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 | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, for nearly 30 years, first as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and, to this day, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the privilege of engaging in the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues facing our Nation. While we are rightly focused on the crisis unfolding around Ukraine, we must not lose sight of how dangerously close Iran is to becoming a nuclear-armed state, for we know that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an unacceptable threat to U.S. national security interests, to our allies in Europe, and to overall stability in the Middle East. As someone who has followed Iran's nuclear ambition for the better part of three decades, I am here today to raise concerns about the current round of negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Iran's dangerously and rapidly escalating nuclear program that has put it on the brink of having enough material for a nuclear weapon. Three to four weeks--a month or less--is how long most analysts have concluded it would take Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb if they chose to do so. That is not a timeline we can accept. That is why I am calling on the Biden administration and our international partners to exert more pressure on Iran to counter its nuclear program, its missile program, and its dangerous behavior around the Middle East, including attacks on American personnel and assets. Now, before I continue, let me set the record straight. While some have tried to paint me as belligerent to diplomacy or worse, I have always believed that multilateral, diplomatic negotiations from a position of strength are the best ways to address Iran's nuclear program, and I have always advocated for a comprehensive diplomatic agreement that is long-lasting, fully verifiable, and with an enforceable snapback system of sanctions should Iran breach any terms. It was for very specific reasons that I opposed the JCPOA back in 2015 as well as an underlying concern that I just could not shake, a sense that the deal itself at the time was the best case scenario, hinging on good-faith actors and overly optimistic outcomes without enough consideration for the worst case scenarios that might arise from the behavior of bad actors. Today, many of the concerns I expressed about the JCPOA back in August of 2015 are coming back to haunt us in the year 2022. First and foremost, my overarching concern with the JCPOA was that it did not require the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Instead, it mothballed that infrastructure for 10 years, making it all too easy for Iran to resume its illicit nuclear program at a moment of its choosing. The deal did not require Iran to destroy or fully decommission a single uranium enrichment centrifuge. In fact, over half of Iran's operating centrifuges at the time were able to continue spinning at its Natanz facility. The remainder--more than 5,000 operational centrifuges and nearly 10,000 not yet operational--were to be merely disconnected. Instead of being completely removed, they were transferred to another hall at Natanz, where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium, which is exactly what we have seen happen over the past year, nor did the deal shut down or destroy the Fordow nuclear facility, which Iran constructed underneath a mountain to house its covert uranium enrichment infrastructure. Under the JCPOA, it was merely refurbished. Now Iran is back in business at Fordow, spinning its most advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to a higher level of purity than before it entered into the JCPOA. In the 2 years since President Trump left the JCPOA, Iran has resumed its research and development into a range of centrifuges, making rapid improvements to their effectiveness--huge strides that we will never be able to roll back. Today, Iran has more fissile material--2,500 kilograms--more advanced centrifuges, and a shorter breakout time--3 to 4 weeks--than it had in 2015. This is exactly why I was so concernedover the JCPOA's framework of leaving the vast majority of Iran's nuclear program intact. This is how Iran was able to rapidly rebuild and advance its enrichment capabilities once the agreement fell apart. That was a serious mistake. Back in 2015, I also expressed my grave concern that Iran only agreed to provisionally--provisionally--apply the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Additional Protocol is what allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to go beyond merely verifying that all declared nuclear material and facilities are being used for peaceful purposes and provides it with a verification mechanism to ensure states do not have undeclared nuclear materials and facilities. The Additional Protocol was particularly important because Iran has never fully come clean about its previous clandestine nuclear activities. For well over two decades, mounting concerns over Iran's secret weaponization efforts united the world. The goal that we have long sought, along with the international community, is to find out exactly what Iran accomplished in its clandestine program, not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability but to determine how far they advanced their weaponization program so that we would know what signatures to look for in the future. David Albright, a physicist and former nuclear weapons inspector and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security said: Addressing the IAEA's concerns . . . about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program is fundamental to . . . [any] long-term agreement. [An agreement] that sidesteps the military . . . issues would risk being unverified. The reason that he said that an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable is that it makes a difference if you are 90 percent, in terms of enriched material down the road in your weaponization efforts, or only 10 percent advanced; 90 percent or 10 percent makes a big difference. The state of Iran's weaponization efforts significantly impacts the breakout time for the regime to complete an actual deliverable weapon so this verifiability is critical. In 2015, I explained that the JCPOA did not empower international weapons inspectors to conduct the kind of anytime, anywhere inspections needed to get to the bottom of Iran's previous weaponization program, and in February of last year, 2021, we saw the consequences of not insisting that Iran permanently ratify the Additional Protocol. Iran simply decided they were done with the Additional Protocol and refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to fully investigate locations where it found traces of uranium enrichment. It is now obvious that the IAEA, or what we call the International Atomic Energy Agency, is significantly limited in its ability to determine the extent of Iran's previous nuclear program and whether further militarization activities have continued all this time. Without the complete adoption of the Additional Protocol, the JCPOA did not empower the IAEA to achieve this task. So that was then and this is now, and though I had my concerns with the JCPOA, as I have expressed, I am also absolutely clear-eyed, as everyone else in this Chamber should be, that the way in which President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal--with no diplomatic plan for constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions, without the support of any of our allies, without any kind of serious alternative--emboldened Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions like never before. Now, we can't live in a counterfactual world where all parties remain in full compliance, but we do know that, even for the first couple of years of the JCPOA, Iran's leaders gave absolutely no--no--indication that they were willing to look beyond the scope of these limited terms and fought vigorously to keep their highly advanced nuclear infrastructure in place, and that was under a more ``moderate'' regime. They continued their destabilizing activities and support for terrorism in the greater Middle East with abandon. So today I ask: Why would we try to simply go back to the JCPOA--a deal that was not sufficient in the first place and still doesn't address some of the most serious national security concerns that we have? Let me lay out specific concerns about the parameters of the JCPOA, which, it appears, the Biden administration is seeking to reestablish. For decades now, Iran has pursued all three elements necessary to create and to deliver a nuclear weapon: producing nuclear material for a weapon, the fissile material--that is basically what we just talked about being 3 to 4 weeks away; the scientific research and development to build a nuclear warhead--that is why we don't know the full dimensions of what they were doing in terms of how advanced they got to the weaponization, the ability to have the nuclear warhead that makes the bomb go boom; and then the ballistic missile to deliver them--that, they already have. So if you think about it, they have the missiles capable--I will talk about that a little bit more in a few minutes--they have the missiles capable of delivering. They have the fissile material--are on the verge of having the fissile material necessary to create the ability for an explosion. These are checked off. The only question is the warhead. At what point are they there? And we don't fully know. Since the Trump administration exited the deal, Iran has installed more than 1,000 advanced centrifuges, enabling it to enrich uranium more quickly. While the deal the United States and our partners are pursuing in Vienna would ostensibly seek to reverse technological advancements, the acquisition of knowledge--that is never reversible. As Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association has said, ``Iran's nuclear program hit new milestones over the past years.'' To quote it, it says: ``As it masters the new capabilities, it will change our understanding about how the country''--in this case, Iran--``may pursue nuclear weapons down the road.'' That is exactly why the starting position of the United States and our partners during our original negotiations was the complete dismantlement of Iran's enrichment facilities and capacity. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has produced uranium enriched to more than 60 percent purity--more than 60 percent purity--at the Natanz facility. Why is 60 percent purity so alarming? Well, as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Association--the U.N. international watchdog on these issues--Rafael Grossi has stated, Iran's decision to enrich uranium to 60 percent to produce uranium metal has no--no--justification for civilian purposes--no justification for civilian purposes. Iran says: Well, we only want nuclear energy for domestic energy consumption. But, as the IAEA's head says, it has no justification to enrich uranium to 60 percent for civilian purposes. In other words, Iran has already done most of the heavy lifting. Furthermore, the IAEA reports that Iran's nuclear stockpile has grown to nearly 2,500 kilograms. That is nearly 2\1/2\ tons of enriched uranium and eight times--eight times--the cap that was agreed to in the JCPOA. More and more advanced centrifuges, a much larger nuclear stockpile, and vastly higher levels of enrichment are a dangerous combination. As I noted before, Iran's breakout time is now a mere 3 to 4 weeks, but according to a report from David Albright and others at the Institute for Science and International Security, Iran could enrich uranium for a second weapon in less than 4 months. Once they hit this breakout period, which is 4 weeks away, then to get their second bomb, we are talking about 4 months. So while the United States has recognized Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, Iran's behavior continues to indicate that it is actively moving toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities. Adding to the alarm is the fact that we don't even have the full picture of exactly how far it has gone. Again, that is why full access was and is such a critical component of any deal. As the original deal was being negotiated, we started from a place of anywhere, anytime inspections that we wanted--anywhere, anytime--but that is not where the deal landed. While I recognize that other factors have contributed to Iran's efforts to block inspectors, simply put, I was not satisfied in 2015 with the level of visibility the agreement afforded. Today, indeed, the IAEA readily states it does not have the necessary level of access. In fact, in September of 2021, the IAEA Director, Rafael Grossi, warned that ``Iran's failure to fully cooperate and communicate with the IAEA `is seriously compromising' the IAEA's ability to have full insight into Iran's program.'' IAEA inspectors were denied access three times to the Karaj centrifuge component production facility in their efforts to install new surveillance cameras to monitor Iranian activities. In addition, Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA's ongoing 2-year-old investigation into the presence of nuclear materials found at four locations outside of Iran's declared nuclear program sites. Iran has a lot of access to two of those locations but has denied and delayed access to the other two. The IAEA has further warned Iran multiple times that their ``lack of substantive engagement'' in resolving these issues ``seriously affects the agency's ability to provide assurance''--assurance--``of the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.'' But Iran's obstruction has gone far beyond reneging on the inspection protocols agreed to in the JCPOA. As I mentioned previously, in February of last year, Iran suspended implementation of the Additional Protocol. Following that suspension, the IAEA managed an arrangement where Tehran agreed to certain surveillance activities. But even though there was an agreement, it refused to transmit any data from that surveillance until it got all the sanctions relief the regime felt entitled to under the JCPOA--never mind their own repeated failures to meet their obligations under the JCPOA. We are not dealing with a good-faith actor here. Iran's consistent obfuscation, continued stalling, and outlandish demands have left us flying blind, especially when it comes to verifying that Iran is not engaged in activities related to the weaponization process, activities related to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device, activities which were explicitly banned in section T of the JCPOA. I am talking about utilizing computer models to simulate nuclear explosions, developing the diagnostic equipment for nuclear testing, and researching conventional explosives for triggering a nuclear explosion. The JCPOA banned these activities because substantial evidence indicated that Iran had, in fact, pursued them in the past. Yet we cannot verify whether Iran is pursuing them again. We cannot know for sure because the Iranian Government has repeatedly stated the IAEA lacks the authority to inspect the very military sites where these activities took place--the activities where the IAEA has wanted to go to but has been denied. With Iran's breakout time now less than a month, we must be able to verify the scope of Iran's weaponization research, and this must include Iran's ballistic missile program. We already know that Iran has ballistic missiles that could carry a warhead to the Middle East and parts of Europe. Indeed, given how far Iran's enrichment capabilities and research and development have advanced, the only element left is preventing Iran from weaponizing its stockpile. All of this contributes to why we have a well-founded, deep mistrust of Iran's willingness to seriously curtail its nuclear program. And, of course, Iran keeps reminding the United States and our Arab Gulf partners that its missile program presents its own unique threats outside of the nuclear file. I remain highly skeptical it will suspend any of its other threatening and destabilizing activities, from ballistic missile development to support for terrorist proxies. Even as the United States, our P5+1 partners, and Iran convened in Vienna for indirect negotiations about returning to the JCPOA, Iran's leaders took it upon themselves to antagonize all parties and show, my view, their true intentions. In December, they launched a rocket with a satellite carrier into space to remind us all that even as they dragged out diplomatic negotiations, their ambitions remain acquiring the ability to eventually deliver a nuclear warhead. This launch was yet another provocation like those we have seen over the past several years, some of which directly--directly--violate the terms of U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. That resolution codified the JCPOA, our agreement with Iran, and plenty of others that are far outside of the limited scope of the deal. Beyond this failed launch into space, Iran's dangerous behavior has hit closer to home. In recent years, Iran has increased direct threats to U.S. personnel and assets and continued providing weapons to terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East. The U.S. intelligence community last year assessed that ``Iran and its militant allies continue to plot terrorist attacks against U.S. persons and interests. . . . Iran has the largest ballistic missile force in the region . . . [and] is increasingly active in using cyberspace to enable influence operations.'' The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that Iran not only has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile program in the region, but it has also used those ballistic missiles to attack U.S. personnel stationed in Iraq--personnel who, let's be clear, have been there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. While our last President made light of what he called headaches, the fact is, nearly a dozen servicemembers suffered from traumatic brain injuries during the attack on Al Asad Air Base in 2020. Already this year, there have been 3 rocket and drone attacks, with public reports of 14 rockets hitting an Iraqi air base hosting U.S. forces and wounding 2 American servicemembers. Allow me to share an article in the New Yorker by Robin Wright entitled ``The Looming Threat of a Nuclear Crisis with Iran.'' She writes of a conversation with CENTCOM commander Gen. Kenneth McKenzie in which he said the following: The lesson of Al Asad . . . is that Iran's missiles have become a more immediate threat than its nuclear program. For decades, Iran's rockets and missiles were wildly inaccurate. At Al Asad, ``they hit pretty much where they wanted to hit''. . . . Now they ``can strike effectively across the breadth and depth of the Middle East. They could strike with accuracy, and they could strike with volume. The article continues: The regime has concentrated on developing missiles with longer reach, precision accuracy, and greater destructive power. Iran is . . . one of the world's top missile producers. Its arsenal is the largest and most diverse in the Middle East, the Defense Intelligence Agency [has] reported. Now, as President Biden's Special Envoy on the question of negotiations on a potential return to the JCPOA, Robert Malley, has said, ``Iran has proven that using its ballistic-missile program as a means to coerce or intimidate its neighbors'' is a real challenge. Now, Iran can fire more missiles than its adversaries--more missiles than its adversaries, including the United States and Israel--can shoot down or destroy. Tehran has achieved what General McKenzie calls overmatch, a level of capability in which a country has weaponry that makes it extremely difficult to check or defeat. ``Iran's strategic capacity is now enormous,'' McKenzie said. ``They've got overmatch in the theatre--the ability to overwhelm.'' Iran now has the largest known underground complexes in the Middle East housing nuclear and missile programs. Most of the tunnels are in the west, facing Israel, or on the southern coast, across from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikhdoms. This fall, satellite imagery tracked new underground construction near Bakhtaran, the most extensive complex. The tunnels, carved out of rock, descend more than 1,600 feet underground. Some complexes reportedly stretch for miles. Iran calls them ``missile cities.'' A recording of deceased General Suleimani echoes in the background: ``You start this war, but we create the end of it.'' An underground railroad ferries Emad missiles for rapid successive launches. Emads have a range of a thousand miles and can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead. The Islamic Republic has thousands of ballistic missiles, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. They can reach--we see on this map that there are different missiles. But how far they can reach? Its farthest: 2,000 kilometers. They can reach as far as 1,300miles in any direction--deep into India and China to the east; high into Russia in the north; to Greece and other parts of Europe to the west; and as far south as Ethiopia, in the Horn of Africa, and dozens of countries in between. About a hundred missiles could reach Israel. The Biden administration has hoped to use progress on the nuclear deal to eventually broaden diplomacy and include Iran's neighbors in talks on reducing regional tensions. Ms. Wright then again quotes Special Envoy on Iran Rob Malley as saying: Even if we can revive the JCPOA, those problems are going to continue to poison the region and risk destabilizing it. If they continue, the response will be robust. Well, it may be too late. Tehran has shown no willingness to barter over its missiles as it has with its nuclear program. She also quotes Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on missile proliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who said: Once you have spent the money to build the facilities and train people and deliver missiles to the military units that were built around these missiles, you have an enormous constituency that wants to keep them. I don't think there's any hope of limiting Iran's missile program. And President Raisi, of Iran, told reporters after his election: ``Regional issues or the missile issue are non-negotiable.'' Nonnegotiable. Now, the U.S. military is still vastly more powerful than anything built or imagined in Iran. Yet Iran has proven to be an increasingly shrewd rival. It has trained a generation of foreign engineers and scientists to assemble weaponry. It has dispatched stateless dhows loaded with missile parts for Houthi rebels, who have fired missiles at military and civilian targets in Saudi Arabia. It has provided the older ``dumb'' rocket technology to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The majority of the ``precision project'' kits crossing at Abu Kamal go to Lebanon, where Hezbollah upgrades its short-range rockets and missiles to hit more accurately and to penetrate more deeply inside Israel. Hezbollah is now estimated to have at least 14,000 missiles and more than 100,000 rockets, mostly courtesy of Iran. As McKenzie says, ``they have the ability to strike very precisely into Israel in a way they've not enjoyed in the past.'' I shared this article on the floor today because I believe it captures the gravity of our present reality, and I encourage all of our colleagues to read it. Beyond what Ms. Wright has laid out above with excellent sources and details, let's also not forget that Iran continues to be a steady fighting partner for the murderous Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, all the while expanding its military footprint along our ally Israel's northern border. And, let's not forget, all of this belligerent behavior has escalated despite the ballistic restrictions under U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. Madam President, resolution 2231 of the United Nations was the framework that endorsed the JCPOA and imposed other restrictions. So just think of where Iran will go when these restrictions expire next year. They expire, under existing law, next year. Beyond this alarming aggression throughout the region, within its borders Iran continues to remind the world it has no respect for human rights. It is a country where dissidents and activists who want a better future are persecuted and killed. Indeed, just last January, Baktash Abtin, a prominent Iranian poet and human rights activist who was jailed for ``propaganda against the state,'' died in the notorious Evin prison from COVID-19. Iran's judicial system is a sham that denies basic human rights like freedom of expression and condones torture and extrajudicial killings. Last year--get this--the U.S. Justice Department indicted four Iranians for conspiring to kidnap and kill an Iranian-American journalist, Masih Alinejad, surveilling her daily activities in Brooklyn, NY, here on American soil. And we cannot forget the four American citizens who Iran continues to wrongfully detain--Babak and Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi, and Morad Tabhaz--who are suffering in prison and whose family members are desperately seeking their return. It is against this backdrop of bad behavior that Iran is ostensibly negotiating a return to the JCPOA--or maybe just dragging out the time. It took years of crushing U.S. and international sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. I know because I was the author of many of them. And we had to remain united in order to bring them to the table, and now we have to remain united as well. Now, I have been cautiously optimistic about the Biden administration's initial efforts. I waited for the last year to see results. Before the Foreign Relations Committee, the Secretary of State and others--senior members of the administration--insisted that they would look for a ``longer and stronger'' agreement. I have a pretty good sense of what I think ``longer and stronger'' means. Longer is obvious: more time. Stronger: dealing with elements that had not been previously dealt with. However, a year later, I have yet to hear any parameters of longer or stronger terms or whether that is even a feasible prospect. And even when it seemed that a constructive agreement might be possible last summer, upon taking office, the Raisi government abandoned all previous understandings and, as I mentioned, made absolutely clear that Iran's ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks are ``not negotiable''--his words: ``not negotiable.'' Moreover, at this point, we seriously have to ask: What exactly are we trying to salvage? What are we trying to salvage? Iran has moved so far out of compliance with so many of the terms of the JCPOA and of the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. Meanwhile, the arms embargo that we had has already expired, and restrictions on Iran's missile program are about to expire next year. To quote again Rob Malley, the President's Iran negotiator, trying to revive the deal at this point would be ``tantamount to trying to revive a dead corpse.'' I think he is right. It is time to start thinking out of the box and consider new strategies for rolling back Iran's nuclear program and addressing its dangerous and nefarious activities. These new efforts should include creative diplomatic initiatives, stricter sanctions enforcement, and a steely determination from Congress to back up President Biden's declaration that Iran will ``never get a nuclear weapon on my watch''--his words. One critical first step is vigorously enforcing the sanctions we have in place. A few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' extensive oil smuggling operations throughout the Persian Gulf: ``Smuggled Iranian fuel and secret nighttime transfers: Seafarers recount how it's done.'' Now, I was pleased to see the Department of the Treasury dispatch a senior official to the United Arab Emirates, which has been part of this, to help stop it. More significantly and despite what it says publicly, numerous reports also suggest that China continues to buy Iranian crude oil at a discount--a lucrative lifeline for the Iranian regime that both subverts international oil markets and gives China yet another inroad into the Middle East. Using a sophisticated web of shipping, delivery, and tanker flagging techniques, private energy analysts--here is where we see their abilities, in this space right in here, to make these transfers that ultimately go to China, through tanker flagging techniques--private energy analysts estimate that China bought an average of 350,000 to 650,000 barrels per day--per day--last year. And according to United Against Nuclear Iran, this amounted--that reality of how many barrels they are buying per day amounted--to about $10 billion going to the Iranian regime, in violation of existing sanctions. We can't turn a blind eye to these violations. The Biden administration must rigorously enforce our sanctions, including targeting Chinese entities in a way that will impose a serious cost. We must use our sanctions to crush the illicit, underground economy of Iranian oil shipments throughout the world. The international community must also leverage a full range of tools. We have to urge our P5+1 partners to call for snapback sanctions on Iran under the parameters of the JCPOA, and we should be urging the EU to reimpose its pre-JCPOA sanctions on Iran. Now, of course, we have to be realistic here. Former President Trump's disastrous withdrawal from the JCPOA hampered our ability on the sanctions front. Indeed, when former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went to the U.N. in the summer of 2020 and attempted to invoke the snapback mechanism, our European partners and the rest of the P5+1 roundly rejected him and pointed out that the United States, from their view, did not even have the standing to do so having exited the deal. That was then. That said, I believe the Biden administration has diligently worked to build back trust and cooperation with our partners, and I believe the remaining partners must look at the facts and officially invoke the snapback mechanism to send a strong signal to the Iranians. We must also be thinking beyond the JCPOA. It is worth noting that even though President Trump's withdrawal, from my view, was a strategic, serious error, nothing technically constrained his ability to do so. Iran's leaders insist they want a guarantee that the United States will not withdraw from any future agreement. As these negotiations continue, the best guarantee of a sustainable diplomatic agreement with Iran and the international community is to build one that garners bipartisan political support. One such idea that I have been working on with Senator Graham is a regional nuclear fuel bank that would provide Iran with access to fuel on the condition that it forgoes all domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Now, that idea may sound lofty, but it is worth noting that the IAEA already runs a nuclear fuel bank that provides access to members in the case of a disruption to their existing fuel arrangements. Iranian leaders have long maintained their nuclear program is for domestic energy development, and yet it belies logic that Iran would need to highly enrich uranium or undertake any number of the steps they had been taking over the past few years for a purely peaceful nuclear energy program, to say nothing of the fact that Iran was the fifth largest crude oil producer in OPEC in 2020 and the third largest natural gas producer in the world in 2019. So it has an abundance of natural resources for energy purposes within its own country. It doesn't need nuclear fuel for domestic energy consumption. But if you accept that--well, we want to keep our oil and gas to sell, and we want nuclear power for the purposes of domestic energy consumption, fine, then why do you bury your program thousands of feet under a mountain? Why do you hide what you are doing? Why are you enriching to a grade that even the IAEA says has no civilian purpose whatsoever? Why won't you show us that, in fact, your previous actions that we believe may lead to weaponization exist? Why won't you show us, dispel it? The kind of arrangement we are talking about would truly satisfy the need for a peaceful nuclear program. Now, while we understand that there are both political and logistical challenges regarding this proposal in the past, we don't believe we should close any potential doors. We believe, actually, that our proposal opens new doors because while we are just now talking about Iran--and we have been having this conversation with our P5+1 allies and Iran in a bilateral arrangement because of our concerns about Iran's nuclear program--we could be talking about the entire region. We have successfully negotiated nuclear cooperation agreements with a number of countries in the region on a bilateral basis, including Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. In the future, such a fuel bank--a regional fuel bank--could even be expanded to guarantee that any Iranian Gulf state--or further beyond in the Middle East for that matter--can peacefully fuel its commercial nuclear reactors through the IAEA fuel bank. That means you don't enrich, but you get the fuel necessary if you want domestic energy consumption. Of course, regional investment into any diplomatic solution--from Gulf countries and Arab neighbors and Israel--is absolutely critical for success. Just as we know our sanctions are most effective when we work with our international partners, multilateral cooperation is critical to finding a successful outcome. But, particularly, what would be attractive to the Iranian regime? Well, what is attractive--or should be attractive--to the Iranian regime is this arrangement would decouple the view that the West is only seeking this arrangement from Iran. Iran would not have to give up its right to enrich, but would, without a loss of national pride, delegate that right to a multilateral nuclear fuel bank. And by including other Gulf countries in such a reasonable natural fuel bank with the same terms and conditions, Iran would not have to worry about other Gulf countries attaining nuclear weapons and posing a security threat to them. And finally, if we can succeed at a regional nuclear fuel bank, would we stop a nuclear arms race in what is already a tinderbox of the world? Because if Iran can acquire a nuclear weapon, you can be sure that the countries in the Gulf--Saudi Arabia, Emirates, and others--they are going to say, under the theory of mutual self-destruction, We have to have nuclear weapons too. And now, we begin an arms race in a part of the world that can ill-afford it. As we look to a new approach, I also believe that we should revisit a number of proposals I laid out in 2015. First, we should seek the immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international agreement with Iran for access to suspect sites. Second, we need a ban on centrifuge R&D--research and development--for the duration of such an agreement because it is that advanced R&D that allowed Iran to be 4 weeks away from crossing the nuclear threshold so that Iran could not have the capacity to quickly break out, just as the U.N. Security Council Resolution and sanctions and snapback is off the table. Third, Iran should close the Fordow enrichment facility. After all, the sole purpose of Fordow was to harden Iran's nuclear program to a military attack. But if Iran has nothing to hide and it is all for peaceful purposes, why do you put it deep underneath a mountain? Fourth, the world needs full resolution of the possible military dimensions of Iran's program. We need an arrangement that isn't set up to whitewash this issue. The world needs to be able to go to sleep at night saying Iran has not achieved the ability to weaponize its desires. Iran and the IAEA must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief takes place. Should Iran fail to cooperate with a comprehensive review into the military dimensions of their program, then automatic sanctions must snap back. Fifth, rather than extend the duration of the agreement, we need a permanent agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the original deal is its 10- to 15-year sunset of restrictions on Iran's programs, with off-ramps starting after year 8. Well, think about it: 2015-2022--7 years--this shows you how quickly that, in fact, Iran can be proceeding in a way that we would not want it to be able to proceed. And sixth, we need an agreement about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause which exists in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the U.S. position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon reimposition of sanctions is shared by our allies. Everybody should be in the same boat. We are seeing that. And without these elements clearly delineated, there is room for interpretation admission. I believe there is space for a deal with Iran. And I believe that one that garners bipartisan support would be the best guarantor of the political longevity the Iranians insist they want. Our goal must be the right deal, not just any deal. We must not agree to an arrangement that merely delays the inevitable. As we think about broader diplomatic options, we must be clear about what a good negotiation entails: Getting more, obviously, requires giving more. If Iran were willing to make greater concessions on halting uranium enrichment, destroying nuclear infrastructure, and seriously constraining its ballistic missile program, the United States and the international community should consider lifting abroader scope of sanctions, potentially including some primary sanctions. While Iran's leaders are scraping by in the resistance economy, the truth is that the whole country would be better off if the regime abandoned their enrichment and weaponization efforts and focused on providing everyday Iranians with real economic opportunity. At the same time, Iran must also fully understand that the United States will not hesitate to take any action necessary to protect our interests and those of our allies, and that includes the use of military force where appropriate and necessary. One of our greatest strengths is our enduring security partnerships with nearly every country in the Middle East region. Last month, a group of senior bipartisan diplomats, military officers, and former Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle issued a statement to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy about the importance of a credible military threat should Iran breach certain red lines. Let me quote from their statement. They said: Indeed, the Vienna negotiations are in danger of becoming a cover for Iran to move toward achieving a threshold nuclear weapons capability. . . . While the United States has recognized Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, Iran's behavior continues to indicate that it not only wants to preserve a nuclear weapons option but is actively moving toward developing that capability. Indeed, as the director- general of the International Atomic Energy Association, Rafael Grossi, has stated, Iran's decision to enrich uranium to 60 percent and to produce uranium metal has no justifiable civilian purpose. . . . Without convincing Iran it will suffer severe consequences if it stays on its current path, there is little reason to hope for the success of diplomacy. This is all from their statement. Therefore, for the sake of our diplomatic effort to resolve this crisis, we believe it is vital to restore Iran's fear that its current nuclear path will trigger the use of force against it by the United States. The challenge is how to restore U.S. credibility in the eyes of Iran's leaders. Words--including formulations that are more pointed and direct than ``all options are on the table''--are also necessary but not sufficient. In that context, we believe it is important for the Biden administration to take steps that lead Iran to believe that persisting in its current behavior and rejecting a reasonable diplomatic resolution will put to risk its entire nuclear infrastructure, one built painstakingly over the last three decades. Such steps may include orchestrating high-profile military exercises by the U.S. Central Command, potentially in concert with allies and partners, that simulate what would be involved in such a significant operation, including rehearsing air-to-ground attacks on hardened targets and the suppression of Iranian missile batteries. Also important would be to provide both local allies and partners as well as U.S. installations and assets in the region with enhanced defensive capabilities to counter whatever retaliatory actions Iran might choose to make, thereby signaling our readiness to act, if necessary. Perhaps most significantly, fulfilling past U.S. promises to act forcefully against other Iranian outrages, such as the drone attack by Iran-backed militias against the U.S. base at al-Tanf in Syria and Iran's illegal capture of merchant ships and killing unarmed seamen, might have the salutary impact of underscoring the seriousness of U.S. commitments to act on the nuclear issue. Again, I encourage everyone to read this statement from colleagues, congressional colleagues, military leaders, and diplomats on both sides of the aisle. Last year, following years of quiet cooperation and the narrowing of shared security concerns, the United States and our partners and allies welcomed Israel into the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. We have a number of shared interests--from maritime security to confronting a growing threat of ballistic missiles and UAVs--and we must continue to strengthen our bilateral and regional partnerships to ensure that we have all the means necessary to protect our interests. Moreover, we must forcefully and proportionately respond to Iran's ongoing attacks on our diplomatic and military facilities in Iraq and Syria. We will not fail to respond against direct attacks on the United States that threaten our diplomat and servicemembers. Full stop. Let me close by saying that the Iranian nuclear threat is real, and it has grown disproportionately worse by day. It is becoming a clear and present danger. The time is now to reinvigorate our multilateral sanctions efforts and pursue new avenues, new ideas, new solutions for a diplomatic resolution. But today, I call on the Biden administration and international community to vigorously and rigorously enforce sanctions, which have proven to be among the most potent tools for impacting Iran's leaders and the IRGC. We cannot allow Iran to threaten us into a bad deal or an interim agreement that allows it to continue to build its nuclear capacity, nor should we cling to the scope of an agreement that it seems some are holding on for nostalgia's sake. As I said 7 years ago, hope is not a national security strategy. In the words that I spoke in 2015, I said: Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ``hope''; hope that--when the nuclear sunset clause expires--Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration . . . Well, I hate to say, they have not. . . . hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals . . . They have not. . . . and hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their own fate. The hardliners are more entrenched, and they have not allowed the Iranian people to decide that future. Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy. The Iranian regime, led by the Ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its Revolution-- Unlike the Green Revolution of 2009. This is still true. So it stretches incredulity to believe they signed on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime or threaten the goals of the Revolution. They will not. I understand that this deal represents a trade-off, a hope that things [might] be different in Iran in 10-15 years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. But it has not. Maybe they'll stop exporting and supporting terrorism. But it has not. Maybe they'll stop holding innocent Americans hostage. But they have not. Maybe they'll stop burning American flags. But it has not. Maybe their leadership will stop chanting ``Death to America'' in the streets of Tehran. But it has not. Or the hope was maybe that they won't do those things. Well, they have continued to do all of those things. While there are so many crises brewing across the world, we cannot abandon our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and the arms race it will surely set off in the Middle East. We cannot ignore Iran's nefarious support for terrorism or accept threats to American interests and lives. We must welcome legitimate and verifiably peaceful uses of nuclear power but remain true to our nonproliferation principles and our unyielding desire to build a more stable, safer, prosperous world for the American people and for all peace-loving people to thrive. In order to do so, Iran cannot and must not possess a nuclear weapon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MENENDEZ | Senate | CREC-2022-02-01-pt1-PgS456-3 | null | 3,900 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, for nearly 30 years, first as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and, to this day, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have had the privilege of engaging in the most pressing foreign policy and national security issues facing our Nation. While we are rightly focused on the crisis unfolding around Ukraine, we must not lose sight of how dangerously close Iran is to becoming a nuclear-armed state, for we know that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an unacceptable threat to U.S. national security interests, to our allies in Europe, and to overall stability in the Middle East. As someone who has followed Iran's nuclear ambition for the better part of three decades, I am here today to raise concerns about the current round of negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Iran's dangerously and rapidly escalating nuclear program that has put it on the brink of having enough material for a nuclear weapon. Three to four weeks--a month or less--is how long most analysts have concluded it would take Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb if they chose to do so. That is not a timeline we can accept. That is why I am calling on the Biden administration and our international partners to exert more pressure on Iran to counter its nuclear program, its missile program, and its dangerous behavior around the Middle East, including attacks on American personnel and assets. Now, before I continue, let me set the record straight. While some have tried to paint me as belligerent to diplomacy or worse, I have always believed that multilateral, diplomatic negotiations from a position of strength are the best ways to address Iran's nuclear program, and I have always advocated for a comprehensive diplomatic agreement that is long-lasting, fully verifiable, and with an enforceable snapback system of sanctions should Iran breach any terms. It was for very specific reasons that I opposed the JCPOA back in 2015 as well as an underlying concern that I just could not shake, a sense that the deal itself at the time was the best case scenario, hinging on good-faith actors and overly optimistic outcomes without enough consideration for the worst case scenarios that might arise from the behavior of bad actors. Today, many of the concerns I expressed about the JCPOA back in August of 2015 are coming back to haunt us in the year 2022. First and foremost, my overarching concern with the JCPOA was that it did not require the complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Instead, it mothballed that infrastructure for 10 years, making it all too easy for Iran to resume its illicit nuclear program at a moment of its choosing. The deal did not require Iran to destroy or fully decommission a single uranium enrichment centrifuge. In fact, over half of Iran's operating centrifuges at the time were able to continue spinning at its Natanz facility. The remainder--more than 5,000 operational centrifuges and nearly 10,000 not yet operational--were to be merely disconnected. Instead of being completely removed, they were transferred to another hall at Natanz, where they could be quickly reinstalled to enrich uranium, which is exactly what we have seen happen over the past year, nor did the deal shut down or destroy the Fordow nuclear facility, which Iran constructed underneath a mountain to house its covert uranium enrichment infrastructure. Under the JCPOA, it was merely refurbished. Now Iran is back in business at Fordow, spinning its most advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to a higher level of purity than before it entered into the JCPOA. In the 2 years since President Trump left the JCPOA, Iran has resumed its research and development into a range of centrifuges, making rapid improvements to their effectiveness--huge strides that we will never be able to roll back. Today, Iran has more fissile material--2,500 kilograms--more advanced centrifuges, and a shorter breakout time--3 to 4 weeks--than it had in 2015. This is exactly why I was so concernedover the JCPOA's framework of leaving the vast majority of Iran's nuclear program intact. This is how Iran was able to rapidly rebuild and advance its enrichment capabilities once the agreement fell apart. That was a serious mistake. Back in 2015, I also expressed my grave concern that Iran only agreed to provisionally--provisionally--apply the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Additional Protocol is what allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to go beyond merely verifying that all declared nuclear material and facilities are being used for peaceful purposes and provides it with a verification mechanism to ensure states do not have undeclared nuclear materials and facilities. The Additional Protocol was particularly important because Iran has never fully come clean about its previous clandestine nuclear activities. For well over two decades, mounting concerns over Iran's secret weaponization efforts united the world. The goal that we have long sought, along with the international community, is to find out exactly what Iran accomplished in its clandestine program, not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability but to determine how far they advanced their weaponization program so that we would know what signatures to look for in the future. David Albright, a physicist and former nuclear weapons inspector and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security said: Addressing the IAEA's concerns . . . about the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program is fundamental to . . . [any] long-term agreement. [An agreement] that sidesteps the military . . . issues would risk being unverified. The reason that he said that an agreement that sidesteps the military issues would be unverifiable is that it makes a difference if you are 90 percent, in terms of enriched material down the road in your weaponization efforts, or only 10 percent advanced; 90 percent or 10 percent makes a big difference. The state of Iran's weaponization efforts significantly impacts the breakout time for the regime to complete an actual deliverable weapon so this verifiability is critical. In 2015, I explained that the JCPOA did not empower international weapons inspectors to conduct the kind of anytime, anywhere inspections needed to get to the bottom of Iran's previous weaponization program, and in February of last year, 2021, we saw the consequences of not insisting that Iran permanently ratify the Additional Protocol. Iran simply decided they were done with the Additional Protocol and refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to fully investigate locations where it found traces of uranium enrichment. It is now obvious that the IAEA, or what we call the International Atomic Energy Agency, is significantly limited in its ability to determine the extent of Iran's previous nuclear program and whether further militarization activities have continued all this time. Without the complete adoption of the Additional Protocol, the JCPOA did not empower the IAEA to achieve this task. So that was then and this is now, and though I had my concerns with the JCPOA, as I have expressed, I am also absolutely clear-eyed, as everyone else in this Chamber should be, that the way in which President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the deal--with no diplomatic plan for constraining Iran's nuclear ambitions, without the support of any of our allies, without any kind of serious alternative--emboldened Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions like never before. Now, we can't live in a counterfactual world where all parties remain in full compliance, but we do know that, even for the first couple of years of the JCPOA, Iran's leaders gave absolutely no--no--indication that they were willing to look beyond the scope of these limited terms and fought vigorously to keep their highly advanced nuclear infrastructure in place, and that was under a more ``moderate'' regime. They continued their destabilizing activities and support for terrorism in the greater Middle East with abandon. So today I ask: Why would we try to simply go back to the JCPOA--a deal that was not sufficient in the first place and still doesn't address some of the most serious national security concerns that we have? Let me lay out specific concerns about the parameters of the JCPOA, which, it appears, the Biden administration is seeking to reestablish. For decades now, Iran has pursued all three elements necessary to create and to deliver a nuclear weapon: producing nuclear material for a weapon, the fissile material--that is basically what we just talked about being 3 to 4 weeks away; the scientific research and development to build a nuclear warhead--that is why we don't know the full dimensions of what they were doing in terms of how advanced they got to the weaponization, the ability to have the nuclear warhead that makes the bomb go boom; and then the ballistic missile to deliver them--that, they already have. So if you think about it, they have the missiles capable--I will talk about that a little bit more in a few minutes--they have the missiles capable of delivering. They have the fissile material--are on the verge of having the fissile material necessary to create the ability for an explosion. These are checked off. The only question is the warhead. At what point are they there? And we don't fully know. Since the Trump administration exited the deal, Iran has installed more than 1,000 advanced centrifuges, enabling it to enrich uranium more quickly. While the deal the United States and our partners are pursuing in Vienna would ostensibly seek to reverse technological advancements, the acquisition of knowledge--that is never reversible. As Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association has said, ``Iran's nuclear program hit new milestones over the past years.'' To quote it, it says: ``As it masters the new capabilities, it will change our understanding about how the country''--in this case, Iran--``may pursue nuclear weapons down the road.'' That is exactly why the starting position of the United States and our partners during our original negotiations was the complete dismantlement of Iran's enrichment facilities and capacity. