13 | null | 3,789 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on defending democracy--something Leader Reid would have been passionate about, if he were still with us here, and he is telling us that now--over the next few days, the U.S. Senate will face a critical and unavoidable question: Are its Members going to act to protect our democracy and protect voting rights or will its Members choose the path of obstruction, inaction, and side with the Big Lie overtaking our precious experiment in self-rule? We had two professors come to us 2 days ago, the authors of ``How Democracies Die,'' and one of the main ways that democracies die is when one political party refuses to accept the results of an election that was run freely and fairly. That is what is happening here. They showed how important this is and how there is unfortunate historical precedent in doing what we did. And earlier this week, President Biden made that clear. He made clear to the Nation--and to all of us who serve in the Senate--that the time to answer the question about whether allowing the Big Lie, so ruinous to a democracy, to overtake our precious experiment in self-rule will prevail. As the Senate has done many times in its history, it must soon act again to safeguard democracy from the dangers of the present day: the power of dark money, voter suppression, and efforts to subvert the democratic process from the bottom up. I commend President Biden for offering a strong speech, and I look forward to having him join Senate Democrats later today at our caucus meeting to discuss the path forward. Yesterday, I shared with my Democratic colleagues our plan for what the next few days are going to look like in this Chamber and how I, as majority leader, will move to finally begin, at last, a floor debate on the voting rights legislation. Later today, the House of Representatives will pass a message that will include the language of the two bills Republicans have filibustered for months--the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. As permitted under the existing rules, we will have the ability to proceed to the legislation and debate it on a simple majority basis--something that has been denied to us four times in the last several months because Republicans didn't want to move forward. Then the Senate will finally hold a debate on the voting rights legislation for the first time in this Congress, and every Senator will be faced with a choice of whether or not to pass this legislation to protect our democracy. There has been a lot of gas-lighting here on the floor lately from the other side about power grabs, about takeovers, but precious little in terms of substance. I have not heard them mention what Republican legislatures aredoing. That is not the thrust of their speech. They say: Oh, it is a power grab. Oh, it is a takeover. Well, my friends, if there was ever a power grab, it is what is happening in the State legislatures right now, where Republican legislators are taking away people's sacred right to vote and aiming it particularly at certain groups--people of color, young people, people in urban areas, older people, disabled people. So let me remind my colleagues what these bills actually do. The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act are balanced, effective, and commonsense bills that build on the work that this Chamber has done in the past to protect democracy, and it was often done with bipartisan votes. The transformation of the Republican Party in the era of Donald Trump is apparent and nasty, and, most importantly, really dangerous to our democracy. These laws set basic standards for all American citizens to vote safely and vote securely, while protecting elections from attempts at subversion. What is wrong with that? How is that a power grab, to allow people to vote? It is the people who should have the power, not politicians and State legislative bodies to take it away. The bill also fights against the power of Big Money that has cascaded into our system, and so much of it is now being used to try and intimidate legislators, Senators, and Congressmen from preserving this right to vote. And the bill ends partisan gerrymandering. We have all seen situations--the legislature of Wisconsin, the State Assembly, where 53 percent of the people voted for Democratic legislators in 2020, but only about a third of the seats are Democratic due the severe nature of this gerrymandering. And, so importantly, these bills restore the critical preclearance provisions that were once part of the Voting Rights Act that many of my Republican colleagues supported in the past, which a conservative majority on the Supreme Court shamefully gutted roughly a decade ago. Democrats have tried for months--months--to convince our Republican colleagues to join us on a bipartisan basis to begin debate on these bills, to no avail. We presented these reasonable, commonsense proposals, as I said, many of which had been voted on by Republicans in the past. We presented them on the floor in June, August, October, and November. Each time I promised my Republican colleagues they would have the opportunity to voice their concerns and offer germane amendments. I wouldn't limit the germane amendments that they wished to offer. We have lobbied Republicans privately and tried to engage them in both the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. Every step of the way--every step of the way--we have been met with near total resistance. To date, none of our efforts have produced any meaningful engagement from the other side of the aisle. But Members of this Chamber were elected to debate and to vote, particularly on an issue as vital to the beating heart of our democracy as this. I have said for months that just because Republicans have refused to work with us to protect voting rights does not mean Democrats would stop working to move forward on our own. The matter is simply too important. It is the wellspring of our democracy, the right by which all other rights are secured--voting. I am reading the biography of Grant, by Chernow. The No. 1 thing the southern segregationists, who happened to be Democrats at the time, wanted to take away from the newly freed slaves was the right to vote. They knew that, if Black people didn't have the right to vote in the South, they would have no power--no power over our laws, no power of where resources go, no power to decide the directions of the country. And that was the No. 1 thing they wanted to prevent. So it is so vital to keep people's right to vote, particularly when some of the laws--too many--are aimed at the people of color, reminding us that racism is the poison of America still. So we will move forward. The path I have laid out sets up a process by which Senators can finally make clear to the American people where they stand on protecting our democracy. Republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on preserving the right of every eligible citizen to cast a ballot. Republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting efforts to empower partisan actors to subvert the election process and create more Big Lies in the future. Republicans will have a chance to make clear where they stand on fighting the power of dark money, which so many Americans oppose--Democrats and Republicans. And Republicans will have a chance to show where they stand on ending partisan gerrymandering. Of course, to ultimately end debate and pass anything, we will also need 10 Republicans to join us, ultimately, on cloture. If they don't, we will be left with no choice but to consider changes to Senate rules so we can move forward. And changing Senate rules has been done many times before in this Chamber. This is not the first, second, or third time that this is happening. All of us must make a choice about whether or not we will do our part to preserve our democratic Republic this day and age. We cannot be satisfied in thinking that democracy will win out in the end if we are not willing to put in the work, strength, and courage to defend it. Last night, I read the op-ed published by President Obama that eloquently laid out what really is at stake here. I encourage my colleagues to read it if they haven't already. He reminded us that democracy is not a given. It is not self-executing. But it can indeed survive and thrive if we are prepared to follow in the footsteps of the great Americans who did their part to defend democracy before us, many of them giving their lives. We are now being called upon to do our part. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Obama op-ed, which I will bring to the desk shortly. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-01-13-pt1-PgS195-13 | null | 3,790 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, a recent survey asked Americans for their view of the most important problems facing our country. Of course, we know what Washington Democrats view as their top priority. President Biden and Senate Democrats have been shouting--actually shouting--at the American people that an evil, racist, anti-voting conspiracy will destroy democracy forever unless Democrats get total one-party control of the entire government, starting next week. But are the American people buying any of it? Is this what working families want prioritized? So let's take a look. In a recent survey, Gallup asked citizens for their priorities, what they thought we ought to be doing. Do you know what share of Americans said election law? Less than one-half of 1 percent--one-half of 1 percent. Nobody in this country is buying the fake hysteria that democracy will die unless Democrats get total control. Here is what people do care about: The top response at 21 percent was poor government leadership. About a year into the Biden administration, the American people's single greatest concern is bad leadership. And when you dig into the other issues, you can see why. Some of the next largest concerns were either general economic problems or inflation and rising costs, in particular, and no wonder--no wonder. New figures, just yesterday, show our country continues to experience the worst inflation in 40 years--40 years. Gas prices are nearly a dollar higher than a year ago; grocery prices are up 6.5 percent; and across the economy, inflation has exceeded 5 percent every month for 7 straight months. There is no working family who has not been hurt directly by this. Another huge chunk of Americans said their chief worry is the coronavirus--certainly no surprise there. A year into the administration that promised it would shut down the virus, well, what do we have? Record-setting new cases. Shortages of testing. Shortages of important treatments, in part, because of the Biden administration's decisions. We have reports of multiple States potentially limiting or excluding patients from lifesaving treatments on the basis, believe it or not, of their ethnicity. And still, 2 years into this, notwithstanding abundant vaccines and a milder variant, we have Big Labor bosses in big cities being permitted to lock vulnerable kids out of the classroom. Oh, and when kids are in the classroom, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice try to persecute concerned parents who dare ask what their kids are learning. So these are just a few examples of real problems. These are the kinds of places where the American people need this dramatically unpopular administration to entirely refocus. Yesterday, a new poll indicated that 33 percent of Americans approve of the President--33 percent. When he was inaugurated and pledging to govern for all Americans, to heal and unite the country, this White House enjoyed impressive approval ratings. But as the far left has been