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has produced uranium enriched to more than 60 percent purity--more than 60 percent purity--at the Natanz facility. Why is 60 percent purity so alarming? Well, as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Association--the U.N. international watchdog on these issues--Rafael Grossi has stated, Iran's decision to enrich uranium to 60 percent to produce uranium metal has no--no--justification for civilian purposes--no justification for civilian purposes. Iran says: Well, we only want nuclear energy for domestic energy consumption. But, as the IAEA's head says, it has no justification to enrich uranium to 60 percent for civilian purposes. In other words, Iran has already done most of the heavy lifting. Furthermore, the IAEA reports that Iran's nuclear stockpile has grown to nearly 2,500 kilograms. That is nearly 2\1/2\ tons of enriched uranium and eight times--eight times--the cap that was agreed to in the JCPOA. More and more advanced centrifuges, a much larger nuclear stockpile, and vastly higher levels of enrichment are a dangerous combination. As I noted before, Iran's breakout time is now a mere 3 to 4 weeks, but according to a report from David Albright and others at the Institute for Science and International Security, Iran could enrich uranium for a second weapon in less than 4 months. Once they hit this breakout period, which is 4 weeks away, then to get their second bomb, we are talking about 4 months. So while the United States has recognized Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, Iran's behavior continues to indicate that it is actively moving toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities. Adding to the alarm is the fact that we don't even have the full picture of exactly how far it has gone. Again, that is why full access was and is such a critical component of any deal. As the original deal was being negotiated, we started from a place of anywhere, anytime inspections that we wanted--anywhere, anytime--but that is not where the deal landed. While I recognize that other factors have contributed to Iran's efforts to block inspectors, simply put, I was not satisfied in 2015 with the level of visibility the agreement afforded. Today, indeed, the IAEA readily states it does not have the necessary level of access. In fact, in September of 2021, the IAEA Director, Rafael Grossi, warned that ``Iran's failure to fully cooperate and communicate with the IAEA `is seriously compromising' the IAEA's ability to have full insight into Iran's program.'' IAEA inspectors were denied access three times to the Karaj centrifuge component production facility in their efforts to install new surveillance cameras to monitor Iranian activities. In addition, Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA's ongoing 2-year-old investigation into the presence of nuclear materials found at four locations outside of Iran's declared nuclear program sites. Iran has a lot of access to two of those locations but has denied and delayed access to the other two. The IAEA has further warned Iran multiple times that their ``lack of substantive engagement'' in resolving these issues ``seriously affects the agency's ability to provide assurance''--assurance--``of the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.'' But Iran's obstruction has gone far beyond reneging on the inspection protocols agreed to in the JCPOA. As I mentioned previously, in February of last year, Iran suspended implementation of the Additional Protocol. Following that suspension, the IAEA managed an arrangement where Tehran agreed to certain surveillance activities. But even though there was an agreement, it refused to transmit any data from that surveillance until it got all the sanctions relief the regime felt entitled to under the JCPOA--never mind their own repeated failures to meet their obligations under the JCPOA. We are not dealing with a good-faith actor here. Iran's consistent obfuscation, continued stalling, and outlandish demands have left us flying blind, especially when it comes to verifying that Iran is not engaged in activities related to the weaponization process, activities related to the design and development of a nuclear explosive device, activities which were explicitly banned in section T of the JCPOA. I am talking about utilizing computer models to simulate nuclear explosions, developing the diagnostic equipment for nuclear testing, and researching conventional explosives for triggering a nuclear explosion. The JCPOA banned these activities because substantial evidence indicated that Iran had, in fact, pursued them in the past. Yet we cannot verify whether Iran is pursuing them again. We cannot know for sure because the Iranian Government has repeatedly stated the IAEA lacks the authority to inspect the very military sites where these activities took place--the activities where the IAEA has wanted to go to but has been denied. With Iran's breakout time now less than a month, we must be able to verify the scope of Iran's weaponization research, and this must include Iran's ballistic missile program. We already know that Iran has ballistic missiles that could carry a warhead to the Middle East and parts of Europe. Indeed, given how far Iran's enrichment capabilities and research and development have advanced, the only element left is preventing Iran from weaponizing its stockpile. All of this contributes to why we have a well-founded, deep mistrust of Iran's willingness to seriously curtail its nuclear program. And, of course, Iran keeps reminding the United States and our Arab Gulf partners that its missile program presents its own unique threats outside of the nuclear file. I remain highly skeptical it will suspend any of its other threatening and destabilizing activities, from ballistic missile development to support for terrorist proxies. Even as the United States, our P5+1 partners, and Iran convened in Vienna for indirect negotiations about returning to the JCPOA, Iran's leaders took it upon themselves to antagonize all parties and show, my view, their true intentions. In December, they launched a rocket with a satellite carrier into space to remind us all that even as they dragged out diplomatic negotiations, their ambitions remain acquiring the ability to eventually deliver a nuclear warhead. This launch was yet another provocation like those we have seen over the past several years, some of which directly--directly--violate the terms of U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. That resolution codified the JCPOA, our agreement with Iran, and plenty of others that are far outside of the limited scope of the deal. Beyond this failed launch into space, Iran's dangerous behavior has hit closer to home. In recent years, Iran has increased direct threats to U.S. personnel and assets and continued providing weapons to terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East. The U.S. intelligence community last year assessed that ``Iran and its militant allies continue to plot terrorist attacks against U.S. persons and interests. . . . Iran has the largest ballistic missile force in the region . . . [and] is increasingly active in using cyberspace to enable influence operations.'' The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that Iran not only has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile program in the region, but it has also used those ballistic missiles to attack U.S. personnel stationed in Iraq--personnel who, let's be clear, have been there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. While our last President made light of what he called headaches, the fact is, nearly a dozen servicemembers suffered from traumatic brain injuries during the attack on Al Asad Air Base in 2020. Already this year, there have been 3 rocket and drone attacks, with public reports of 14 rockets hitting an Iraqi air base hosting U.S. forces and wounding 2 American servicemembers. Allow me to share an article in the New Yorker by Robin Wright entitled ``The Looming Threat of a Nuclear Crisis with Iran.'' She writes of a conversation with CENTCOM commander Gen. Kenneth McKenzie in which he said the following: The lesson of Al Asad . . . is that Iran's missiles have become a more immediate threat than its nuclear program. For decades, Iran's rockets and missiles were wildly inaccurate. At Al Asad, ``they hit pretty much where they wanted to hit''. . . . Now they ``can strike effectively across the breadth and depth of the Middle East. They could strike with accuracy, and they could strike with volume. The article continues: The regime has concentrated on developing missiles with longer reach, precision accuracy, and greater destructive power. Iran is . . . one of the world's top missile producers. Its arsenal is the largest and most diverse in the Middle East, the Defense Intelligence Agency [has] reported. Now, as President Biden's Special Envoy on the question of negotiations on a potential return to the JCPOA, Robert Malley, has said, ``Iran has proven that using its ballistic-missile program as a means to coerce or intimidate its neighbors'' is a real challenge. Now, Iran can fire more missiles than its adversaries--more missiles than its adversaries, including the United States and Israel--can shoot down or destroy. Tehran has achieved what General McKenzie calls overmatch, a level of capability in which a country has weaponry that makes it extremely difficult to check or defeat. ``Iran's strategic capacity is now enormous,'' McKenzie said. ``They've got overmatch in the theatre--the ability to overwhelm.'' Iran now has the largest known underground complexes in the Middle East housing nuclear and missile programs. Most of the tunnels are in the west, facing Israel, or on the southern coast, across from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikhdoms. This fall, satellite imagery tracked new underground construction near Bakhtaran, the most extensive complex. The tunnels, carved out of rock, descend more than 1,600 feet underground. Some complexes reportedly stretch for miles. Iran calls them ``missile cities.'' A recording of deceased General Suleimani echoes in the background: ``You start this war, but we create the end of it.'' An underground railroad ferries Emad missiles for rapid successive launches. Emads have a range of a thousand miles and can carry a conventional or a nuclear warhead. The Islamic Republic has thousands of ballistic missiles, according to U.S. intelligence assessments. They can reach--we see on this map that there are different missiles. But how far they can reach? Its farthest: 2,000 kilometers. They can reach as far as 1,300miles in any direction--deep into India and China to the east; high into Russia in the north; to Greece and other parts of Europe to the west; and as far south as Ethiopia, in the Horn of Africa, and dozens of countries in between. About a hundred missiles could reach Israel. The Biden administration has hoped to use progress on the nuclear deal to eventually broaden diplomacy and include Iran's neighbors in talks on reducing regional tensions. Ms. Wright then again quotes Special Envoy on Iran Rob Malley as saying: Even if we can revive the JCPOA, those problems are going to continue to poison the region and risk destabilizing it. If they continue, the response will be robust. Well, it may be too late. Tehran has shown no willingness to barter over its missiles as it has with its nuclear program. She also quotes Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on missile proliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, who said: Once you have spent the money to build the facilities and train people and deliver missiles to the military units that were built around these missiles, you have an enormous constituency that wants to keep them. I don't think there's any hope of limiting Iran's missile program. And President Raisi, of Iran, told reporters after his election: ``Regional issues or the missile issue are non-negotiable.'' Nonnegotiable. Now, the U.S. military is still vastly more powerful than anything built or imagined in Iran. Yet Iran has proven to be an increasingly shrewd rival. It has trained a generation of foreign engineers and scientists to assemble weaponry. It has dispatched stateless dhows loaded with missile parts for Houthi rebels, who have fired missiles at military and civilian targets in Saudi Arabia. It has provided the older ``dumb'' rocket technology to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The majority of the ``precision project'' kits crossing at Abu Kamal go to Lebanon, where Hezbollah upgrades its short-range rockets and missiles to hit more accurately and to penetrate more deeply inside Israel. Hezbollah is now estimated to have at least 14,000 missiles and more than 100,000 rockets, mostly courtesy of Iran. As McKenzie says, ``they have the ability to strike very precisely into Israel in a way they've not enjoyed in the past.'' I shared this article on the floor today because I believe it captures the gravity of our present reality, and I encourage all of our colleagues to read it. Beyond what Ms. Wright has laid out above with excellent sources and details, let's also not forget that Iran continues to be a steady fighting partner for the murderous Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, all the while expanding its military footprint along our ally Israel's northern border. And, let's not forget, all of this belligerent behavior has escalated despite the ballistic restrictions under U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. Madam President, resolution 2231 of the United Nations was the framework that endorsed the JCPOA and imposed other restrictions. So just think of where Iran will go when these restrictions expire next year. They expire, under existing law, next year. Beyond this alarming aggression throughout the region, within its borders Iran continues to remind the world it has no respect for human rights. It is a country where dissidents and activists who want a better future are persecuted and killed. Indeed, just last January, Baktash Abtin, a prominent Iranian poet and human rights activist who was jailed for ``propaganda against the state,'' died in the notorious Evin prison from COVID-19. Iran's judicial system is a sham that denies basic human rights like freedom of expression and condones torture and extrajudicial killings. Last year--get this--the U.S. Justice Department indicted four Iranians for conspiring to kidnap and kill an Iranian-American journalist, Masih Alinejad, surveilling her daily activities in Brooklyn, NY, here on American soil. And we cannot forget the four American citizens who Iran continues to wrongfully detain--Babak and Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi, and Morad Tabhaz--who are suffering in prison and whose family members are desperately seeking their return. It is against this backdrop of bad behavior that Iran is ostensibly negotiating a return to the JCPOA--or maybe just dragging out the time. It took years of crushing U.S. and international sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. I know because I was the author of many of them. And we had to remain united in order to bring them to the table, and now we have to remain united as well. Now, I have been cautiously optimistic about the Biden administration's initial efforts. I waited for the last year to see results. Before the Foreign Relations Committee, the Secretary of State and others--senior members of the administration--insisted that they would look for a ``longer and stronger'' agreement. I have a pretty good sense of what I think ``longer and stronger'' means. Longer is obvious: more time. Stronger: dealing with elements that had not been previously dealt with. However, a year later, I have yet to hear any parameters of longer or stronger terms or whether that is even a feasible prospect. And even when it seemed that a constructive agreement might be possible last summer, upon taking office, the Raisi government abandoned all previous understandings and, as I mentioned, made absolutely clear that Iran's ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks are ``not negotiable''--his words: ``not negotiable.'' Moreover, at this point, we seriously have to ask: What exactly are we trying to salvage? What are we trying to salvage? Iran has moved so far out of compliance with so many of the terms of the JCPOA and of the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolution 2231. Meanwhile, the arms embargo that we had has already expired, and restrictions on Iran's missile program are about to expire next year. To quote again Rob Malley, the President's Iran negotiator, trying to revive the deal at this point would be ``tantamount to trying to revive a dead corpse.'' I think he is right. It is time to start thinking out of the box and consider new strategies for rolling back Iran's nuclear program and addressing its dangerous and nefarious activities. These new efforts should include creative diplomatic initiatives, stricter sanctions enforcement, and a steely determination from Congress to back up President Biden's declaration that Iran will ``never get a nuclear weapon on my watch''--his words. One critical first step is vigorously enforcing the sanctions we have in place. A few weeks ago, the Washington Post reported on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' extensive oil smuggling operations throughout the Persian Gulf: ``Smuggled Iranian fuel and secret nighttime transfers: Seafarers recount how it's done.'' Now, I was pleased to see the Department of the Treasury dispatch a senior official to the United Arab Emirates, which has been part of this, to help stop it. More significantly and despite what it says publicly, numerous reports also suggest that China continues to buy Iranian crude oil at a discount--a lucrative lifeline for the Iranian regime that both subverts international oil markets and gives China yet another inroad into the Middle East. Using a sophisticated web of shipping, delivery, and tanker flagging techniques, private energy analysts--here is where we see their abilities, in this space right in here, to make these transfers that ultimately go to China, through tanker flagging techniques--private energy analysts estimate that China bought an average of 350,000 to 650,000 barrels per day--per day--last year. And according to United Against Nuclear Iran, this amounted--that reality of how many barrels they are buying per day amounted--to about $10 billion going to the Iranian regime, in violation of existing sanctions. We can't turn a blind eye to these violations. The Biden administration must rigorously enforce our sanctions, including targeting Chinese entities in a way that will impose a serious cost. We must use our sanctions to crush the illicit, underground economy of Iranian oil shipments throughout the world. The international community must also leverage a full range of tools. We have to urge our P5+1 partners to call for snapback sanctions on Iran under the parameters of the JCPOA, and we should be urging the EU to reimpose its pre-JCPOA sanctions on Iran. Now, of course, we have to be realistic here. Former President Trump's disastrous withdrawal from the JCPOA hampered our ability on the sanctions front. Indeed, when former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went to the U.N. in the summer of 2020 and attempted to invoke the snapback mechanism, our European partners and the rest of the P5+1 roundly rejected him and pointed out that the United States, from their view, did not even have the standing to do so having exited the deal. That was then. That said, I believe the Biden administration has diligently worked to build back trust and cooperation with our partners, and I believe the remaining partners must look at the facts and officially invoke the snapback mechanism to send a strong signal to the Iranians. We must also be thinking beyond the JCPOA. It is worth noting that even though President Trump's withdrawal, from my view, was a strategic, serious error, nothing technically constrained his ability to do so. Iran's leaders insist they want a guarantee that the United States will not withdraw from any future agreement. As these negotiations continue, the best guarantee of a sustainable diplomatic agreement with Iran and the international community is to build one that garners bipartisan political support. One such idea that I have been working on with Senator Graham is a regional nuclear fuel bank that would provide Iran with access to fuel on the condition that it forgoes all domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing. Now, that idea may sound lofty, but it is worth noting that the IAEA already runs a nuclear fuel bank that provides access to members in the case of a disruption to their existing fuel arrangements. Iranian leaders have long maintained their nuclear program is for domestic energy development, and yet it belies logic that Iran would need to highly enrich uranium or undertake any number of the steps they had been taking over the past few years for a purely peaceful nuclear energy program, to say nothing of the fact that Iran was the fifth largest crude oil producer in OPEC in 2020 and the third largest natural gas producer in the world in 2019. So it has an abundance of natural resources for energy purposes within its own country. It doesn't need nuclear fuel for domestic energy consumption. But if you accept that--well, we want to keep our oil and gas to sell, and we want nuclear power for the purposes of domestic energy consumption, fine, then why do you bury your program thousands of feet under a mountain? Why do you hide what you are doing? Why are you enriching to a grade that even the IAEA says has no civilian purpose whatsoever? Why won't you show us that, in fact, your previous actions that we believe may lead to weaponization exist? Why won't you show us, dispel it? The kind of arrangement we are talking about would truly satisfy the need for a peaceful nuclear program. Now, while we understand that there are both political and logistical challenges regarding this proposal in the past, we don't believe we should close any potential doors. We believe, actually, that our proposal opens new doors because while we are just now talking about Iran--and we have been having this conversation with our P5+1 allies and Iran in a bilateral arrangement because of our concerns about Iran's nuclear program--we could be talking about the entire region. We have successfully negotiated nuclear cooperation agreements with a number of countries in the region on a bilateral basis, including Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. In the future, such a fuel bank--a regional fuel bank--could even be expanded to guarantee that any Iranian Gulf state--or further beyond in the Middle East for that matter--can peacefully fuel its commercial nuclear reactors through the IAEA fuel bank. That means you don't enrich, but you get the fuel necessary if you want domestic energy consumption. Of course, regional investment into any diplomatic solution--from Gulf countries and Arab neighbors and Israel--is absolutely critical for success. Just as we know our sanctions are most effective when we work with our international partners, multilateral cooperation is critical to finding a successful outcome. But, particularly, what would be attractive to the Iranian regime? Well, what is attractive--or should be attractive--to the Iranian regime is this arrangement would decouple the view that the West is only seeking this arrangement from Iran. Iran would not have to give up its right to enrich, but would, without a loss of national pride, delegate that right to a multilateral nuclear fuel bank. And by including other Gulf countries in such a reasonable natural fuel bank with the same terms and conditions, Iran would not have to worry about other Gulf countries attaining nuclear weapons and posing a security threat to them. And finally, if we can succeed at a regional nuclear fuel bank, would we stop a nuclear arms race in what is already a tinderbox of the world? Because if Iran can acquire a nuclear weapon, you can be sure that the countries in the Gulf--Saudi Arabia, Emirates, and others--they are going to say, under the theory of mutual self-destruction, We have to have nuclear weapons too. And now, we begin an arms race in a part of the world that can ill-afford it. As we look to a new approach, I also believe that we should revisit a number of proposals I laid out in 2015. First, we should seek the immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure that we have a permanent international agreement with Iran for access to suspect sites. Second, we need a ban on centrifuge R&D--research and development--for the duration of such an agreement because it is that advanced R&D that allowed Iran to be 4 weeks away from crossing the nuclear threshold so that Iran could not have the capacity to quickly break out, just as the U.N. Security Council Resolution and sanctions and snapback is off the table. Third, Iran should close the Fordow enrichment facility. After all, the sole purpose of Fordow was to harden Iran's nuclear program to a military attack. But if Iran has nothing to hide and it is all for peaceful purposes, why do you put it deep underneath a mountain? Fourth, the world needs full resolution of the possible military dimensions of Iran's program. We need an arrangement that isn't set up to whitewash this issue. The world needs to be able to go to sleep at night saying Iran has not achieved the ability to weaponize its desires. Iran and the IAEA must resolve the issue before permanent sanctions relief takes place. Should Iran fail to cooperate with a comprehensive review into the military dimensions of their program, then automatic sanctions must snap back. Fifth, rather than extend the duration of the agreement, we need a permanent agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the original deal is its 10- to 15-year sunset of restrictions on Iran's programs, with off-ramps starting after year 8. Well, think about it: 2015-2022--7 years--this shows you how quickly that, in fact, Iran can be proceeding in a way that we would not want it to be able to proceed. And sixth, we need an agreement about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause which exists in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the U.S. position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon reimposition of sanctions is shared by our allies. Everybody should be in the same boat. We are seeing that. And without these elements clearly delineated, there is room for interpretation admission. I believe there is space for a deal with Iran. And I believe that one that garners bipartisan support would be the best guarantor of the political longevity the Iranians insist they want. Our goal must be the right deal, not just any deal. We must not agree to an arrangement that merely delays the inevitable. As we think about broader diplomatic options, we must be clear about what a good negotiation entails: Getting more, obviously, requires giving more. If Iran were willing to make greater concessions on halting uranium enrichment, destroying nuclear infrastructure, and seriously constraining its ballistic missile program, the United States and the international community should consider lifting abroader scope of sanctions, potentially including some primary sanctions. While Iran's leaders are scraping by in the resistance economy, the truth is that the whole country would be better off if the regime abandoned their enrichment and weaponization efforts and focused on providing everyday Iranians with real economic opportunity. At the same time, Iran must also fully understand that the United States will not hesitate to take any action necessary to protect our interests and those of our allies, and that includes the use of military force where appropriate and necessary. One of our greatest strengths is our enduring security partnerships with nearly every country in the Middle East region. Last month, a group of senior bipartisan diplomats, military officers, and former Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle issued a statement to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy about the importance of a credible military threat should Iran breach certain red lines. Let me quote from their statement. They said: Indeed, the Vienna negotiations are in danger of becoming a cover for Iran to move toward achieving a threshold nuclear weapons capability. . . . While the United States has recognized Iran's right to civilian nuclear power, Iran's behavior continues to indicate that it not only wants to preserve a nuclear weapons option but is actively moving toward developing that capability. Indeed, as the director- general of the International Atomic Energy Association, Rafael Grossi, has stated, Iran's decision to enrich uranium to 60 percent and to produce uranium metal has no justifiable civilian purpose. . . . Without convincing Iran it will suffer severe consequences if it stays on its current path, there is little reason to hope for the success of diplomacy. This is all from their statement. Therefore, for the sake of our diplomatic effort to resolve this crisis, we believe it is vital to restore Iran's fear that its current nuclear path will trigger the use of force against it by the United States. The challenge is how to restore U.S. credibility in the eyes of Iran's leaders. Words--including formulations that are more pointed and direct than ``all options are on the table''--are also necessary but not sufficient. In that context, we believe it is important for the Biden administration to take steps that lead Iran to believe that persisting in its current behavior and rejecting a reasonable diplomatic resolution will put to risk its entire nuclear infrastructure, one built painstakingly over the last three decades. Such steps may include orchestrating high-profile military exercises by the U.S. Central Command, potentially in concert with allies and partners, that simulate what would be involved in such a significant operation, including rehearsing air-to-ground attacks on hardened targets and the suppression of Iranian missile batteries. Also important would be to provide both local allies and partners as well as U.S. installations and assets in the region with enhanced defensive capabilities to counter whatever retaliatory actions Iran might choose to make, thereby signaling our readiness to act, if necessary. Perhaps most significantly, fulfilling past U.S. promises to act forcefully against other Iranian outrages, such as the drone attack by Iran-backed militias against the U.S. base at al-Tanf in Syria and Iran's illegal capture of merchant ships and killing unarmed seamen, might have the salutary impact of underscoring the seriousness of U.S. commitments to act on the nuclear issue. Again, I encourage everyone to read this statement from colleagues, congressional colleagues, military leaders, and diplomats on both sides of the aisle. Last year, following years of quiet cooperation and the narrowing of shared security concerns, the United States and our partners and allies welcomed Israel into the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. We have a number of shared interests--from maritime security to confronting a growing threat of ballistic missiles and UAVs--and we must continue to strengthen our bilateral and regional partnerships to ensure that we have all the means necessary to protect our interests. Moreover, we must forcefully and proportionately respond to Iran's ongoing attacks on our diplomatic and military facilities in Iraq and Syria. We will not fail to respond against direct attacks on the United States that threaten our diplomat and servicemembers. Full stop. Let me close by saying that the Iranian nuclear threat is real, and it has grown disproportionately worse by day. It is becoming a clear and present danger. The time is now to reinvigorate our multilateral sanctions efforts and pursue new avenues, new ideas, new solutions for a diplomatic resolution. But today, I call on the Biden administration and international community to vigorously and rigorously enforce sanctions, which have proven to be among the most potent tools for impacting Iran's leaders and the IRGC. We cannot allow Iran to threaten us into a bad deal or an interim agreement that allows it to continue to build its nuclear capacity, nor should we cling to the scope of an agreement that it seems some are holding on for nostalgia's sake. As I said 7 years ago, hope is not a national security strategy. In the words that I spoke in 2015, I said: Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ``hope''; hope that--when the nuclear sunset clause expires--Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration . . . Well, I hate to say, they have not. . . . hope that the hardliners will have lost their power and the revolution will end its hegemonic goals . . . They have not. . . . and hope that the regime will allow the Iranian people to decide their own fate. The hardliners are more entrenched, and they have not allowed the Iranian people to decide that future. Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy. The Iranian regime, led by the Ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its Revolution-- Unlike the Green Revolution of 2009. This is still true. So it stretches incredulity to believe they signed on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime or threaten the goals of the Revolution. They will not. I understand that this deal represents a trade-off, a hope that things [might] be different in Iran in 10-15 years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. But it has not. Maybe they'll stop exporting and supporting terrorism. But it has not. Maybe they'll stop holding innocent Americans hostage. But they have not. Maybe they'll stop burning American flags. But it has not. Maybe their leadership will stop chanting ``Death to America'' in the streets of Tehran. But it has not. Or the hope was maybe that they won't do those things. Well, they have continued to do all of those things. While there are so many crises brewing across the world, we cannot abandon our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and the arms race it will surely set off in the Middle East. We cannot ignore Iran's nefarious support for terrorism or accept threats to American interests and lives. We must welcome legitimate and verifiably peaceful uses of nuclear power but remain true to our nonproliferation principles and our unyielding desire to build a more stable, safer, prosperous world for the American people and for all peace-loving people to thrive. In order to do so, Iran cannot and must not possess a nuclear weapon. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MENENDEZ | Senate | CREC-2022-02-01-pt1-PgS456-3 | null | 3,901 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 2543. A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to add additional demographic reporting requirements, to modify the goals of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-228). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4590. A bill to require the Federal banking regulators to jointly conduct a study and develop a strategic plan to address challenges faced by proposed depository institutions seeking de novo depository institution charters; and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-229). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 1277. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the submission by issuers of data relating to diversity, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-230). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4685. A bill to require the Government Accountability Office to carry out a study on the impact of the gamification, psychological nudges, and other design techniques used by online trading platforms, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-231). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgH287 | null | 3,902 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 2543. A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to add additional demographic reporting requirements, to modify the goals of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-228). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4590. A bill to require the Federal banking regulators to jointly conduct a study and develop a strategic plan to address challenges faced by proposed depository institutions seeking de novo depository institution charters; and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-229). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 1277. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the submission by issuers of data relating to diversity, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-230). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4685. A bill to require the Government Accountability Office to carry out a study on the impact of the gamification, psychological nudges, and other design techniques used by online trading platforms, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-231). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgH287 | null | 3,903 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night was a reminder of a difficult but important reality of our great democracy: The march to freedom, through thick and thin, is never over--and we have to keep marching. While last night's vote was disappointing, it will not deter Senate Democrats from continuing our fight against voter suppression, dark money, and partisan gerrymandering. Democrats are proud of the fight we held last night. The strength, eloquence, enthusiasm, and overwhelming participation of my Democratic colleagues during debate was exhilarating and shows the passion we feel about this issue. Facing an uphill battle from the start, we lost the vote. But to have not voted would have been a far greater loss, a loss for our Democratic Party, which for generations has stood for voting rights; a loss for the civil rights advocates who have sacrificed so much on this issue; and a loss for the American people and what this country stands for. On an issue this important, not doing everything we could would have been unacceptable. Now, the bromides of the beltway class hold we should not have held a vote on voting rights if the outcome was not certain. They are wrong. Imagine telling Dr. King not to march from Selma to Montgomery because he could not be sure what obstacles awaited him and his fellow freedom fighters. Imagine telling John Lewis he should never have crossed the Pettus Bridge because it was unclear what perils awaited him on the other side. Every Member of this body who has ever invoked these great titans of freedom has an obligation--an obligation--to uphold their legacies not just with words but with actions. Senators were elected to vote. The examples of Dr. King, of John Lewis inspire us, give us strength, and show us that sometimes the only right option is to move forward. And we need to remember what this is about. With the advent of Donald Trump and his many Big Lies, with the January 6 insurrection, with the vicious acts of voter suppression throughout the States, and with the greedy dark money interests that fuel the Republican Party these days, this is a fight for the soul of America--nothing less. So Democrats will not shy away from an uphill fight; we will continue to face them. And I believe that the lessons of history are clear: When Representatives have to take a stand, when they have to show to the American people where they are on the issues, the right side of history ultimately prevails. We know history is on the side of voting rights, and we know that forcing leaders to take stands will ultimately move the ball forward. Now, finally, I want to thank all my colleagues who came to the floor yesterday to speak valiantly in defense of voting rights and for working assiduously for months on this vital issue: Senators Klobuchar and Merkley, Booker, Schatz, Senator Kaine--you, Mr. President--Senators King, Tester, Warnock, Ossoff, Durbin, Padilla, Leahy--and so many, so many more. Their leadership, their expertise, and their dedication to protecting our democracy is inspiring. It gives our caucus strength, and it made such a difference. Last night was unusual and exhilarating because we fought the good fight. As former Majority Leader Alben Barkley of Kentucky said 80 years ago this November, facing a filibuster, which successfully blocked anti-poll tax legislation--the majority leader, Alben Barkley, from Kentucky, said: I am glad I have made this fight. I have made it in behalf of what I believe to be the broad and true foundations of a true democracy. Senate Democrats fighting for voting rights is not over. We will keep fighting until voting rights are protected for every single American. And one day--hopefully, sooner rather than later--we will succeed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS357-7 | null | 3,904 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. McCONNELL. Today marks exactly 1 year since President Biden became our fourty-sixth President. This all-Democratic government has had 365 days to start delivering on some of their core promises. So what were those promises, in their own words? ``Crushing the virus,'' ``strengthen[ing] our alliances,'' and, above all else, ``lower[ing] the temperature'' and reuniting a divided country. Remember, upon taking office, this administration had historic tailwinds at its back. President Biden inherited lifesaving vaccines and a distribution system that was already up and running. He inherited a string of bipartisan rescue packages, including one that was only just a few days old. He inherited an economy that was prime for a roaring comeback. Those were the promises. That was the inheritance. So let's take a look at the progress report. Last spring, against expert advice, the Biden administration dumped another mountain of borrowed cash on an already white-hot economy. As a result, we are now being hammered by the worst inflation in 40 years. Practically everything families need and want have gotten much, much more expensive. Constant shortages disrupt family shopping. Households are being hit with soaring heating costs if they stay home and soaring gas prices if they go out. Our economic trajectory looks shakier today than it did when Democrats were sworn in. Of course, we have continued adding back jobs from COVID lockdowns. That was certainly going to happen. But job creation has massively underperformed Democrats' own projections for job creation with their super costly springtime stimulus package. When 2021 was said and done, the country had added roughly the same number of jobs that we were on track to create before Democrats implemented one policy or spent one dime. They managed to literally blow $1.9 trillion but only barely beat the starting trajectory they inherited. They call that spending a COVID package, but less than 10 percent of the money went to the actual medical fight, and that certainly shows. Americans are entering their third year of this pandemic with too few tests, too few treatments, too many new cases, and too many school closures; muddled guidance on boosters that caused FDA experts to resign in protest, and needless divisive vaccine mandates that were not even constitutional. One year in, the coronavirus is decidedly uncrushed. And COVID wasn't the only epidemic sweeping American streets. Take violent crime. Far-left rhetoric and anti-law-enforcement local policies have led major cities to set all-time records for homicide in 2021. Or take fentanyl. This deadly imported poison was the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, last year. The No. 1 killer of Americans in their prime--fentanyl. So why aren't Democrats treating this like an emergency? When was the last time President Biden even talked about this? And drug deaths are not the only consequence of our weak borders. Candidate Biden's rhetoric incentivized a historic flood of illegal immigration, and then President Biden's weak policies lit the fuse. The result? The biggest surge in illegal border crossings in 60 years--60 years. All these issues are priorities for American families, but the Biden administration spent most of 2021 focused on none of those. Washington Democrats spent months chasing a reckless taxing-and-spending spree packed with far-left policies that citizens never wanted. We spent half of 2021 trying and failing to blow $5 trillion on windmills and welfare. When that effort faded, Democrats abruptly pivoted and started shouting that American democracy was on death's door. They propagandized that some evil anti-voting conspiracy was sweeping America, and the only solution to this grand crisis was a gigantic partisan election takeover bill that Democrats had conveniently written years before the events which they say now prompted it. The American people didn't buy the fake hysteria. One-half of one percent of the country thinks election laws are our top issue. In fact, more Americans believe voting laws are too loose than too tight. Oh, but Democrats went all in on this obsession. A few days ago, the sitting President of the United States called millions of Americans his domestic enemies and analogized--analogized--U.S. Senators to Jefferson Davis. Well, last night, the fake panic drove 48 Senate Democrats to walk the plank on a failed effort to shatter the Senate itself for short-term power. And now Washington Democrats appear to be launching an absurd and reckless campaign to delegitimize the next election in advance, in case they lose it. Sound familiar? Yesterday, the President told reporters that he might not accept the 2022 election results as legitimate if his election takeover bills do not pass Congress first. It all sounds eerily familiar. This morning, the House majority whip followed suit. He was asked if the legitimacy of our elections is contingent on Washington Democrats passing these bills, and he replied: ``I am absolutely concerned about that.'' The Democrats who preached countless sermons about accepting voter decisions are now saying the midterms may be illegitimate, unless they win. So America, after all of this, do you feel unified? Do you feel healed? Do you feel like our core institutions are being protected? Now, Senate Republicans have met this administration more than halfway. In 2021, the Senate built and passed a major infrastructure bill. We passed bipartisan legislation on competing with China. But beyond that, this administration deliberately chose to build their wholegoverning strategy around the party-line reconciliation process. So the President cannot deflect blame for his disappointing first year. The American people know where the buck stops, and if our Democratic friends do not change course, before long, the buck will stop somewhere else. Now, on a related matter, President Biden also campaigned on strengthening America's partnerships and renewing our global leadership. Well, how has the administration done? The administration that campaigned on restoring alliances abandoned a coalition of loyal partners with its disastrous and fatal retreat from Afghanistan. The Biden administration green-lit Vladimir Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and the Democrats blocked us from sanctioning it. This pipeline will help Putin gain even more leverage over Western Europe and, of course, further isolate Ukraine. As we speak--right now--Putin has amassed more than 100,000 Russian troops along the border of Ukraine. If these forces cross into Ukraine, it will not be a new invasion or a ``re-invasion.'' It will represent a major escalation of an ongoing occupation. Ukraine has been fighting a Russian-backed war on its own now for 8 years. Eight years ago, I tried to warn President Obama that Putin is only deterred when the world imposes real costs--real costs--on his misbehavior. But the Biden Administration sent Ukraine nonlethal support, and the sanctions it imposed and coordinated proved not to be as tough as advertised. The Obama-Biden administration failed to end Putin's invasion or compel compliance with the Minsk accords. Now the Biden-Harris team must not repeat the Obama-Biden grave mistakes. But yesterday, on live television, President Biden telegraphed passivity--telegraphed passivity--and weakness, exactly when our allies can least afford it. Our President seemed to state--and, I pray, unintentionally--that he expects Putin to escalate in Ukraine, and, in any case, Putin can do what he wants. Here is what the President said: ``That decision is totally, solely, completely a Putin decision. . . . I suspect it matters which side of the bed he gets up on.'' What on Earth does that mean? Further, the President said: ``My guess is he will move in.'' The President said: ``My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.'' So President Biden thinks Putin has to do something. What does that even mean? Why is our President speculating like a passive observer on the sidelines? He isn't a pundit. He isn't Putin's psychoanalyst. He is the President of the United States. So will America hold Russia accountable if it escalates? Here was the message from our Commander in Chief: ``It depends on what Russia does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion''--a minor incursion--``and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.'' ``It is one thing if it is a minor incursion''? Does this mean President Biden will not actually authorize the tough response that his own administration officials have spent weeks--weeks--promising? This was a moment to deliver a powerful warning to the Kremlin that Ukraine's sovereignty is inviolable; that we would stand with her people; that the cost of escalation would be devastating. It was a moment to reassure our partners in Kiev and our allies along NATO's eastern flank that America had their back. It was a moment to call for NATO's unity, not to expose and appear hamstrung by NATO's divisions. It was a bizarre and devastating performance--especially, I would add--for our friends on the frontlines. President Zelensky's Defense Minister has already shot back. This is from Ukraine's Defense Minister: We should not give Putin the slightest chance to play with quasi-aggression or small incursion operations. This aggression was [already] there since 2014. This is the fact. I suspect our own Secretary of State, who is in Europe to meet with our allies and the Russian Foreign Minister--was also shocked by what the President had said. Minutes later, White House staff put out a frantic statement laying out a completely different position than what President Biden had just expressed. By then, of course, significant damage had been done. But, alas, the damage can be undone. The President of the United States is never powerless. President Biden needs to clean up his remarks. He needs to clearly state American resolve and clearly demonstrate American leadership. He should call President Zelensky and NATO's allies most threatened by Russian aggression. He should rally allies and partners around the world to defend Ukraine and the international system that is being threatened by Putin. His administration should be using every waking moment right now--right now--to expedite our delivery of real defensive capabilities to Ukraine. The President must cut the indecision and redtape that has slowed us and our partners down. President Biden should finally, at long last, get around to nominating an Ambassador to Ukraine, a position he has left empty for 12 crucial months. He should send U.S. forces to shore up NATO's eastern flank--not if--not if and when Putin escalates, but right now, before it is too late. He should encourage our treaty allies to do likewise. But while alliance unity is important, the lowest common denominator of NATO's most nervous members cannot be allowed to restrict American action. Whatever course other nations choose to chart, we cannot afford to let Moscow underestimate our resolve to impose serious--serious--crushing costs in response to any further incursion against Ukraine. Our friends and America's reputation deserve nothing less. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS358-3 | null | 3,905 |