handed the reins, the support has cratered. Now, there is a path forward for my Democratic colleagues to respond to the country they have so badly disappointed, but it isn't to try to break the Senate and rewrite election laws. It is to actually start tracking the issues that American families need tackled. Now, there are also countless other issues which may not make national headlines but matter hugely to those who are affected. For example, nextweek, I will again travel to Western Kentucky to visit some of the areas hit hardest by last month's devastating tornado outbreak. The national news cameras may have left, but families in this part of the Commonwealth are still trying to pick up the pieces of their lives after losing homes, businesses, and loved ones. I am profoundly grateful to everyone contributing to the recovery process. Our utility workers are taking on the herculean task of restoring public services. The Kentucky National Guard has played a crucial role in distributing supplies. Private individuals have donated food, clothing, and blood. The Kentucky General Assembly just approved a State-funded relief package, and Kentucky's entire Federal delegation joined together to advocate directly for increased Federal aid. This is going to be a long process. It will require consistent support on the local, State, and Federal levels. Rebuilding will take literally months and years--not days and weeks. Well, I will be with these communities every step of the way. Finally, beyond our shores, there remains no shortage of forces that wish to harm America and our interests. Senators will vote today on a measure to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2. We can send a strong warning to Putin that he won't be allowed to use energy as a weapon. We can signal strong support for Eastern and Central European partners that have long opposed Putin's pipeline. Even Democratic Senators who now oppose the sanctions they used to support acknowledge the pipeline is ``a tool of malign influence of the Russian Federation.'' Really, the Government of Germany should have shelved this project itself a long time ago. Berlin can still make the right call. These sanctions, like the prior Nord Stream 2 sanctions that had overwhelming bipartisan support here in Congress, are not about driving a wedge in Europe. The pipeline itself is the wedge. That is the whole point. That has been Putin's goal--decoupling Ukraine from Europe and making Europe even more reliant on Russian gas. So for Senators who seem more concerned about standing with Berlin than with Kiev, this bill includes a waiver. We expect President Biden would actually exercise the waiver. But a clear bipartisan message would still be sent, just like when 98 Senators voted to enact CAATSA in 2017, just like when Democrats signed off on the previous bill to sanction Nord Stream 2 in the 2020 NDAA. So I hope each of our colleagues will support Senator Cruz's measure. The Senate must show we are focused on real-life threats to democracy, to security, and to our friends. As we speak, Russia is literally preparing to escalate its military assault on Ukraine. It has amassed more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine's border. Deterring Russian aggression and preparing for the very real threat of a major war on the European Continent will take far more than these sanctions. It will take urgency and seriousness from the administration. Time is of the essence. Our delays in getting emergency assistance to Ukraine approved do not inspire much confidence. The administration cannot move at the speed of bureaucracy. That won't cut it. Humanitarian and military support to Ukraine cannot wait. Reinforcing American and NATO positions in Europe cannot wait. We must not pull our punches out of some fear of provoking Putin. What will encourage Putin is if he senses American weakness. Ukraine and our eastern flank NATO allies deserve our support. They are on the frontlines of a much broader war that Russia and China are conducting against the democratic international order itself. This order helps America. It benefits our national interests, and it benefits our allies, but it is not going to enforce itself. It will not defend itself. And our allies will not act if America fails to lead. Our Nation's contest with China and Russia is the biggest challenge we face. It will entail significant risks and perhaps, God forbid, serious sacrifice. Meeting these challenges and preventing the worst will take the kind of unity and bipartisanship that President Biden promised--not the outrageous--outrageous--and divisive partisanship he has embraced. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-01-13-pt1-PgS197-2 | null | 3,791 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chairwill 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-2022-01-18-pt1-PgH202-8 | null | 3,792 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2959) to provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID-19, applications for impact aid funding for fiscal year 2023 may use certain data submitted in the fiscal year 2022 application, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgH206-2 | null | 3,793 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from Florida, the whole number of the House is 435. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgH206 | null | 3,794 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Newman). The Chair would clarify the earlier announcement. Pursuant to clause 5(d) of rule XX, the whole number of the House is 434. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Newman) | House | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgH208-3 | null | 3,795 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | And that leads us to where we are today. We have got to stand up and say people can vote. I remember being here and present when the Voting Rights Act was signed by President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and President George Bush. I remember the pleasure on their face, the look of everybody around them, Republicans and Democrats, applauding the President for signing that legislation. Why did they applaud? Why did Republicans and Democrats applaud? Because we had all voted for it because we all believed in a person's right to vote. You know, I am the only Democrat ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Vermont, and I remember my first two elections which were quite close. Ninety percent--I would say approximately 90 percent of the election machinery, those who count the ballots and whatnot, were controlled by Republicans. But I had faith in getting through because I knew two things: One, they could count and, two, they were totally honest. And I am sure--especially in the vote in my first election, for the vast majority who voted for my opponent, an honorable person, they were happy to have counted the ballots, and the State said where the ballots were. And there was even a recount in my second election, it was so close. And I remember one of the Republican auditing groups sent out a fundraiser, saying we have to fight the Democratic-controlled election machinery of Vermont. And I reminded them that the ``election machinery'' was 250 town clerks, 80 to 90 percent of whom were Republicans. And I say again: They can count, and they are honest. We are fortunate in our State that we encourage everybody to vote. And I remember when the Senators of the other party and the Judiciary Committee said: Well, you want--you want to change the rules so that Democrats would win. I said: We want, nationally, the kind of rules we follow in Vermont. And, by the way, in last year's election, we elected a Republican Governor and a Democratic Lieutenant Governor. Why? Because our rules do not favor one party over the other. Our rules favor one thing--the right to vote. And we insist on that in our State of Vermont, but we should insist on that throughout the country. It should not be a case where somebody can be blocked from voting because the voting booths and the places for them are changed so that some communities would have a harder time or a more difficult time to come there or hours change. No. We should be fighting. If we want America to be the strong, great Nation that we all claim it is and we all believe it is and we all want it to be, it can only be if we say make sure everybody gets to vote--everybody. I don't care whom they are voting for, make sure everybody can vote. Because what happens when people are blocked from voting and voting drops off, people lose faith in their government. If we lose faith in our government, we lose faith in our country. And if we lose faith in our country, this wonderful experiment in democracy--as some called it a couple hundred years ago--fails. We can't have that. We can't have that. So I look back on my 48 years here in the Senate, and I think it is not the title; it is not the chairmanships; it is not the President pro tem; it is not being dean of the Senate that I cherish, it is knowing that I can vote. I can vote. I have voted 17,000 times, more than that now. Can I go back over all those votes and find some where I might think, ``Gee, I should have voted differently,'' of course, I can, but I voted. I can vote. And I call on my colleagues, vote up or down. I would hope that all of us would do as we have in the past, when I have been in the Senate, when we passed the Voting Rights Act 98 to zero. Republican Presidents were signing the Voting Rights Act. Let's go back to that time. Vote any way you want in a Presidential election. Vote any way you want in gubernatorial, congressional, in local elections, but in this body, this body, which should be the conscience of the Nation, vote to uphold the right to vote, vote to allow every American the ability to vote. Don't hide behind procedure. Stand on the floor, have the courage and the honesty to say: I am going to vote to allow people to vote or I am going to vote not to allow people to vote. But stand here and say what you are going to do. The last time, 98 of us stood here and voted. We wanted everybody to vote. Republicans and Democrats, we joined together. Wouldn't that send a wonderful signal to a fractured nation if we did that today and stood up and said: We are going to vote. We are all going to vote. We are going to vote yes or no, but we are going to let people of our State know how we voted. We are going to let the American people know how we voted and say why we voted. I would wish we voted as we did before to say to all Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, any part of this country: We want you to vote. We will urge you to vote the way we would like, but we want you to have the ability to vote, even if you are voting for our opponents or for a different point of view. The most important thing, as Americans, as U.S. Senators, is to say we stand for the right of people to vote--every one of us, every single one of us. I will have more to say on this matter later. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgS231 | null | 3,796 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | And that leads us to where we are today. We have got to stand up and say people can vote. I remember being here and present when the Voting Rights Act was signed by President Reagan, President George H. W. Bush, and President George Bush. I remember the pleasure on their face, the look of everybody around them, Republicans and Democrats, applauding the President for signing that legislation. Why did they applaud? Why did Republicans and Democrats applaud? Because we had all voted for it because we all believed in a person's right to vote. You know, I am the only Democrat ever elected to the U.S. Senate from the State of Vermont, and I remember my first two elections which were quite close. Ninety percent--I would say approximately 90 percent of the election machinery, those who count the ballots and whatnot, were controlled by Republicans. But I had faith in getting through because I knew two things: One, they could count and, two, they were totally honest. And I am sure--especially in the vote in my first election, for the vast majority who voted for my opponent, an honorable person, they were happy to have counted the ballots, and the State said where the ballots were. And there was even a recount in my second election, it was so close. And I remember one of the Republican auditing groups sent out a fundraiser, saying we have to fight the Democratic-controlled election machinery of Vermont. And I reminded them that the ``election machinery'' was 250 town clerks, 80 to 90 percent of whom were Republicans. And I say again: They can count, and they are honest. We are fortunate in our State that we encourage everybody to vote. And I remember when the Senators of the other party and the Judiciary Committee said: Well, you want--you want to change the rules so that Democrats would win. I said: We want, nationally, the kind of rules we follow in Vermont. And, by the way, in last year's election, we elected a Republican Governor and a Democratic Lieutenant Governor. Why? Because our rules do not favor one party over the other. Our rules favor one thing--the right to vote. And we insist on that in our State of Vermont, but we should insist on that throughout the country. It should not be a case where somebody can be blocked from voting because the voting booths and the places for them are changed so that some communities would have a harder time or a more difficult time to come there or hours change. No. We should be fighting. If we want America to be the strong, great Nation that we all claim it is and we all believe it is and we all want it to be, it can only be if we say make sure everybody gets to vote--everybody. I don't care whom they are voting for, make sure everybody can vote. Because what happens when people are blocked from voting and voting drops off, people lose faith in their government. If we lose faith in our government, we lose faith in our country. And if we lose faith in our country, this wonderful experiment in democracy--as some called it a couple hundred years ago--fails. We can't have that. We can't have that. So I look back on my 48 years here in the Senate, and I think it is not the title; it is not the chairmanships; it is not the President pro tem; it is not being dean of the Senate that I cherish, it is knowing that I can vote. I can vote. I have voted 17,000 times, more than that now. Can I go back over all those votes and find some where I might think, ``Gee, I should have voted differently,'' of course, I can, but I voted. I can vote. And I call on my colleagues, vote up or down. I would hope that all of us would do as we have in the past, when I have been in the Senate, when we passed the Voting Rights Act 98 to zero. Republican Presidents were signing the Voting Rights Act. Let's go back to that time. Vote any way you want in a Presidential election. Vote any way you want in gubernatorial, congressional, in local elections, but in this body, this body, which should be the conscience of the Nation, vote to uphold the right to vote, vote to allow every American the ability to vote. Don't hide behind procedure. Stand on the floor, have the courage and the honesty to say: I am going to vote to allow people to vote or I am going to vote not to allow people to vote. But stand here and say what you are going to do. The last time, 98 of us stood here and voted. We wanted everybody to vote. Republicans and Democrats, we joined together. Wouldn't that send a wonderful signal to a fractured nation if we did that today and stood up and said: We are going to vote. We are all going to vote. We are going to vote yes or no, but we are going to let people of our State know how we voted. We are going to let the American people know how we voted and say why we voted. I would wish we voted as we did before to say to all Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, any part of this country: We want you to vote. We will urge you to vote the way we would like, but we want you to have the ability to vote, even if you are voting for our opponents or for a different point of view. The most important thing, as Americans, as U.S. Senators, is to say we stand for the right of people to vote--every one of us, every single one of us. I will have more to say on this matter later. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgS231 | null | 3,797 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, yesterday, we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., Day and honored civil rights leaders who fought against inequality and sacrificed so much to move our country closer towards justice for all. But this year, on a day when we should be coming together to commemorate these civil rights achievements and recommit to the road ahead, we are instead fighting a battle we thought was won decades ago. In 1957, Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his ``Give Us the Ballot'' address, where he said: The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition. But here we are in 2022 fighting back against hundreds of bills introduced in States across the Nation clearly intended to make it so much harder for certain people to vote. Twenty-two States have already enacted 47 new laws that make it more difficult to vote by mail, that make it harder to stay on voting lists, that limit the availability of drop boxes for ballots, that limit the number of polling locations, that impose stricter or newer voter ID requirements, and the