formal | buck | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Today marks exactly 1 year since President Biden became our fourty-sixth President. This all-Democratic government has had 365 days to start delivering on some of their core promises. So what were those promises, in their own words? ``Crushing the virus,'' ``strengthen[ing] our alliances,'' and, above all else, ``lower[ing] the temperature'' and reuniting a divided country. Remember, upon taking office, this administration had historic tailwinds at its back. President Biden inherited lifesaving vaccines and a distribution system that was already up and running. He inherited a string of bipartisan rescue packages, including one that was only just a few days old. He inherited an economy that was prime for a roaring comeback. Those were the promises. That was the inheritance. So let's take a look at the progress report. Last spring, against expert advice, the Biden administration dumped another mountain of borrowed cash on an already white-hot economy. As a result, we are now being hammered by the worst inflation in 40 years. Practically everything families need and want have gotten much, much more expensive. Constant shortages disrupt family shopping. Households are being hit with soaring heating costs if they stay home and soaring gas prices if they go out. Our economic trajectory looks shakier today than it did when Democrats were sworn in. Of course, we have continued adding back jobs from COVID lockdowns. That was certainly going to happen. But job creation has massively underperformed Democrats' own projections for job creation with their super costly springtime stimulus package. When 2021 was said and done, the country had added roughly the same number of jobs that we were on track to create before Democrats implemented one policy or spent one dime. They managed to literally blow $1.9 trillion but only barely beat the starting trajectory they inherited. They call that spending a COVID package, but less than 10 percent of the money went to the actual medical fight, and that certainly shows. Americans are entering their third year of this pandemic with too few tests, too few treatments, too many new cases, and too many school closures; muddled guidance on boosters that caused FDA experts to resign in protest, and needless divisive vaccine mandates that were not even constitutional. One year in, the coronavirus is decidedly uncrushed. And COVID wasn't the only epidemic sweeping American streets. Take violent crime. Far-left rhetoric and anti-law-enforcement local policies have led major cities to set all-time records for homicide in 2021. Or take fentanyl. This deadly imported poison was the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, last year. The No. 1 killer of Americans in their prime--fentanyl. So why aren't Democrats treating this like an emergency? When was the last time President Biden even talked about this? And drug deaths are not the only consequence of our weak borders. Candidate Biden's rhetoric incentivized a historic flood of illegal immigration, and then President Biden's weak policies lit the fuse. The result? The biggest surge in illegal border crossings in 60 years--60 years. All these issues are priorities for American families, but the Biden administration spent most of 2021 focused on none of those. Washington Democrats spent months chasing a reckless taxing-and-spending spree packed with far-left policies that citizens never wanted. We spent half of 2021 trying and failing to blow $5 trillion on windmills and welfare. When that effort faded, Democrats abruptly pivoted and started shouting that American democracy was on death's door. They propagandized that some evil anti-voting conspiracy was sweeping America, and the only solution to this grand crisis was a gigantic partisan election takeover bill that Democrats had conveniently written years before the events which they say now prompted it. The American people didn't buy the fake hysteria. One-half of one percent of the country thinks election laws are our top issue. In fact, more Americans believe voting laws are too loose than too tight. Oh, but Democrats went all in on this obsession. A few days ago, the sitting President of the United States called millions of Americans his domestic enemies and analogized--analogized--U.S. Senators to Jefferson Davis. Well, last night, the fake panic drove 48 Senate Democrats to walk the plank on a failed effort to shatter the Senate itself for short-term power. And now Washington Democrats appear to be launching an absurd and reckless campaign to delegitimize the next election in advance, in case they lose it. Sound familiar? Yesterday, the President told reporters that he might not accept the 2022 election results as legitimate if his election takeover bills do not pass Congress first. It all sounds eerily familiar. This morning, the House majority whip followed suit. He was asked if the legitimacy of our elections is contingent on Washington Democrats passing these bills, and he replied: ``I am absolutely concerned about that.'' The Democrats who preached countless sermons about accepting voter decisions are now saying the midterms may be illegitimate, unless they win. So America, after all of this, do you feel unified? Do you feel healed? Do you feel like our core institutions are being protected? Now, Senate Republicans have met this administration more than halfway. In 2021, the Senate built and passed a major infrastructure bill. We passed bipartisan legislation on competing with China. But beyond that, this administration deliberately chose to build their wholegoverning strategy around the party-line reconciliation process. So the President cannot deflect blame for his disappointing first year. The American people know where the buck stops, and if our Democratic friends do not change course, before long, the buck will stop somewhere else. Now, on a related matter, President Biden also campaigned on strengthening America's partnerships and renewing our global leadership. Well, how has the administration done? The administration that campaigned on restoring alliances abandoned a coalition of loyal partners with its disastrous and fatal retreat from Afghanistan. The Biden administration green-lit Vladimir Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and the Democrats blocked us from sanctioning it. This pipeline will help Putin gain even more leverage over Western Europe and, of course, further isolate Ukraine. As we speak--right now--Putin has amassed more than 100,000 Russian troops along the border of Ukraine. If these forces cross into Ukraine, it will not be a new invasion or a ``re-invasion.'' It will represent a major escalation of an ongoing occupation. Ukraine has been fighting a Russian-backed war on its own now for 8 years. Eight years ago, I tried to warn President Obama that Putin is only deterred when the world imposes real costs--real costs--on his misbehavior. But the Biden Administration sent Ukraine nonlethal support, and the sanctions it imposed and coordinated proved not to be as tough as advertised. The Obama-Biden administration failed to end Putin's invasion or compel compliance with the Minsk accords. Now the Biden-Harris team must not repeat the Obama-Biden grave mistakes. But yesterday, on live television, President Biden telegraphed passivity--telegraphed passivity--and weakness, exactly when our allies can least afford it. Our President seemed to state--and, I pray, unintentionally--that he expects Putin to escalate in Ukraine, and, in any case, Putin can do what he wants. Here is what the President said: ``That decision is totally, solely, completely a Putin decision. . . . I suspect it matters which side of the bed he gets up on.'' What on Earth does that mean? Further, the President said: ``My guess is he will move in.'' The President said: ``My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.'' So President Biden thinks Putin has to do something. What does that even mean? Why is our President speculating like a passive observer on the sidelines? He isn't a pundit. He isn't Putin's psychoanalyst. He is the President of the United States. So will America hold Russia accountable if it escalates? Here was the message from our Commander in Chief: ``It depends on what Russia does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion''--a minor incursion--``and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.'' ``It is one thing if it is a minor incursion''? Does this mean President Biden will not actually authorize the tough response that his own administration officials have spent weeks--weeks--promising? This was a moment to deliver a powerful warning to the Kremlin that Ukraine's sovereignty is inviolable; that we would stand with her people; that the cost of escalation would be devastating. It was a moment to reassure our partners in Kiev and our allies along NATO's eastern flank that America had their back. It was a moment to call for NATO's unity, not to expose and appear hamstrung by NATO's divisions. It was a bizarre and devastating performance--especially, I would add--for our friends on the frontlines. President Zelensky's Defense Minister has already shot back. This is from Ukraine's Defense Minister: We should not give Putin the slightest chance to play with quasi-aggression or small incursion operations. This aggression was [already] there since 2014. This is the fact. I suspect our own Secretary of State, who is in Europe to meet with our allies and the Russian Foreign Minister--was also shocked by what the President had said. Minutes later, White House staff put out a frantic statement laying out a completely different position than what President Biden had just expressed. By then, of course, significant damage had been done. But, alas, the damage can be undone. The President of the United States is never powerless. President Biden needs to clean up his remarks. He needs to clearly state American resolve and clearly demonstrate American leadership. He should call President Zelensky and NATO's allies most threatened by Russian aggression. He should rally allies and partners around the world to defend Ukraine and the international system that is being threatened by Putin. His administration should be using every waking moment right now--right now--to expedite our delivery of real defensive capabilities to Ukraine. The President must cut the indecision and redtape that has slowed us and our partners down. President Biden should finally, at long last, get around to nominating an Ambassador to Ukraine, a position he has left empty for 12 crucial months. He should send U.S. forces to shore up NATO's eastern flank--not if--not if and when Putin escalates, but right now, before it is too late. He should encourage our treaty allies to do likewise. But while alliance unity is important, the lowest common denominator of NATO's most nervous members cannot be allowed to restrict American action. Whatever course other nations choose to chart, we cannot afford to let Moscow underestimate our resolve to impose serious--serious--crushing costs in response to any further incursion against Ukraine. Our friends and America's reputation deserve nothing less. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS358-3 | null | 3,906 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Today marks exactly 1 year since President Biden became our fourty-sixth President. This all-Democratic government has had 365 days to start delivering on some of their core promises. So what were those promises, in their own words? ``Crushing the virus,'' ``strengthen[ing] our alliances,'' and, above all else, ``lower[ing] the temperature'' and reuniting a divided country. Remember, upon taking office, this administration had historic tailwinds at its back. President Biden inherited lifesaving vaccines and a distribution system that was already up and running. He inherited a string of bipartisan rescue packages, including one that was only just a few days old. He inherited an economy that was prime for a roaring comeback. Those were the promises. That was the inheritance. So let's take a look at the progress report. Last spring, against expert advice, the Biden administration dumped another mountain of borrowed cash on an already white-hot economy. As a result, we are now being hammered by the worst inflation in 40 years. Practically everything families need and want have gotten much, much more expensive. Constant shortages disrupt family shopping. Households are being hit with soaring heating costs if they stay home and soaring gas prices if they go out. Our economic trajectory looks shakier today than it did when Democrats were sworn in. Of course, we have continued adding back jobs from COVID lockdowns. That was certainly going to happen. But job creation has massively underperformed Democrats' own projections for job creation with their super costly springtime stimulus package. When 2021 was said and done, the country had added roughly the same number of jobs that we were on track to create before Democrats implemented one policy or spent one dime. They managed to literally blow $1.9 trillion but only barely beat the starting trajectory they inherited. They call that spending a COVID package, but less than 10 percent of the money went to the actual medical fight, and that certainly shows. Americans are entering their third year of this pandemic with too few tests, too few treatments, too many new cases, and too many school closures; muddled guidance on boosters that caused FDA experts to resign in protest, and needless divisive vaccine mandates that were not even constitutional. One year in, the coronavirus is decidedly uncrushed. And COVID wasn't the only epidemic sweeping American streets. Take violent crime. Far-left rhetoric and anti-law-enforcement local policies have led major cities to set all-time records for homicide in 2021. Or take fentanyl. This deadly imported poison was the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, last year. The No. 1 killer of Americans in their prime--fentanyl. So why aren't Democrats treating this like an emergency? When was the last time President Biden even talked about this? And drug deaths are not the only consequence of our weak borders. Candidate Biden's rhetoric incentivized a historic flood of illegal immigration, and then President Biden's weak policies lit the fuse. The result? The biggest surge in illegal border crossings in 60 years--60 years. All these issues are priorities for American families, but the Biden administration spent most of 2021 focused on none of those. Washington Democrats spent months chasing a reckless taxing-and-spending spree packed with far-left policies that citizens never wanted. We spent half of 2021 trying and failing to blow $5 trillion on windmills and welfare. When that effort faded, Democrats abruptly pivoted and started shouting that American democracy was on death's door. They propagandized that some evil anti-voting conspiracy was sweeping America, and the only solution to this grand crisis was a gigantic partisan election takeover bill that Democrats had conveniently written years before the events which they say now prompted it. The American people didn't buy the fake hysteria. One-half of one percent of the country thinks election laws are our top issue. In fact, more Americans believe voting laws are too loose than too tight. Oh, but Democrats went all in on this obsession. A few days ago, the sitting President of the United States called millions of Americans his domestic enemies and analogized--analogized--U.S. Senators to Jefferson Davis. Well, last night, the fake panic drove 48 Senate Democrats to walk the plank on a failed effort to shatter the Senate itself for short-term power. And now Washington Democrats appear to be launching an absurd and reckless campaign to delegitimize the next election in advance, in case they lose it. Sound familiar? Yesterday, the President told reporters that he might not accept the 2022 election results as legitimate if his election takeover bills do not pass Congress first. It all sounds eerily familiar. This morning, the House majority whip followed suit. He was asked if the legitimacy of our elections is contingent on Washington Democrats passing these bills, and he replied: ``I am absolutely concerned about that.'' The Democrats who preached countless sermons about accepting voter decisions are now saying the midterms may be illegitimate, unless they win. So America, after all of this, do you feel unified? Do you feel healed? Do you feel like our core institutions are being protected? Now, Senate Republicans have met this administration more than halfway. In 2021, the Senate built and passed a major infrastructure bill. We passed bipartisan legislation on competing with China. But beyond that, this administration deliberately chose to build their wholegoverning strategy around the party-line reconciliation process. So the President cannot deflect blame for his disappointing first year. The American people know where the buck stops, and if our Democratic friends do not change course, before long, the buck will stop somewhere else. Now, on a related matter, President Biden also campaigned on strengthening America's partnerships and renewing our global leadership. Well, how has the administration done? The administration that campaigned on restoring alliances abandoned a coalition of loyal partners with its disastrous and fatal retreat from Afghanistan. The Biden administration green-lit Vladimir Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and the Democrats blocked us from sanctioning it. This pipeline will help Putin gain even more leverage over Western Europe and, of course, further isolate Ukraine. As we speak--right now--Putin has amassed more than 100,000 Russian troops along the border of Ukraine. If these forces cross into Ukraine, it will not be a new invasion or a ``re-invasion.'' It will represent a major escalation of an ongoing occupation. Ukraine has been fighting a Russian-backed war on its own now for 8 years. Eight years ago, I tried to warn President Obama that Putin is only deterred when the world imposes real costs--real costs--on his misbehavior. But the Biden Administration sent Ukraine nonlethal support, and the sanctions it imposed and coordinated proved not to be as tough as advertised. The Obama-Biden administration failed to end Putin's invasion or compel compliance with the Minsk accords. Now the Biden-Harris team must not repeat the Obama-Biden grave mistakes. But yesterday, on live television, President Biden telegraphed passivity--telegraphed passivity--and weakness, exactly when our allies can least afford it. Our President seemed to state--and, I pray, unintentionally--that he expects Putin to escalate in Ukraine, and, in any case, Putin can do what he wants. Here is what the President said: ``That decision is totally, solely, completely a Putin decision. . . . I suspect it matters which side of the bed he gets up on.'' What on Earth does that mean? Further, the President said: ``My guess is he will move in.'' The President said: ``My guess is he will move in. He has to do something.'' So President Biden thinks Putin has to do something. What does that even mean? Why is our President speculating like a passive observer on the sidelines? He isn't a pundit. He isn't Putin's psychoanalyst. He is the President of the United States. So will America hold Russia accountable if it escalates? Here was the message from our Commander in Chief: ``It depends on what Russia does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion''--a minor incursion--``and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera.'' ``It is one thing if it is a minor incursion''? Does this mean President Biden will not actually authorize the tough response that his own administration officials have spent weeks--weeks--promising? This was a moment to deliver a powerful warning to the Kremlin that Ukraine's sovereignty is inviolable; that we would stand with her people; that the cost of escalation would be devastating. It was a moment to reassure our partners in Kiev and our allies along NATO's eastern flank that America had their back. It was a moment to call for NATO's unity, not to expose and appear hamstrung by NATO's divisions. It was a bizarre and devastating performance--especially, I would add--for our friends on the frontlines. President Zelensky's Defense Minister has already shot back. This is from Ukraine's Defense Minister: We should not give Putin the slightest chance to play with quasi-aggression or small incursion operations. This aggression was [already] there since 2014. This is the fact. I suspect our own Secretary of State, who is in Europe to meet with our allies and the Russian Foreign Minister--was also shocked by what the President had said. Minutes later, White House staff put out a frantic statement laying out a completely different position than what President Biden had just expressed. By then, of course, significant damage had been done. But, alas, the damage can be undone. The President of the United States is never powerless. President Biden needs to clean up his remarks. He needs to clearly state American resolve and clearly demonstrate American leadership. He should call President Zelensky and NATO's allies most threatened by Russian aggression. He should rally allies and partners around the world to defend Ukraine and the international system that is being threatened by Putin. His administration should be using every waking moment right now--right now--to expedite our delivery of real defensive capabilities to Ukraine. The President must cut the indecision and redtape that has slowed us and our partners down. President Biden should finally, at long last, get around to nominating an Ambassador to Ukraine, a position he has left empty for 12 crucial months. He should send U.S. forces to shore up NATO's eastern flank--not if--not if and when Putin escalates, but right now, before it is too late. He should encourage our treaty allies to do likewise. But while alliance unity is important, the lowest common denominator of NATO's most nervous members cannot be allowed to restrict American action. Whatever course other nations choose to chart, we cannot afford to let Moscow underestimate our resolve to impose serious--serious--crushing costs in response to any further incursion against Ukraine. Our friends and America's reputation deserve nothing less. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS358-3 | null | 3,907 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Biden Administration Mr. President, on another matter, it was 1 year ago today when we were all on the Capitol steps on a cold January 20, 2020, following the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States and Kamala Harris as Vice President. Exactly 365 days ago, we were out there on the Capitol steps and heard what I believed to be an important and welcomed speech by the President, where the President said he would serve to be a unifying force in Washington. He said: [W]ithout unity there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos. Wonderful, inspirational words. But now we find ourselves, a year into the Biden administration, with a lot of bitterness, fury, and outrage over the many failures and missteps of this administration. One of the pillars of the President's campaign was the promise of a strong Federal response to the pandemic. Mr. Biden said: I am never going to raise the white flag and surrender. We're going to beat this virus. We're going to get it under control, I promise you. That is a quote. One year later, we are nowhere close to having this virus under control. New daily cases are breaking records, threatening the capacity of intensive care units and hospitals across the country. Healthcare workers are once again exhausted after having been pushed to their limits--mentally and physically. And, perhaps most embarrassingly, affordable, reliable tests are increasingly hard to come by. We know testing is one of the most valuable resources we have when it comes to this virus. I remember calling my Governor, and I said: What do you need, Governor? This is at the beginning of the pandemic. He said: I need two things. He said: I need testing, and I need PPE--personal protective equipment. Well, that is another story about our vulnerable supply chains and the fact that we have outsourced the manufacturing of personal protective equipment to China, which is the main reason we had a lack of access to what we needed. But as to testing, the sooner positive cases are identified, the better equipped we are as individuals to quarantine ourselves, seek medical attention--if necessary--or, if all else fails, to just ride out the virus without infecting other people. Even before taking the oath of office, President Biden promised to make free testing widely available. But months and months went by without the President taking any significant action to prevent the current testing shortage. Last month, the White House Press Secretary even mocked a reporter who asked if the United States should provide free at-home tests, just as other countries have done around the world. It looks like it took swift criticism of her remark to finally prompt some action. Just a couple of days ago, the White House launched a website for people who wanted to request free at-home tests. But I am afraid it is a case of too little, too late. Many experts have said that Omicron has already peaked in parts of the country. By the time these tests ship, which the website says could take 7 to 12 days, we will be even closer to the beginning of the end of this current wave of Omicron. Instead, the White House could have purchased and distributed massive quantities of tests at any point over the last year, but it did not do so. Increased access to testing could have lessened the impact of the Omicron variant over the summer as well as the contagious variant that we are confronting today. So it shouldn't take bad press to force the administration to action, especially when they made a commitment to free testing early on but, obviously, were unprepared for Omicron and the wave of new cases. Unfortunately, the President has broken another big promise about his plan to address the pandemic. He vowed that public health decisions would be made by public health professionals, not politicians. Once again, things have played out quite a bit differently. Here is one example. Last February, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that said that schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19 and that as long as precautions are taken, schools could open safely. Well, Congress did not skimp when it came to providing financial resources to the States and school districts to take those appropriate precautions to help preserve the safety of our children. But the science was at odds with the demands of a key political constituency--teachers unions, which wanted schools to remain closed even if the teachers were vaccinated and appropriate safety measures could be taken to protect the schoolchildren. We all know which side the administration chose. It ignored the science and stood with their political constituency, the teachers' unions. When the President's big promise of a strong pandemic response failed to meet the need, he shifted the responsibility to the States. He said: I am going to do it. The Federal Government is going to do it. But then, amazingly, pivoted and said: Well, this is not my responsibility. This is not the Federal Government's responsibility. This is the State's responsibility. Just a few weeks ago, he actually said these words. He said: There is no Federal solution. This gets solved at the State level. I am sure the American people were flabbergasted at the answer and his obvious flip-flop. President Biden pledged to lead a strong pandemic response when it helped his chances of getting elected, but now that he is actually in office and has the power and authority to follow through, he is folding his hand and pointing the finger at others. The Biden administration has fumbled the ball time after time. It has chipped away at our energy security. When you saw prices rise at the pump because of inflation or because demand of refined petroleum products exceeded supply, he actually went so far as to encourage Russia and OPEC to produce more oil and gas. At the same time, he was all about canceling the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Nord Stream 2--the Russian pipeline--providing gas to Germany, he is all for it. When it comes to domestic pipelines providing oil and gas to refineries so they can produce gasoline so that people can drive their cars at an affordable price, he is not for it. Additionally, this administration has failed to address the humanitarian crisis at the border, in an astonishingly blase sort of way. It doesn't even seem to get a rise out of this administration anymore--the numbers are so high. There are 2 million-plus people apprehended at the border, with no real impediment or deterrent or discouraging words to keep them from entering the country illegally. And then there is the fumbling of diplomatic relations, insulting some of our oldest allies and emboldening our biggest adversaries. The biggest example of that was ceding the war in Afghanistan to the Taliban in the most humiliating way possible. So the list of missteps and failures during this last 365 days has been a long one, indeed. But perhaps the biggest disappointment was in not delivering what President Biden promised the American people 1 year ago today, and that is to be a unifying force for our country. He promised, as we all heard, to bring people of different backgrounds and ideologies and beliefs together and to find common ground. It actually made sense to make a virtue out of something that a 50-50 Senate would ordinarily dictate, and that is: When you can't have your own way because you don't have the votes, then make a virtue out of working together and actually pass bipartisan legislation. He actually went so far as to point to his record in the Senate as evidence of his ability to work across the aisle and broker bipartisan deals, but it didn't take long for the American people to find out that these were, by and large, empty words. Less than 2 months into his Presidency, our colleagues across the aisle took a hammer to Congress's perfect record of bipartisan pandemic response. That was during the previous administration. Almost everything we did was bipartisan, virtually unanimous, when it came to responding to the pandemic. First, our colleagues spent nearly $2 trillion on a bill that even though it was framed as COVID-19 response, committed less than 10 percent of that funding to COVID-19 and only 1 percent to vaccines. But that blowout, $2 trillion, wasn't enough. The President tried and failed, along with his political allies, to advance the so-called Build Back Better agenda. While trying to sell this radical plan to the American people, President Biden continued to make big promises, most of which were not credible. He said, for example, that this multitrillion-dollar bill cost zero dollars. Nobody--nobody--believed that. But here it was, the President of the United States, embarrassingly, for himself and others, was saying that $5 trillion is really zero dollars. He said it wouldn't increase the deficit. And he said anyone making less than $400,000 a year would not pay a single penny more in income tax. All of these claims turned out to be false. And in the end, Democrats couldn't muster enough support to get the bill to the President's desk--again, not particularly surprising to those who have been observers of the Senate for a while. A 50-50 Senate should tell you that the only way you are going to get things done is through bipartisan consensus building, not trying to do things all on your own with 50 votes in the Senate, plus a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President. But that didn't stop our colleagues from turning to yet another partisan bill--this time, one to launch a Federal takeover of State-run elections. Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues brought this bill up for a vote in the Senate and, of course, as we now know, it failed to garner sufficient votes to pass. But no one should be surprised, especially because this bill was drafted by one party in a 50-50 Senate. And then when the bill failed, as we all knew it would, our Democratic colleagues took their penchant for partisanship to an entirely new level. With the President's blessing, somebody who served more than three decades in the Senate and who railed against efforts to eliminate the filibuster, the 60-vote bipartisan consensus requirement before bills can be advanced--the President, in spite of his previous comments supporting that requirement, the so-called filibuster--this time, with the President's blessing, Senate Democrats tried to change the rules of the Senate to secure a purely partisan win. What we witnessed in the Senate yesterday evening was a remarkable show of priorities of our Democratic colleagues. Forget the rules, forget compromise, forget consensus building, and forget the traditions of this institution, our Democratic colleagues proved that they are willing to taking a wrecking ball to this Chamber in pursuit of power. It is no wonder that President Biden's approval ratings continue to plummet. One recent poll found that only 33 percent of the respondents to that poll approved of the job that he was doing. After all, after everything the President promised, and with his dismal record of actually delivering on that promise, it is hardly surprising that the American people are disappointed. In addition, inflation is up, wages are being eaten away by inflation, eroding the cost of living, and our country feels more divided than ever, despite the President's extravagant promises 1 year ago today, just out here on these steps. The man who positioned himself as an experienced, unifying leader for the country has spent virtually all his time pursuing partisan ends. As a result, the Democratic Senate majority has wasted a lot of valuable time. I am disappointed by the wasted opportunities during the past year. Floor time in the U.S. Senate is a precious commodity. It is the coin of the realm. There are a lot of great ideas that occur outside of this Chamber, but unless it can get time on the floor, it doesn't happen. But rather than taking up bills that did have that proud, bipartisan support, wasting time on purely partisan bills has resulted in very few accomplishments. I can only hope that the second year of the Biden administration will bring more bipartisan cooperation. Hopefully, the administration can learn from its mistakes of the last year. This parade of dead-on-arrival legislation isn't helping the American people. The only way we can accomplish anything is by working together and building consensus. Again, voters elected a 50-50 Senate, a closely divided House, and a President who promised to bring people of different views together. Let's hope this next year, the second year of the Biden administration, the President will see fit, along with our Democratic colleagues, to deliver on that commitment made 1 year ago today. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS370 | null | 3,908 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Biden Administration Mr. President, on another matter, it was 1 year ago today when we were all on the Capitol steps on a cold January 20, 2020, following the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States and Kamala Harris as Vice President. Exactly 365 days ago, we were out there on the Capitol steps and heard what I believed to be an important and welcomed speech by the President, where the President said he would serve to be a unifying force in Washington. He said: [W]ithout unity there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. No progress, only exhausting outrage. No nation, only a state of chaos. Wonderful, inspirational words. But now we find ourselves, a year into the Biden administration, with a lot of bitterness, fury, and outrage over the many failures and missteps of this administration. One of the pillars of the President's campaign was the promise of a strong Federal response to the pandemic. Mr. Biden said: I am never going to raise the white flag and surrender. We're going to beat this virus. We're going to get it under control, I promise you. That is a quote. One year later, we are nowhere close to having this virus under control. New daily cases are breaking records, threatening the capacity of intensive care units and hospitals across the country. Healthcare workers are once again exhausted after having been pushed to their limits--mentally and physically. And, perhaps most embarrassingly, affordable, reliable tests are increasingly hard to come by. We know testing is one of the most valuable resources we have when it comes to this virus. I remember calling my Governor, and I said: What do you need, Governor? This is at the beginning of the pandemic. He said: I need two things. He said: I need testing, and I need PPE--personal protective equipment. Well, that is another story about our vulnerable supply chains and the fact that we have outsourced the manufacturing of personal protective equipment to China, which is the main reason we had a lack of access to what we needed. But as to testing, the sooner positive cases are identified, the better equipped we are as individuals to quarantine ourselves, seek medical attention--if necessary--or, if all else fails, to just ride out the virus without infecting other people. Even before taking the oath of office, President Biden promised to make free testing widely available. But months and months went by without the President taking any significant action to prevent the current testing shortage. Last month, the White House Press Secretary even mocked a reporter who asked if the United States should provide free at-home tests, just as other countries have done around the world. It looks like it took swift criticism of her remark to finally prompt some action. Just a couple of days ago, the White House launched a website for people who wanted to request free at-home tests. But I am afraid it is a case of too little, too late. Many experts have said that Omicron has already peaked in parts of the country. By the time these tests ship, which the website says could take 7 to 12 days, we will be even closer to the beginning of the end of this current wave of Omicron. Instead, the White House could have purchased and distributed massive quantities of tests at any point over the last year, but it did not do so. Increased access to testing could have lessened the impact of the Omicron variant over the summer as well as the contagious variant that we are confronting today. So it shouldn't take bad press to force the administration to action, especially when they made a commitment to free testing early on but, obviously, were unprepared for Omicron and the wave of new cases. Unfortunately, the President has broken another big promise about his plan to address the pandemic. He vowed that public health decisions would be made by public health professionals, not politicians. Once again, things have played out quite a bit differently. Here is one example. Last February, the Centers for Disease Control released a report that said that schools are not a breeding ground for COVID-19 and that as long as precautions are taken, schools could open safely. Well, Congress did not skimp when it came to providing financial resources to the States and school districts to take those appropriate precautions to help preserve the safety of our children. But the science was at odds with the demands of a key political constituency--teachers unions, which wanted schools to remain closed even if the teachers were vaccinated and appropriate safety measures could be taken to protect the schoolchildren. We all know which side the administration chose. It ignored the science and stood with their political constituency, the teachers' unions. When the President's big promise of a strong pandemic response failed to meet the need, he shifted the responsibility to the States. He said: I am going to do it. The Federal Government is going to do it. But then, amazingly, pivoted and said: Well, this is not my responsibility. This is not the Federal Government's responsibility. This is the State's responsibility. Just a few weeks ago, he actually said these words. He said: There is no Federal solution. This gets solved at the State level. I am sure the American people were flabbergasted at the answer and his obvious flip-flop. President Biden pledged to lead a strong pandemic response when it helped his chances of getting elected, but now that he is actually in office and has the power and authority to follow through, he is folding his hand and pointing the finger at others. The Biden administration has fumbled the ball time after time. It has chipped away at our energy security. When you saw prices rise at the pump because of inflation or because demand of refined petroleum products exceeded supply, he actually went so far as to encourage Russia and OPEC to produce more oil and gas. At the same time, he was all about canceling the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline. Nord Stream 2--the Russian pipeline--providing gas to Germany, he is all for it. When it comes to domestic pipelines providing oil and gas to refineries so they can produce gasoline so that people can drive their cars at an affordable price, he is not for it. Additionally, this administration has failed to address the humanitarian crisis at the border, in an astonishingly blase sort of way. It doesn't even seem to get a rise out of this administration anymore--the numbers are so high. There are 2 million-plus people apprehended at the border, with no real impediment or deterrent or discouraging words to keep them from entering the country illegally. And then there is the fumbling of diplomatic relations, insulting some of our oldest allies and emboldening our biggest adversaries. The biggest example of that was ceding the war in Afghanistan to the Taliban in the most humiliating way possible. So the list of missteps and failures during this last 365 days has been a long one, indeed. But perhaps the biggest disappointment was in not delivering what President Biden promised the American people 1 year ago today, and that is to be a unifying force for our country. He promised, as we all heard, to bring people of different backgrounds and ideologies and beliefs together and to find common ground. It actually made sense to make a virtue out of something that a 50-50 Senate would ordinarily dictate, and that is: When you can't have your own way because you don't have the votes, then make a virtue out of working together and actually pass bipartisan legislation. He actually went so far as to point to his record in the Senate as evidence of his ability to work across the aisle and broker bipartisan deals, but it didn't take long for the American people to find out that these were, by and large, empty words. Less than 2 months into his Presidency, our colleagues across the aisle took a hammer to Congress's perfect record of bipartisan pandemic response. That was during the previous administration. Almost everything we did was bipartisan, virtually unanimous, when it came to responding to the pandemic. First, our colleagues spent nearly $2 trillion on a bill that even though it was framed as COVID-19 response, committed less than 10 percent of that funding to COVID-19 and only 1 percent to vaccines. But that blowout, $2 trillion, wasn't enough. The President tried and failed, along with his political allies, to advance the so-called Build Back Better agenda. While trying to sell this radical plan to the American people, President Biden continued to make big promises, most of which were not credible. He said, for example, that this multitrillion-dollar bill cost zero dollars. Nobody--nobody--believed that. But here it was, the President of the United States, embarrassingly, for himself and others, was saying that $5 trillion is really zero dollars. He said it wouldn't increase the deficit. And he said anyone making less than $400,000 a year would not pay a single penny more in income tax. All of these claims turned out to be false. And in the end, Democrats couldn't muster enough support to get the bill to the President's desk--again, not particularly surprising to those who have been observers of the Senate for a while. A 50-50 Senate should tell you that the only way you are going to get things done is through bipartisan consensus building, not trying to do things all on your own with 50 votes in the Senate, plus a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President. But that didn't stop our colleagues from turning to yet another partisan bill--this time, one to launch a Federal takeover of State-run elections. Yesterday, our Democratic colleagues brought this bill up for a vote in the Senate and, of course, as we now know, it failed to garner sufficient votes to pass. But no one should be surprised, especially because this bill was drafted by one party in a 50-50 Senate. And then when the bill failed, as we all knew it would, our Democratic colleagues took their penchant for partisanship to an entirely new level. With the President's blessing, somebody who served more than three decades in the Senate and who railed against efforts to eliminate the filibuster, the 60-vote bipartisan consensus requirement before bills can be advanced--the President, in spite of his previous comments supporting that requirement, the so-called filibuster--this time, with the President's blessing, Senate Democrats tried to change the rules of the Senate to secure a purely partisan win. What we witnessed in the Senate yesterday evening was a remarkable show of priorities of our Democratic colleagues. Forget the rules, forget compromise, forget consensus building, and forget the traditions of this institution, our Democratic colleagues proved that they are willing to taking a wrecking ball to this Chamber in pursuit of power. It is no wonder that President Biden's approval ratings continue to plummet. One recent poll found that only 33 percent of the respondents to that poll approved of the job that he was doing. After all, after everything the President promised, and with his dismal record of actually delivering on that promise, it is hardly surprising that the American people are disappointed. In addition, inflation is up, wages are being eaten away by inflation, eroding the cost of living, and our country feels more divided than ever, despite the President's extravagant promises 1 year ago today, just out here on these steps. The man who positioned himself as an experienced, unifying leader for the country has spent virtually all his time pursuing partisan ends. As a result, the Democratic Senate majority has wasted a lot of valuable time. I am disappointed by the wasted opportunities during the past year. Floor time in the U.S. Senate is a precious commodity. It is the coin of the realm. There are a lot of great ideas that occur outside of this Chamber, but unless it can get time on the floor, it doesn't happen. But rather than taking up bills that did have that proud, bipartisan support, wasting time on purely partisan bills has resulted in very few accomplishments. I can only hope that the second year of the Biden administration will bring more bipartisan cooperation. Hopefully, the administration can learn from its mistakes of the last year. This parade of dead-on-arrival legislation isn't helping the American people. The only way we can accomplish anything is by working together and building consensus. Again, voters elected a 50-50 Senate, a closely divided House, and a President who promised to bring people of different views together. Let's hope this next year, the second year of the Biden administration, the President will see fit, along with our Democratic colleagues, to deliver on that commitment made 1 year ago today. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS370 | null | 3,909 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I often hear from people in Wyoming who are concerned about the changes being proposed in Washington, DC. When the Federal Government changes the rules, authorities, or standards, it can significantly impact critical Wyoming industries. In the ``Wyoming Livestock Roundup,'' a weekly news source for Wyoming's ranchers, farmers, and Agribusiness community, Sarah L. Falen authored an opinion editorial titled ``The Government's Word: Should We Trust It.'' She raises concerns about the Biden administration's rule revoking the Trump administration policy prohibiting prosecution for accidentally harming migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While there has been a lot of discussion about the impact on the energy industries, Sarah Falen points out how the new rule could affect the agriculture industry. It is important that Congress note these consequences and the uncertainty created by the Biden administration's rule. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the opinion editorial written by Sarah L. Falen. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS379 | null | 3,910 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, on Monday, our Nation celebrated the life and legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Like many Americans, it was a day of self-reflection for me. While leading a bipartisan delegation to Ukraine, I had a front-row seat to a nation struggling to hold on to its democracy in the face of a potential outside attack. This comes at a very poignant moment in America's history when we were reminded of the strength and fragility of our own democracy. One year ago, a violent mob fueled by false claims of widespread election fraud stormed the U.S. Capitol. This was the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812. Although State and Federal judges ruled against efforts to overturn the results of the election, this lie of election fraud has continued to propagate. And now, those who didn't like the 2020 election results are trying to rewrite the rules. Since the 2020 elections, Republican State lawmakers have passed an unprecedented number of bills to erode the authority of state and local election officials. These new laws would strip secretaries of state of their authority, allow partisan ballot reviews, and even make local election officials criminally or financially liable for technical errors and actions, such as proactively sending out absentee ballot applications. In total, 19 States have passed regressive laws that make it harder to vote and, in some extreme cases, may even allow Republican-controlled legislatures to overturn the results of a legitimate election by using false claims of voter fraud. In New Hampshire, over the past year, we have seen efforts to eliminate same-day voter registration, a measure that would disproportionately impact young voters, including college students and first-time voters. Similarly, other efforts to prohibit students attending college in New Hampshire from voting in our State's elections would unduly burden--if not outright disenfranchise--many of those young voters. Other attempts to make voter registration more complicated have failed in court, including requirements for additional documentation for same-day registrants, and restrictions on which types of addresses are valid for registration. These efforts are ongoing, with additional restrictive and burdensome measures being introduced as recently as the current legislative session. And it is not just our voter laws. Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled New Hampshire House approved a redistricting plan that can only be described as gerrymandering. Taken together, these measures represent a comprehensive and coordinated attempt to burden--or even deprive--certain Granite State citizens of their right to vote. Such blatant efforts to suppress the vote must not be tolerated. The right to vote is one of the most fundamental and cherished principles of our democracy. The history of our Republic is marked by those seminal moments when we as a nation extended the right to cast a ballot to broader populations, thereby including more voices in our representative government: first after the Civil War with the 15th Amendment, then to women with the 19th Amendment, and then notably with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As others have noted, the Voting Rights Act has historically drawn great bipartisan support for its reauthorization because the principles embodied in it go to the very heart of our democracy. But the issues and challenges that are increasingly facing our voters are very real and very troubling--and we must take them seriously or risk eroding that most fundamental of rights. Making voter registration more difficult or making the process of voting more burdensome has disproportionate effects on some of the most vulnerable voters--whether those be young voters, communities of color, the poor, the homeless, among others. Eliminating or limiting opportunities for early voting, same-day registration, voting by mail, automatic registration, or the use of absentee ballots are all different pathways to the same pernicious effect--the suppression of the vote. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Together, these bills would standardize voting election laws across the country, expand voting access and restore key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that have been struck down or weakened by the Supreme Court. The right to vote isn't determined by political affiliation. It is the most sacred right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution for every eligible American and ensures that our country is, as President Lincoln said, ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' I am deeply disappointed by the inability--or unwillingness--of this august body to come together today to take this basic step in defense of our democracy. We, the U.S. Senate, ought to be the foremost champions and defenders of democracy, but today, I fear that we have allowed partisan considerations to distract us from that duty. We cannot afford to stay silent and ignore these measures that attempt to undo the progress that we have made over decades. We especially cannot stay silent when all of us here witnessed the horrific events of January 2021 and the attempt to undo a legitimate election. Protecting voting rights for every American is the first and irreplaceable step towards protecting our democracy. We must take it seriously, we must not let it wither in the dark, and we must not stay silent. It is far too important--and once damaged, it is far too hard to rebuild. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. SHAHEEN | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS380 | null | 3,911 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, devotion, commitment, resilience--these are just a few of the words that describe the professionals who comprise Maryland's 24 local boards of education. The dedicated public servants who lead the school systems in Maryland counties and Baltimore City act with deep commitment to their communities and their time-intensive school board duties. Maryland school board members make critical budget and planning decisions, adopt policies to create supportive learning environments for all students, engage with parents, students, school staff, and other community stakeholders, work closely with superintendents, respond to crises, and undergo ongoing training to carry out effective governance, continue to grow as leaders, and stay up-to-date on the latest best practices. As devoted professionals who serve students, school systems, and their communities at large, Maryland school board members face an array of daunting challenges every day, challenges made significantly more difficult and complex during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet Maryland's 24 school boards have consistently risen to these challenges, working to ensure excellence in public education throughout the State. School board members come from all backgrounds and professions. They may not agree on every issue, but they unite and volunteer to serve under the strong conviction that Maryland students come first. Because of the extraordinary, continuing commitment of those who serve on our school boards to helping Maryland students grow, thrive, and excel each day--and with my ongoing commitment to Maryland public education in mind--I am proud to recognize January as Maryland School Board Recognition Month. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. VAN HOLLEN | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS381 | null | 3,912 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and Mr. Rubio) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: S. Res. 495 Whereas the Olympic Games should never be held in a country whose government is actively committing genocide, forced labor, and crimes against humanity; Whereas the ongoing crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region include-- (1) the arbitrary imprisonment and other types of severe deprivation of physical liberty of more than 1,800,000 civilians; (2) forced sterilization; (3) forced abortion; (4) infanticide; (5) torture; (6) forced labor; and (7) restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement; Whereas the Chinese Communist Party is committing ongoing genocide as a direct attempt to forcibly ``assimilate'', or eventually eliminate, vulnerable ethnic and religious groups; Whereas, on December 9, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, done at Paris December 9, 1948 (referred to in this preamble as the ``Genocide Convention''), as a commitment of ``never again'' in response to the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity committed in the first half of the 20th century; Whereas, on November 5, 1988, the United States ratified the Genocide Convention with the understanding that the Genocide Convention declares that all state parties ``confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish''; Whereas, on January 19, 2021, former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo determined that the Chinese Communist Party has committed genocide and crimes against humanity, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken has expressed agreement with that determination; Whereas, as of January 2022, 152 countries, including the People's Republic of China, have ratified or acceded to the Genocide Convention, and each such country has its own national Olympic committee and is recognized by the International Olympic Committee; Whereas the International Olympic Committee should always take human rights into account in making decisions, especially in choosing a host country for the Olympic Games; Whereas, in March 2020, human rights expert Rachel Davis and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein submitted to the International Olympic Committee a report containing human rights recommendations; Whereas, on December 2, 2020, the International Olympic Committee announced that it would incorporate ``human rights standards into the `Operational Requirements' of the Host City Contract for the Olympic Games 2024 and beyond'', which does not apply to the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games; Whereas, in their report, Rachel Davis and Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein-- (1) note that ``the human rights impacts that could be connected to the [2022 Beijing Winter Olympic] Games are severe--as our consultations with expert civil society stakeholders also confirmed--and addressing them remains challenging''; and (2) urge the International Olympic Committee to consider ``strengthening [human rights] due diligence across its operations [before 2024] and advancing the agreed strategic approach to engaging with Beijing 2022 on human rights, with support from the top levels of the organization and informed by the [International Olympic Committee's] own consultations with expert stakeholders''; Whereas there are no human rights conditions set forth in the host city contract between the International Olympic Committee and the Government of the People's Republic of China; Whereas there is no evidence that the International Olympic Committee has taken any steps to pressure the Government of the People's Republic of China to change its behavior; Whereas the code of ethics of the International Olympic Committee sets forth universal fundamental ethical principles that are the foundation of Olympism, including-- (1) ``respect of the principle of the universality and political neutrality of the Olympic Movement''; and (2) ``maintaining harmonious relations with state authorities, while respecting the principle of autonomy as set out in the Olympic Charter''; Whereas, historically, the International Olympic Committee has not maintained political neutrality, including by-- (1) requiring the Government of Germany to accept qualified Jewish athletes on German Olympic team during the 1936 Olympic Games (2) revoking South Africa's invitation in opposition to the Government of South Africa's policy of apartheid during 1964 Olympic Games, ; and (3) in 1948, banning Germany and Japan from participating in the first Olympic Games after World War II; Whereas taking action against genocide and crimes against humanity is a matter of morality, not politics; Whereas the absence of rule of law and due process in the People's Republic of China inhibits the ability of the International Olympic Committee and the respective national Olympic committees of participate countries to ensure the safety of all athletes, staff, and spectators throughout the duration of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games; Whereas, on November 2, 2021, 3-time Olympian Peng Shuai disappeared after stating that she had been sexually assaulted and forced into a sexual relationship with Zhang Gaoli, a former Vice Premier and member of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo Standing Committee; Whereas the International Olympic Committee's acceptance of the Chinese Communist Party cover-up of sexual assault allegations and dismissal of safety concerns for Peng Shuai call into question the International Olympic Committee's willingness to protect athletes participating in the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing; Whereas the International Olympic Committee should not force athletes to choose between their conscience and their pursuit of the highest goals in athletics; Whereas Olympic athletes should not have to worry about-- (1) wearing clothing or consuming food that is a product of forced labor; or (2) being penalized or detained by the host government for exercising their right to speak out against genocide, crimes against humanity, and any other human rights abuse; Whereas it is in the best interest of the athletes to move the Olympic Games in fulfillment of the International Olympic Committee's mission ``to promote safe sport and the protection of athletes from all forms of harassment and abuse'' and ``oppose any political or commercial abuse of sport and athletes''; Whereas, during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the Government of the People's Republic of China broke its commitment to the International Olympic Committee when it-- (1) displaced Chinese residents in order to construct Olympic venues; (2) detained demonstrators; (3) censored the internet; and (4) restricted media access and the freedom of speech; Whereas the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games provided the Government of the People's Republic of China the ability to perpetuate propaganda and distract from ongoing human rights abuses; Whereas the International Olympic Committee should consider the individuals who will not be able to celebrate the Olympic spirit because they have been unjustly detained, imprisoned, beaten, or worse by the government the International Olympic Committee selected to host the 2022 Winter Olympic Games; Whereas it reflects poorly on the entire Olympic movement, and therefore the international community in general, to proceed with holding the Olympic Games in a country whose government is committing genocide and crimes against humanity; Whereas, on March 24, 2020, 4 months before the start of the 2020 Summer Olympics, the International Olympic Committee and the Government of Japan announced the postponement of the Tokyo Olympic Games due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an action that demonstrates the ability to postpone the Olympic Games on short notice; Whereas the International Olympic Committee has the right to terminate the host city contract with the People's Republic of China if, at any time, ``the IOC has reasonable grounds to believe, in its sole discretion, that the safety of participants in the Games would be seriously threatened or jeopardized for any reason whatsoever''; Whereas relocating the 2022 Winter Olympic Games due to ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Government of the People's Republic of China is consistent with the vision of the International Olympic Committee to build a better world through sport; and Whereas the International Olympic Committee failed to adhere to its own human rights commitments by extending the honor of hosting the 2022 Olympic Games to Beijing, particularly after Chinese authorities violated commitments to the International Olympic Committee in 2008: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate urges-- (1) the International Olympic Committee to relocate the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic Games to another country in response to the refusal of the People's Republic of China to stop committing genocide and crimes against humanity; (2) the International Olympic Committee to take human rights into account in all decisions, especially in selecting future host countries for the Olympic Games; and (3) the Chinese Communist Party to immediately cease harassment of tennis star Peng Shuai and ensure her safety and freedom. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS383-2 | null | 3,913 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. OSSOFF (for himself and Mr. Warnock) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: S. Res. 496 Whereas the University of Georgia Bulldogs football team (referred to in this preamble as the ``Georgia Bulldogs'') went 14-1 during the 2021 college football season and won the 2022 National Collegiate Athletic Association College Football Playoff National Championship (referred to in this preamble as the ``2022 National Championship''), defeating the University of Alabama Crimson Tide by a score of 33 to 18 at the Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana, on January 10, 2022; Whereas this victory marks the first college football national championship for the University of Georgia since the 1980 college football season and its third national championship overall; Whereas the 2022 National Championship was the 59th football bowl appearance and the 34th football bowl victory for the University of Georgia; Whereas the 2021-2022 Georgia Bulldogs achieved a 14-1 overall record for the season, the most single-season wins in the history of the University of Georgia football program; Whereas the 2021-2022 defensive unit for the Georgia Bulldogs allowed on average only 10.2 points and 153 opposing yards per game, making it one of the most dominant defensive units in the history of college football; Whereas the 2021-2022 Georgia Bulldogs overcame a loss in the Southeastern Conference Championship to the University of Alabama on December 4, 2021, achieving a historic victory over the University of Alabama in the 2022 National Championship; Whereas Georgia Bulldogs quarterback and Blackshear, Georgia, native Stetson Bennett IV, a former walk-on player and junior college transfer, demonstrated tremendous leadership and skill throughout the 2021 college football season, and was named the 2022 National Championship Offensive Player of the Game; Whereas Georgia Bulldogs defensive back, Lewis Cine, was named the 2022 National Championship Defensive Player of the Game; Whereas the University of Georgia head football coach, Kirby Smart, a University of Georgia alumnus and former Georgia Bulldogs defensive back, has now led his team to 5 consecutive Associated Press Top 10 finishes and the first national championship since the end of the 1980 college football season; Whereas this victory extends the record of Coach Smart to 66 wins and 15 losses during his tenure as the 26th Football Head Coach at the University of Georgia, his first stint as a head coach; Whereas members of the 2021-2022 Georgia Bulldogs have been honored by various awards throughout the 2021 college football season and during the post-season, including the 2021 Chuck Bednarik Award and Outland Trophy winner, Jordan Davis, and the 37th Dick Butkus Award winner, Nakobe Dean; Whereas President Jere Morehead, Athletic Director Josh Brooks, and Coach Kirby Smart have emphasized the importance of academic success to the Georgia Bulldogs and all student- athletes at the University of Georgia; and Whereas the 2021-2022 Georgia Bulldogs have brought great pride and honor to the University of Georgia, loyal fans of the Georgia Bulldogs, and the entire State of Georgia: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the University of Georgia Bulldogs football team for a great season and winning the 2022 National Collegiate Athletic Association College Football Playoff National Championship game; (2) recognizes the achievements of all players, coaches, and staff who contributed to the championship season; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate prepare an official copy of this resolution for presentation to-- (A) the President of the University of Georgia, Jere Morehead; (B) the Athletic Director of the University of Georgia, Josh Brooks; and (C) the Head Coach of the University of Georgia Bulldogs football team, Kirby Smart. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS384 | null | 3,914 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I believe we are all familiar with the question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, here in the U.S. Senate, we can ask the question: If we accomplish something important but fail to communicate that to our constituents, did it actually happen? The majority of the American people have so much on their plates that they are not following the intricate, daily workings of this Chamber, so they expect their Senators to speak to them on a regular basis about the work they are doing on their behalf. As the author and former Presidential speechwriter James Humes has said: ``The art of communication is the language of leadership.'' That is why each and every one of us, in turn, relies on the dedicated men and women to help us communicate with folks back home. I am here on the floor today to say farewell to a member of my team who has been so instrumental in helping me communicate to the people of Oregon. For the past now 7\1/2\ years, Ray Zaccaro has served as my communications director. What a 7\1/2\ years it has been, especially when you consider how drastically the media and communications landscape has changed in that 7\1/2\ years. We have gone from local newspapers and cable news in serving as the dominant means of mass communication to Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Snapchat and TikTok and others that are far too numerous for me to keep track of, but that is why we have a communications team. One day, produced video content performed the best. The next, it was suddenly selfie-style videos. Videos used to do very well on Facebook. When the algorithms changed, they didn't do so well. Then Instagram reels took off, and on and on and on. It is incredible how fast the communication world keeps changing. Since March of 2020, it has only gotten more chaotic as the pandemic has turned everything upside down, including how we consume information and how we communicate. Ray Zaccaro expertly helped me and the entire team navigate this ever-shifting media landscape. As recording studios shut down, he mobilized the communications team to quickly transition to use a vast array of tools, including Skype and Zoom, so that we could continue to get our message and timely information to the people of Oregon. That foresight and quick action are just extensions of his entire approach to communication--always challenging the members of our team to think outside the box and never being afraid to suggest new ideas, no matter how crazy they might initially seem. It doesn't matter if they work in communications or on the legislative team or with constituent services. He believes everyone on the team has a role to play in helping to develop and tell the story of what we are working to do. And he has proven right, time and time again, over the last 7-plus years. When Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General under the previous administration,gave his ``zero tolerance'' speech, I said to my team: It sounds like he is planning for a policy of tearing children out of their parents' arms down at the border, and I am sure that is hyperbole because no American administration would ever do that to children. A member of my team said: There is one way to find out. Go down there yourself. Well, Ray, who is sitting behind me on the bench, took that idea and ran with it. We went down there the following Sunday, down to Texas, and he used his cell phone to livestream our attempts to try and ascertain exactly what was happening to young boys and girls. At a detention facility in McAllen, we were the first legislative team to witness that, indeed, Team Trump was ripping children out of their parents' arms. I will never forget, as Ray and I walked into that facility, there was a group of press outside who said: What are you going to find? I said: I have no idea, but I will talk with you all when we come out. Ray and I went in and saw those children in cages. And as we were being given a tour, I remember this group of young boys who were in one of the cages. They were being asked to line up--there were about 10 of them--from the shortest to the tallest, and the youngest was knee-high to a grasshopper. He was just maybe 4 years old. I asked: Where did these young boys come from? He said: Well, we brought them in that door over there, and we took them away from their parents. And in that warehouse room, the parents were in other cyclone fence cages. And if the boys peered really hard, they might possibly see a parent or a sister, a father or mother, an uncle somewhere in that warehouse, but they had no idea what fate awaited them. We went outside and talked to the press outside and told them what was happening. And in a flash, it was national news about what was going on by our government in their treatment of young children. We went up the road to Brownsville. We had heard that there were a few hundred boys possibly being held in a former Walmart. I thought that was an astounding story, not possibly true, but should we go and check it out? Ray and I decided we would. We went up to this former Walmart. It had barriers to keep you from parking in the former Walmart parking lot so we walked across the grounds to the door, where, by cell phone, I called up the number that was inside and said: We are here. I am a U.S. Senator, and we would like to have a tour, please, of your facility, if we could speak with your manager or your manager could come out and talk with us. Eventually, the manager did come out. His assistant had said he would be talking to us, but, actually, what he did was he called the police. And he didn't come out until the police cars were arriving. I think Ray, who was livestreaming the whole thing, secretly wanted me to be arrested and carried off in handcuffs to magnify the impact of the story. I am sorry, Ray, that it didn't come to that, but the story had a tremendous impact. They would not let me into that Walmart to see what was going on, but the national scandal that ensued in the days that followed meant the press of the United States of America got in the following weekend, and a national debate started about who are we as citizens of the United States of America and who is our government and what are we doing to these children? It turned out there were not a few hundred boys in that facility; there were a few boys short of 1,500 in that single former Walmart. The work that Ray did that day revealed the truth of Trump's actions and shocked this Nation and moved this Nation to action. Horrified, as we continued to learn about the realities of the situation, Ray kept up the drumbeat with his contacts in the media throughout months that followed to ensure that that story of traumatized children and how we can help them continued, and those children were never forgotten. Let me be clear. It wasn't just the power of the story or the opportunity to get his boss--me--on television; he kept up the drumbeat because he is a passionate person who cares deeply about others. Countless members of Team Merkley could recount stories about a time when Ray went out of his way to help them, to provide comfort and support when they were going through a difficult moment in their lives, or just a call to check in on how someone is doing or a full-blown Italian feast delivered to the home of a fellow team member grieving the loss of a loved one. And as his work with those migrant children separated from their parents at the border showed, he doesn't have to know you personally to care deeply. One time Ray was out with me in Oregon for a series of townhalls, and a constituent showed up who was having a personal crisis. Ray went out of his way to make sure that man got the help he needed, while still continuing to do the other aspects of his job: attending to members of the media, guiding and supporting staff in their respective tasks, and ensuring that the constituent had everything he needed. That is just who he is, the type of person who will drop everything if someone needs help, who will offer up his own apartment so his boss can come film an important, last-minute video when the planned location fell through. I couldn't begin to count how many late nights and early mornings we spent together sitting for media interviews. I am thinking right now, here on the floor of the Senate, of a night a few years ago, when I was here through the night, speaking for over 15 hours straight to protest the theft of a Supreme Court seat by our former President and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Throughout the night, there was Ray, in between running back and forth to the office to take calls from reporters and producers, returning to flip floor charts as my speech proceeded. Thank you, Ray, for all that you have done for the team, for the people of Oregon, and for the people of this Nation. Thank you for your tireless efforts to utilize communication tools at our disposal to protect our democracy and enhance the important issues that face our Nation, from healthcare to housing, to education, to living-wage jobs, to equality of opportunity, to taking on climate chaos. Thank you for bringing the passionate and longstanding commitment to democratic politics and principals that were forged in your early experiences back home in Long Island, and you brought them to Capitol Hill. It is hard to picture what our Team Merkley experience will be after you leave because you have been such an integral part for so long. But know that while you will be deeply missed, we all wish you nothing but the best in this next chapter of your life as you continue fighting to build a better world. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS387-5 | null | 3,915 |
formal | Skype | null | antisemitic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I believe we are all familiar with the question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, here in the U.S. Senate, we can ask the question: If we accomplish something important but fail to communicate that to our constituents, did it actually happen? The majority of the American people have so much on their plates that they are not following the intricate, daily workings of this Chamber, so they expect their Senators to speak to them on a regular basis about the work they are doing on their behalf. As the author and former Presidential speechwriter James Humes has said: ``The art of communication is the language of leadership.'' That is why each and every one of us, in turn, relies on the dedicated men and women to help us communicate with folks back home. I am here on the floor today to say farewell to a member of my team who has been so instrumental in helping me communicate to the people of Oregon. For the past now 7\1/2\ years, Ray Zaccaro has served as my communications director. What a 7\1/2\ years it has been, especially when you consider how drastically the media and communications landscape has changed in that 7\1/2\ years. We have gone from local newspapers and cable news in serving as the dominant means of mass communication to Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Snapchat and TikTok and others that are far too numerous for me to keep track of, but that is why we have a communications team. One day, produced video content performed the best. The next, it was suddenly selfie-style videos. Videos used to do very well on Facebook. When the algorithms changed, they didn't do so well. Then Instagram reels took off, and on and on and on. It is incredible how fast the communication world keeps changing. Since March of 2020, it has only gotten more chaotic as the pandemic has turned everything upside down, including how we consume information and how we communicate. Ray Zaccaro expertly helped me and the entire team navigate this ever-shifting media landscape. As recording studios shut down, he mobilized the communications team to quickly transition to use a vast array of tools, including Skype and Zoom, so that we could continue to get our message and timely information to the people of Oregon. That foresight and quick action are just extensions of his entire approach to communication--always challenging the members of our team to think outside the box and never being afraid to suggest new ideas, no matter how crazy they might initially seem. It doesn't matter if they work in communications or on the legislative team or with constituent services. He believes everyone on the team has a role to play in helping to develop and tell the story of what we are working to do. And he has proven right, time and time again, over the last 7-plus years. When Jeff Sessions, as Attorney General under the previous administration,gave his ``zero tolerance'' speech, I said to my team: It sounds like he is planning for a policy of tearing children out of their parents' arms down at the border, and I am sure that is hyperbole because no American administration would ever do that to children. A member of my team said: There is one way to find out. Go down there yourself. Well, Ray, who is sitting behind me on the bench, took that idea and ran with it. We went down there the following Sunday, down to Texas, and he used his cell phone to livestream our attempts to try and ascertain exactly what was happening to young boys and girls. At a detention facility in McAllen, we were the first legislative team to witness that, indeed, Team Trump was ripping children out of their parents' arms. I will never forget, as Ray and I walked into that facility, there was a group of press outside who said: What are you going to find? I said: I have no idea, but I will talk with you all when we come out. Ray and I went in and saw those children in cages. And as we were being given a tour, I remember this group of young boys who were in one of the cages. They were being asked to line up--there were about 10 of them--from the shortest to the tallest, and the youngest was knee-high to a grasshopper. He was just maybe 4 years old. I asked: Where did these young boys come from? He said: Well, we brought them in that door over there, and we took them away from their parents. And in that warehouse room, the parents were in other cyclone fence cages. And if the boys peered really hard, they might possibly see a parent or a sister, a father or mother, an uncle somewhere in that warehouse, but they had no idea what fate awaited them. We went outside and talked to the press outside and told them what was happening. And in a flash, it was national news about what was going on by our government in their treatment of young children. We went up the road to Brownsville. We had heard that there were a few hundred boys possibly being held in a former Walmart. I thought that was an astounding story, not possibly true, but should we go and check it out? Ray and I decided we would. We went up to this former Walmart. It had barriers to keep you from parking in the former Walmart parking lot so we walked across the grounds to the door, where, by cell phone, I called up the number that was inside and said: We are here. I am a U.S. Senator, and we would like to have a tour, please, of your facility, if we could speak with your manager or your manager could come out and talk with us. Eventually, the manager did come out. His assistant had said he would be talking to us, but, actually, what he did was he called the police. And he didn't come out until the police cars were arriving. I think Ray, who was livestreaming the whole thing, secretly wanted me to be arrested and carried off in handcuffs to magnify the impact of the story. I am sorry, Ray, that it didn't come to that, but the story had a tremendous impact. They would not let me into that Walmart to see what was going on, but the national scandal that ensued in the days that followed meant the press of the United States of America got in the following weekend, and a national debate started about who are we as citizens of the United States of America and who is our government and what are we doing to these children? It turned out there were not a few hundred boys in that facility; there were a few boys short of 1,500 in that single former Walmart. The work that Ray did that day revealed the truth of Trump's actions and shocked this Nation and moved this Nation to action. Horrified, as we continued to learn about the realities of the situation, Ray kept up the drumbeat with his contacts in the media throughout months that followed to ensure that that story of traumatized children and how we can help them continued, and those children were never forgotten. Let me be clear. It wasn't just the power of the story or the opportunity to get his boss--me--on television; he kept up the drumbeat because he is a passionate person who cares deeply about others. Countless members of Team Merkley could recount stories about a time when Ray went out of his way to help them, to provide comfort and support when they were going through a difficult moment in their lives, or just a call to check in on how someone is doing or a full-blown Italian feast delivered to the home of a fellow team member grieving the loss of a loved one. And as his work with those migrant children separated from their parents at the border showed, he doesn't have to know you personally to care deeply. One time Ray was out with me in Oregon for a series of townhalls, and a constituent showed up who was having a personal crisis. Ray went out of his way to make sure that man got the help he needed, while still continuing to do the other aspects of his job: attending to members of the media, guiding and supporting staff in their respective tasks, and ensuring that the constituent had everything he needed. That is just who he is, the type of person who will drop everything if someone needs help, who will offer up his own apartment so his boss can come film an important, last-minute video when the planned location fell through. I couldn't begin to count how many late nights and early mornings we spent together sitting for media interviews. I am thinking right now, here on the floor of the Senate, of a night a few years ago, when I was here through the night, speaking for over 15 hours straight to protest the theft of a Supreme Court seat by our former President and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Throughout the night, there was Ray, in between running back and forth to the office to take calls from reporters and producers, returning to flip floor charts as my speech proceeded. Thank you, Ray, for all that you have done for the team, for the people of Oregon, and for the people of this Nation. Thank you for your tireless efforts to utilize communication tools at our disposal to protect our democracy and enhance the important issues that face our Nation, from healthcare to housing, to education, to living-wage jobs, to equality of opportunity, to taking on climate chaos. Thank you for bringing the passionate and longstanding commitment to democratic politics and principals that were forged in your early experiences back home in Long Island, and you brought them to Capitol Hill. It is hard to picture what our Team Merkley experience will be after you leave because you have been such an integral part for so long. But know that while you will be deeply missed, we all wish you nothing but the best in this next chapter of your life as you continue fighting to build a better world. Thank you. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-01-20-pt1-PgS387-5 | null | 3,916 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Business Before the Senate Now, Madam President, it is going to be another busy day here on the Senate floor as we confirm more of President Biden's nominees to serve in his administration and on the Federal bench. For the information of all, we will be holding three votes starting around 11 a.m. this morning to either confirm or invoke cloture on a handful of nominees to serve as associate judges for the District of Columbia. Later this afternoon, at approximately 2:15, we will hold three more votes on additional judicial nominees. Members should be advised that additional votes may be scheduled as the day progresses. So I ask all of us to be patient and to be flexible. We have a lot of votes to get through today. Most of these votes, in the old days, would have just occurred by voice, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--just a handful--are making us vote even for DC judges, circuit judges. But we have to get through them--the DC courts have come to a standstill--and many other votes. So we will have a lot of votes to get through today. All of us want to get to them and get them done in a timely manner to respect the schedule of our colleagues. So in order to move things along, I am urging my colleagues to be ready to vote early when each vote is called so we can prevent extended delays and confirm as many of President Biden's qualified nominees as possible. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS463-10 | null | 3,917 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Coronavirus Madam President, this week marks 2 years since the Federal Government first declared the new coronavirus outbreak a public health emergency. I don't need to recount the staggering number of lives lost or the terrible upheaval throughout our society that our citizens have had to endure. Two years in, it is time for leaders at all levels of our society to take a deep breath, clear the decks, and review where we stand today. Here is what we know in February of 2022: Thanks to the prior Senate's work with the prior administration, our country is flooded with safe and effective vaccines for all who want them. We know the vaccines do not prevent us from catching the current variant of the virus or transmitting it to others, so there is no moral justification for vaccine mandates. But it is absolutely clear that vaccines slash the odds of hospitalization and death. They are a powerful personal shield that lowers the fatal risk of COVID beneath other normal background risks that we face regularly in our daily lives. As the New York Times explained this week, ``With a booster shot, COVID resembles other respiratory illnesses that have been around for years,'' and ``[t]he chance that an average American will die in a car crash this week is significantly higher.'' That is from the New York Times. The good news goes on. As we have known for months, children are even better off still. Unvaccinated kids seem to face the same extremely low risk as vaccinated people on the younger side of middle age. In February 2022, we know we are currently facing an Omicron variant that seems both significantly more contagious than its predecessors but also significantly less severe. Even in hard-hit States like my own, where hospitalizations remain too high, the curve of cases and hospitalizations appears to be starting to bend back down. I continue to encourage Kentuckians and all Americans to discuss the vaccines with their doctors and take this safe and effective step. It can be the difference literally between life and death. But from a society-wide perspective, after 2 years on this hellish highway, it appears our country is finally arriving at the off-ramp. The virus appears to be heading endemic. Seventy percent of Americans agree with the statement ``It's time we accept that COVID is here to stay and we just need to get on with our lives.'' It is time for the state of emergency to wind down. But, disturbingly, whether or not we should trust the science and reclaim normalcy is somehow becoming a partisan question. As a New York Times writer observed this week, ``[M]illions of Democrats have decided that organizing their lives around COVID is core to their identity as progressives, even as pandemic isolation and disruption are fueling mental health problems, drug overdoses, violent crime, rising blood pressure and growing educational inequality.'' Those are not my words; that is the New York Times. For goodness' sake, nearing 60 percent of partisan Democrats told one survey they would support placing unvaccinated people under a form of house arrest. Let me say that again. Nearly 60 percent of partisan Democrats told one survey they would support placing unvaccinated people under a form of house arrest. A supermajority of Americans oppose that absurd idea, but most Democrats say they would support it. A majority of Americans oppose the heavyhanded vaccine mandates where mayors and local politicians are trying to substitute their own judgment for the decisions of free citizens and their doctors. A majority of Americans oppose these vaccine passports, but nearly 80 percent of Democrats want them. In communities across the country, bureaucrats are still forcing young children to wear a mask to participate in society, when neither kids nor vaccinated adults are remotely--remotely--likely to get gravely ill. So what exactly are we doing here? Where are the goalposts? What is the end game? Consider if this variant were its own separate virus that we were just meeting for the very first time, without the scar tissue from the prior 2 years. Nobody would accept anywhere near this much disruption to fight the virus that we are actually facing right now. Here in Washington, multiple Congresses have spent a staggering $6 trillion on this crisis. Of the most recent $2 trillion that our Democratic colleagues rammed through last year, only 9 percent went to healthcare in any form; less than 1 percent went to vaccines. Even within that 9 percent, the Biden administration then diverted important COVID funding to other unrelated crises, like their border crisis. Now we hear Democrats may request yet another--yet another--huge chunkof emergency spending. But experts say as much as $800 billion or $900 billion of the money that we have already set aside has not even been spent yet. Eight or nine hundred billion of the money that we have already set aside has not been spent yet. What about a full accounting of the $6 trillion that has already been approved? If there are urgent needs for true, medical COVID needs, let's discuss it, and let's start the discussion by talking about repurposing the hundreds of billions that are already sitting in the pipeline. As one report put it, ``[T]he vast majority of almost $200 billion allocated to K-12 schools has not been spent.'' That is $200 billion. ``The same goes for half of the $195 billion sent out to state governments. And most city and county governments have not spent much of the $130 billion they . . . received, either.'' Many States are swimming in cash and running surpluses. They have had to dream up creative non-COVID-related uses for these windfalls. So, look, 2 years in, if Democrats call for more giant sums of emergency spending, the burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate that the hundreds of billions of dollars of unspent money already in the system are not sufficient. And unless something changes, so long as COVID continues retreating to the level of risk that we all regularly face in other aspects of daily life, then our leaders' duty to the American people is perfectly clear: Trust the vaccines, follow the data, forget the tribalism, work to assuage people's fears and neuroses with facts instead of feeding into them, and articulate your clear game plan to give the American people back their normalcy in the very near future. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS464-4 | null | 3,918 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Banning Books Now, on book banning, an entirely different matter, over the past year a truly Orwellian trend has spread across our schools, libraries, and State legislatures. With an intensity not seen in decades, far-right extremists at the local and State level are engaging in efforts to ban hundreds of book titles from the shelves of schools and public libraries. These efforts are framed as attempts to regulate obscene or inappropriate content, but if you even take a passing glance at the books under scrutiny, it is clear the goal here is to censor and suppress materials that deal with matters of race, sexual and gender orientation, and, more broadly speaking, social injustice. In Texas, for instance, State legislators have been demanding that schools send lists of titles to be scrutinized and, in some instances, have already pulled hundreds of titles from their shelves, from mere fear of repercussions. In Mississippi, one mayor withheld funding from local public libraries and said he would only relent when all books exploring LGBTQ themes were removed. That is patently disgusting. And in Tennessee, one school even banned a Pulitzer prize-winning graphic novel depicting the Holocaust because some mice weren't wearing clothes. These new and unprecedented efforts by the far right to ban books that explore matters of injustice and racism are deeply disturbing and downright Orwellian. Many of the titles under attack have been well known for decades. Some are Pulitzer prize-winning works. Others are--get this--children's picture books--children's picture books. The list is broad--dizzyingly broad. Many of these works are vital to our society because they can do only what literature can do--explore timely social issues and expand people's understanding of the world around us. We don't need to look that far into history to see what happens when we go down the dangerous road of censorship and suppression. When free expression is weakened, the mob is empowered. The groundwork is laid for further discrimination, intimidation, and, God forbid, increased violence. It is one thing for families and local communities to have good-faith discussions about the best way to help our students learn and grow, but what we are seeing here today isn't that. These modern-day efforts from the far right to ban hundreds of books from the top down are dangerous, patently un-American, and this right-wing cancel culture should be resoundingly condemned. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS464 | null | 3,919 |
formal | Skittles | null | Islamophobic | E-Cigarettes Mr. President, I am glad that Senator Murray is on the floor because the issue I want to raise now is one that she knows well, and I thank her for her leadership. A little bit of history. In 1964, an advisory committee headed by the U.S. Surgeon General issued a landmark report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, heart disease, and other deadly diseases--1964. That was considered to be breakthrough information, that tobacco actually caused cancer. For decades after that, big tobacco companies denied it. They continued to lie to Congress and to the American people about the products they were selling. Tobacco companies knowingly lied to America when they claimed their products didn't cause cancer and weren't addictive, and they lied when they said they weren't targeting children with their products. We know they lied because a trove of 14 million internal industry documents that finally were made public in 1998 as part of the settlement of a lawsuit in Minnesota showed what the five major tobacco companies actually knew when they were making public denials. These same documents provided damning evidence against Big Tobacco in a historic lawsuit brought by attorneys general from 46 States. Let me read you some of the things that executives of Big Tobacco said about children and smoking in their own internal memos they thought would never see the light of day: A 1981 report by Philip Morris, creator of the Marlboro Man, said: ``[T]he overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens. . . . The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris.'' ``[T]he base of our business is the high school student.'' That is from a 1978 memo from the makers of Newport cigarettes. This is from R.J. Reynolds, the brains behind the cartoon character Joe Camel. Here is what the document said: ``The fragile, developing self-image of the young person needs all the support and enhancement it can get. Smoking may appear to enhance that image.'' ``Replacement smokers''--those were the repugnant words used by Big Tobacco executives to describe our kids, America's teenagers. If you can hook them young, you will have them for life--that was their game plan. All of the tobacco industry's deadly deception about kids and tobacco was supposed to stop. In 2009, Congress passed a landmark law giving the Food and Drug Administration the clear authority and responsibility to regulate tobacco products. That was something Big Tobacco had fought for decades, but they lost. The Tobacco Control Act requires tobacco companies to obtain FDA approval for any new tobacco products. In a specific effort to discourage young people from smoking, the law also bans most flavored cigarettes because of their clear role in hooking kids. When it comes to traditional cigarettes, we have made amazing strides in the time that I have served in Congress. Twenty years ago, nearly 30 percent of high school kids were smokers of cigarettes; today, fewer than 5 percent. But tobacco companies didn't take this lying down. They came up with new products to hook kids: e-cigarettes, vaping, little gadgets that turn nicotine-spiked liquids into a vapor that is inhaled. It is powerful stuff. One pod of vaping liquid can contain as much nicotine as a whole pack of cigarettes. They came up with flavors to entice children. Tell me--they deny it, but listen to the names of these flavors and see if they were made for kids or adults: Gummy Bears, Cotton Candy, Unicorn Poop, Fruit Loops, Skittles, Sweet Tarts. Come on. We know what this is all about. They are enticing kids to take up vaping and e-cigarettes, and it worked. In 2014, e-cigarettes became the most popular tobacco product used by our kids. Today, nearly 30 percent of all high school students are vaping. The e-cigarette industry is now worth billions of dollars. Who are the biggest players? Hang on tight. JUUL is the No. 1 seller of e-cigarettes. Altria, the largest seller of traditional cigarettes, bought a 35-percent stake in JUUL--Altria, buying 35 percent of JUUL. Vuse is the second largest seller of e-cigarettes. It is made by R.J. Reynolds, the producer of the Camel cigarettes, which caused my father's lung cancer. R.J. Reynolds is the second biggest seller of traditional cigarettes. Do you see any patterns here? We all knew that Big Tobacco would try to find new ways to addict children on their deadly products. They never quit, which is why the Tobacco Control Act allowed the FDA to establish authority over e-cigarettes. But what we didn't expect was that the Food and Drug Administration would sit back as Big Tobacco dusted off its playbook to ignite what one former FDA Commissioner called ``an epidemic of youth vaping'' in America. For years, teachers warned about kids using JUULs in the classroom. Parents found devices that looked like flash drives in their kids' backpacks. Even kids themselves warned about the highly addictive nature of e-cigarettes. Many of us in the Senate demanded that the FDA take action. Senator Murray, the chair of the HELP Committee, has been one of the leaders ofthis. Countless callers, letters, meetings with FDA Commissioners went nowhere. Testimony and alarming data from public health groups and parents yielded no action. The FDA still failed to use its existing statutory authority to police these e-cigarette products, allowing millions of e-cigarettes to flood the market illegally, while the e-cigarette manufacturers made outrageous and unsubstantiated claims downplaying their risk to kids. In 2019, finally, a Federal judge stepped in and ordered the FDA to do its job, instructing them to finalize the review of e-cigarettes--remember this date--by September 2021, last September. The FDA's court-ordered deadline to act on pending e-cigarette applications passed nearly 5 months ago--5 months. Yet, incredibly, many of the e-cigarettes used mostly by kids--the products fueling the epidemic--are still on the market today. The law is clear on this issue. Tobacco companies must prove--they have the burden of proving--to the Food and Drug Administration that their product is ``appropriate for the protection of the public health.'' Why haven't they proved it? Because they can't. There is no evidence of it. So, if they can't meet the burden of proof, how do they continue to sell these products on the open market? Meeting that burden was supposed to be a condition precedent, the first thing they had to do to sell these e-cigarettes. Well, it is because the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, is sitting on its hands. It is refusing to use its own legal and statutory authority. Big Tobacco continues to target ``replacement smokers.'' Those are our kids. The Senate is expected to vote soon on a new FDA Commissioner. In determining who that person will be, we will have the opportunity. Let me change that. We have the responsibility to make it clear that the FDA has to stop dragging its feet. It must use the authority provided by Congress to prohibit tobacco companies from preying on our kids for profit. As Congress evaluates the nominees, we must be guided by the answer to this question: Do we believe that the incoming FDA leadership will correct the failures that have gone before them in allowing these e-cigarette companies to prey on our kids? Yesterday, I spoke to Dr. Califf, who is Joe Biden's nominee to be the head of the FDA. I have had serious misgivings about whether he is the right person for the job, but I finally relented yesterday and said: Yes, Dr. Califf, I will support you, but if you make it, I am going to hold you personally responsible for taking control of this issue. Our kids' lives are at stake. We have waited too long. The FDA has sat on its hands when it should be moving to protect our kids. It is long overdue. In the interest of our children, I sincerely hope that the leadership of the FDA will open its eyes and do its duty. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS466-2 | null | 3,920 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Counterfeits Madam President, on another point and a shorter point, I would like to take a moment to update my colleagues on a bill that I introduced in 2021 designed to fight counterfeits. As we all know, counterfeits are a threat to the U.S. economic and national security interests. Most counterfeits originate in China, one of our largest competitors. Counterfeits are dangerous to consumers. And, lastly, counterfeits rip off American ingenuity and result in billions of dollars in losses. For these reasons, Congress must ensure the Federal Government arms its partners with the tools and the resources that these people need to combat the bad guys who sell these fake goods. My bill has the number S. 1159, and it does just that. It gives the partners the tools and resources they need to combat the bad guys. Now, it happens that S. 1159 was incorporated in the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 that passed this Senate on a very bipartisan vote. The bill with that title, Innovation and Competition Act, was an effort, in a bipartisan way, to crack down on China. Now, the bill that I am telling you I cosponsored and is part of that gives our U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, authority to share more information with the private sector on counterfeits identified at the border. It also gives Customs and Border Protection the authority to share information with other parties, like e-commerce parties and shipping carriers. Sharing information then creates a more secure trade ecosystem that keeps counterfeits out of our country. This is good, commonsense policy. Now, my colleagues may be asking themselves: Why is this really needed? Well, Customs and Border Protection believes that the Trade Secrets Act keeps this Agency from sharing certain types of information with the private sector. This keeps American companies, then, in the dark and prevents these companies from pursuing the bad guys who rip them off. Indeed, companies have repeatedly told me that if they just had more information from the Federal Government, they would and could keep more counterfeits out of the United States. So my bill removes this barrier and specifically gives Customs and Border Protection the authority that it needs to share information with the private sector. Now, here is the icing on the cake. Recently, Customs and Border Protection confirmed that my bill would resolve their concerns about violating the Trade Secrets Act and would permit the sharing of more information on counterfeits. A few weeks ago, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed that my bill will cost absolutely nothing. So good government legislation that costs the taxpayers zero dollars ought to not raise any questions when it protects the consumer and protects our businesspeople. That is what I like to call a slam dunk, and I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure that it gets passed this Congress. Now, since this has become an issue in the House of Representatives, I hope that the House wakes up to this commonsense policy being included in the China package as negotiations continue because they left it out in the version that has come to the House floor now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS480 | null | 3,921 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the nomination. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Amy Gutmann, of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Germany. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS487 | null | 3,922 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, last weekend, I spent time down at the southwest border, an area the Presiding Officer is very familiar with. This time, I was in the Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Valley area has the highest area of illegal crossings across our entire 2,000-mile southwest border. In fact, it is interesting to be able to track just the movement across that border. This is from 2014 to 2022. It is what has happened along this area of the border, just this one specific area, what is called the Rio Grande Valley area. It is around McAllen and Brownsville--that area. This shows, each year, what happens. It starts in October, way down here with the numbers low. In some years, it came up, but just about every year, it went up and down. It was down significantly in November and December because, again, in Central America, they celebrate Christmas as well, and a lot of folks want to head back home, even, or be there. So immigration doesn't cross from south to north significantly in most years in October, November, December, January, except for this really odd line right here that seems really out of balance with all the rest of the lines from the last decade. It is this line right here. This line is actually from last year. This line shows a number of 2 million people who illegally crossed our southwest border last year whom we know of--2 million. That is this line. Typically, every other year, it is way down low when you get to October, November, December. That is over here. Here are the low months--but not this year. It has already started way up high. In fact, what is interesting is, for October, November, December, if you take any one of those months, there are as many people illegally crossing the border in the Rio Grande Valley in October, November, or December as over the last 3 years in that month combined. Let me run that past everybody again. If you take any month--October, November, December--there were higher illegal crossings that we know of than over the last 3 years combined in any year that we know of. My fear is, as some people have said, we have a problem on our southern border. I actually believe the Biden administration's policy is working exactly as they designed it to work--exactly. They created a structure in a system to allow as many people as possible to be able to cross our southern border, and it is working exactly. Why would I say that? Well, in the first days of the Biden Presidency, when you stop border wall construction, when you announce they are going to change dramatically every policy in how we are interdicting individuals, when they cancel all foreign agreements with Mexico and with Central America that are actually limiting the number of people there, and then you don't replace them with anything, you have got to know that this is what is going to happen. Then, a year later, when nothing has changed, this is what is going to happen. The agents in the Rio Grande Valley whom I talked to anticipate that by the time we get to the summer, we are going to be at 9,000 people a day who are illegally crossing our southern border--a day. There are many months in the past that we didn't have that many people crossing the border illegally. They are anticipating, on this trend line, 9,000 a day who will be coming. So far, what has the Biden administration done? They have stuck with their plan because it is doing exactly what they thought it was going to do. I am amazed at the number of people I have talked to who have grown numb to what is happening on our southern border, and the media has just looked away and said: We have talked about how bad it is for a year; that is old news now. So they no longer talk about the 2 million people who have illegally crossed our border. But, in going down last weekend and spending time with the Border Patrol, the CBP, ICE, and other leaders who were there, they could tell me firsthand the stories from last week, late at night, of the five Syrians they picked up who were crossing the southern border in the brush. Those 5 Syrians were part of the count of the 2 million people from last year that will now be who knows how big this year. They told me directly the story of a Nicaraguan single adult male whom they picked up crossing the border in the Rio Grande Valley, who told them under questioning that he was a member of the Nicaraguan military. Within 48 hours, he was released into the United States, and they were furious about it. Their question was very, very simple. A single adult male, member of a foreign military is now somewhere in our country, and they have no idea why, because they are doing their job but the policies that they have to work with right now of how many people they have to be able to cut loose, and how hard it is to be able to detain people, and the limiting policies of the Biden administration are fulfilling exactly what they are designed to do. There has been a lot of conversation on the floor, and I have brought several times to this body the construction of the border barriers down in the southwest. This is something that members of the Border Patrol have asked for again and again and again: Close the gaps. They always say: Close the gaps. There are these massive gaps where it was under construction. On January 20th of last year, construction stopped. Over and over again, people have said: Close the gaps. Close the gaps--those gaps we have to patrol. Let me give you an example. When I got down there, they had now announced, by the way, they are closing the gaps. And everyone went: Great, the gaps are being closed. But I got down there to be able to look at the gaps being closed, and let me show you what it looks like. This is an aerial shot when we were up in a helicopter with CBP, getting a chance to be able to literally watch people crossing the border illegally. From this aerial shot, I hope you can see. This was the existing wall that was constructed during the Trump administration--this tall, 30-foot wall with the anti-climb portion on it. Here is where the construction stopped. It was all the way through here, and then there was a gap, and then they had started another section here. They were getting ready to be able to put up the other sections, but they had to stop. The Biden administration has now announced that they are going to close the gaps. I hope you don't miss it. They have announced the gaps are closed. Can you see this tiny, little picket fence on the bottom here? Probably not. This tiny, little picket fence that is at the bottom, that is what they say is ``close the gaps.'' So it is no longer just open. They have a tiny, little decorative fence there, and that is their announced ``we have closed the gap.'' That is not going to deter anyone. They know it full well. It is not designed to deter anyone. It is designed to allow the administration to say, ``We closed the gap,'' and hope no one looks at it because that gap will fulfill exactly what it is designed to fulfill; that is, to allow people in, not keep people out. That doesn't help the Border Patrol. And they know it because it is not designed to be able to help the Border Patrol, and they know it. Federal courts require the Biden administration to put in place what was a Trump policy before dealing with those individuals coming to seek asylum in the United States. It is called MPP. Some people call it ``Remain in Mexico.'' This policy basically said, if you want to be able to come into the country, you had to pause, get in line, register so we know who you are. We would set up an orderly process, and then you would have to stay in the border region until it was time for your hearing to occur. There was a dramatic drop in individuals who were illegally crossing our border because they knew they wouldn't automatically get in--what is called catch and release--that they wouldn't just come across, be released into the country, and wait 2 years until the hearing. Two years, that is what it used to be, to be able to wait until the hearing, until they shifted to the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, and they said you have to stay here in the border region until it is time for your hearing. Within months they would come forward, they would get their hearing and get to make their determination, whether they fulfilled the asylum or not. The Federal courts have said to the Biden administration: You have to put that policy back in place. So after months of delay, they have agreed to do it. It is one of the places I wanted to stop in and see. This is an overview of the Brownsville location for the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. This overview shows the setup that they have created there in Brownsville to do the hearings. There is an intake area for processing, a gathering area, a medical area. There are six courtrooms that are set up. The courtrooms that are set up are all set up as large courtrooms where up to 22 different defendants could be here with their attorneys. All the courtrooms have videoconferencing set up as a full-on courtroom for that location. There are, in each location, 120 individual office spaces set up--120--where individuals that had illegally crossed the border could meet with their lawyer. So 6 courtrooms, 120 meeting spaces, all the ancillary space--this is a massive complex. When I was down there last week, they have, so far, handled three people--three--and they weren't sure how many they were going to handle this week. Why? Because on the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy--MPP, whatever you want to be able to call it--they have created a system with so many exceptions in it that they could tell the Federal courts, ``Yes, we are doing it,'' but, in reality, they are not--realizing that this month they have had about 45,000 people illegally cross the border in this zone just in January, but only 3 they made eligible to go through this process, of the 45,000. Why? Well, they made a whole set of stipulations. They said: If you come in a family group, you are not eligible to come in here. If you declare that you have a medical issue of any type, no matter how minor it may be, you are not eligible to be able to go through this program. If you are LGBT, you are not eligible to be able to go through this program. If you are 75 years or older, you are not eligible to be able to go through this program. If you are Nicaraguan, you are not eligible to go through this program. If you are Venezuelan, you are not eligible to go through this program. Do you get the hint? They set so many criteria up to be able to list out--no, no, no, no, no, no--that the poor three people who were left whodidn't fit in those categories, they are going through. By the way, each person is given 24 hours with their lawyer before they actually have to go through this process, so counsel could give them the full list of all the items that they could select and say: If you meet any of the criteria, verbally, if you just say you meet any of these criteria, then you are out. And what does ``you are out'' mean? You are released into the United States, and you await your hearing. Remember when I said that during the Trump administration those hearings would take up to 2 years before you got to an asylum hearing? Well, when I met with DHS officials this week, it is not 2 years anymore; it is now 6 years. You illegally cross the border, you get a paper, they release you into the country, you get on a bus or on a plane, literally go anywhere you want to go in the country, and set a date 6 years from now to show up at your court hearing. That is on average, by the way. Some are longer than that. Now, you tell me, what happens if someone illegally crosses the border, they are processed within 48 hours, given a document that says you can be here 6 years to go anywhere you want to go in the country--what do you think they are going to do when they pick up their cell phone? I will tell you what is happening. They are texting a family member back home. They are texting friends back home and saying: I got in, and here is how I did it. Come join me. And they are--2 million people last year. And the response so far has been decorative fencing, what they actually call guardrails in the area, and empty courtrooms. By the way, this was the middle of the day when I was there--empty courtrooms with no one being processed, all so they can say they did something. American taxpayers paid millions of dollars for this setup so they could say they are doing something when they are actually doing nothing, getting the results exactly as they planned. Oh, but, of course, everyone is being required to be vaccinated correctly before they reach the country. Of course, everyone is being required to be vaccinated, except they are not. If you are a legal green card holder, you are required to be vaccinated. President Biden is trying to vaccinate everyone in private businesses, in the Federal workforce, Federal contractors. Members of the military are being kicked out of the military this week if they are not vaccinated. Oh, but if you cross the border illegally, you are given the option whether you want a vaccine or not. It is offered to you for free, but it is not mandated; it is voluntary. What is the result? Well, some of the results are pretty obvious. The numbers are skyrocketing. As I showed you before, these are record numbers of individuals crossing the border illegally. That is seeable. Let me tell you what is not seeable at this point. The drug cartels in Mexico are getting richer and richer and richer. They are moving record amounts of drugs across our border, making an incredible amount of money for the cartels, continuing to strengthen those drug cartels on the border. But each of the individuals who cross our southern border also pay a fee to the cartels--each of them. You don't cross the southern border into the United States without crossing through one of the cartel areas, and each one of them has to pay. It is somewhere around $4,000 to $30,000 per person to be able to cross through Mexico and into the United States--$4,000 if you are from Guatemala; $30,000 if you are from China. And none of us should be surprised. Just last year, people from more than 100 countries crossed into the United States, that we picked up and interdicted, illegally--more than 100 countries. This common conversation about, well, it is all folks from Central America--there are a lot of folks from Central America coming, but it is people from over 100 countries, including those five Syrians who were picked up just last week. Do some rough math. If people pay between $4,000 and $30,000 a person and there were 2 million people who crossed illegally last year that we know of, that is $10 billion paid to the cartels--$10 billion. And our open borders are allowing the cartels to rake in that kind of cash. When I visited with the Border Patrol and got a chance to be able to talk to them, their morale is awful, as you can imagine. They are doing their job. They are busting it every day, but they are frustrated. They are frustrated at the policies that they are having to enforce, when they are used to being law enforcement folks enforcing our southern border, and now, they are hotel check-in staff who are just greeting people at the border, processing them, and releasing them into the country. That is not what they signed up for. They signed up to protect our country, and, literally, they cannot. In this case, law enforcement is handcuffed, and the criminals are released. It shouldn't be that way, and they know it. Usually, October, November, December, and January are lower months--not so this time. They are exhausted from a record amount of illegal crossings last year, and they were hoping to get a bit of a break. But with the policies in place, it didn't matter how cold it is. People are still coming. On top of all of that, here is what else happened last month, just one example. This is a Border Patrol vehicle that had just interdicted a group of folks at the border. I don't know whether you can see it or not, but that is a giant bullet hole in the front of it, and that is another bullet hole in it, and that is another bullet hole right behind the passenger window. By the way, at this particular moment, they had actually already picked somebody up, and they were sitting in that back seat. The Border Patrol every day risk their lives to be able to enforce the law. And for this group of folks they pick up, within hours, they are released, and they are somewhere in the country waiting on a court hearing 6 years from now, if they ever show up for the hearing. Do you want to know how frustrated this group of law enforcement is? They risk their lives for nothing because this is the policy of the Biden administration. This is not an accident. This is what it has brought. As they run through, tonight, the heavy brush, along a very cold Texas-Mexico border, they will pick people up, and they will faithfully do their job because they have over and over again, only to have a policy that cuts them loose. How long? Listen, Border Patrol agents have families too. Their families matter as well. And all this talk about we are going to be compassionate to the families of people who are illegally crossing the border--what we are really doing as a policy is enriching the cartels in Mexico; encouraging people to make a very dangerous journey; releasing them into the country with not a legal status, to live in the shadows of our Nation; and putting law enforcement at risk for their life. This should not be. And while the country just seems to move on and ignore the chaos at our border, this is still what is going on tonight, and it needs to stop. This administration has the ability to change policy and to change direction on our southern border, and they are not. They are not doing it on purpose, and the results are chaos. I wish I were wrong on this. There is something called title 42. Title 42 means we have a COVID epidemic happening. OK. And under a COVID epidemic or under any kind of epidemic, law enforcement is able to take some individuals, single adults from certain countries, and turn them around and send them right back in and say: You can't come in because of the epidemic. We have enormous numbers of those individuals coming, and right now some of those individuals from some of those countries are being turned around, thankfully. And when I have asked DHS: What is your plan for those individuals once the COVID epidemic ends? And it does, God willing, end one day. When it ends, what is your plan? We are now 13 months into this administration, and they still have no plan. That is not just my guess; that is my point-blank asking: What is the plan to turn people around once the COVID epidemic ends for that small group of folks that you are turning around? They don't have one. It doesn't take 13 months to be able to determine what you are going to do. That just tells me the plan is, when the COVID epidemic ends, those folks get in too. When does this end? Who is going to stand up and help us? Just enforce the laws of our country. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS498-4 | null | 3,923 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, last weekend, I spent time down at the southwest border, an area the Presiding Officer is very familiar with. This time, I was in the Rio Grande Valley. The Rio Grande Valley area has the highest area of illegal crossings across our entire 2,000-mile southwest border. In fact, it is interesting to be able to track just the movement across that border. This is from 2014 to 2022. It is what has happened along this area of the border, just this one specific area, what is called the Rio Grande Valley area. It is around McAllen and Brownsville--that area. This shows, each year, what happens. It starts in October, way down here with the numbers low. In some years, it came up, but just about every year, it went up and down. It was down significantly in November and December because, again, in Central America, they celebrate Christmas as well, and a lot of folks want to head back home, even, or be there. So immigration doesn't cross from south to north significantly in most years in October, November, December, January, except for this really odd line right here that seems really out of balance with all the rest of the lines from the last decade. It is this line right here. This line is actually from last year. This line shows a number of 2 million people who illegally crossed our southwest border last year whom we know of--2 million. That is this line. Typically, every other year, it is way down low when you get to October, November, December. That is over here. Here are the low months--but not this year. It has already started way up high. In fact, what is interesting is, for October, November, December, if you take any one of those months, there are as many people illegally crossing the border in the Rio Grande Valley in October, November, or December as over the last 3 years in that month combined. Let me run that past everybody again. If you take any month--October, November, December--there were higher illegal crossings that we know of than over the last 3 years combined in any year that we know of. My fear is, as some people have said, we have a problem on our southern border. I actually believe the Biden administration's policy is working exactly as they designed it to work--exactly. They created a structure in a system to allow as many people as possible to be able to cross our southern border, and it is working exactly. Why would I say that? Well, in the first days of the Biden Presidency, when you stop border wall construction, when you announce they are going to change dramatically every policy in how we are interdicting individuals, when they cancel all foreign agreements with Mexico and with Central America that are actually limiting the number of people there, and then you don't replace them with anything, you have got to know that this is what is going to happen. Then, a year later, when nothing has changed, this is what is going to happen. The agents in the Rio Grande Valley whom I talked to anticipate that by the time we get to the summer, we are going to be at 9,000 people a day who are illegally crossing our southern border--a day. There are many months in the past that we didn't have that many people crossing the border illegally. They are anticipating, on this trend line, 9,000 a day who will be coming. So far, what has the Biden administration done? They have stuck with their plan because it is doing exactly what they thought it was going to do. I am amazed at the number of people I have talked to who have grown numb to what is happening on our southern border, and the media has just looked away and said: We have talked about how bad it is for a year; that is old news now. So they no longer talk about the 2 million people who have illegally crossed our border. But, in going down last weekend and spending time with the Border Patrol, the CBP, ICE, and other leaders who were there, they could tell me firsthand the stories from last week, late at night, of the five Syrians they picked up who were crossing the southern border in the brush. Those 5 Syrians were part of the count of the 2 million people from last year that will now be who knows how big this year. They told me directly the story of a Nicaraguan single adult male whom they picked up crossing the border in the Rio Grande Valley, who told them under questioning that he was a member of the Nicaraguan military. Within 48 hours, he was released into the United States, and they were furious about it. Their question was very, very simple. A single adult male, member of a foreign military is now somewhere in our country, and they have no idea why, because they are doing their job but the policies that they have to work with right now of how many people they have to be able to cut loose, and how hard it is to be able to detain people, and the limiting policies of the Biden administration are fulfilling exactly what they are designed to do. There has been a lot of conversation on the floor, and I have brought several times to this body the construction of the border barriers down in the southwest. This is something that members of the Border Patrol have asked for again and again and again: Close the gaps. They always say: Close the gaps. There are these massive gaps where it was under construction. On January 20th of last year, construction stopped. Over and over again, people have said: Close the gaps. Close the gaps--those gaps we have to patrol. Let me give you an example. When I got down there, they had now announced, by the way, they are closing the gaps. And everyone went: Great, the gaps are being closed. But I got down there to be able to look at the gaps being closed, and let me show you what it looks like. This is an aerial shot when we were up in a helicopter with CBP, getting a chance to be able to literally watch people crossing the border illegally. From this aerial shot, I hope you can see. This was the existing wall that was constructed during the Trump administration--this tall, 30-foot wall with the anti-climb portion on it. Here is where the construction stopped. It was all the way through here, and then there was a gap, and then they had started another section here. They were getting ready to be able to put up the other sections, but they had to stop. The Biden administration has now announced that they are going to close the gaps. I hope you don't miss it. They have announced the gaps are closed. Can you see this tiny, little picket fence on the bottom here? Probably not. This tiny, little picket fence that is at the bottom, that is what they say is ``close the gaps.'' So it is no longer just open. They have a tiny, little decorative fence there, and that is their announced ``we have closed the gap.'' That is not going to deter anyone. They know it full well. It is not designed to deter anyone. It is designed to allow the administration to say, ``We closed the gap,'' and hope no one looks at it because that gap will fulfill exactly what it is designed to fulfill; that is, to allow people in, not keep people out. That doesn't help the Border Patrol. And they know it because it is not designed to be able to help the Border Patrol, and they know it. Federal courts require the Biden administration to put in place what was a Trump policy before dealing with those individuals coming to seek asylum in the United States. It is called MPP. Some people call it ``Remain in Mexico.'' This policy basically said, if you want to be able to come into the country, you had to pause, get in line, register so we know who you are. We would set up an orderly process, and then you would have to stay in the border region until it was time for your hearing to occur. There was a dramatic drop in individuals who were illegally crossing our border because they knew they wouldn't automatically get in--what is called catch and release--that they wouldn't just come across, be released into the country, and wait 2 years until the hearing. Two years, that is what it used to be, to be able to wait until the hearing, until they shifted to the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, and they said you have to stay here in the border region until it is time for your hearing. Within months they would come forward, they would get their hearing and get to make their determination, whether they fulfilled the asylum or not. The Federal courts have said to the Biden administration: You have to put that policy back in place. So after months of delay, they have agreed to do it. It is one of the places I wanted to stop in and see. This is an overview of the Brownsville location for the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy. This overview shows the setup that they have created there in Brownsville to do the hearings. There is an intake area for processing, a gathering area, a medical area. There are six courtrooms that are set up. The courtrooms that are set up are all set up as large courtrooms where up to 22 different defendants could be here with their attorneys. All the courtrooms have videoconferencing set up as a full-on courtroom for that location. There are, in each location, 120 individual office spaces set up--120--where individuals that had illegally crossed the border could meet with their lawyer. So 6 courtrooms, 120 meeting spaces, all the ancillary space--this is a massive complex. When I was down there last week, they have, so far, handled three people--three--and they weren't sure how many they were going to handle this week. Why? Because on the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy--MPP, whatever you want to be able to call it--they have created a system with so many exceptions in it that they could tell the Federal courts, ``Yes, we are doing it,'' but, in reality, they are not--realizing that this month they have had about 45,000 people illegally cross the border in this zone just in January, but only 3 they made eligible to go through this process, of the 45,000. Why? Well, they made a whole set of stipulations. They said: If you come in a family group, you are not eligible to come in here. If you declare that you have a medical issue of any type, no matter how minor it may be, you are not eligible to be able to go through this program. If you are LGBT, you are not eligible to be able to go through this program. If you are 75 years or older, you are not eligible to be able to go through this program. If you are Nicaraguan, you are not eligible to go through this program. If you are Venezuelan, you are not eligible to go through this program. Do you get the hint? They set so many criteria up to be able to list out--no, no, no, no, no, no--that the poor three people who were left whodidn't fit in those categories, they are going through. By the way, each person is given 24 hours with their lawyer before they actually have to go through this process, so counsel could give them the full list of all the items that they could select and say: If you meet any of the criteria, verbally, if you just say you meet any of these criteria, then you are out. And what does ``you are out'' mean? You are released into the United States, and you await your hearing. Remember when I said that during the Trump administration those hearings would take up to 2 years before you got to an asylum hearing? Well, when I met with DHS officials this week, it is not 2 years anymore; it is now 6 years. You illegally cross the border, you get a paper, they release you into the country, you get on a bus or on a plane, literally go anywhere you want to go in the country, and set a date 6 years from now to show up at your court hearing. That is on average, by the way. Some are longer than that. Now, you tell me, what happens if someone illegally crosses the border, they are processed within 48 hours, given a document that says you can be here 6 years to go anywhere you want to go in the country--what do you think they are going to do when they pick up their cell phone? I will tell you what is happening. They are texting a family member back home. They are texting friends back home and saying: I got in, and here is how I did it. Come join me. And they are--2 million people last year. And the response so far has been decorative fencing, what they actually call guardrails in the area, and empty courtrooms. By the way, this was the middle of the day when I was there--empty courtrooms with no one being processed, all so they can say they did something. American taxpayers paid millions of dollars for this setup so they could say they are doing something when they are actually doing nothing, getting the results exactly as they planned. Oh, but, of course, everyone is being required to be vaccinated correctly before they reach the country. Of course, everyone is being required to be vaccinated, except they are not. If you are a legal green card holder, you are required to be vaccinated. President Biden is trying to vaccinate everyone in private businesses, in the Federal workforce, Federal contractors. Members of the military are being kicked out of the military this week if they are not vaccinated. Oh, but if you cross the border illegally, you are given the option whether you want a vaccine or not. It is offered to you for free, but it is not mandated; it is voluntary. What is the result? Well, some of the results are pretty obvious. The numbers are skyrocketing. As I showed you before, these are record numbers of individuals crossing the border illegally. That is seeable. Let me tell you what is not seeable at this point. The drug cartels in Mexico are getting richer and richer and richer. They are moving record amounts of drugs across our border, making an incredible amount of money for the cartels, continuing to strengthen those drug cartels on the border. But each of the individuals who cross our southern border also pay a fee to the cartels--each of them. You don't cross the southern border into the United States without crossing through one of the cartel areas, and each one of them has to pay. It is somewhere around $4,000 to $30,000 per person to be able to cross through Mexico and into the United States--$4,000 if you are from Guatemala; $30,000 if you are from China. And none of us should be surprised. Just last year, people from more than 100 countries crossed into the United States, that we picked up and interdicted, illegally--more than 100 countries. This common conversation about, well, it is all folks from Central America--there are a lot of folks from Central America coming, but it is people from over 100 countries, including those five Syrians who were picked up just last week. Do some rough math. If people pay between $4,000 and $30,000 a person and there were 2 million people who crossed illegally last year that we know of, that is $10 billion paid to the cartels--$10 billion. And our open borders are allowing the cartels to rake in that kind of cash. When I visited with the Border Patrol and got a chance to be able to talk to them, their morale is awful, as you can imagine. They are doing their job. They are busting it every day, but they are frustrated. They are frustrated at the policies that they are having to enforce, when they are used to being law enforcement folks enforcing our southern border, and now, they are hotel check-in staff who are just greeting people at the border, processing them, and releasing them into the country. That is not what they signed up for. They signed up to protect our country, and, literally, they cannot. In this case, law enforcement is handcuffed, and the criminals are released. It shouldn't be that way, and they know it. Usually, October, November, December, and January are lower months--not so this time. They are exhausted from a record amount of illegal crossings last year, and they were hoping to get a bit of a break. But with the policies in place, it didn't matter how cold it is. People are still coming. On top of all of that, here is what else happened last month, just one example. This is a Border Patrol vehicle that had just interdicted a group of folks at the border. I don't know whether you can see it or not, but that is a giant bullet hole in the front of it, and that is another bullet hole in it, and that is another bullet hole right behind the passenger window. By the way, at this particular moment, they had actually already picked somebody up, and they were sitting in that back seat. The Border Patrol every day risk their lives to be able to enforce the law. And for this group of folks they pick up, within hours, they are released, and they are somewhere in the country waiting on a court hearing 6 years from now, if they ever show up for the hearing. Do you want to know how frustrated this group of law enforcement is? They risk their lives for nothing because this is the policy of the Biden administration. This is not an accident. This is what it has brought. As they run through, tonight, the heavy brush, along a very cold Texas-Mexico border, they will pick people up, and they will faithfully do their job because they have over and over again, only to have a policy that cuts them loose. How long? Listen, Border Patrol agents have families too. Their families matter as well. And all this talk about we are going to be compassionate to the families of people who are illegally crossing the border--what we are really doing as a policy is enriching the cartels in Mexico; encouraging people to make a very dangerous journey; releasing them into the country with not a legal status, to live in the shadows of our Nation; and putting law enforcement at risk for their life. This should not be. And while the country just seems to move on and ignore the chaos at our border, this is still what is going on tonight, and it needs to stop. This administration has the ability to change policy and to change direction on our southern border, and they are not. They are not doing it on purpose, and the results are chaos. I wish I were wrong on this. There is something called title 42. Title 42 means we have a COVID epidemic happening. OK. And under a COVID epidemic or under any kind of epidemic, law enforcement is able to take some individuals, single adults from certain countries, and turn them around and send them right back in and say: You can't come in because of the epidemic. We have enormous numbers of those individuals coming, and right now some of those individuals from some of those countries are being turned around, thankfully. And when I have asked DHS: What is your plan for those individuals once the COVID epidemic ends? And it does, God willing, end one day. When it ends, what is your plan? We are now 13 months into this administration, and they still have no plan. That is not just my guess; that is my point-blank asking: What is the plan to turn people around once the COVID epidemic ends for that small group of folks that you are turning around? They don't have one. It doesn't take 13 months to be able to determine what you are going to do. That just tells me the plan is, when the COVID epidemic ends, those folks get in too. When does this end? Who is going to stand up and help us? Just enforce the laws of our country. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2022-02-02-pt1-PgS498-4 | null | 3,924 |
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. 1281. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Gaylord, Michigan, as the ``Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic''. The message also announced that the Senate has passed bills of the following titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested: S. 2159. An act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs located at 400 College Drive, Middleburg, Florida, as the ``Andrew K. Baker Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic'', and for other purposes. S. 3527. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to transfer the name of property of the Department of Veterans Affairs designated by law to other property of the Department. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 117-81, the Chair, on behalf of the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, appoints the following individual to serve as a member of the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform: Ellen M. Lord of North Carolina. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 117-81, the Chair, on behalf of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, appoints the following individual to serve as a member of the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform: Robert F. Hale of Virginia. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 117-81, the Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, appoints the following individual to serve as a member of the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform: Arun A. Seraphin of New York. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 117-81, the Chair, on behalf of the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, appoints the following individual to serve as a member of the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform: Jennifer Santos of Virginia. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 106-567, the Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, announces the appointment of the following individual to serve as a member of the Public Interest Declassification Board: Alissa M. Starzak of the District of Columbia. The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 116-260, the Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, announces the appointment of the following individual to serve as a member of the People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund Advisory Board: The Honorable Angela Warnick of New York. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgH993 | null | 3,925 |
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. 583) to promote innovative acquisition techniques and procurement strategies, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgH995-2 | null | 3,926 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on Friday, our country received another extraordinary bit of news about the state of our economic recovery. Last month, the economy created 467,000 new jobs, far exceeding all expectations. This comes on the heels of news that our economy grew at its fastest rate in decades last year. With last week's jobs numbers, the U.S. economy now has added a total of 6.6 million jobs in President Biden's first year in office. Let me say that again. In 1 year alone, the economy has added a whopping 6.6 million jobs back to the economy--the most ever recorded for a President's first year. This includes the creation of 367,000 manufacturing jobs--the most in 30 years. For all the difficulties of the past 2 years and for the real challenges our economy faces today, this jobs number is a remarkable milestone. It is a reminder that who gets elected to office makes a big difference. A year ago, Democrats promised to fix the mess our country was in after President Trump botched our pandemic response. We promised to lift our economy out of the abyss, to get people back to work, back to the classroom, and to do it safely by following the science. It is why Democrats worked furiously last year to pass the American Rescue Plan. It is why the Senate came together to pass USICA, which we will work to enact into law in the near future. It is why we came together to pass a historic, bipartisan infrastructure package that is now putting people back to work fixing our roads, bridges, internet, lead piping, and so much more. With 6.6 million jobs gained and record economic growth in our first year, Democrats are delivering on our promise. And it is not just that job creation exceeded expectations; wages for American workers grew in 2021, and indications from top forecasters are that wages will continue to grow in 2022. A year into executing our Democratic agenda, the American economy is in the midst of a historic turnaround, but the job is not over. Even as wages are up, Democrats are taking action to lower costs. We need to help everyday families afford the daily essentials, just as we need to relieve our supply chains and rebuild American manufacturing, including by focusing on critical technologies like semiconductors. We took an important step in the right direction last week after the House passed the companion legislation to USICA. I applaud the House for passing this legislation, and I join my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle in saying we were pleased to have gotten the ball rolling when we passed the USICA bill--formally known as Endless Frontiers--last summer. There is a lot of work to do to enact USICA into law, so I look forward to moving quickly to a conference so the House and Senate can bridge the differences between our proposals. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for leadership on this very important legislation. This will continue to be Democrats' focus: lowering costs, increasing wages, and bringing jobs back from overseas, while creating more jobs right here at home. It is what Democrats have worked on for the past 12 months as we have helped Americans get back to normal, and it is what we will continue to focus on as we enter year 2 of the Biden administration. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgS529-8 | null | 3,927 |
formal | Hollywood | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this year's Winter Olympics are officially underway on the home turf of the Chinese Communist Party. Of course, Americans are rooting hard for our outstanding Team USA athletes, but this year's setting has also trained spotlights worldwide on the abuse and repression the CCP inflicts on its own people and aspires to inflict on much of the world. Unfortunately, this has also occasioned some instances of jaw-dropping tone-deafness and gullibility from American voices. I noted on this floor several years ago that as China has modernized its economy, too many wealthy and powerful American actors have seemed willing to help whitewash the CCP's many abuses or at least turn a blind eye. Hollywood self-censoring our own American films to satisfy President Xi and his cronies is just one example. Well, last week, one American broadcaster seemed to uncritically amplify the CCP's propaganda goal when they included a member of the oppressed Uighur minority in the opening ceremonies. This broadcaster called the CCP's obvious propaganda stunt ``an in-your-face response to those Western nations, including the U.S., who have called this Chinese treatment of that group `genocide.' '' President Xi couldn't have scripted it better. Also, last week, a faculty member at a Big Ten university went on TV and compared China's secret police to American police officers and China's tyranny to America's voting laws. Here was the quote: Who are we to criticize China's human rights record when we have ongoing attacks by the agents of the State against unarmed citizens, and we've got assaults on the voting rights of people of color in various States in this country? Really? Beyond absurd. The truth is, the CCP has turned Xinjiang Province into a giant oppression factory, where they enslave, sterilize, and commit genocide against the Muslim minority. The truth is, the CCP has systematically worn down human rights and democracy in Hong Kong and jailed Hongkongers for speaking up. The truth is, the CCP is an aggressive, irresponsible presence in the Pacific region and well beyond. America's national security and economic competition with the CCP is a defining challenge for our country--and not just us but for all our friends and partners around the world, anyone who values an international order built on freedom and self-determination instead of their opposites. Last year, the Senate took some bipartisan steps to strengthen America's hand in that competition. The bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act was not any Senator's or any committee's or either party's idea of a perfect bill, but this delicate compromise product made headway on issues from critical supply chains to counterespionage, to intellectual property. And the Senate passed the bill last June, and the House has done nothing for 8 months--nothing from House Democrats from last June until just last week. So a few days ago, instead of passing the Senate's careful compromise, House Democrats slapped together a partisan bill stuffed with poison pills and the kinds of things they tried to put in their reckless tax-and-spending spree that failed at the end of last year. They didn't even bother to try working with House Republicans. The whole exercise was completely unserious. House Democrats' version mentions the word ``climate'' nearly as many times as it mentions the word ``China.'' It pours billions into the U.N. Green Climate Fund so the United States can borrow money from China to give it to an international body, which can then give it to China. Their bill even goes out of its way to include provisions on--listen to this--marijuana banking. China has been steadily building up its military and economic might, and the Democrats' answer is to help Americans get high? Drug overdoses on fentanyl just became the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45 across our entire country. Much of this poison pours into our country from, of course, China. And Democrats' plan to combat this is some more marijuana on the side? Needless to say, this is not a winning strategy for a global competition between great powers. So here is the bottom line. The bipartisan Senate USICA bill was itself a delicate compromise product. Any Democrats hoping to yank the bill to the far left or insert poison pills are badly, badly mistaken. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgS530-4 | null | 3,928 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, there was another set of numbers that was released last Friday that testifies to good news, and America needs it. It testifies to the resilience of the American people and the American spirit. Many economists had braced for a disastrous January jobs report. The most optimistic among them predicted that the U.S. economy might grow by 150,000 or maybe 250,000 jobs last month. Some warned that it could show massive job losses. Here is what we learned: Despite the Omicron surge and the global supply chain shortages, U.S. employers added 467,000 new jobs last month--467,000. On top of that, the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows us the economy added 700,000 more jobs in November and December than we initially calculated. All told, the U.S. economy has added 6.6 million jobs in the last year--the strongest first-year job gain of any President in history. When Joe Biden took over the office a little over a year ago, he inheritedone of the weakest and fraught economies in generations. At the start of the pandemic, the U.S. unemployment rate spiked to 14.7 percent. Last February, the Congressional Budget Office forecasted that the United States would not see 3.9 percent unemployment for another 5 years. The unemployment rate now is actually 4 percent. America's economic recovery is breaking records. The United States was the first country in the G7 to recover all of its GDP lost by the pandemic. Average wages were up 5.7 percent last month from a year ago. The increases were not all at the top; workers in the middle and lower rungs of the economy earned more too. I have to say, as important as that is, we all know that people working in this economy are also facing inflation and higher prices. Whether it is for gasoline or groceries, they are finding it more expensive to meet the basic necessities of life. Although this is good news, that is bad news that we have to address and should address on a bipartisan basis. The progress that we have made was not inevitable; it was a product of good old-fashioned American ingenuity. It is also the result of bold and decisive economic decisions by the Biden administration. The American Rescue Plan, which Congress passed without the support of a single Republican Member of Congress--all Democrats all the way--broke the grip of the pandemic on our economy. We were able to get shots in arms, help small businesses stay afloat, and rush emergency assistance to people who had lost jobs or had seen their hours cut drastically. That emergency help worked in Illinois, and it worked all over this country. We also passed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Let me remind those who follow, if you are wondering about the infrastructure bill passed by the Trump administration, let me put your concern to rest. There was no bill. There was no legislation. There was no infrastructure plan despite President Trump's repeated promises to deliver one. He walked away from the table, and I was in the room when he did. He wouldn't even negotiate. We have not fixed all of the weaknesses in our economy. The jobless rate among Black workers is still twice that of White workers. Unemployment among teens and young adults is still too high. Research from the National Women's Law Center shows that, while men have recouped all job losses since the pandemic started, there are nearly 1.1 million fewer women in the workforce. Daycare is part of that calculation, I might add. If we want to reach our full economic potential, we need to help families find affordable, quality daycare, and we have to address the issue of inflation nonstop. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgS532-2 | null | 3,929 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on November 18 of last year, I came here to speak about the Office of Net Assessment. That is an office within the Pentagon. That office's purpose, under law, is to produce an annual net assessment, which is supposed to be a long-term look at our military's capability and those of our greatest adversaries. I don't think it lives up to its mission. In 2018, according to the Director of the Office of Net Assessment, that office had not produced a net assessment since 2007. Not doing its job for those 11 years and--who knows--possibly longer calls into question whether this office should even exist. Yet a recent inspector general report states that the office ``produces . . . highly classified net assessments.'' I question the IG's conclusion based upon available evidence that I know about, and I will give some of that evidence. In last year's speech here in the Senate and others that I have given over the years on this subject, I discussed my oversight of this office dating back to 2019. I also discussed my amendment to the national defense bill. That amendment would have done one very simple thing: required the Government Accountability Office to determine how much taxpayer money the Office of Net Assessment actually uses for net assessment--its purpose for existing. I want to know how much we can cut from their budget to save the taxpayers money. Apparently, this type of pro-taxpayer legislation was too much to ask for. Accordingly, it appears that the Office of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense gets to keep operating like a Pentagon slush fund for irrelevant and political research projects. On February 5, 2020, the Director of the Office of Net Assessment told me: We review all deliverables to ensure they're consistent with the statement of work. We evaluate each deliverable to assess whether we should seek additional information or require a resubmission of commissioned work. Now, I am going to return to that statement in a little bit, but I want to give you some evidence of why what he said doesn't work out in reality. In December 2020, I asked the inspector general to take a deeper dive into the Office of Net Assessment's contracting practices. That means connecting all the dots in the contract transactions to ensure that everything matches up. The inspector general reviewed 20 contracts. On January 25 of this year, the inspector general issued its results and found these three or four points: Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel inappropriately performed contracting officer representative duties for 20 contracts. Next point. Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel and an office providing contract support did not maintain complete contract files, including preawards and contract administration documentation. That also included the failure to maintain signed contracts and modifications. Since 2019, I have repeatedly asked for a full accounting of Stefan Halper's contracts. Either they never had one or they have decided to obstruct Congress. Next point. Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel and an office providing contract support inappropriately approved invoices for payments totaling $9.8 million dollars due to the lack of oversight. And that is just for the 20 contracts the inspector general sampled. So without required supporting documentation for payment, the door is, obviously, wide open to fraud, theft, and improper payments. Next point. Without established and documented surveillance measures for Office of Net Assessment service contracts, the Office of Net Assessment may not have received all services outlined in a contractor's statement of work. Next point--and last point. At this point, the next finding ought to be no surprise from the inspector general. The Office of Net Assessment did not administer contracts in accordance with the Federal Defense Department and Washington Headquarters Services internal regulations and policies. Further, the audit states the ``[Office of Net Assessment] acquisition personnel cannot verify whether they received services, valued at $4.1 million, in accordance with the statement of work.'' Now, let's return back to that first quote I gave you from the Director of Net Assessment. We review all deliverables to ensure [that] they're consistent with the statement of work. We evaluate each deliverable to assess whether we should seek additional information or require a resubmission of commissioned work. Based upon all of the available evidence from these 20 contracts that were inspected by the inspector general--and that is not all the contracts that the office negotiated--this Director's statement is absolutely false. So here is the bottom line: The Office of Net Assessment has no clue what they are paying for and whether they even received a complete work product. And whatever they are actually doing, it is not in compliance with Federal regulations, policy, and law. This is a complete embarrassment and a slap in the face of American taxpayers. While the Office of Net Assessment wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer money every year, the communist Chinese Government developed hypersonic missiles that can travel the globe. If this unit isn't doing the job that they are supposed to, to assess our national security capabilities and the capabilities of our enemies, why are we still funding it? It would be better to take the $20 million budget and give it to our servicemembers. At least we know that those servicemembers have earned it. A government slush fund will always be a government slush fund unless Congress, with our power of oversight and appropriations, steps up and fixes the problem. So I encourage my colleagues, especially those on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to take a stand against this blatant waste, fraud, abuse, and gross mismanagement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgS533-2 | null | 3,930 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on November 18 of last year, I came here to speak about the Office of Net Assessment. That is an office within the Pentagon. That office's purpose, under law, is to produce an annual net assessment, which is supposed to be a long-term look at our military's capability and those of our greatest adversaries. I don't think it lives up to its mission. In 2018, according to the Director of the Office of Net Assessment, that office had not produced a net assessment since 2007. Not doing its job for those 11 years and--who knows--possibly longer calls into question whether this office should even exist. Yet a recent inspector general report states that the office ``produces . . . highly classified net assessments.'' I question the IG's conclusion based upon available evidence that I know about, and I will give some of that evidence. In last year's speech here in the Senate and others that I have given over the years on this subject, I discussed my oversight of this office dating back to 2019. I also discussed my amendment to the national defense bill. That amendment would have done one very simple thing: required the Government Accountability Office to determine how much taxpayer money the Office of Net Assessment actually uses for net assessment--its purpose for existing. I want to know how much we can cut from their budget to save the taxpayers money. Apparently, this type of pro-taxpayer legislation was too much to ask for. Accordingly, it appears that the Office of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense gets to keep operating like a Pentagon slush fund for irrelevant and political research projects. On February 5, 2020, the Director of the Office of Net Assessment told me: We review all deliverables to ensure they're consistent with the statement of work. We evaluate each deliverable to assess whether we should seek additional information or require a resubmission of commissioned work. Now, I am going to return to that statement in a little bit, but I want to give you some evidence of why what he said doesn't work out in reality. In December 2020, I asked the inspector general to take a deeper dive into the Office of Net Assessment's contracting practices. That means connecting all the dots in the contract transactions to ensure that everything matches up. The inspector general reviewed 20 contracts. On January 25 of this year, the inspector general issued its results and found these three or four points: Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel inappropriately performed contracting officer representative duties for 20 contracts. Next point. Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel and an office providing contract support did not maintain complete contract files, including preawards and contract administration documentation. That also included the failure to maintain signed contracts and modifications. Since 2019, I have repeatedly asked for a full accounting of Stefan Halper's contracts. Either they never had one or they have decided to obstruct Congress. Next point. Office of Net Assessment acquisition personnel and an office providing contract support inappropriately approved invoices for payments totaling $9.8 million dollars due to the lack of oversight. And that is just for the 20 contracts the inspector general sampled. So without required supporting documentation for payment, the door is, obviously, wide open to fraud, theft, and improper payments. Next point. Without established and documented surveillance measures for Office of Net Assessment service contracts, the Office of Net Assessment may not have received all services outlined in a contractor's statement of work. Next point--and last point. At this point, the next finding ought to be no surprise from the inspector general. The Office of Net Assessment did not administer contracts in accordance with the Federal Defense Department and Washington Headquarters Services internal regulations and policies. Further, the audit states the ``[Office of Net Assessment] acquisition personnel cannot verify whether they received services, valued at $4.1 million, in accordance with the statement of work.'' Now, let's return back to that first quote I gave you from the Director of Net Assessment. We review all deliverables to ensure [that] they're consistent with the statement of work. We evaluate each deliverable to assess whether we should seek additional information or require a resubmission of commissioned work. Based upon all of the available evidence from these 20 contracts that were inspected by the inspector general--and that is not all the contracts that the office negotiated--this Director's statement is absolutely false. So here is the bottom line: The Office of Net Assessment has no clue what they are paying for and whether they even received a complete work product. And whatever they are actually doing, it is not in compliance with Federal regulations, policy, and law. This is a complete embarrassment and a slap in the face of American taxpayers. While the Office of Net Assessment wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer money every year, the communist Chinese Government developed hypersonic missiles that can travel the globe. If this unit isn't doing the job that they are supposed to, to assess our national security capabilities and the capabilities of our enemies, why are we still funding it? It would be better to take the $20 million budget and give it to our servicemembers. At least we know that those servicemembers have earned it. A government slush fund will always be a government slush fund unless Congress, with our power of oversight and appropriations, steps up and fixes the problem. So I encourage my colleagues, especially those on the Senate Armed Services Committee, to take a stand against this blatant waste, fraud, abuse, and gross mismanagement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgS533-2 | null | 3,931 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on another subject, I have come to this floor several times in recent months--maybe over the course of a couple of years--on my concerns about free speech on campus. There has been a lot said in opposition to reports of crackdown on speech on campuses, but today I come to the floor to give one shining example of a university upholding expressions of free speech and making it still happen. This all started with former University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer. The institution, starting with him and continuing, has consistently pushed back on the trends of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and the cancellation of invited speakers. Instead, in a letter to all incoming freshmen, the University of Chicago lays out its philosophy in plain English. In the letter to the 2020 freshman class, it said that one of the university's ``defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression.'' Now, this is more than just words; the university has consistently followed through on this policy. Even today, the university is still open to dissenting points of view. It even goes so far as to tell freshmen ``at times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.'' They are absolutely right. The point of college is not to be coddled. The point of college or university is to learn. How can students do that if they don't step out of their comfort zone? I often say that my definition of a university is a place where controversy should run rampant. At the University of Chicago, that means noting that ``diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community.'' Both opinion and background are very important, and it defeats the point to just have the one. Our universities cannot just have just a veneer of diversity; the whole point of bringing in students of different backgrounds is to get different points of view. That aim is meaningless if all students who go to the college believe the same things. I have introduced several bills to provide transparency for prospective students. My bills focus on transparency of cost, but in many ways openness about a university's values are just as important. So I congratulate former President Zimmer, who is doing just that and putting his university's values on his sleeve. If some schools keep cracking down on free speech and invited speakers, then the free market will send their students elsewhere. That is because I don't think all kids want to go to a school where they will never be challenged and where their ideals will always be reaffirmed. I am happy to see projects like the University of Austin, a newly founded college dedicated to free speech principles. So, in conclusion, it takes time to start new institutions. Instead, we need people to stand up in the colleges that we already have. And I hope others will join me in doing just that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-02-07-pt1-PgS534 | null | 3,932 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tonko). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3539) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 223 West Chalan Santo Papa in Hagatna, Guam, as the ``Atanasio Taitano Perez Post Office'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tonko) | House | CREC-2022-02-09-pt1-PgH1087 | null | 3,933 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2842) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 4th Street in Petaluma, California, as the ``Lynn C. Woolsey Post Office Building,'' on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-02-09-pt1-PgH1088 | null | 3,934 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Senate Business Mr. President, finally, on Senate business, concerning the activity on the floor today, the Senate is going to have another busy workday as we continue confirming Presidential nominations to the administration and onto the Federal bench. Today, three rollcall votes are scheduled on the nominations of both the head of the U.S. International Development Finance Corp and the President's pick for Assistant Secretary of the Army. But tonight we are very likely to add additional rollcall votes to complete the confirmation of several pending nominations. These votes will likely take us into the early evening, but they are necessary in order to confirm nominees. I will add that until this past year, these nominees almost always have been approved through unanimous consent. Unfortunately, a few people on the other side are holding it up and making us vote on each of these, but vote we must. Once again, though, to move things along, I ask my colleagues to cast their votes quickly tonight, to remain in their seats or near the floor as much as possible, and to be flexible in order to help move things along as quickly as possible on the Senate floor, as we did last week. We did a good job voting efficiently last week despite the large number of votes. So I ask everyone to continue at that pace tonight as needed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-09-pt1-PgS582-2 | null | 3,935 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Stock Trading Mr. President, finally, off the floor, I want to reiterate a brief point I made yesterday regarding stock trading and Members of Congress. I believe this is an important issue that Congress should address, and it is something that has clearly raised interest from both sides of the aisle over the past few weeks. As I said yesterday, there are a number of Senators with various proposals, and I have asked my Democratic colleagues to come together and come up with a single bill this Chamber can work on. I hope we can pass something. I want to encourage my colleagues on the Democratic side to reach out across the aisle. Some of the proposals--we have a whole bunch--have bipartisan support. This is something the Senate should address. Hopefully, we can act on it soon, and hopefully it can be done in a bipartisan way, like many of the bills we are looking at this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-09-pt1-PgS582-3 | null | 3,936 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the calendar: S. 3600. A bill to improve the cybersecurity of the Federal Government, and for other purposes. H.R. 3076. An act to provide stability to and enhance the services of the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes. H.R. 6617. An act making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-09-pt1-PgS612-2 | null | 3,937 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, yesterday, our colleagues from both sides of the aisle came together to announce an agreement on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, which was last acted on nearly a decade ago by this Chamber. I want to commend my colleagues Senators Feinstein and Durbin, as well as Senators Ernst and Murkowski, for all the work they have done to bring us closer to reauthorizing VAWA. I also want to thank my colleagues who are cosponsoring this legislation. And I have a particular interest because when I was in the House, I helped carry the original VAWA legislation that became law and has now lapsed. Most importantly, I want to thank every single person who participated in yesterday's press conference who shared their own experiences of abuse. The Violence Against Women Act is one of the most important laws passed by Congress in the last 30 years, and it is my hope that the Senate can take action on this bill in the near future. There are nine Republicans cosponsoring this legislation so we need one more, at least, in order to clear a path forward. If we can find more support for VAWA, I would expect that the Senate will seek to take action. VAWA must be reauthorized. We cannot allow inaction to persist for a moment longer, and with yesterday's bipartisan announcement, we are closer than ever to achieving that goal. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS620-2 | null | 3,938 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now on postal, there is one more sign of progress this week that I want to mention, another bipartisan effort like VAWA and like all of the other bills I have mentioned--arbitration and the CR--and this is the bipartisan efforts by both Chambers to pass the most significant postal reform bill in decades. Later today--soon--I will file cloture on the postal reform bill approved overwhelmingly by the House earlier this week. For the information of all Senators, this will set up the first vote this coming Monday evening. Postal reform has been decades in the making and is one of the best steps we can take to strengthen one of our country's most important institutions. Tens of millions of Americans depend on the post office every day. Seniors and veterans need it for things like medication. Businesses need it to function. Rural communities need it to stay connected. Countless people rely on the post office to connect with each other for things like birthdays, travel, the holidays, or any one of life's many, many special occasions. By passing postal reform, we can ensure that Americans will continue to rely on a speedy, dependable, and well-run post office. We have all heard complaints about how the mail delivery has slowed down. This is a strong, important effort to rectify that bad problem. It will be a win for everyday Americans and for the dedicated men and women who work to deliver our mail every single day. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS620-3 | null | 3,939 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, finally, on cannabis legislation. All of these issues I have mentioned--forced arbitration reform, appropriations, VAWA, and postal reform--have been bipartisan efforts. They reflect a commitment that Democrats made at the start of the year to work with the other side when the opportunities presented themselves, and I thank my Republican colleagues for working with us. Before I close, there is one more appeal I want to make for bipartisan cooperation, and that is on cannabis reform. This morning, I joined with Senators Booker and Wyden in sending a ``Dear Colleague,'' inviting Members from both sides of the aisle to join in an effort to draft and finalize comprehensive cannabis reform. Last summer, I joined with Senators Booker and Wyden in introducing our framework legislation for Federal reform of cannabis, and we want to build on this framework as we prepare to introduce legislation in the near future. Today, millions--hundreds of millions of Americans live in States, both blue and red, where cannabis has been legalized in some way. It is long past time for the Federal Government to catch up. This is about individual freedom and about basic fairness. For decades, Federal cannabis laws have caused immense damage to millions of Americans, particularly Black and Hispanic people, who have been unfairly targeted by these laws. We need to change that. We need to create opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses to legitimately pursue new opportunities, and comprehensive Federal cannabis legislation is critical--critical--to reaching that goal. I want to thank Senators Booker and Wyden and all my colleagues who have worked with us on this important and long-overdue change. I hope we can make more progress on cannabis reform in the near future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS620-4 | null | 3,940 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, finally, on cannabis legislation. All of these issues I have mentioned--forced arbitration reform, appropriations, VAWA, and postal reform--have been bipartisan efforts. They reflect a commitment that Democrats made at the start of the year to work with the other side when the opportunities presented themselves, and I thank my Republican colleagues for working with us. Before I close, there is one more appeal I want to make for bipartisan cooperation, and that is on cannabis reform. This morning, I joined with Senators Booker and Wyden in sending a ``Dear Colleague,'' inviting Members from both sides of the aisle to join in an effort to draft and finalize comprehensive cannabis reform. Last summer, I joined with Senators Booker and Wyden in introducing our framework legislation for Federal reform of cannabis, and we want to build on this framework as we prepare to introduce legislation in the near future. Today, millions--hundreds of millions of Americans live in States, both blue and red, where cannabis has been legalized in some way. It is long past time for the Federal Government to catch up. This is about individual freedom and about basic fairness. For decades, Federal cannabis laws have caused immense damage to millions of Americans, particularly Black and Hispanic people, who have been unfairly targeted by these laws. We need to change that. We need to create opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses to legitimately pursue new opportunities, and comprehensive Federal cannabis legislation is critical--critical--to reaching that goal. I want to thank Senators Booker and Wyden and all my colleagues who have worked with us on this important and long-overdue change. I hope we can make more progress on cannabis reform in the near future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS620-4 | null | 3,941 |
formal | bankers | null | antisemitic | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,942 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,943 |
formal | central banker | null | antisemitic | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,944 |
formal | central bankers | null | antisemitic | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,945 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,946 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,947 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,948 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Monetary Policy The reason I rise today, Mr. President, is to discuss an issue that really should be of serious concern to every Member of this body, and it goes to the heart of the very nature of accountability in a democratic republic such as ours. There is an awful lot in our culture, in our country, that has been politicized and polarized--we all know that--even sports, certainly news, maybe even music, and definitely our government. We have seen that manifested in many way, including a recent debate over the filibuster. But there are some things that Congress has tried hard to keep from being at least overly politicized in our government, and one of those is monetary policy. I think it is exceptionally important that we try the best we can, to the maximum extent we can, to not let politics infuse our monetary policy because that is going down a very bad and dangerous road. Unfortunately, I would suggest that we have started to see that encroachment. We started to see politics at the historically independent Federal Reserve. In the past month, the Banking Committee has held nomination hearings for five of President Biden's nominees for the Fed: Jerome Powell for Chairman of the Fed, Lael Brainard for Vice Chair of the Fed, Sarah Bloom Raskin for Vice Chair for Supervision at the Fed, and Lisa Cook and Philip Jefferson for Fed Governors. What I think about this slate of nominees, so to speak--and I have different views on the different candidates, but one thing is clear: This moment where we are going to decide whether or not to confirm these nominees is not just about the qualifications of the individuals; it is really a referendum on the role that the Fed is going to play in our country and whether it is going to remain an independent entity. Let me explain what I mean. I know there are folks on the left, including within the Biden administration--certainly some within the Biden administration--who are openly advocating that the Fed use its enormous supervisory powers over financial institutions to resolve some very complex but essentially political issues, like what we should do about global warming; even social justice; even, in some cases, education policy. Let me be clear. These are very important issues. These are big challenges for our country. But they are entirely unrelated to the Fed's limited statutory mandates and expertise, for that matter. Addressing these challenging issues of climate and social justice and education policy--all of them necessarily involve making tradeoffs and some tough decisions. In a democratic society, those tradeoffs must be made by elected representatives, the people who actually report to the American people. That is us. It is a legislative body. These big, tough policy decisions should not be made by unelected and unaccountable central bankers. The question is not about the importance of these issues. It is not about the specific policies. It is about who should decide--who should decide--how we proceed on these. Just take the case of global warming. We could decide to limit domestic oil and gas production. If we do that, energy prices will rise. Americans will pay more at the pump to accomplish the intended goal of decreasing emissions. Well, how much of that is appropriate? To what degree should we pursue that policy? If we move aggressively to limit energy production but other countries don't, then scientists tell us that global warming won't change in any significant way. Well, should we do it anyway? And how much of a change in the projected temperature of the planet should we insist on for any given amount of economic pain that we inflict on the American people? Look, I am not here to debate the answer to those questions. Those are tough questions, it seems to me. It is not about whether you think those are important questions. I think they are very important questions. My point is that they are difficult choices, and they have to be made by the accountable representatives of the American people through a transparent and deliberative legislative process. That is how we ought to make big decisions in this country. My concern about the Fed is it is wandering away from its mandate, it is overreaching, and there are some who are advocating that it use its enormous powers to make some of these decisions that the American people should be making through their elected representatives. By the way, this is not just a hypothetical; I have a number of examples. I will just share one example where the Fed is clearly exceeding its mandate, engaging in political advocacy--the Minneapolis Fed. The Minneapolis Fed--the leader, the President of the Minneapolis Fed--with apparently the full support of the board of the Minneapolis Fed, is actively lobbying to change Minnesota's Constitution and specifically to change it with respect to K-12 education policy. Does anybody think that how we pursue primary and secondary education is the role of the Fed to decide? I can assure you, it is not. By way of warning, if this kind of political activism by what is supposed to be an independent central bank--if this is tolerated, then the potential for abuse is endless. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. I would argue that three of President Biden's five nominees--Ms. Brainard, Ms. Raskin, and Professor Cook--have made a number of concerning statements that tell us exactly what they think the Fed should do outside of their mandated areas. Let's start with Governor Brainard. Now, to her credit, she has chosen her words much more carefully than, say, Ms. Raskin has, but Ms. Brainard has nonetheless urged the Fed to take an activist role on global warming. According to the New York Times, she has ``endorsed the use of supervisory guidance--the Fed's recommendations to banks--to encouragefinancial institutions to curb their exposures.'' That is exactly what I am talking about--using the powers of the Fed to pressure financial institutions to decide who gets credit and who doesn't. I am particularly concerned that she has specifically advocated for the Fed to shape environmental policy through the so-called climate scenario analysis. Now, Miss Brainard and others suggest that they just want to understand the systemic risk that arises from global warming. First of all, the Fed doesn't have any expertise in environmental policy. The fact is, there is no reason to think that global warming actually poses systemic risk to the financial system. It doesn't. As I have stated repeatedly, we haven't found a single bank, a single financial institution anywhere in America that has failed in modern times due to any weather event. We get hit with very severe weather events every single year, year in and year out, but never has a financial institution--not a single one, much less the entire system. Now, Ms. Raskin--Sarah Bloom Raskin--who is the nominee to actually be in charge of the supervision of Fed-regulated banks, has gone even further than Ms. Brainard in advocating for financial regulators to take this activist role with respect to global warming. She has repeatedly, publicly, and forcefully advocated for using financial regulation in general--and the Fed in particular--to allocate capital and debank energy companies. Now, again, Ms. Brainard and Ms. Raskin will say that this is just about assessing risk; but in reality, Ms. Raskin has also said the quiet part out loud. In a 2020 report from a progressive organization, Ms. Raskin urged financial regulators to adopt policies that will ``allocate capital'' away from energy companies. In a 2021 speech at the Green Swan Conference, she proposed ``portfolio limits or concentration limits'' on banks' loans to energy companies. It is not because the banks can't withstand a credit loss if that should occur. Actually, the American banking system is more heavily capitalized than it has ever been. That is not what it is about. It is about her view about climate change. In May of 2020, at the height of the pandemic, she wrote an op-ed in the New York Times specifically calling for excluding a single sector, the fossil energy sector, which she called a ``dying industry,'' from the Fed's emergency lending facilities. Now, the Fed--you could argue about whether the Fed should have ever stood up these facilities, but at least the Fed, at the time, had the good sense to say: If we go in and buy corporate bonds, we are going to do it through a vehicle where we do not discriminate at all among the many, many sectors of our economy because it is not our job as the Fed to decide which ones get favorable treatment and which ones don't. That is up to markets to decide. That is not Ms. Raskin's view. She was very clear. She criticized the Fed precisely because they did not intentionally exclude the fossil energy sector. This is a bad idea on many, many levels. One of which is, by the way, central committees that try to allocate capital in economies usually do a really bad job. And that is one of the reasons why our economy has outperformed the rest of the world. We tend not to do that, and many other countries tend to do that. I can give you an example of where this can go. She wrote at the time, back in 2020, that ``Even in the short term''--in the short term--``fossil fuels are a terrible investment.'' Well, whatever you might think about the long term, the jury is back in on the short term. Investment in fossil fuels was absolutely terrific. That is just the data, right? The S&P 500, over the last 12 months, is up 21 percent. Oil and gas indices are up 65, 70 percent. That is the kind of mistake that too much hubris in government can lead to. And Ms. Raskin's proposals would not be just devastating for energy workers but also consumers, who would end up inevitably having to pay much more for energy. Again, what is the basis on which she defends exercising these extraordinary powers? Well, it certainly is her belief that climate risk is so imminent, so threatening, and so devastating that it just requires this. And let me be clear: The folks--Ms. Raskin and Ms. Brainard--they divide this into two categories--climate risk, that is. There is the physical risk, and then there is what they call transition risk. Now, the data is very clear about the physical risk, right, like an adverse event from severe weather events. They don't pose a threat to our financial system. Think about the things that we have withstood in the last few years: Hurricane Sandy, forest fires, and devastating events. Name one financial institution in America that failed as a result. There isn't one. Not even close. They weren't even harmed, much less our entire financial system. So even Chairman Powell agreed that there is no physical risk to financial institutions. So the one that they rely on is, well, but there is transition risk. Transition risk. Well, transition risk is really about changing customer preference. And that happens all the time. Customers' preferences change. I would suggest that bankers know how to manage changes in their customers' preferences better than central bankers do or regulators do. That is not that different from the risk they run every day. They lend money to companies that have a permanent risk that consumer preferences will change in ways that could be adverse for the company to which they lend. It is a fundamental part of their business to understand the risk they take of that sort. So what is a transition risk, really? What transition risk really is: It is a political risk. And Chairman Powell pretty much acknowledged that too. The real nature of the transition risk is unelected officials like Ms. Raskin exercising the power she thinks the Fed should exercise, which is to step in and make it prohibitively expensive, for instance, for banks to provide credit to the energy sector or put caps on how much exposure they can have to this. That is the risk. And I don't know how you do a scenario analysis when the scenario you have to analyze is one in which there are political moves to constrain your business. As I said, Ms. Raskin says the quiet part out loud. Now let me turn to Professor Cook. Now, the administration cites her role as a director of the Chicago Fed as one of the main qualifications for her elevation to Federal Reserve Board of Governors. She is a director of the Chicago Fed. She was put in that position 2 weeks before she was nominated to be a Fed Board Governor. She has a Ph.D., but she has done no academic work in monetary economics. And the few times that she has spoken about monetary policy, it has been a cause for considerable concern. So we have got unemployment at or maybe below 4 percent, inflation above 7 percent, and Professor Cook refused to endorse the Fed's recent decision to at least begin to withdraw the easy money policy that they have been pursuing. Let's keep in mind, today the Fed is still buying bonds. The Fed is still throwing gasoline on the inflation fire. They are throwing a little less gasoline than they did before, and they do intend to phase it out completely by March. So we have got inflation roaring along; we are pretty close to full employment; and she couldn't bring herself to suggest that, yeah, at least we should accelerate the pace at which we withdraw the easy money we have been pouring into the economy. I don't know how Professor Cook could come to that conclusion. I mean, the fact is, inflation is way, way--it is multiples of what the Fed target is. It is at a 40-year high. And while wages have been growing, they are not growing as fast as inflation. So people's take-home pay goes up, but the cost of the things they need to buy goes up by more. That unambiguously leaves workers further and further behind. I am also concerned that most of what Professor Cook has focused on in her writing and speaking and, certainly, tweeting is very extreme political advocacy. So, for instance, she is a big supporter of race-based reparations. She has promoted conspiracies about the Georgia voter laws. She has sought to cancel those who disagree with her views. In fact, she publicly called for the firing of an economist who dared totweet that he opposed the idea of defunding the Chicago Police. And after Banking Committee Republican staff highlighted some of these tweets and others and brought it to the public's attention, Professor Cook blocked the Banking Committee Republican Twitter account. Maybe she realizes just how inflammatory her partisan tweets have been. But, look, I mean, the Fed is already, in my view, suffering from a bit of a credibility problem because it has wandered outside of its lane. It has sought to influence policy beyond its mandate. And I am concerned that Professor Cook will further politicize an institution that absolutely should remain apolitical. So, Mr. President, I will conclude with this. Let's think about what is the danger here if we went ahead and confirmed all of these nominees. We would be confirming partisans to the Fed Board, contributing to its movement in a partisan direction, and ratifying the idea that the Fed ought to engage in what, in my view, certainly should be the domain of accountable elected representatives. They have told us this. It would be in global warming. It might very well be in issues of social justice. It might even be education policy, as we are seeing today. And this is not the role of the Fed. This is not appropriate. And it probably doesn't end there. If this is ratified and if the Fed starts to go down this road, well, someday Republicans will be in control, Republicans will populate the Board of Governors of the Fed. And will those appointees decide, well, maybe the Congress doesn't spend enough money on defense, so maybe we should allocate some financial resources to defense companies? Or maybe Congress doesn't spend enough money building a border wall. Maybe we ought to find a way to subsidize companies engaged in that. Or maybe there is not enough offshore oil development, and we should do that. Look, that would be a terrible idea. That would be a terrible idea. I might support those policies. I would adamantly oppose the Fed having the authority to decide anything about those policies. I know my Democratic colleagues have spent the last several months talking about how passionately dedicated they are to democratic values and democratic principles. Look, I think there is a lot of sincerity on the part of my Democratic colleagues. But certainly one of those democratic principles has to be that unelected Governors of America's central bank can't exercise responsibility that belongs with the American people and their elected representatives. So I think the vote on these nominees isn't just about the individual nominees. It is about whether we are going to keep the Fed apolitical and independent and ensure that elected accountable representatives make the difficult decisions for our country. If that doesn't convince my colleagues, then I would urge them to remember that in this line of work one thing is always true, and that is that, eventually, the shoe is on the other foot. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS636 | null | 3,949 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Black History Month. Black History Month provides an opportunity for our Nation collectively to reflect on and celebrate the contributions and legacies of Black Americans. And while we have chosen this month, February, to engage in collective celebration, we must also remember that we benefit from the contributions and legacies of these great Americans every single day. Today, I would like to focus my remarks on our Nation's black entrepreneurs. From Madame C.J. Walker to Baltimore's own Reginald F. Lewis and beyond, Black entrepreneurs have long been vital to the success of the American economy. Unfortunately, throughout history, those who seek to hold back the progress of the Black community view the successes of Black entrepreneurs as a threat. One need only look to the 1921 Tulsa Massacre--a dark incident in our Nation's history that has belatedly entered our collective consciousness. White residents of Tulsa, OK, bombed, burned, and destroyed the Greenwood District. In addition to an untold number of lives lost--estimates range from dozens to hundreds--the riot destroyed homes, churches, schools, and businesses in the district. At the time, Greenwood was known as ``Black Wall Street'' due to its thriving Black middle class and successful businesses, and its destruction was one of the worst instances of racial violence in our Nation's history. It is with instances like Greenwood and the dozens like it in mind that I stand here today because while Black entrepreneurs no longer work under the threat of such violence, they still face many longstanding systemic barriers. My late friend and mentor, former Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, believed very strongly that the Federal Government had an important role to play in our efforts to right these historical injustices and support Black entrepreneurs. In 1977, Congressman Mitchell fought to pass an amendment to a $4 billion Federal public works program requiring city and State recipients to set aside 10 percent of the funds for minority-owned businesses. He would go on to call the amendment his proudest congressional accomplishment. I was incredibly proud last year to build on his legacy by working across the aisle and finally codifying the Minority Business Development Agency, MBDA, and giving the agency the resources and leadership necessary to help support entrepreneurs in the Black and other minority communities. This accomplishment is particularly important in Maryland, as the Presiding Officer knows, since we are the home to the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses in the country. While we have made progress, we must also continue working together to address these systemic inequities. At the height of the pandemic, we came together to create the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP program, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to improve the program once it became clear that it was leaving far too many of our most vulnerable small businesses behind. We invested in non-bank financial institutions like the community depository financial institutions and microlenders. We strengthened relationships between the Small Business Administration and our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. We created grant programs that reduced structural barriers instead of reinforcing them. Recent studies have shown that these policies directly address the inequities present during the phase 1 PPP, which favored larger businesses. Through thoughtful policy, we made the program more equitable with the share of loans made to minority-owned businesses during phases 2 and 3 of the program in proportion with their overall share of small businesses. As I speak here today, the Senate is still trying to find a path forward on President Biden's Build Back Better budget, which implements many of the lessons we have learned over the past 2 years. The bill contains many key provisions that will provide the SBA and the MBDA with resources to empower Black entrepreneurs even more. For instance, the Build Back Better Act would create a direct loan program at the SBA. It would create a new Uplift Accelerator program to deepen the relationships between SBA and HBCUs, and it would make the SBA existing loan products more accessible and affordable. The pandemic has demonstrated that when we come together to address the problems in our society free from partisanship and in good faith, we are able to make great strides. It also confirms that the Federal Government has a key role to play in addressing the historic injustices that have harmed--and continue to harm--Black entrepreneurs and the Black community at large. This Black History Month, let us commit to pairing our words with actions, just as we did during the pandemic. We need to enact these proven policies as quickly as possible. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS640-2 | null | 3,950 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Black History Month. Black History Month provides an opportunity for our Nation collectively to reflect on and celebrate the contributions and legacies of Black Americans. And while we have chosen this month, February, to engage in collective celebration, we must also remember that we benefit from the contributions and legacies of these great Americans every single day. Today, I would like to focus my remarks on our Nation's black entrepreneurs. From Madame C.J. Walker to Baltimore's own Reginald F. Lewis and beyond, Black entrepreneurs have long been vital to the success of the American economy. Unfortunately, throughout history, those who seek to hold back the progress of the Black community view the successes of Black entrepreneurs as a threat. One need only look to the 1921 Tulsa Massacre--a dark incident in our Nation's history that has belatedly entered our collective consciousness. White residents of Tulsa, OK, bombed, burned, and destroyed the Greenwood District. In addition to an untold number of lives lost--estimates range from dozens to hundreds--the riot destroyed homes, churches, schools, and businesses in the district. At the time, Greenwood was known as ``Black Wall Street'' due to its thriving Black middle class and successful businesses, and its destruction was one of the worst instances of racial violence in our Nation's history. It is with instances like Greenwood and the dozens like it in mind that I stand here today because while Black entrepreneurs no longer work under the threat of such violence, they still face many longstanding systemic barriers. My late friend and mentor, former Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, believed very strongly that the Federal Government had an important role to play in our efforts to right these historical injustices and support Black entrepreneurs. In 1977, Congressman Mitchell fought to pass an amendment to a $4 billion Federal public works program requiring city and State recipients to set aside 10 percent of the funds for minority-owned businesses. He would go on to call the amendment his proudest congressional accomplishment. I was incredibly proud last year to build on his legacy by working across the aisle and finally codifying the Minority Business Development Agency, MBDA, and giving the agency the resources and leadership necessary to help support entrepreneurs in the Black and other minority communities. This accomplishment is particularly important in Maryland, as the Presiding Officer knows, since we are the home to the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses in the country. While we have made progress, we must also continue working together to address these systemic inequities. At the height of the pandemic, we came together to create the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP program, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to improve the program once it became clear that it was leaving far too many of our most vulnerable small businesses behind. We invested in non-bank financial institutions like the community depository financial institutions and microlenders. We strengthened relationships between the Small Business Administration and our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. We created grant programs that reduced structural barriers instead of reinforcing them. Recent studies have shown that these policies directly address the inequities present during the phase 1 PPP, which favored larger businesses. Through thoughtful policy, we made the program more equitable with the share of loans made to minority-owned businesses during phases 2 and 3 of the program in proportion with their overall share of small businesses. As I speak here today, the Senate is still trying to find a path forward on President Biden's Build Back Better budget, which implements many of the lessons we have learned over the past 2 years. The bill contains many key provisions that will provide the SBA and the MBDA with resources to empower Black entrepreneurs even more. For instance, the Build Back Better Act would create a direct loan program at the SBA. It would create a new Uplift Accelerator program to deepen the relationships between SBA and HBCUs, and it would make the SBA existing loan products more accessible and affordable. The pandemic has demonstrated that when we come together to address the problems in our society free from partisanship and in good faith, we are able to make great strides. It also confirms that the Federal Government has a key role to play in addressing the historic injustices that have harmed--and continue to harm--Black entrepreneurs and the Black community at large. This Black History Month, let us commit to pairing our words with actions, just as we did during the pandemic. We need to enact these proven policies as quickly as possible. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS640-2 | null | 3,951 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Black History Month. Black History Month provides an opportunity for our Nation collectively to reflect on and celebrate the contributions and legacies of Black Americans. And while we have chosen this month, February, to engage in collective celebration, we must also remember that we benefit from the contributions and legacies of these great Americans every single day. Today, I would like to focus my remarks on our Nation's black entrepreneurs. From Madame C.J. Walker to Baltimore's own Reginald F. Lewis and beyond, Black entrepreneurs have long been vital to the success of the American economy. Unfortunately, throughout history, those who seek to hold back the progress of the Black community view the successes of Black entrepreneurs as a threat. One need only look to the 1921 Tulsa Massacre--a dark incident in our Nation's history that has belatedly entered our collective consciousness. White residents of Tulsa, OK, bombed, burned, and destroyed the Greenwood District. In addition to an untold number of lives lost--estimates range from dozens to hundreds--the riot destroyed homes, churches, schools, and businesses in the district. At the time, Greenwood was known as ``Black Wall Street'' due to its thriving Black middle class and successful businesses, and its destruction was one of the worst instances of racial violence in our Nation's history. It is with instances like Greenwood and the dozens like it in mind that I stand here today because while Black entrepreneurs no longer work under the threat of such violence, they still face many longstanding systemic barriers. My late friend and mentor, former Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, believed very strongly that the Federal Government had an important role to play in our efforts to right these historical injustices and support Black entrepreneurs. In 1977, Congressman Mitchell fought to pass an amendment to a $4 billion Federal public works program requiring city and State recipients to set aside 10 percent of the funds for minority-owned businesses. He would go on to call the amendment his proudest congressional accomplishment. I was incredibly proud last year to build on his legacy by working across the aisle and finally codifying the Minority Business Development Agency, MBDA, and giving the agency the resources and leadership necessary to help support entrepreneurs in the Black and other minority communities. This accomplishment is particularly important in Maryland, as the Presiding Officer knows, since we are the home to the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses in the country. While we have made progress, we must also continue working together to address these systemic inequities. At the height of the pandemic, we came together to create the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP program, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to improve the program once it became clear that it was leaving far too many of our most vulnerable small businesses behind. We invested in non-bank financial institutions like the community depository financial institutions and microlenders. We strengthened relationships between the Small Business Administration and our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. We created grant programs that reduced structural barriers instead of reinforcing them. Recent studies have shown that these policies directly address the inequities present during the phase 1 PPP, which favored larger businesses. Through thoughtful policy, we made the program more equitable with the share of loans made to minority-owned businesses during phases 2 and 3 of the program in proportion with their overall share of small businesses. As I speak here today, the Senate is still trying to find a path forward on President Biden's Build Back Better budget, which implements many of the lessons we have learned over the past 2 years. The bill contains many key provisions that will provide the SBA and the MBDA with resources to empower Black entrepreneurs even more. For instance, the Build Back Better Act would create a direct loan program at the SBA. It would create a new Uplift Accelerator program to deepen the relationships between SBA and HBCUs, and it would make the SBA existing loan products more accessible and affordable. The pandemic has demonstrated that when we come together to address the problems in our society free from partisanship and in good faith, we are able to make great strides. It also confirms that the Federal Government has a key role to play in addressing the historic injustices that have harmed--and continue to harm--Black entrepreneurs and the Black community at large. This Black History Month, let us commit to pairing our words with actions, just as we did during the pandemic. We need to enact these proven policies as quickly as possible. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS640-2 | null | 3,952 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Black History Month. Black History Month provides an opportunity for our Nation collectively to reflect on and celebrate the contributions and legacies of Black Americans. And while we have chosen this month, February, to engage in collective celebration, we must also remember that we benefit from the contributions and legacies of these great Americans every single day. Today, I would like to focus my remarks on our Nation's black entrepreneurs. From Madame C.J. Walker to Baltimore's own Reginald F. Lewis and beyond, Black entrepreneurs have long been vital to the success of the American economy. Unfortunately, throughout history, those who seek to hold back the progress of the Black community view the successes of Black entrepreneurs as a threat. One need only look to the 1921 Tulsa Massacre--a dark incident in our Nation's history that has belatedly entered our collective consciousness. White residents of Tulsa, OK, bombed, burned, and destroyed the Greenwood District. In addition to an untold number of lives lost--estimates range from dozens to hundreds--the riot destroyed homes, churches, schools, and businesses in the district. At the time, Greenwood was known as ``Black Wall Street'' due to its thriving Black middle class and successful businesses, and its destruction was one of the worst instances of racial violence in our Nation's history. It is with instances like Greenwood and the dozens like it in mind that I stand here today because while Black entrepreneurs no longer work under the threat of such violence, they still face many longstanding systemic barriers. My late friend and mentor, former Congressman Parren J. Mitchell, believed very strongly that the Federal Government had an important role to play in our efforts to right these historical injustices and support Black entrepreneurs. In 1977, Congressman Mitchell fought to pass an amendment to a $4 billion Federal public works program requiring city and State recipients to set aside 10 percent of the funds for minority-owned businesses. He would go on to call the amendment his proudest congressional accomplishment. I was incredibly proud last year to build on his legacy by working across the aisle and finally codifying the Minority Business Development Agency, MBDA, and giving the agency the resources and leadership necessary to help support entrepreneurs in the Black and other minority communities. This accomplishment is particularly important in Maryland, as the Presiding Officer knows, since we are the home to the highest concentration of minority-owned businesses in the country. While we have made progress, we must also continue working together to address these systemic inequities. At the height of the pandemic, we came together to create the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP program, and we worked in a bipartisan manner to improve the program once it became clear that it was leaving far too many of our most vulnerable small businesses behind. We invested in non-bank financial institutions like the community depository financial institutions and microlenders. We strengthened relationships between the Small Business Administration and our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. We created grant programs that reduced structural barriers instead of reinforcing them. Recent studies have shown that these policies directly address the inequities present during the phase 1 PPP, which favored larger businesses. Through thoughtful policy, we made the program more equitable with the share of loans made to minority-owned businesses during phases 2 and 3 of the program in proportion with their overall share of small businesses. As I speak here today, the Senate is still trying to find a path forward on President Biden's Build Back Better budget, which implements many of the lessons we have learned over the past 2 years. The bill contains many key provisions that will provide the SBA and the MBDA with resources to empower Black entrepreneurs even more. For instance, the Build Back Better Act would create a direct loan program at the SBA. It would create a new Uplift Accelerator program to deepen the relationships between SBA and HBCUs, and it would make the SBA existing loan products more accessible and affordable. The pandemic has demonstrated that when we come together to address the problems in our society free from partisanship and in good faith, we are able to make great strides. It also confirms that the Federal Government has a key role to play in addressing the historic injustices that have harmed--and continue to harm--Black entrepreneurs and the Black community at large. This Black History Month, let us commit to pairing our words with actions, just as we did during the pandemic. We need to enact these proven policies as quickly as possible. We cannot let this opportunity pass us by. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS640-2 | null | 3,953 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-3161. A communication from the Supervisor, Human Resources Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, four (4) reports relative to vacancies in the Environmental Protection Agency, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3162. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2022'' (RIN3150-AK45) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3163. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revision of the NRC Enforcement Policy'' (10 CFR Part 2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3164. 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 ``Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.245 Rev 0, `Preparing Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics (PFM) Submittals' '' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3165. A communication from the Regulations Officer, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Broadband Infrastructure Deployment'' (RIN2125-AF92) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3166. A communication from the Regulations Officer, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Design Standards for Highways'' (RIN2125-AF88) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3167. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Residual Risk and Technology Review; Correction'' ((RIN2060-AV01)(FRL No. 6838.1-03-OAR)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 20, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3168. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Ai Quality Implementation Plan; Delaware; Emissions Statement Certification for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (FRL No. 9297-02-R3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 20, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3169. 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; Wisconsin; Wisconsin Nonattainment New Source Review Certification for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 9444-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 20, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3170. 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; Illinois; Removal of Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 9056-03-R3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 20, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3171. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Clean Air Act Section 112 List of Hazardous Air Pollutant: Amendments to the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)'' ((RIN2060-AS26)(FRL No. 5562-08-OAR)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3172. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``State of New Mexico Underground Injection Control Program; Primacy Revisions'' (FRL No. 7998-02-OW) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3173. 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; North Carolina; Minor Revisions to Cotton Ginning Operations Rule'' (FRL No. 9060-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3174. 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; North Carolina; Mecklenburg General Provisions'' (FRL No. 9235-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3175. 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; Ohio; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Muskingum River SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan'' (FRL No. 9271-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3176. 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; Michigan; Finding of Failure to Attain the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Detroit Nonattainment Area'' (FRL No. 9166-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3177. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions in Response to the 2015 Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Showdown, and Malfunction'' (FRL No. 9250-01-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3178. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of California Air Quality Implementation Plan Revisions; Amador Air District; Stationary Source Permits'' (FRL No. 8773-02- R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3179. 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; Wisconsin; Redesignation of the Rhinelander Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area'' (FRL No. 9201-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3180. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (FRL No. 5906.6-01-OECA) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 14, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3181. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Commonwealth of Kentucky: Codification and Incorporation by Reference of Approved State Underground Storage Tank Program'' (FRL No. 9057-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3182. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``District of Columbia: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference'' (FRL No. 8854-01-R3) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3183. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Georgia; 2015 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Program Requirements'' (FRL No. 9319-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3184. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Mecklenburg Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Rule Revisions'' (FRL No. 8981-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3185. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Catawba Indian Nation Portion of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill Area Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 9276-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3186. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Washington; Update to the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Wood Heater and Burn Ban Regulations'' (FRL No. 9189-02-R10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3187. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Mecklenburg: Source Testing'' (FRL No. 9278-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3188. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) for Public Water Systems and Announcement of Public Meetings; Minor Corrections'' ((RIN2040-AF89)(FRL No. 6791-05-OW)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3189. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe's Tribal Implementation Plan; Northern Cheyenne Tribe; Open Burning Permit Program and Maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 9082-02-R8) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-3190. A communication from the Acting Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Florida; Removal of Motor Vehicle Rules'' (FRL No. 9238-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 31, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-10-pt1-PgS645-4 | null | 3,954 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Kevin McCumber, Deputy Clerk of the House, reported and found truly enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker: H.R. 1281. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Gaylord, Michigan, as the ``Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-11-pt1-PgH1118-5 | null | 3,955 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi: Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 5658. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on the cybersecurity roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-245). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi: Committee on Homeland Security. H.R. 5681. A bill to authorize the reclassification of the tactical enforcement officers (commonly known as the ``Shadow Wolves'') in the Homeland Security Investigations tactical patrol unit operating on the lands of the Tohono O'odham Nation as special agents, and for other purposes (Rept. 117-246). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-11-pt1-PgH1118-9 | null | 3,956 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Tribute to Julius Boatwright Mr. President, in Southwestern Pennsylvania, our third honoree is Julius Boatwright. Not only has the pandemic taken a toll on the Nation's physical health, but many Americans struggle with mental health challenges, particularly isolation and grief. Julius Boatwright knows that good mental health is fundamental, foundational, to overall well-being. He has made delivering critical mental health services his life's work. At a time when the pandemic has left many Americans feeling isolated, alone, and depressed, Julius's mission has renewed urgency. In his work as a licensed social worker, community-based therapist, and outpatient therapist, Julius Boatwright has led with profound vulnerability and understanding. His passion for mental health is derived from a deeply personal place. Julius has bravely discussed his own mental health struggles in an effort to open up a conversation about mental well-being. His experience of growing up in a household and a community where mental health was never talked about planted the desire for him to address silent suffering. In college, the death of a friend by suicide could have disrupted Julius's journey to becoming a mental health professional. Instead, this deeply personal challenge spurred him onward. He would go on to earn a bachelor's degree in communications and a master's of social work, with a certificate in human services management, from the University of Pittsburgh, as well as establish the Pittsburgh-based nonprofit Steel Smiling. Julius is now the founding and managing director of Steel Smiling. The organization's mission is to bridge the gap between Black people and mentalhealth support through education, advocacy, and awareness. Steel Smiling has an ambitious goal, to connect every Black person in Pittsburgh to a positive mental health experience that improves their quality of life by the year 2030. Julius's empathy and vision is encouraging and inspiring, and I look forward to witnessing the transformative impact of his work. Steel Smiling has already begun to improve the mental well-being of Pittsburgh's Black community. Since 2019, the organization has been a significant provider of community services, helping Black Pittsburghers to receive mental health treatment, training, and support. The implementation of culturally sensitive programs, trainings, and workshops have helped combat the cultural stigma that exists in Black and Brown communities surrounding mental health. The need for sensitive, stigma-free mental health support has been a longstanding one, but there has been a long gap between the need for services and the availability of them. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has even more starkly illustrated the critical need for behavioral health services, especially for people of color. So I am grateful to Julius for not just recognizing the need but for stepping up and working to address critical community need. (Ms. SMITH assumed the chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-14-pt1-PgS667-3 | null | 3,957 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Tribute to Theo Braddy Madam President, finally, Theo Braddy, our fourth honoree. Theo is from Harrisburg, PA, and he is the personification of resilience in the face of adversity, and I am honored to recognize him today. At the age of 15, Theo was involved in an accident while playing high school football, and the resulting neck injury left him paralyzed and a wheelchair user. This life-changing experience would become a catalyst for his future work in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. After his accident, Theo moved to Pennsylvania and completed high school. He furthered his education by graduating from Edinboro University in Erie County, and then he earned his master's degree in social work from Temple University in 1988. Later that year, Theo Braddy established and became the founding director of the Center for Independent Living of Central Pennsylvania, a position he held for over 30 years. As CEO, Theo was instrumental in creating an independent living center that would become a strong and vibrant voice for people with disabilities in central Pennsylvania and, indeed, throughout the Commonwealth. Under Theo's leadership, the Center for Independent Living of Central Pennsylvania not only provided essential services for people with disabilities but has also advocated for accessible transportation, more access to assistive technology, and expanded home- and community-based services. Theo crafted his leadership role to both create services for people with disabilities and to advocate to improve the lives of people with disabilities. In addition to his work leading the center, Theo has served on numerous boards and committees over his career, influencing disability policy. He was appointed by three different Governors of Pennsylvania to serve as a commissioner for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Theo also served on the Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council. He has taken his years of service and advocacy to the classroom to help shape the disability leaders of the future, teaching at several institutions of higher education. For example, in 2019, after leading the Center for Independent Living of Central Pennsylvania for those 30 years, Theo retired to begin his next venture. Today, Theo serves as president of his own consulting firm. I have had the opportunity to work with Theo on a number of disability issues over the years, and his professional and personal knowledge about the importance of home- and community-based services has been invaluable in shaping meaningful policy and communicating it to Members of Congress. For over 40 years, Theo has proudly and inclusively served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with his advocacy for people with disabilities. We are grateful for his commitment to making our State and our Nation fairer and more accessible for all. In conclusion, it is a privilege and a pleasure to be able to honor these remarkable Pennsylvanians: Ty Holmes, Della Clark, Julius Boatwright, and Theo Braddy. While their work as repairers of the breach varies from community activism and youth development to economic development, to mental health support, to the civil rights of people with disabilities, all four share a commitment to lifting up their neighbors and their neighborhoods. They believe that we are stronger when we stand together and that, by joining hands with our brothers and sisters, we can overcome adversity, build resilience, and flourish together. As we head toward the light at the end of the tunnel of this pandemic and continue to strive to ensure the ideals of our Nation are fulfilled for all Americans, the stories of these exceptional leaders will continue to inspire all of us to pursue a brighter tomorrow for America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-14-pt1-PgS668 | null | 3,958 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Enrolled Bills Signed At 3:04 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has signed the following enrolled bills: S. 566. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 42 Main Street in Slatersville, Rhode Island, as the ``Specialist Matthew R. Turcotte Post Office''. S. 583. An act to promote innovative acquisition techniques and procurement strategies, and for other purposes. H.R. 1281. An act to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Gaylord, Michigan, as the ``Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic''. The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro tempore (Mr. Leahy). The message further announced that the Clerk be directed to request the Senate to return to the House of Representatives the bill (H.R. 3076) to provide stability to and enhance the services of the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes. The message also announced that pursuant to section 1004(b)(2)(C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (Public Law 117-81), the Minority Leader appoints the following member to the Commission on Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Reform: Mr. Jonathan Burkes of Arlington, Virginia. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-14-pt1-PgS673-4 | null | 3,959 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night I filed cloture on additional Defense nominees, including Celeste Wallander, nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. If this were any other time, Ms. Wallander's nomination most certainly would have sailed through the Senate with unanimous consent, without the need for a rollcall vote. At the committee level, her nomination was approved with strong support from both parties; and, frankly, she should have been approved unanimously the moment she was reported out of the Armed Services Committee. Many on both sides of the aisle recognize we need her at the Pentagon now. As one of our Nation's top experts on Russian affairs, her leadership is vital right now. Sadly--sadly--one Republican, just one, has objected to Ms. Wallander's confirmation without offering any concrete justification. So we are going to take up floor time to advance her nomination the long way, just as we have done for many nominees who face unprecedented obstruction by a small group of Republicans. This is not the majority of the Republican Party or the majority of Republican Senators, but a small group using the Senate rules--many of which are arcane and outdated--to stand in the way and slow the whole process down, endangering our security. Let's be clear. To intentionally delay the confirmation of a critical Pentagon position--an expert on Russia at a time when we need her in the position most--just to score political points is the definition of cynical and is actively making the American people less safe. Sadly, Ms. Wallander is far from the only nominee being held up by these obstructionists on the right. The junior Senator from Arkansas has also placed blanket holds on a number of U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals, men and women whose job is literally to protect the public and prosecute criminals. If my Republican colleagues are so concerned about public safety, why are they standing in the way of confirming some of the most important law enforcement officers in the Federal Government? It is ``Alice in Wonderland'' logic. It is delay for delay's sake, especially when new reasons keep coming up to justify these tactics. One reason is rebutted, and then another one comes up. It seems like some of these colleagues just want to obstruct to obstruct, oppose to oppose--bad for America, bad for Democrats, bad for Republicans. Hijacking the rules of the Senate to place blanket holds on nominees has no legitimate justification. And when it comes to nominees tasked with advancing our national defense, our diplomacy, and our public safety, it only makes the American people less safe. As long as these delay tactics continue, we will continue to hold votes on these nominees as necessary. If that means more late nights with a large number of votes in one sitting like we had to do over the last 2 weeks, then that is what we will do. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS680-2 | null | 3,960 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on lowering costs, in President Biden's first year, the economy added an amazing 6.6 million new jobs, the most ever--ever--for a President's first year. This figure surpassed just about every forecast from a year ago. It is a reflection of how far our economy has come since the start of COVID and that the right leadership in office makes all the difference. But we all know Americans still need more help, especially when it comes to lowering the cost of living. Democrats know what the American people know. The pandemic decimated our supply chains, our labor supply, and much more, causing prices to increase for everyday items. We never had a pandemic to this extent in 100 years, and obviously it interrupted the economy and its supply chains and labor supply. For the past year, Democrats have been the party focused on finding solutions to lowering the cost of living for everyday Americans. As early as last summer, Democrats pushed to have the Senate approve legislation to relieve U.S. supply chains and increase domestic manufacturing, which, thankfully, was bipartisan and which the House passed recently as well. Soon the conference process for that bill will begin. But this is just one example out of many. For the past few weeks, I have heard from my colleagues about a number of proposals they have been working on aimed squarely at helping Americans better afford the basics, from medications, to the cost of food, to the cost of cars, to more. Later today, Democrats will use our weekly caucus lunch to talk more about some of the ideas my colleagues are working on. Lowering costs must--must--be a bipartisan effort. Americans in States, those blue and red and in between, need relief as soon as possible. While many on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time giving floor speeches and presenting charts about rising costs, where are their actual proposals? We don't hear what they would do to solve the problem. Attacking the problem doesn't make it any better; proposing solutions, as Democrats are doing, does. Republicans should step up and say what their plan is to fight inflation, not just point fingers. That solves no problem. Democrats will continue to propose legislation on cost cutting, and we are going to continue to focus on helping everyday Americans find relief. Some of my Democratic colleagues have already released their proposals publicly, and I am sure many of them would welcome Republican cooperation. Instead of sitting on the sidelines, Republicans should join Democrats in our efforts to help Americans reap the full benefits of our historic recovery. Our goal: to have the wages that have increased stay up but lower the costs down so the average American has more money in his or her pocket. We Democrats are committed to working in good faith to get things done in this Chamber. I hope our Republican colleagues will constructively join us instead of just pointing fingers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS680-3 | null | 3,961 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Next, on the CR, before the end of the week, the Senate must come to an agreement to pass a short-term extension of government funding in order to give appropriators more time to complete a yearlong omnibus. It is the most responsible thing we can do to support our appropriators as they continue their bipartisan work to finish an omnibus. No one--and certainly not my Republican colleagues--wants a Republican government shutdown; so I am hopeful that they will cooperate with us to pass this necessary CR, which every single Democrat wants to happen and will cooperate to make sure that it happens. Once again, I thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Shelby for their leadership and for working in good faith to arrive at a yearlong spending agreement. I also commend my colleagues in the House, Chairman DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger, Democrat and Republican, for their work. A yearlong omnibus is a thousand times better than relying on CRs--continuing resolutions--to lurch from one short-term extension to the next. I remain optimistic that both sides will keep working together on drafting legislation to fund the government so it can fully serve the American people while keeping us safe here at home. In the meantime, both sides should come to an agreement to make sure the CR--the continuing resolution, the short-term funding of the government--is passed by this Chamber to avoid even any hint of a government shutdown. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS680 | null | 3,962 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at this time last year, Washington Democrats were beginning their quest to dump trillions of dollars in leftwing spending on a recovering economy that already had the preconditions for some inflation. Everybody warned Democrats to pump the brakes. Just weeks earlier, Republicans had already supported a smaller, targeted, bipartisan stimulus that had barely started to take effect. Even top liberal economists warned the Democrats' agenda could spark massive inflation. The consequences for working families have been particularly harsh. Essential goods have played an outsized role in driving up prices overall. It is harder to put dinner on the table when eggs, meat, and fish are 12 percent more expensive. It is harder to fill up cars with gas that is 40 percent more expensive and to heat a home with natural gas that has gone up 24 percent or fuel oil that has gone up 47 percent. This is reality for millions of Americans. They are living it every single day. Yet the Biden administration seems less interested in trying to solve this problem than in trying to persuade families that the pain is actually just in their heads. One recent story reported that members of President Biden's team were ``seemingly mystified'' about why the American people weren't celebrating this economy. Well, if Washington Democrats spent 5 minutes talking to a middle-class family, I am confident they would cease to be mystified. The middle 40 percent of American earners have seen their disposable incomes fall more than an entire percentage point over the last year--entirely due to inflation. Any American who hasn't managed to secure an 8-percent pay raise in the last year has actually received a real pay cut, thanks to Democrats' inflation. The American people are reporting their lowest consumer sentiment in over a decade. Seventy-five percent say our economy is doing badly. Almost 80 percent expect inflation to get worse. Six in ten say their family's income isn't keeping pace with their costs of living. These are not statistics the White House can wave away. We are actually talking about human pain. A working mother in Michigan said: I cannot buy the food that I would normally buy for my family. In Washington State, a single mom of four who also cares for her elderly parents says she has had to take favorite family foods like frozen pizza and wings and make them ``more of a treat than just a regular meal.'' This is where Democrats' policies have left working families. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS681-2 | null | 3,963 |
formal | single mom | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at this time last year, Washington Democrats were beginning their quest to dump trillions of dollars in leftwing spending on a recovering economy that already had the preconditions for some inflation. Everybody warned Democrats to pump the brakes. Just weeks earlier, Republicans had already supported a smaller, targeted, bipartisan stimulus that had barely started to take effect. Even top liberal economists warned the Democrats' agenda could spark massive inflation. The consequences for working families have been particularly harsh. Essential goods have played an outsized role in driving up prices overall. It is harder to put dinner on the table when eggs, meat, and fish are 12 percent more expensive. It is harder to fill up cars with gas that is 40 percent more expensive and to heat a home with natural gas that has gone up 24 percent or fuel oil that has gone up 47 percent. This is reality for millions of Americans. They are living it every single day. Yet the Biden administration seems less interested in trying to solve this problem than in trying to persuade families that the pain is actually just in their heads. One recent story reported that members of President Biden's team were ``seemingly mystified'' about why the American people weren't celebrating this economy. Well, if Washington Democrats spent 5 minutes talking to a middle-class family, I am confident they would cease to be mystified. The middle 40 percent of American earners have seen their disposable incomes fall more than an entire percentage point over the last year--entirely due to inflation. Any American who hasn't managed to secure an 8-percent pay raise in the last year has actually received a real pay cut, thanks to Democrats' inflation. The American people are reporting their lowest consumer sentiment in over a decade. Seventy-five percent say our economy is doing badly. Almost 80 percent expect inflation to get worse. Six in ten say their family's income isn't keeping pace with their costs of living. These are not statistics the White House can wave away. We are actually talking about human pain. A working mother in Michigan said: I cannot buy the food that I would normally buy for my family. In Washington State, a single mom of four who also cares for her elderly parents says she has had to take favorite family foods like frozen pizza and wings and make them ``more of a treat than just a regular meal.'' This is where Democrats' policies have left working families. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS681-2 | null | 3,964 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at this time last year, Washington Democrats were beginning their quest to dump trillions of dollars in leftwing spending on a recovering economy that already had the preconditions for some inflation. Everybody warned Democrats to pump the brakes. Just weeks earlier, Republicans had already supported a smaller, targeted, bipartisan stimulus that had barely started to take effect. Even top liberal economists warned the Democrats' agenda could spark massive inflation. The consequences for working families have been particularly harsh. Essential goods have played an outsized role in driving up prices overall. It is harder to put dinner on the table when eggs, meat, and fish are 12 percent more expensive. It is harder to fill up cars with gas that is 40 percent more expensive and to heat a home with natural gas that has gone up 24 percent or fuel oil that has gone up 47 percent. This is reality for millions of Americans. They are living it every single day. Yet the Biden administration seems less interested in trying to solve this problem than in trying to persuade families that the pain is actually just in their heads. One recent story reported that members of President Biden's team were ``seemingly mystified'' about why the American people weren't celebrating this economy. Well, if Washington Democrats spent 5 minutes talking to a middle-class family, I am confident they would cease to be mystified. The middle 40 percent of American earners have seen their disposable incomes fall more than an entire percentage point over the last year--entirely due to inflation. Any American who hasn't managed to secure an 8-percent pay raise in the last year has actually received a real pay cut, thanks to Democrats' inflation. The American people are reporting their lowest consumer sentiment in over a decade. Seventy-five percent say our economy is doing badly. Almost 80 percent expect inflation to get worse. Six in ten say their family's income isn't keeping pace with their costs of living. These are not statistics the White House can wave away. We are actually talking about human pain. A working mother in Michigan said: I cannot buy the food that I would normally buy for my family. In Washington State, a single mom of four who also cares for her elderly parents says she has had to take favorite family foods like frozen pizza and wings and make them ``more of a treat than just a regular meal.'' This is where Democrats' policies have left working families. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS681-2 | null | 3,965 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on a related matter, this Democrat-caused inflation has forced the Federal Reserve and its Board of Governors into a very tricky position. But while the country is carefully watching the Fed Board of Governors, the Senate happens to be considering several of President Biden's nominees to that very same Board. Later today, I will meet with Chairman Powell, whom President Biden wisely renominated to serve another term atop the Fed. Chairman Powell has proven to be a straight shooter within the mainstream of monetary policy. His creative leadership helped stabilize our entire economy through the uncertain early days of the COVID recession. I look forward to discussing inflation and the state of our economy with Chairman Powell this afternoon. Unfortunately, several of President Biden's other Fed nominees appear to have been significantly less wise selections. One nominee, Professor Cook from Michigan State University, has previously promoted partisan conspiracy theories. In 2020, she called for a fellow academic to be fired because he opposed defunding the police. The White House cites among Professor Cook's qualifications that she sits on the Board of Directors of the regional Fed in Chicago. She was appointed to that position just a few days before President Biden nominated her for this one. More troubling still is President Biden's nominee to the extremely powerful position of Vice Chair for Supervision. This slot comes with major unilateral power. But the President's nominee, Sarah Bloom Raskin, has spent recent years pressuring the Fed to stop being a neutral regulator and instead become an ideological, leftwing activist body. Ms. Raskin has argued openly that unelected Fed Governors should use their powers to declare ideological war on fossil fuels and affordable American energy. Ms. Raskin wants our banking system to start picking winners and losers in ways that would stick American families with higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more dependence on China. And she wants to implement this agenda from inside one of the least directly accountable institutions in our government so that voters simply have no recourse. The far left is already boasting that this backdoor Green New Deal would only be the first step. Democrats have already introduced legislation that would get the Federal Reserve into the racial redistribution business and inject racial preferences into our financial system. These unpopular ideas would completely upend an institution that Americans need to remain nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and nonideological. Fed Governors are supposed to be neutral regulators, not economic policy dictators whom voters can't get rid of. If this weren't disqualifying enough, potentially significant ethical questions have begun to swirl around Ms. Raskin's nomination. During her time out of government, Ms. Raskin became affiliated with an obscure financial technology firm in Colorado. Shortly thereafter, somehow, mysteriously, this small company became what appears to be the only nonbank financial tech company in the entire country to receive a special master account that allowed them to directly access a core Federal Reserve system. This is an obviously worrisome topic, but I understand that Senators have not even been able to get Ms. Raskin to satisfy their basic requests for information. So I would urge President Biden to find a better, more mainstream, more bipartisan candidate to serve this crucial institution. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS681-3 | null | 3,966 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on a related matter, this Democrat-caused inflation has forced the Federal Reserve and its Board of Governors into a very tricky position. But while the country is carefully watching the Fed Board of Governors, the Senate happens to be considering several of President Biden's nominees to that very same Board. Later today, I will meet with Chairman Powell, whom President Biden wisely renominated to serve another term atop the Fed. Chairman Powell has proven to be a straight shooter within the mainstream of monetary policy. His creative leadership helped stabilize our entire economy through the uncertain early days of the COVID recession. I look forward to discussing inflation and the state of our economy with Chairman Powell this afternoon. Unfortunately, several of President Biden's other Fed nominees appear to have been significantly less wise selections. One nominee, Professor Cook from Michigan State University, has previously promoted partisan conspiracy theories. In 2020, she called for a fellow academic to be fired because he opposed defunding the police. The White House cites among Professor Cook's qualifications that she sits on the Board of Directors of the regional Fed in Chicago. She was appointed to that position just a few days before President Biden nominated her for this one. More troubling still is President Biden's nominee to the extremely powerful position of Vice Chair for Supervision. This slot comes with major unilateral power. But the President's nominee, Sarah Bloom Raskin, has spent recent years pressuring the Fed to stop being a neutral regulator and instead become an ideological, leftwing activist body. Ms. Raskin has argued openly that unelected Fed Governors should use their powers to declare ideological war on fossil fuels and affordable American energy. Ms. Raskin wants our banking system to start picking winners and losers in ways that would stick American families with higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more dependence on China. And she wants to implement this agenda from inside one of the least directly accountable institutions in our government so that voters simply have no recourse. The far left is already boasting that this backdoor Green New Deal would only be the first step. Democrats have already introduced legislation that would get the Federal Reserve into the racial redistribution business and inject racial preferences into our financial system. These unpopular ideas would completely upend an institution that Americans need to remain nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and nonideological. Fed Governors are supposed to be neutral regulators, not economic policy dictators whom voters can't get rid of. If this weren't disqualifying enough, potentially significant ethical questions have begun to swirl around Ms. Raskin's nomination. During her time out of government, Ms. Raskin became affiliated with an obscure financial technology firm in Colorado. Shortly thereafter, somehow, mysteriously, this small company became what appears to be the only nonbank financial tech company in the entire country to receive a special master account that allowed them to directly access a core Federal Reserve system. This is an obviously worrisome topic, but I understand that Senators have not even been able to get Ms. Raskin to satisfy their basic requests for information. So I would urge President Biden to find a better, more mainstream, more bipartisan candidate to serve this crucial institution. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS681-3 | null | 3,967 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now, on a related matter, this Democrat-caused inflation has forced the Federal Reserve and its Board of Governors into a very tricky position. But while the country is carefully watching the Fed Board of Governors, the Senate happens to be considering several of President Biden's nominees to that very same Board. Later today, I will meet with Chairman Powell, whom President Biden wisely renominated to serve another term atop the Fed. Chairman Powell has proven to be a straight shooter within the mainstream of monetary policy. His creative leadership helped stabilize our entire economy through the uncertain early days of the COVID recession. I look forward to discussing inflation and the state of our economy with Chairman Powell this afternoon. Unfortunately, several of President Biden's other Fed nominees appear to have been significantly less wise selections. One nominee, Professor Cook from Michigan State University, has previously promoted partisan conspiracy theories. In 2020, she called for a fellow academic to be fired because he opposed defunding the police. The White House cites among Professor Cook's qualifications that she sits on the Board of Directors of the regional Fed in Chicago. She was appointed to that position just a few days before President Biden nominated her for this one. More troubling still is President Biden's nominee to the extremely powerful position of Vice Chair for Supervision. This slot comes with major unilateral power. But the President's nominee, Sarah Bloom Raskin, has spent recent years pressuring the Fed to stop being a neutral regulator and instead become an ideological, leftwing activist body. Ms. Raskin has argued openly that unelected Fed Governors should use their powers to declare ideological war on fossil fuels and affordable American energy. Ms. Raskin wants our banking system to start picking winners and losers in ways that would stick American families with higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more dependence on China. And she wants to implement this agenda from inside one of the least directly accountable institutions in our government so that voters simply have no recourse. The far left is already boasting that this backdoor Green New Deal would only be the first step. Democrats have already introduced legislation that would get the Federal Reserve into the racial redistribution business and inject racial preferences into our financial system. These unpopular ideas would completely upend an institution that Americans need to remain nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and nonideological. Fed Governors are supposed to be neutral regulators, not economic policy dictators whom voters can't get rid of. If this weren't disqualifying enough, potentially significant ethical questions have begun to swirl around Ms. Raskin's nomination. During her time out of government, Ms. Raskin became affiliated with an obscure financial technology firm in Colorado. Shortly thereafter, somehow, mysteriously, this small company became what appears to be the only nonbank financial tech company in the entire country to receive a special master account that allowed them to directly access a core Federal Reserve system. This is an obviously worrisome topic, but I understand that Senators have not even been able to get Ms. Raskin to satisfy their basic requests for information. So I would urge President Biden to find a better, more mainstream, more bipartisan candidate to serve this crucial institution. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS681-3 | null | 3,968 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Casey, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Blumenthal) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 513 Whereas the Taliban have a history of prohibiting women from receiving an education and pursuing jobs outside their homes and have publicly executed women who were accused of adultery; Whereas a 2001 report by the Department of State noted that, from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ``perpetrated egregious acts of violence against women'' as part of a ``war against women''; Whereas, in some Afghan provinces taken over by the Taliban beginning in May 2021, there are reports that the Taliban have forced women into marriage with Taliban fighters and have led targeted killings against women; Whereas United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has expressed concern with the Taliban's contradiction of ``stated commitments,'' their exclusion of women from the public sector, and their restrictions on women, such as not allowing women to appear in public without a male chaperone; Whereas, since 2018, the Secretary of State has designated the Taliban as an entity of particular concern for religious freedom pursuant to section 301 of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (22 U.S.C. 6442a) for having engaged in ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom''; Whereas, in October 2021, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reported on deteriorating conditions for religious minorities in Afghanistan, noting growing fear among Hazara Shi'a Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, Baha'is, and nonbelievers, and stating, ``Afghans who do not adhere to the Taliban's harsh and strict interpretation of Sunni Islam and adherents of other faiths or beliefs are at grave threat''; Whereas the Hazaras constitute approximately 10 to 15 percent of the national population in Afghanistan and are considered a minority religious group; Whereas the Hazaras specifically, along with other religious and ethnic minorities, have historically been explicitly targeted by the Taliban and have been abused with impunity; Whereas Amnesty International reported that on August 30, 2021, 13 Hazaras were unlawfully killed in the village of Kahor in the Khider district by Taliban fighters, with one of the victims being a 17-year-old girl; Whereas, in 2021, the Taliban forcibly displaced approximately 4,000 Hazaras from their homes and ancestral lands in Daykundi province while a Taliban court expelled approximately 2,000 families from the city of Mazar-e-Sharif; Whereas, in 2021, more than 30 instances of violence and threats of violence against Afghan journalists were recorded; Whereas activists, journalists, civil society actors, and scholars face threats and intimidation and risk being unlawfully detained or tortured or becoming a victim of targeted killings by the Taliban; Whereas adherence to the rule of law and protection of human rights is rapidly deteriorating under the Taliban, which are reportedly targeting judges, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, former parliamentarians, and individuals who previously advocated for human rights and the rule of law, particularly women; Whereas there are reports of the Taliban conducting house- to-house searches and tracking individuals who served the previous authorities and then carrying out targeted revenge killings; Whereas, during the previous period of rule of the Taliban, the Taliban reportedly executed Afghan men alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with other men; Whereas the current Acting Prime Minister of the Taliban reportedly stated in 1996 that ``homosexuality is a great sin'' and ``some say we should take these sinners to a high roof and throw them down, while others say we should dig a hole beside a wall, bury them, then push the wall down on top of them''; Whereas a Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, stated in July 2021 that ``[f]or homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him,'' and a spokesman for the Ministry of Finance of Afghanistan noted that LGBT rights would not be respected under the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia law; and Whereas, in 2022, many LGBTQI individuals in Afghanistan are forced to live in hiding due to reports of threats and attacks against such individuals in the community: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) stands in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and with vulnerable groups including women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) persons, civil society actors, journalists, and other at-risk populations in Afghanistan; (2) reaffirms the longstanding commitment of the United States to advance human rights worldwide; (3) calls on the Taliban to uphold the protection of universal human rights, including the commitments set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan is a party; (4) encourages the executive branch to continue to call for the protection of women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, civil society actors, journalists, and LGBTQI persons under Taliban rule; (5) calls for the international community to condemn human rights violations committed by the Taliban; (6) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghan civil society, individuals who assisted with the war efforts of the United States and allies of the United States, and individuals who advocate for universal human rights; and (7) calls on the United States Government to work closely with the international community and nongovernmental organizations, particularly such organizations based in Afghanistan, to support at-risk Afghan minority populations and other vulnerable communities, including through efforts to stem the growing humanitarian crisis that will disproportionately impact already vulnerable groups. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS709-2 | null | 3,969 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Casey, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Blumenthal) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 513 Whereas the Taliban have a history of prohibiting women from receiving an education and pursuing jobs outside their homes and have publicly executed women who were accused of adultery; Whereas a 2001 report by the Department of State noted that, from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ``perpetrated egregious acts of violence against women'' as part of a ``war against women''; Whereas, in some Afghan provinces taken over by the Taliban beginning in May 2021, there are reports that the Taliban have forced women into marriage with Taliban fighters and have led targeted killings against women; Whereas United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has expressed concern with the Taliban's contradiction of ``stated commitments,'' their exclusion of women from the public sector, and their restrictions on women, such as not allowing women to appear in public without a male chaperone; Whereas, since 2018, the Secretary of State has designated the Taliban as an entity of particular concern for religious freedom pursuant to section 301 of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (22 U.S.C. 6442a) for having engaged in ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom''; Whereas, in October 2021, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reported on deteriorating conditions for religious minorities in Afghanistan, noting growing fear among Hazara Shi'a Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, Baha'is, and nonbelievers, and stating, ``Afghans who do not adhere to the Taliban's harsh and strict interpretation of Sunni Islam and adherents of other faiths or beliefs are at grave threat''; Whereas the Hazaras constitute approximately 10 to 15 percent of the national population in Afghanistan and are considered a minority religious group; Whereas the Hazaras specifically, along with other religious and ethnic minorities, have historically been explicitly targeted by the Taliban and have been abused with impunity; Whereas Amnesty International reported that on August 30, 2021, 13 Hazaras were unlawfully killed in the village of Kahor in the Khider district by Taliban fighters, with one of the victims being a 17-year-old girl; Whereas, in 2021, the Taliban forcibly displaced approximately 4,000 Hazaras from their homes and ancestral lands in Daykundi province while a Taliban court expelled approximately 2,000 families from the city of Mazar-e-Sharif; Whereas, in 2021, more than 30 instances of violence and threats of violence against Afghan journalists were recorded; Whereas activists, journalists, civil society actors, and scholars face threats and intimidation and risk being unlawfully detained or tortured or becoming a victim of targeted killings by the Taliban; Whereas adherence to the rule of law and protection of human rights is rapidly deteriorating under the Taliban, which are reportedly targeting judges, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, former parliamentarians, and individuals who previously advocated for human rights and the rule of law, particularly women; Whereas there are reports of the Taliban conducting house- to-house searches and tracking individuals who served the previous authorities and then carrying out targeted revenge killings; Whereas, during the previous period of rule of the Taliban, the Taliban reportedly executed Afghan men alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with other men; Whereas the current Acting Prime Minister of the Taliban reportedly stated in 1996 that ``homosexuality is a great sin'' and ``some say we should take these sinners to a high roof and throw them down, while others say we should dig a hole beside a wall, bury them, then push the wall down on top of them''; Whereas a Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, stated in July 2021 that ``[f]or homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him,'' and a spokesman for the Ministry of Finance of Afghanistan noted that LGBT rights would not be respected under the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia law; and Whereas, in 2022, many LGBTQI individuals in Afghanistan are forced to live in hiding due to reports of threats and attacks against such individuals in the community: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) stands in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and with vulnerable groups including women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) persons, civil society actors, journalists, and other at-risk populations in Afghanistan; (2) reaffirms the longstanding commitment of the United States to advance human rights worldwide; (3) calls on the Taliban to uphold the protection of universal human rights, including the commitments set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan is a party; (4) encourages the executive branch to continue to call for the protection of women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, civil society actors, journalists, and LGBTQI persons under Taliban rule; (5) calls for the international community to condemn human rights violations committed by the Taliban; (6) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghan civil society, individuals who assisted with the war efforts of the United States and allies of the United States, and individuals who advocate for universal human rights; and (7) calls on the United States Government to work closely with the international community and nongovernmental organizations, particularly such organizations based in Afghanistan, to support at-risk Afghan minority populations and other vulnerable communities, including through efforts to stem the growing humanitarian crisis that will disproportionately impact already vulnerable groups. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS709-2 | null | 3,970 |
formal | Sharia law | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Casey, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Blumenthal) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 513 Whereas the Taliban have a history of prohibiting women from receiving an education and pursuing jobs outside their homes and have publicly executed women who were accused of adultery; Whereas a 2001 report by the Department of State noted that, from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ``perpetrated egregious acts of violence against women'' as part of a ``war against women''; Whereas, in some Afghan provinces taken over by the Taliban beginning in May 2021, there are reports that the Taliban have forced women into marriage with Taliban fighters and have led targeted killings against women; Whereas United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has expressed concern with the Taliban's contradiction of ``stated commitments,'' their exclusion of women from the public sector, and their restrictions on women, such as not allowing women to appear in public without a male chaperone; Whereas, since 2018, the Secretary of State has designated the Taliban as an entity of particular concern for religious freedom pursuant to section 301 of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (22 U.S.C. 6442a) for having engaged in ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom''; Whereas, in October 2021, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reported on deteriorating conditions for religious minorities in Afghanistan, noting growing fear among Hazara Shi'a Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, Baha'is, and nonbelievers, and stating, ``Afghans who do not adhere to the Taliban's harsh and strict interpretation of Sunni Islam and adherents of other faiths or beliefs are at grave threat''; Whereas the Hazaras constitute approximately 10 to 15 percent of the national population in Afghanistan and are considered a minority religious group; Whereas the Hazaras specifically, along with other religious and ethnic minorities, have historically been explicitly targeted by the Taliban and have been abused with impunity; Whereas Amnesty International reported that on August 30, 2021, 13 Hazaras were unlawfully killed in the village of Kahor in the Khider district by Taliban fighters, with one of the victims being a 17-year-old girl; Whereas, in 2021, the Taliban forcibly displaced approximately 4,000 Hazaras from their homes and ancestral lands in Daykundi province while a Taliban court expelled approximately 2,000 families from the city of Mazar-e-Sharif; Whereas, in 2021, more than 30 instances of violence and threats of violence against Afghan journalists were recorded; Whereas activists, journalists, civil society actors, and scholars face threats and intimidation and risk being unlawfully detained or tortured or becoming a victim of targeted killings by the Taliban; Whereas adherence to the rule of law and protection of human rights is rapidly deteriorating under the Taliban, which are reportedly targeting judges, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, former parliamentarians, and individuals who previously advocated for human rights and the rule of law, particularly women; Whereas there are reports of the Taliban conducting house- to-house searches and tracking individuals who served the previous authorities and then carrying out targeted revenge killings; Whereas, during the previous period of rule of the Taliban, the Taliban reportedly executed Afghan men alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with other men; Whereas the current Acting Prime Minister of the Taliban reportedly stated in 1996 that ``homosexuality is a great sin'' and ``some say we should take these sinners to a high roof and throw them down, while others say we should dig a hole beside a wall, bury them, then push the wall down on top of them''; Whereas a Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, stated in July 2021 that ``[f]or homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him,'' and a spokesman for the Ministry of Finance of Afghanistan noted that LGBT rights would not be respected under the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia law; and Whereas, in 2022, many LGBTQI individuals in Afghanistan are forced to live in hiding due to reports of threats and attacks against such individuals in the community: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) stands in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and with vulnerable groups including women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) persons, civil society actors, journalists, and other at-risk populations in Afghanistan; (2) reaffirms the longstanding commitment of the United States to advance human rights worldwide; (3) calls on the Taliban to uphold the protection of universal human rights, including the commitments set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan is a party; (4) encourages the executive branch to continue to call for the protection of women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, civil society actors, journalists, and LGBTQI persons under Taliban rule; (5) calls for the international community to condemn human rights violations committed by the Taliban; (6) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghan civil society, individuals who assisted with the war efforts of the United States and allies of the United States, and individuals who advocate for universal human rights; and (7) calls on the United States Government to work closely with the international community and nongovernmental organizations, particularly such organizations based in Afghanistan, to support at-risk Afghan minority populations and other vulnerable communities, including through efforts to stem the growing humanitarian crisis that will disproportionately impact already vulnerable groups. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS709-2 | null | 3,971 |