list goes on. But one of the most insidious is Georgia's law which allows any person to challenge the rights of an unlimited number of voters to cast their ballots. If someone decides for whatever reason to challenge another person's right to vote, the voter then has to show up to their election office to defend themselves. Imagine being a single mom working two jobs and unable to afford childcare, and now she has to defend her constitutional right just because someone thought she shouldn't be voting at all. Volunteers are already being recruited to pose these challenges. This isn't voter protection; this is vigilantism. These laws are clearly intended to target communities of color and make it harder for them to vote, period. Our country's legacy of racial discrimination in voting is undeniable, and it is undeniable that we are witnessing history repeat itself. In 1890, the House passed historic legislation that would have increased voting protections, particularly for Black voters, but the Senate failed to take up this legislation, failed to act at a critical time when it had the chance, and the results were devastating for decades to come. The Senate's failure to take up this legislation allowed Jim Crow and the plummeting of voterturnout among Black voters to continue for more than half a century, until the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over 70 years later. A recent Washington Post analysis said that this current wave of voter suppression bills potentially amounts to ``the most sweeping contraction of ballot access in the United States since the end of Reconstruction.'' Today, these attacks on our freedom to vote are taking us back to the time of Reconstruction. We cannot wait another 70 years for this so-called deliberative body to act, which is why we need to pass comprehensive voter protection legislation. But not a single Republican supports the Freedom to Vote: John Lewis Act. Many of my Republican colleagues have joined Congressman John Lewis to commemorate the March from Selma to Montgomery, but today they won't even allow the Senate to consider legislation named in his honor and have called this bill radical. There is nothing radical about protecting a person's freedom to vote. What is radical is sending us back to the days of Reconstruction. This legislation would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act, which Congress reauthorized with broad bipartisan support five times--1970, 1975, 1982, 1992--and it passed 98 to 0 in 2006, which included 10 currently sitting Senate Republicans. This bill would also expand opportunities to vote, prevent voter suppression, and improve election security. We are talking about provisions that would require States to offer early voting and no-excuse vote-by-mail, make election day a public holiday, crack down on voter intimidation, and require postelection audits. Again, I ask, how is any of this radical? What is radical is justifying overt attacks on our democracy by perpetuating the Big Lie of mass voter fraud. For Republicans, this fight isn't about election security; it is about securing their power, because Republicans have decided that spreading misinformation and rigging elections by preventing people from voting is the only way they will retain their power. Republicans should come to the Senate floor and tell the American people why they won't protect our freedom to vote. Instead, the Republican leader came to the floor to attack Democrats for fighting to change Senate rules to pass this critical legislation, calling it a power grab. The Republican leader said that Democrats want to ``permanently damage this institution.'' He went on to say the filibuster is ``about compromise and moderation''--this from the Republican leader who refers to himself as the grim reaper as he prevents dozens of House-passed bills from being considered on the Senate floor; the same person who singlehandedly prevented President Obama from filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court for over a year, denying the will of nearly 66 million Americans who voted to give President Obama a second term in office; the same person who pushed through President Trump's Supreme Court nominee as over 159 million Americans were in the process of voting. So much for compromise and moderation. Let's not pretend this is about the sanctity of this institution. We cannot sit back and let one political party continue to unravel the threads of our democracy one voter suppression bill at a time. While Republicans do nothing to protect our freedom to vote in the face of mass voter suppression bills enacted across the country, we Democrats cannot sit back and let 2020 be the last free and fair election in our country. If we don't protect the right to vote, we won't have a democracy. It is that simple. That is the reality. Since the Republicans will not lift a finger to protect voting rights, we have no option but to change the Senate rules in order to pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. This is something that every single Democratic Senator needs to get on board with. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HIRONO | Senate | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgS232-2 | null | 3,798 |
formal | single mom | null | racist | Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, yesterday, we celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., Day and honored civil rights leaders who fought against inequality and sacrificed so much to move our country closer towards justice for all. But this year, on a day when we should be coming together to commemorate these civil rights achievements and recommit to the road ahead, we are instead fighting a battle we thought was won decades ago. In 1957, Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his ``Give Us the Ballot'' address, where he said: The denial of this sacred right is a tragic betrayal of the highest mandates of our democratic tradition. But here we are in 2022 fighting back against hundreds of bills introduced in States across the Nation clearly intended to make it so much harder for certain people to vote. Twenty-two States have already enacted 47 new laws that make it more difficult to vote by mail, that make it harder to stay on voting lists, that limit the availability of drop boxes for ballots, that limit the number of polling locations, that impose stricter or newer voter ID requirements, and the list goes on. But one of the most insidious is Georgia's law which allows any person to challenge the rights of an unlimited number of voters to cast their ballots. If someone decides for whatever reason to challenge another person's right to vote, the voter then has to show up to their election office to defend themselves. Imagine being a single mom working two jobs and unable to afford childcare, and now she has to defend her constitutional right just because someone thought she shouldn't be voting at all. Volunteers are already being recruited to pose these challenges. This isn't voter protection; this is vigilantism. These laws are clearly intended to target communities of color and make it harder for them to vote, period. Our country's legacy of racial discrimination in voting is undeniable, and it is undeniable that we are witnessing history repeat itself. In 1890, the House passed historic legislation that would have increased voting protections, particularly for Black voters, but the Senate failed to take up this legislation, failed to act at a critical time when it had the chance, and the results were devastating for decades to come. The Senate's failure to take up this legislation allowed Jim Crow and the plummeting of voterturnout among Black voters to continue for more than half a century, until the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 over 70 years later. A recent Washington Post analysis said that this current wave of voter suppression bills potentially amounts to ``the most sweeping contraction of ballot access in the United States since the end of Reconstruction.'' Today, these attacks on our freedom to vote are taking us back to the time of Reconstruction. We cannot wait another 70 years for this so-called deliberative body to act, which is why we need to pass comprehensive voter protection legislation. But not a single Republican supports the Freedom to Vote: John Lewis Act. Many of my Republican colleagues have joined Congressman John Lewis to commemorate the March from Selma to Montgomery, but today they won't even allow the Senate to consider legislation named in his honor and have called this bill radical. There is nothing radical about protecting a person's freedom to vote. What is radical is sending us back to the days of Reconstruction. This legislation would restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act, which Congress reauthorized with broad bipartisan support five times--1970, 1975, 1982, 1992--and it passed 98 to 0 in 2006, which included 10 currently sitting Senate Republicans. This bill would also expand opportunities to vote, prevent voter suppression, and improve election security. We are talking about provisions that would require States to offer early voting and no-excuse vote-by-mail, make election day a public holiday, crack down on voter intimidation, and require postelection audits. Again, I ask, how is any of this radical? What is radical is justifying overt attacks on our democracy by perpetuating the Big Lie of mass voter fraud. For Republicans, this fight isn't about election security; it is about securing their power, because Republicans have decided that spreading misinformation and rigging elections by preventing people from voting is the only way they will retain their power. Republicans should come to the Senate floor and tell the American people why they won't protect our freedom to vote. Instead, the Republican leader came to the floor to attack Democrats for fighting to change Senate rules to pass this critical legislation, calling it a power grab. The Republican leader said that Democrats want to ``permanently damage this institution.'' He went on to say the filibuster is ``about compromise and moderation''--this from the Republican leader who refers to himself as the grim reaper as he prevents dozens of House-passed bills from being considered on the Senate floor; the same person who singlehandedly prevented President Obama from filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court for over a year, denying the will of nearly 66 million Americans who voted to give President Obama a second term in office; the same person who pushed through President Trump's Supreme Court nominee as over 159 million Americans were in the process of voting. So much for compromise and moderation. Let's not pretend this is about the sanctity of this institution. We cannot sit back and let one political party continue to unravel the threads of our democracy one voter suppression bill at a time. While Republicans do nothing to protect our freedom to vote in the face of mass voter suppression bills enacted across the country, we Democrats cannot sit back and let 2020 be the last free and fair election in our country. If we don't protect the right to vote, we won't have a democracy. It is that simple. That is the reality. Since the Republicans will not lift a finger to protect voting rights, we have no option but to change the Senate rules in order to pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. This is something that every single Democratic Senator needs to get on board with. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. HIRONO | Senate | CREC-2022-01-18-pt1-PgS232-2 | null | 3,799 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.