formal | Sharia | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Casey, Ms. Smith, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Blumenthal) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 513 Whereas the Taliban have a history of prohibiting women from receiving an education and pursuing jobs outside their homes and have publicly executed women who were accused of adultery; Whereas a 2001 report by the Department of State noted that, from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ``perpetrated egregious acts of violence against women'' as part of a ``war against women''; Whereas, in some Afghan provinces taken over by the Taliban beginning in May 2021, there are reports that the Taliban have forced women into marriage with Taliban fighters and have led targeted killings against women; Whereas United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has expressed concern with the Taliban's contradiction of ``stated commitments,'' their exclusion of women from the public sector, and their restrictions on women, such as not allowing women to appear in public without a male chaperone; Whereas, since 2018, the Secretary of State has designated the Taliban as an entity of particular concern for religious freedom pursuant to section 301 of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act (22 U.S.C. 6442a) for having engaged in ``particularly severe violations of religious freedom''; Whereas, in October 2021, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reported on deteriorating conditions for religious minorities in Afghanistan, noting growing fear among Hazara Shi'a Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Ahmadi Muslims, Baha'is, and nonbelievers, and stating, ``Afghans who do not adhere to the Taliban's harsh and strict interpretation of Sunni Islam and adherents of other faiths or beliefs are at grave threat''; Whereas the Hazaras constitute approximately 10 to 15 percent of the national population in Afghanistan and are considered a minority religious group; Whereas the Hazaras specifically, along with other religious and ethnic minorities, have historically been explicitly targeted by the Taliban and have been abused with impunity; Whereas Amnesty International reported that on August 30, 2021, 13 Hazaras were unlawfully killed in the village of Kahor in the Khider district by Taliban fighters, with one of the victims being a 17-year-old girl; Whereas, in 2021, the Taliban forcibly displaced approximately 4,000 Hazaras from their homes and ancestral lands in Daykundi province while a Taliban court expelled approximately 2,000 families from the city of Mazar-e-Sharif; Whereas, in 2021, more than 30 instances of violence and threats of violence against Afghan journalists were recorded; Whereas activists, journalists, civil society actors, and scholars face threats and intimidation and risk being unlawfully detained or tortured or becoming a victim of targeted killings by the Taliban; Whereas adherence to the rule of law and protection of human rights is rapidly deteriorating under the Taliban, which are reportedly targeting judges, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, former parliamentarians, and individuals who previously advocated for human rights and the rule of law, particularly women; Whereas there are reports of the Taliban conducting house- to-house searches and tracking individuals who served the previous authorities and then carrying out targeted revenge killings; Whereas, during the previous period of rule of the Taliban, the Taliban reportedly executed Afghan men alleged to have engaged in sexual activity with other men; Whereas the current Acting Prime Minister of the Taliban reportedly stated in 1996 that ``homosexuality is a great sin'' and ``some say we should take these sinners to a high roof and throw them down, while others say we should dig a hole beside a wall, bury them, then push the wall down on top of them''; Whereas a Taliban judge, Gul Rahim, stated in July 2021 that ``[f]or homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him,'' and a spokesman for the Ministry of Finance of Afghanistan noted that LGBT rights would not be respected under the Taliban's interpretation of Sharia law; and Whereas, in 2022, many LGBTQI individuals in Afghanistan are forced to live in hiding due to reports of threats and attacks against such individuals in the community: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) stands in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan and with vulnerable groups including women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) persons, civil society actors, journalists, and other at-risk populations in Afghanistan; (2) reaffirms the longstanding commitment of the United States to advance human rights worldwide; (3) calls on the Taliban to uphold the protection of universal human rights, including the commitments set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Afghanistan is a party; (4) encourages the executive branch to continue to call for the protection of women and children, religious and ethnic minorities, civil society actors, journalists, and LGBTQI persons under Taliban rule; (5) calls for the international community to condemn human rights violations committed by the Taliban; (6) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to support Afghan civil society, individuals who assisted with the war efforts of the United States and allies of the United States, and individuals who advocate for universal human rights; and (7) calls on the United States Government to work closely with the international community and nongovernmental organizations, particularly such organizations based in Afghanistan, to support at-risk Afghan minority populations and other vulnerable communities, including through efforts to stem the growing humanitarian crisis that will disproportionately impact already vulnerable groups. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS709-2 | null | 3,972 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, to vote on nominations. committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on small business and entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-15-pt1-PgS712-3 | null | 3,973 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Local School Boards Mr. President, now on one final matter, parents and kids need a swift end to pandemic disruptions that ignore the incredibly low risk to children. I am proudly joining Senator Thune and many of our Republican colleagues on a resolution that would overturn the absurd preschool mask mandates which the Biden administration has tied to Head Start funding. More than 1,200 doctors and health professionals have signed a public statement about ``the Urgency of Normal''--``the Urgency of Normal''--the medical and moral urgency of returning normalcy back to children as fast as possible. Republicans at the local, State, and Federal level are standing with the parents. We are going to keep fighting against these disruptions to family life caused by rules and mandates that are not at all based in science. Two years of needless school closures and unscientific, forced child-masking are 2 years too many. But, unfortunately, pandemic policies are not the only reason that recent years have been one giant advertisement for school choice and parents' rights. We have also seen far-left bureaucrats trying desperately to inject radical theories and fringe ideas into teacher trainings and K-12 classrooms. Everybody has heard draw-dropping anecdotes from school districts all across our country. Last year, the Biden administration tried to divert money for mainstream civics education into woke propaganda like the debunked 1619 Project. They only backed down when Senate Republicans called out Secretary Cardona directly. Meanwhile, the far-left national teachers union adopted an official resolution and approved extra money for their fight to make ``structural racism'' and ``critical race theory'' into central tenets in kids' schooling. This nonsense is absolutely pervasive--pervasive. Just a few weeks ago, North Carolina parents had to call out their statewide Office of Early Learning for funding training materials that talked about ``deconstruct[ing] whiteness''--``deconstruct[ing] whiteness.'' These materials were for preschool teachers. In San Francisco, the school board spent 2021 focused on renaming schools instead of reopening schools. They decided ``George Washington'' and ``Abraham Lincoln'' were insufficiently woke namesakes, and they tried to change a prestigious high school's merit-based standards into a non-merit-based lottery in the name of equity. Not surprisingly, parents are watching this nonsense and demanding change. For example, just yesterday, a multiethnic multilingual recall campaign to unseat three of those San Francisco school board members won an overwhelming victory with the voters. American parents are speaking out, but instead of listening to them, the political left is lashing out. President Biden's Education Secretary solicited an outside group to send a letter to President Biden's Attorney General that referred to concerned parents as potential domestic terrorists. One part of the Biden administration set up another part of the Biden administration with a pretext to investigate and harass concerned parents. One far-left advocate recently complained to NPR that ``school transparency is essentially this big brother-type regime.'' What a joke. The nationwide teachers union boss, Randi Weingarten, personally tweeted out a claim that ``racists . . . are showing up in droves to school board meetings.'' Even the liberal ACLU, which used to care about individual rights and transparency, is prioritizing woke bureaucrats ahead of middle-class parents. Here was the ACLU's statement: Curriculum transparency bills are just thinly veiled attempts at chilling teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in schools. So let's think about that for a minute. The far left is admitting in public that if the public gets to look at the racial and gender theories that they want to teach little kids, then those lesson plans will become untenable. I am going to say that again. The far left is admitting in public that if the public gets a look at the racial and gender theories that they want to teach little kids, then these lesson plans will become untenable. That is what they are actually saying. If parents gain transparency into the crazy stuff we are teaching, we might have to stop teaching it. In other words, their reaction proves the point. The fact that woke bureaucrats are this terrified by transparency proves exactly--exactly--why parents deserve it. Bear in mind, these same people are passionate supporters of a sweeping toddler takeover that would give Federal bureaucrats huge new powers to shape early childhood across America and discriminate against religious daycares. The choice before American families is actually pretty stark. On the one hand, an alliance between Big Labor, woke bureaucrats, and many elected Democrats apparently wants indefinitely masked children being taught radical nonsense while parents are pushed to the sidelines. But Republicans at the local, State, and national levels are standing up for science, for common sense, and for the children's best interests. The party of parents has your back. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS726-2 | null | 3,974 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Local School Boards Mr. President, now on one final matter, parents and kids need a swift end to pandemic disruptions that ignore the incredibly low risk to children. I am proudly joining Senator Thune and many of our Republican colleagues on a resolution that would overturn the absurd preschool mask mandates which the Biden administration has tied to Head Start funding. More than 1,200 doctors and health professionals have signed a public statement about ``the Urgency of Normal''--``the Urgency of Normal''--the medical and moral urgency of returning normalcy back to children as fast as possible. Republicans at the local, State, and Federal level are standing with the parents. We are going to keep fighting against these disruptions to family life caused by rules and mandates that are not at all based in science. Two years of needless school closures and unscientific, forced child-masking are 2 years too many. But, unfortunately, pandemic policies are not the only reason that recent years have been one giant advertisement for school choice and parents' rights. We have also seen far-left bureaucrats trying desperately to inject radical theories and fringe ideas into teacher trainings and K-12 classrooms. Everybody has heard draw-dropping anecdotes from school districts all across our country. Last year, the Biden administration tried to divert money for mainstream civics education into woke propaganda like the debunked 1619 Project. They only backed down when Senate Republicans called out Secretary Cardona directly. Meanwhile, the far-left national teachers union adopted an official resolution and approved extra money for their fight to make ``structural racism'' and ``critical race theory'' into central tenets in kids' schooling. This nonsense is absolutely pervasive--pervasive. Just a few weeks ago, North Carolina parents had to call out their statewide Office of Early Learning for funding training materials that talked about ``deconstruct[ing] whiteness''--``deconstruct[ing] whiteness.'' These materials were for preschool teachers. In San Francisco, the school board spent 2021 focused on renaming schools instead of reopening schools. They decided ``George Washington'' and ``Abraham Lincoln'' were insufficiently woke namesakes, and they tried to change a prestigious high school's merit-based standards into a non-merit-based lottery in the name of equity. Not surprisingly, parents are watching this nonsense and demanding change. For example, just yesterday, a multiethnic multilingual recall campaign to unseat three of those San Francisco school board members won an overwhelming victory with the voters. American parents are speaking out, but instead of listening to them, the political left is lashing out. President Biden's Education Secretary solicited an outside group to send a letter to President Biden's Attorney General that referred to concerned parents as potential domestic terrorists. One part of the Biden administration set up another part of the Biden administration with a pretext to investigate and harass concerned parents. One far-left advocate recently complained to NPR that ``school transparency is essentially this big brother-type regime.'' What a joke. The nationwide teachers union boss, Randi Weingarten, personally tweeted out a claim that ``racists . . . are showing up in droves to school board meetings.'' Even the liberal ACLU, which used to care about individual rights and transparency, is prioritizing woke bureaucrats ahead of middle-class parents. Here was the ACLU's statement: Curriculum transparency bills are just thinly veiled attempts at chilling teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in schools. So let's think about that for a minute. The far left is admitting in public that if the public gets to look at the racial and gender theories that they want to teach little kids, then those lesson plans will become untenable. I am going to say that again. The far left is admitting in public that if the public gets a look at the racial and gender theories that they want to teach little kids, then these lesson plans will become untenable. That is what they are actually saying. If parents gain transparency into the crazy stuff we are teaching, we might have to stop teaching it. In other words, their reaction proves the point. The fact that woke bureaucrats are this terrified by transparency proves exactly--exactly--why parents deserve it. Bear in mind, these same people are passionate supporters of a sweeping toddler takeover that would give Federal bureaucrats huge new powers to shape early childhood across America and discriminate against religious daycares. The choice before American families is actually pretty stark. On the one hand, an alliance between Big Labor, woke bureaucrats, and many elected Democrats apparently wants indefinitely masked children being taught radical nonsense while parents are pushed to the sidelines. But Republicans at the local, State, and national levels are standing up for science, for common sense, and for the children's best interests. The party of parents has your back. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS726-2 | null | 3,975 |
formal | school choice | null | racist | Local School Boards Mr. President, now on one final matter, parents and kids need a swift end to pandemic disruptions that ignore the incredibly low risk to children. I am proudly joining Senator Thune and many of our Republican colleagues on a resolution that would overturn the absurd preschool mask mandates which the Biden administration has tied to Head Start funding. More than 1,200 doctors and health professionals have signed a public statement about ``the Urgency of Normal''--``the Urgency of Normal''--the medical and moral urgency of returning normalcy back to children as fast as possible. Republicans at the local, State, and Federal level are standing with the parents. We are going to keep fighting against these disruptions to family life caused by rules and mandates that are not at all based in science. Two years of needless school closures and unscientific, forced child-masking are 2 years too many. But, unfortunately, pandemic policies are not the only reason that recent years have been one giant advertisement for school choice and parents' rights. We have also seen far-left bureaucrats trying desperately to inject radical theories and fringe ideas into teacher trainings and K-12 classrooms. Everybody has heard draw-dropping anecdotes from school districts all across our country. Last year, the Biden administration tried to divert money for mainstream civics education into woke propaganda like the debunked 1619 Project. They only backed down when Senate Republicans called out Secretary Cardona directly. Meanwhile, the far-left national teachers union adopted an official resolution and approved extra money for their fight to make ``structural racism'' and ``critical race theory'' into central tenets in kids' schooling. This nonsense is absolutely pervasive--pervasive. Just a few weeks ago, North Carolina parents had to call out their statewide Office of Early Learning for funding training materials that talked about ``deconstruct[ing] whiteness''--``deconstruct[ing] whiteness.'' These materials were for preschool teachers. In San Francisco, the school board spent 2021 focused on renaming schools instead of reopening schools. They decided ``George Washington'' and ``Abraham Lincoln'' were insufficiently woke namesakes, and they tried to change a prestigious high school's merit-based standards into a non-merit-based lottery in the name of equity. Not surprisingly, parents are watching this nonsense and demanding change. For example, just yesterday, a multiethnic multilingual recall campaign to unseat three of those San Francisco school board members won an overwhelming victory with the voters. American parents are speaking out, but instead of listening to them, the political left is lashing out. President Biden's Education Secretary solicited an outside group to send a letter to President Biden's Attorney General that referred to concerned parents as potential domestic terrorists. One part of the Biden administration set up another part of the Biden administration with a pretext to investigate and harass concerned parents. One far-left advocate recently complained to NPR that ``school transparency is essentially this big brother-type regime.'' What a joke. The nationwide teachers union boss, Randi Weingarten, personally tweeted out a claim that ``racists . . . are showing up in droves to school board meetings.'' Even the liberal ACLU, which used to care about individual rights and transparency, is prioritizing woke bureaucrats ahead of middle-class parents. Here was the ACLU's statement: Curriculum transparency bills are just thinly veiled attempts at chilling teachers and students from learning and talking about race and gender in schools. So let's think about that for a minute. The far left is admitting in public that if the public gets to look at the racial and gender theories that they want to teach little kids, then those lesson plans will become untenable. I am going to say that again. The far left is admitting in public that if the public gets a look at the racial and gender theories that they want to teach little kids, then these lesson plans will become untenable. That is what they are actually saying. If parents gain transparency into the crazy stuff we are teaching, we might have to stop teaching it. In other words, their reaction proves the point. The fact that woke bureaucrats are this terrified by transparency proves exactly--exactly--why parents deserve it. Bear in mind, these same people are passionate supporters of a sweeping toddler takeover that would give Federal bureaucrats huge new powers to shape early childhood across America and discriminate against religious daycares. The choice before American families is actually pretty stark. On the one hand, an alliance between Big Labor, woke bureaucrats, and many elected Democrats apparently wants indefinitely masked children being taught radical nonsense while parents are pushed to the sidelines. But Republicans at the local, State, and national levels are standing up for science, for common sense, and for the children's best interests. The party of parents has your back. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS726-2 | null | 3,976 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Afghanistan Mr. President, now on a different matter, while the world's eyes are fixed on the present foreign policy crisis, troubling facts are continuing to surface surrounding the administration's previous self-inflicted crisis--the botched retreat from Afghanistan. Last week, journalists published the findings of a 2,000-page autopsy that Army officials compiled following the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul. The report hammers home a damning fact we have actually already known for months: The Biden administration received clear advance warnings from commanders on the ground that should have been heeded but went ignored. As I warned at the time, we have confirmation this disaster was foreseeable--foreseen, actually--and avoidable. The Army's conclusions build upon the report from the Special Inspector General which was declassified last month. While President Biden and his political advisers still cling to the notion that they got mistaken advice and were caught off-guard, both these reports suggest that nonpartisan experts knew and predicted the Afghan military would likely collapse and spent months trying in vain to get the administration to pay attention. Top commanders reported that trying to get State Department officials to engage in advance evacuation plans was like ``pulling teeth''; that the National Security Council was ``not seriously planning for an evacuation''; that among peers in uniform, ``everyone clearly saw some of the advantage of holding Bagram.'' As the top U.S. commander on the ground during the evacuation put it, policymakers had not ``paid attention to the indicators of what was happening on the ground.'' This staggering report from our own U.S. Army should have chastened the Biden administration. It should be an occasion for apology, reflection, and accountability. But last week, President Biden instead tried to simply wave away our own Army's conclusions without evidence. He was asked, ``Are you rejecting the conclusions or the accounts in this [Army] report?'' The President replied, ``Yes, I am.'' ``So, they're not true?'' ``I'm rejecting them,'' the President said. No evidence; just hand-waving denial. Frankly, it was a bizarre performance. Our retreat from Afghanistan seriously damaged America's credibility. It made confronting terrorist threats that much harder from over the horizon, and it invited more testing like what we are now enduring in Eastern Europe. President Biden and his team were warned of all these dangers well in advance by our own military, but our Commander in Chief seems to have flat-out ignored our commanders. This has been an unbelievably costly lesson that the Biden administration should never have had to learn even once. Let us all hope they don't need to learn it twice. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS726 | null | 3,977 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Federal Reserve Board Nominations | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS732-3 | null | 3,978 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon here on the Senate floor to mark what will soon be the passage, in just a matter of moments, of a vital veterans bill and to thank my colleagues--both Republicans and Democrats--who came together to support the Health Care for Burn Pit Veterans Act. This is an important bill, and it will remove hurdles for post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, in particular, who were exposed to burn pits, so they can receive healthcare from the VA without delay. This legislation is cosponsored by every single member of the Senate VA Committee, and I commend each of my Senate colleagues in their support for this legislation. Supporting our veterans has a way of bringing us together, and I am so glad that is true. I am on the floor this afternoon with the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I appreciate how he and my Senate colleagues understand the urgency of this bill and are quickly moving to pass it by unanimous consent. Post-9/11 veterans are the newest generation of American heroes to suffer from toxic exposure encountered during military service; and passing this legislation marks just a first step--a first step--of a phased approach to solving the complex challenges of caring for those veterans exposed to burn pits and other toxic exposures. For way too long, we have heard from veterans who got sick after exposure to burn pits and need lifesaving care. There is a bipartisan consensus on our committee that this phased approach--delivering healthcare now and reforming the benefit system next--is the most effective pathway forward for toxic exposure veterans and all other veterans as well. Servicemembers are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We know that. We respect that. We honor that. We must match that level of commitment by crafting thoughtful and effective solutions to make certain we hold up our end of the bargain and continuously work toward the best outcomes for those who served and sacrificed. I once joined a roundtable in Wichita, KS, with local members of the Vietnam Veterans of America and was moved by their stories--not only of their own health consequences from Agent Orange but their concerns of how their exposure was affecting the health of their children and grandchildren. From that veteran feedback, I introduced the Toxic Exposure Research Act with Senator Blumenthal, which was signed into law in 2016. I have since heard from many veterans in Kansas and across the country who are sick and dying from the effects of toxic exposure caused by burn pits. Addressing the needs of veterans exposed to burn pits cannot wait. This legislation could be lifesaving for those exposed or suffering. When our men and women in uniform go into harm's way on our behalf, we owe it to them to take care of them when they come home for whatever injuries are incurred during their service. This is not a question of resources; this is a question of getting reform done the right way. The Senate soon will act to pass this bill, moving us closer to completing phase 1 of this approach to provide timely, sustainable care to our veterans. I will continue to work with veterans, advocates in the VA, and, importantly, my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and its chairman, Senator Tester, of Montana, to make sure we are crafting legislative solutions that are veteran-centric. I call upon my colleagues in the House to quickly take action and act on this bill and act on our promise as a nation so post-9/11 veterans who are suffering from toxic exposures can get the care they need. I thank my colleagues on the committee, Chairman Tester, and our respective staffs for working to craft this feasible path forward. And I want to thank many veteran organizations that have expressed their support for this legislation, including the Disabled Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Wounded Warrior Project, Iraq and American Veterans of America, the American Legion, Military Officers Association of America, and Military-Veterans Advocacy. I am confident that if we continue to work together with the VA and with veterans' groups, we will keep the needs of veterans foremost in our minds and that we can deliver meaningful reforms for the current generation of veterans and for all those who come thereafter. I yield the floor to the Senator from Montana. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MORAN | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS733 | null | 3,979 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) was added as a cosponsor of S. 312, a bill to expand eligibility for and provide judicial review for the Elderly Home Detention Pilot Program, provide for compassionate release based on COVID-19 vulnerability, shorten the waiting period for judicial review during the COVID-19 pandemic, and make other technical corrections. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS753 | null | 3,980 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde- Smith, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Braun): S. 3657. A bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to provide notification to Congress of abandoned United States military equipment used in terrorist attacks; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS754-2 | null | 3,981 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde- Smith, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Braun): S. 3657. A bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to provide notification to Congress of abandoned United States military equipment used in terrorist attacks; to the Select Committee on Intelligence. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2022-02-16-pt1-PgS754 | null | 3,982 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. TESTER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 520 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States are where students come to be educated about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health support; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 21 through February 25, 2022, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 21 through February 25, 2022, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-17-pt1-PgS792 | null | 3,983 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. TESTER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 520 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States are where students come to be educated about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health support; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 21 through February 25, 2022, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 21 through February 25, 2022, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-17-pt1-PgS792 | null | 3,984 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. TESTER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Braun, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Mr. Coons, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Markey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Warner, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 520 Whereas public education is a significant institution in a 21st-century democracy; Whereas public schools in the United States are where students come to be educated about the values and beliefs that hold the individuals of the United States together as a nation; Whereas public schools prepare young individuals of the United States to contribute to the society, economy, and citizenry of the country; Whereas 90 percent of children in the United States attend public schools; Whereas Federal, State, and local lawmakers should-- (1) prioritize support for strengthening the public schools of the United States; (2) empower superintendents, principals, and other school leaders to implement, manage, and lead school districts and schools in partnership with educators, parents, and other local education stakeholders; and (3) support services and programs that are critical to helping students engage in learning, including counseling, extracurricular activities, and mental health support; Whereas public schools should foster inclusive, safe, and high-quality environments in which children can learn to think critically, problem solve, and build relationships; Whereas public schools should provide environments in which all students have the opportunity to succeed beginning in their earliest years, regardless of who a student is or where a student lives; Whereas Congress should support-- (1) efforts to advance equal opportunity and excellence in public education; (2) efforts to implement evidence-based practices in public education; and (3) continuous improvements to public education; Whereas every child should-- (1) receive an education that helps the child reach the full potential of the child; and (2) attend a school that offers a high-quality educational experience; Whereas Federal funding, in addition to State and local funds, supports the access of students to inviting classrooms, well-prepared educators, and services to support healthy students, including nutrition and afterschool programs; Whereas teachers, paraprofessionals, and principals should provide students with a well-rounded education and strive to create joy in learning; Whereas superintendents, principals, other school leaders, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents make public schools vital components of communities and are working hard to improve educational outcomes for children across the country; and Whereas the week of February 21 through February 25, 2022, is an appropriate period to designate as ``Public Schools Week'': Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate designates the week of February 21 through February 25, 2022, as ``Public Schools Week''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-17-pt1-PgS792 | null | 3,985 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 522 Whereas, on Sunday, February 13, 2022, the Los Angeles Rams (referred to in this preamble as the ``Rams'') won Super Bowl LVI by defeating the Cincinnati Bengals by a score of 23 to 20; Whereas the Rams became the second team in the history of the National Football League (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFL'') to win a Super Bowl championship game on their home field, SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California; Whereas the Rams won-- (1) the second Super Bowl championship in the history of the franchise and the first NFL championship game played in Los Angeles since 1951; (2) in the National Football Conference (referred to in this preamble as the ``NFC'') Wild Card round by defeating the Arizona Cardinals by a score of 34 to 11 on January 17, 2022; (3) in the NFC Divisional round by defeating the Tampa Bay Buccaneers by a score of 30 to 27 on January 23, 2022; and (4) the NFC championship by defeating the San Francisco 49ers by a score of 20 to 17 on January 30, 2022; Whereas wide receiver Cooper Kupp, who went from an underrated recruit at A.C. Davis High School in Yakima, Washington, to a standout player at Eastern Washington University, had 8 receptions for 92 yards and 2 touchdowns, rushed 1 time for 7 yards, and was named the Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl LVI; Whereas Cooper Kupp became the first player in NFL history to win the receiving triple crown, NFL Offensive Player of the Year, and Super Bowl Most Valuable Player in the same season; Whereas quarterback Matthew Stafford orchestrated game- winning drives in 3 consecutive playoff games; Whereas 3-time NFL Defensive Player of the Year and 7-time first-team All-Pro defensive tackle Aaron Donald sealed the game with his second sack; Whereas Sean McVay became the youngest Super Bowl-winning head coach in NFL history; Whereas the Rams were led by their team captains Aaron Donald, Jordan Fuller, Johnny Hekker, Cooper Kupp, Jalen Ramsey, Matthew Stafford, 2021 Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Andrew Whitworth, and Robert Woods; Whereas the entire Rams roster contributed to the Super Bowl LVI victory, including Cam Akers, Brian Allen, Tremayne Anchrum, Jr., Tutu Atwell, Odell Beckham, Jr., Kendall Blanton, Bobby Brown III, Terrell Burgess, Raymond Calais, Marquise Copeland, Austin Corbett, Blake Countess, Dont'e Deayon, Jamil Demby, Aaron Donald, David Edwards, Bobby Evans, Leonard Floyd, Jordan Fuller, Jake Funk, Greg Gaines, Chris Garrett, Matt Gay, Jake Gervase, Grant Haley, Jacob Harris, Rob Havenstein, Johnny Hekker, Darrell Henderson, Jr., Tyler Higbee, Michael Hoecht, Justin Hollins, Brycen Hopkins, Travin Howard, Buddy Howell, AJ Jackson, Van Jefferson, Ernest Jones, Sebastian Joseph-Day, Cooper Kupp, Terrell Lewis, David Long, Jr., Sony Michel, Von Miller, Johnny Mundt, Joe Noteboom, Ogbonnia Okoronkwo, Matthew Orzech, Bryce Perkins, Brandon Powell, Jalen Ramsey, Taylor Rapp, Troy Reeder, A'Shawn Robinson, Robert Rochell, Christian Rozeboom, Nick Scott, Coleman Shelton, Ben Skowronek, Matthew Stafford, Eric Weddle, Andrew Whitworth, Darious Williams, John Wolford, and Robert Woods; Whereas, before kickoff at SoFi Stadium, commonly known as the ``Rams House'', the NFL honored the legacies of 4 Black football players who broke the color barrier in professional football in 1946: Kenny Washington and Woody Strode, who played for the Los Angeles Rams, and William ``Bill'' K. Willis and Marion Motley, who played for the Cleveland Browns; Whereas West Coast hip-hop and rap took center stage with a halftime performance headlined by Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Mary J. Blige, and Kendrick Lamar; and Whereas, since 2014, Los Angeles professional sports teams have won titles in the NFL, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, and the Women's National Basketball Association: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the Los Angeles Rams and their fans on their victory in Super Bowl LVI; (2) recognizes the achievements of all the players, coaches, and staff who contributed to the victory; and (3) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to-- (A) the owner and chairman of the Los Angeles Rams, E. Stanley Kroenke; (B) the chief operating officer of the Los Angeles Rams, Kevin Demoff; and (C) the general manager of the Los Angeles Rams, Les Snead. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-17-pt1-PgS793 | null | 3,986 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Daines, Mr. Risch, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Tester, Mr. King, Mr. Braun, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Heinrich) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 525 Whereas Yellowstone National Park, the first national park in the world, was established to share the wonders and preserve and protect the scenery, cultural heritage, wildlife, and geologic and ecological systems and processes in their natural condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations; Whereas human history in the Yellowstone area dates back more than 11,000 years; Whereas the location of Greater Yellowstone at the convergence of the Great Plains, Great Basin, and Columbia Plateau Indian cultures means that many Native American Tribes have traditional connections to the land and its resources; Whereas, for thousands of years before the designation of the national park, the Greater Yellowstone area was a place where Native Americans hunted, fished, gathered plants, quarried obsidian, and used the thermal waters for religious and medicinal purposes; Whereas many Native American Tribes are associated with Yellowstone National Park, including-- (1) Assiniboine and Sioux; (2) Blackfeet; (3) Cheyenne River Sioux; (4) Coeur d'Alene; (5) Comanche; (6) Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; (7) Crow; (8) Crow Creek Sioux; (9) Eastern Shoshone; (10) Flandreau Santee Sioux; (11) Gros Ventre and Assiniboine; (12) Kiowa; (13) Little Shell Chippewa; (14) Lower Brule Sioux; (15) Nez Perce; (16) Northern Arapaho; (17) Northern Cheyenne; (18) Oglala Sioux; (19) Rosebud Sioux; (20) Salish and Kootenai; (21) Shoshone-Bannock; (22) Sisseton Wahpeton; (23) Spirit Lake; (24) Standing Rock Sioux; (25) Turtle Mountain Band of the Chippewa; (26) Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation; and (27) Yankton Sioux; Whereas the Yellowstone area was visited by fur traders and explorers during the early 1800s and by organized expeditions in the 1860s and 1870s that reported the abundant resources and immense value of the region to Congress; Whereas painter Thomas Moran and photographer William Henry Jackson accompanied the first geographical survey of the Yellowstone area in 1871 and returned from the expedition with visual evidence of the grandeur that earlier explorers could only describe with words; Whereas, on March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the Yellowstone National Park Protection Act, which states, ``The tract of land . . . lying near the headwaters of the Yellowstone River . . . is reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.''; Whereas Yellowstone National Park is the first national park in the world, an idea that has spread throughout the world; Whereas Yellowstone National Park is the core of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, one of the last, largest, nearly intact natural ecosystems on the planet, where natural processes operate in an ecological context that has been subject to little human alteration; Whereas the Federal Government has made substantial efforts to maintain ecological balance within Yellowstone National Park through wildlife conservation and partnership efforts; Whereas Yellowstone National Park is 3,472 square miles and more than 2,000,000 acres in size; Whereas Yellowstone National Park contains half of the world's hydrothermal features, with more than 10,000 in total and more than 500 active geysers, including the Old Faithful Geyser; Whereas Yellowstone National Park has the most active, diverse, and intact collections of combined geothermal, geologic, and hydrologic features and systems on Earth, including the Grand Prismatic Spring; Whereas Yellowstone National Park has 67 species of mammals, 285 species of birds, 6 species of reptiles, and 5 species of amphibians within its boundaries; Whereas Yellowstone National Park has the largest free- ranging bison herd in North America; Whereas Yellowstone National Park has over 1,000 native flowering species and 9 species of conifers; Whereas Yellowstone National Park has more than 900 historic buildings and 25 sites, landmarks, and districts on the National Register of Historic Places; Whereas Yellowstone National Park has more than 720,000 museum items that document the park and the western United States from pre-history through the present; Whereas the United States Army managed Yellowstone National Park between 1886 and 1918; Whereas more than 1,850 archeological sites have been documented in Yellowstone National Park; Whereas Yellowstone National Park hosts over 4,000,000 visits annually, with people from across the world traveling to the park to enjoy the many recreational opportunities, including hiking, horseback riding, biking, camping, rafting, boating, swimming, fishing, viewing wildlife and geothermal features, photography, and exploring, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars into local and State economies in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho; Whereas, in 2020, visitors to Yellowstone National Park spent over $444,000,000 in gateway communities and supported 6,110 jobs in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, with a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $560,000,000; Whereas Yellowstone National Park partners with concessioners that provide services for the general public, including lodging, dining, shopping, and medical services; and Whereas the National Park Service employs hundreds of permanent and seasonal staff dedicated to preserving the natural and cultural resources of Yellowstone National Park for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of current and future generations: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates Yellowstone National Park on its sesquicentennial anniversary; (2) celebrates 150 years of the unique cultural heritage and natural beauty of Yellowstone National Park; and (3) encourages people across the United States and around the world to visit Yellowstone National Park to experience this extraordinary treasure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-17-pt1-PgS794-2 | null | 3,987 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Casey, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Duckworth, and Mrs. Murray) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Con. Res. 29 Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances, and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as 1 of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights; Whereas the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment to the Constitution, calls for the right of all persons to peaceably assemble, and to this end, all persons, regardless of their physical ability, shall be offered equal opportunity to access all federally funded, in whole or part, amenities; Whereas, in the 32 years since the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) (in this preamble referred to as the ``ADA''), there have been unprecedented advances in all forms of technology; Whereas, in 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1 in 4 adults, or 61,000,000 people, have a disability; Whereas disability is a universal concern, as an aging population increases the incidence of frailty and disability; Whereas, as significant advances in medical treatment result in increased survival rates, the incidence of disability increases; Whereas, in 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 4,700,000 veterans received service-related disability benefits; Whereas, in 2019, the percentage of working-age people in the United States who reported having a work limitation due to a disability was 10.1 percent; Whereas the Act entitled ``An Act to insure that certain buildings financed with Federal funds are so designed and constructed as to be accessible to the physically handicapped'', approved August 12, 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) (commonly known as the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968), was enacted to ensure that certain federally funded facilities are designed and constructed to be accessible to people with disabilities; Whereas the United States Access Board (in this preamble referred to as the ``Board'') is in the process of developing new guidelines for public rights-of-way that will address various issues, including access for blind pedestrians at street crossings, wheelchair access to on-street parking, and various constraints posed by space limitations, roadway design practices, slope, and terrain; Whereas the Board's new guidelines, when finalized, will cover pedestrian access to sidewalks and streets, including crosswalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of- way; Whereas the Board's aim in developing these guidelines is to ensure that access for persons with disabilities is provided wherever a pedestrian way is newly built or altered, and that the same degree of convenience, connection, and safety afforded the public generally is available to pedestrians with disabilities; Whereas once these guidelines are adopted by the Department of Justice, they will become enforceable standards under title II of the ADA; and Whereas the United States was founded on principles of equality and freedom, and these principles require that all people, including people with disabilities, are able to engage as equal members of society: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) recognizes that people with disabilities in the United States experience barriers to access on a daily basis; (2) reaffirms its support of the Act entitled ``An Act to insure that certain buildings financed with Federal funds are so designed and constructed as to be accessible to the physically handicapped'', approved August 12, 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq.) (commonly known as the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and encourages full compliance with such Acts; and (3) pledges to make universal and inclusive design a guiding principle for all infrastructure bills and projects and will continue working to identify and remove the barriers that prevent all people of the United States from having equal access to the services provided by the Federal Government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-02-17-pt1-PgS796-2 | null | 3,988 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the passing of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Hagedorn), the whole number of the House is 433. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-02-18-pt1-PgH1128-3 | null | 3,989 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-3432. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's joint final rule -- Community Reinvestment Act Regulations (RIN: 3064-AF79) received January 18, 2022, 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-3433. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Charter School Programs (CSP) State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants Program [Docket ID: ED-2021-OESE-0147] (RIN: 1810-AB62) received February 8, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-3434. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Fiscal Year 2021 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Parts A and B Supplemental Awards report to Congress, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(e); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, Sec. 2603(e) (as amended by Public Law 109-415, Sec. 104(e)); (120 Stat. 2776) and 42 U.S.C. 300ff-29a(d); July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, Sec. 2620(d) (as amended by Public Law 109-415, Sec. 205(2)); (120 Stat. 2798); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3435. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Finding of Failure to Attain the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for the Detroit Nonattainment Area [EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0451; FRL-9166- 02-R5] received January 18, 2022, 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-3436. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of the Muskingum River SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan [EPA-R05-OAR- 2015-0699; FRL-9271-02-R5] received January 18, 2022, 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-3437. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Ethaboxam; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0045; FRL-9331-01-OCSPP] received January 18, 2022, 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-3438. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's report to Congress, ``Clean School Bus Program: Initial Implementation''; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. EC-3439. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's Annual Report of Interdiction of Aircraft Engaged in Illicit Drug Trafficking, 2021, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2291-4(c); Public Law 103-337, Sec. 1012 (as amended by Public Law 107-108, Sec. 503); (115 Stat. 1405); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-3440. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Congressional Report Transmittal Letter on Department Report Number: 004570, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 9402(a); Public Law 115-44, title I, Sec. 103; (131 Stat. 889); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-3441. A letter from the Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Federal Acquisition Regulation: Trade Agreements Thresholds [FAC 2022-03; FAR Case 2022-001; Docket No.: FAR- 2021-0054; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 9000-AO38) received January 28, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3442. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination, and a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3443. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a designation of acting officer, and an action on nomination, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 3103 note; Public Law 114-113, div. C, title VIII, Sec. 8091; (129 Stat. 2373); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3444. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination, and a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3445. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a designation of acting officer, and an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3446. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation, transmitting a notification of a nomination, and a discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3447. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rule -- Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments received January 28, 2022, 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-3448. A letter from the Regulations Officer/Attorney- Advisor, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Broadband Infrastructure Deployment [Docket No.: FHWA-2019- 0037] (RIN: 2125-AF92) received January 18, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-3449. A letter from the Regulations Officer, Attorney- Advisor, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Design Standards for Highways [Docket No.: FHWA-2019-0030] (RIN: 2125-AF88) received January 18, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-3450. A letter from the Legal Yeoman, CG-LRA, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary final rule -- Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County, MD and King George County, VA [Docket Number: USCG-2021-0906] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received February 11, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-3451. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting a report on the drug-free workplace plans of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency and the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7301 note; Public Law 100-71, Sec. 503(a)(1)(B) (as amended by Public Law 102-54, Sec. 13(b)(6)); (105 Stat. 274); jointly to the Committees on Appropriations and Oversight and Reform. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-18-pt1-PgH1128-5 | null | 3,990 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Almighty God, hear our prayers for our world. As troops are amassed this day outside the Ukrainian border, not only is the delicate balance of the world's order frighteningly precarious, but thousands of Ukrainian citizens fear for their lives, and thousands more risk the destruction of their livelihoods. For these men and women who have so briefly enjoyed their country's sovereignty, we pray Your hedge of protection, Your defense of their freedoms against the aggression of their adversary. Bless those who wait upon You in the midst of their trials. Keep them safe in Your dwelling place. Hear their voices as they call to You, O Lord. Hear their prayers in their time of trouble. Be merciful to them and answer them. We pray that You would reveal Your way through the hostility of critical negotiations. Do not hide Your face in the confrontation of ideology, ideations, and indifference which portend widespread human suffering, untold destruction to the welfare of an entire country, and instability in the region and across the globe. We hold firmly to Your promise that we ``shall see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.'' O Lord, our God, fulfill this promise in our broken world this day. We offer this prayer in Your sovereign name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-22-pt1-PgH1137-3 | null | 3,991 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. SCOTT of Virginia: Committee on Education and Labor. H.R. 5891. A bill to improve and enhance retirement savings, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-250, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NADLER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 55. A bill to amend section 249 of title 18, United States Code, to specify lynching as a hate crime act; with an amendment (Rept. 117- 251). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. NADLER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 2116. A bill to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair; with an amendment (Rept. 117-252, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-25-pt1-PgH1145 | null | 3,992 |
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-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1152-6 | null | 3,993 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1543) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide best practices on student suicide awareness and prevention training and condition State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and Tribal educational agencies receiving funds under section 520A of such Act to establish and implement a school-based student suicide awareness and prevention training policy. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PALLONE | House | CREC-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1158 | null | 3,994 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. NADLER | House | CREC-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1160 | null | 3,995 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1172-2 | null | 3,996 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2116) to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1172-2 | null | 3,997 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 55) to amend section 249 of title 18, United States Code, to specify lynching as a hate crime act, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1172 | null | 3,998 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-3499. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Lieutenant General Sami D. Said, Air National Guard of the United States, and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 1370(c)(1); Public Law 96-513, Sec. 112 (as amended by Public Law 104-106, Sec. 502(b)); (110 Stat. 293); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-3500. A letter from the Congressional Assistant III, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock [Regulation I; Docket No.: R-1745] (RIN: 7100- AG13) received February 18, 2022, 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-3501. A letter from the Chief Innovation Officer, Rural Development Innovation Center, Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Direct Single Family Housing Loans and Grants Programs [Docket No.: RHS-21-SFH-0025] (RIN: 0575-AD14) received February 18, 2022, 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-3502. A letter from the Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Office, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Child Nutrition Programs: Transitional Standards for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium [FNS-2020-0038] (RIN: 0584-AE81) received February 18, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-3503. A letter from the Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's Major final rule -- Affordable Connectivity Program [WC Docket No.: 21-450]; Emergency Broadband Benefit Program [WC Docket No.: 20-445] received February 18, 2022, 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-3504. A letter from the Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism [CC Docket No.: 02-6] received February 18, 2022, 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-3505. A letter from the OCA Director, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Receipts-Based NRC Size Standards [NRC-2014-0264] (RIN: 3150-AJ51) received February 18, 2022, 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-3506. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Venezuela that was declared in Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-3507. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-3508. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a final report on the national emergency with respect to Burundi that was declared in Executive Order 13712 of November 22, 2015, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1641(c); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 401(c); (90 Stat. 1257) and 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); Public Law 95-223, Sec 204(c); (91 Stat. 1627); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-3509. A letter from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Ethiopia Sanctions Regulations received February 18, 2022, 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-3510. A letter from the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Burundi Sanctions Regulations received February 18, 2022, 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-3511. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Secretariat Division, General Services Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Updates to References to Individuals with Disabilities [GSAR Case 2021- G529; Docket No.: GSA-GSAR 2022-0006; Sequence No.: 1] (RIN: 3090-AK50) received February 18, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-3512. A letter from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties received February 18, 2022, 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-3513. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Determination of Substantially Equal Periodic Payments [Notice 2022-6] received February 18, 2022, 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-3514. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- 2022 Cumulative List of Changes in Section 403(b) Requirements for Section 403(b) Pre-approved Plans [Notice 2022-8] received February 18, 2022, 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-3515. A letter from the Director, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- 2022 Indexed Qualifying Payment Amount (Rev. Proc. 2022-11) received February 18, 2022, 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-3516. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- COVID-19 Relief Under Sections 42, 142(d), and 147(d) [Notice 2022-5] received February 18, 2022, 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-3517. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Mayo Clinic v. United States,997 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2021) [AOD-117979-21] received February 18, 2022, 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-3518. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Revocation of Announcement 2001-33 [Announcement 2021-18] received February 18, 2022, 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-3519. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Guidance On Reporting Qualified Sick Leave Wages and Qualified Family Leave Wages Paid for Leave Provided in 2021 [Notice 2021-53] received February 18, 2022, 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-3520. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Revenue Ruling: 2021 Base Period T-Bill Rate (Rev. Rul. 2021-22) received February 18, 2022, 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-3521. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's interim final rules -- Prescription Drug and Health Care Spending [TD 9958] (RIN: 1545-BQ10) received February 18, 2022, 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-3522. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's report entitled, ``Computation of Annual Liability Insurance (Including Self-Insurance), No- Fault Insurance, and Workers' Compensation Settlement Recovery Threshold'', pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(9)(D); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1862(b)(9)(D) (as added by Public Law 112-242, Sec. 202(a)(2)); (126 Stat. 2379); jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-02-28-pt1-PgH1174 | null | 3,999 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.