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 | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I am going to talk a little bit about the bill that we have been debating here all week on the Senate floor, the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT Act of 2022. Now, it is a very important bill. It is named after Sergeant First Class Robinson, an Ohio National Guard soldier who died in 2022 as a result of service-connected toxic exposure. This bill that we are going to be voting for final passage on tomorrow would deliver immediate access to healthcare for toxic-exposed veterans, direct the VA to evaluate diseases for presumption of service connection, and streamline the process for toxic-exposed veterans seeking disability compensation for their illness that they gained while serving overseas defending our Nation. I have supported the intent of this bill for years, and I intend to vote in favor of this bill tomorrow when it comes up for final passage. There is nothing, in my mind, that is more important than taking care of our veterans, but I do want to raise some concerns about how we got to this point, the process of this bill, which, in my view, undermined the likelihood of this massive new program being implemented in a way that benefits all American veterans so we can take care of all American veterans. Let me explain. Since my time here in the Senate, I have focused on these issues. I serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee that was responsible, in large measure, for many aspects of this bill. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I still serve in the military myself, in the Marine Corps Reserves, and I am honored to represent the State in our great Nation, Alaska, that has more veterans per capita than any State in the country. So veterans and military affairs and their families have been a core focus of mine since I arrived in the Senate in 2015. And in particular, I have been focused on this issue of toxic exposure of our service men and women during wartime. In fact, one of my commitments as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2014 was to work to ensure passage of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, which I cosponsored when I got here and was signed into law in 2019. That was an outstanding commitment to our Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange during their time, but it was belatedly fulfilled--years, even decades, after their service in Vietnam. And I took lessons from that. As a matter of fact, I think many Senators took lessons from that, that when the next generation of veterans served overseas and were exposed to toxins during their service, that we needed to act. So that is what I have done in my career here. I have worked, taking the Vietnam veteran experience, particularly with Agent Orange, to make sure we don't repeat that--the mistakes of Agent Orange where those exposed to toxic substances overseas during their service and later came down with diseases and suffered, that we needed to take care of them. We know that toxic exposure during military service can add serious complications to a veteran's health, years and even decades after their service has concluded. And there is science that can correlate certain diseases and symptoms to exposure. That is the model that we want. Veterans suffering from potential exposure understand too well that getting the VA to even recognize and concede exposure can remain a challenging bureaucratic and incredibly frustrating process that leads to denials often from the bureaucracy. So early in my time here, I have been a relentless advocate on these issues. I will give you a few examples. I introduced with Senator Manchin of West Virginia the Veterans Burn Pits Exposure Recognition Act, which was previously passed out of committee in the Veterans' Affairs Committee and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Close to half of the Senate--Democrats and Republicans--was cosponsors of our bill, and almost all of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee were. This bill would recognize and concede exposure to toxic substances for those veterans who were deployed in areas where burn pits were in use: in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Uzbekistan--all of these different areas and more. This bill would do away with the paperwork that made it almost impossible to prove exposure by these veterans. It put the onus on the VA and that bureaucracy. When crafting this bill with Senator Manchin, our offices worked extensively with the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and many of the veterans service organizations, particularly the Disabled American Veterans organization; and we worked with the VA on the language to make sure we were not getting ahead of the science, making sure that what was exposed and what were the diseases connect with science--not always easy, but the VA does have expertise in that area. I then cosponsored with Senator Blumenthal the K2 Veterans Advocacy Act. This bill moved the needle on three things that are known systematically now: that toxic substances at the base that we call K2 in Uzbekistan, the medical conditions that K2 veterans have--and they are serious; something really bad was going on at the K2 base in Uzbekistan--and the links between the two. Now, we worked with the Trump White House before President Trump left office in 2020, before our bill passed here on the Senate floor, to get them to issue an Executive order for the VA to essentially do those things for K2 veterans. I introduced and had passed the bipartisan Burn Pits Accountability Act with Senator Klobuchar, which directs the Pentagon to include empirical health assessments and evaluation of whether a servicemember has been exposed to open burn pits or toxic airborne chemicals in their deployments. This bill was included in the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. And I sponsored the Pandemic Care For Burn Pits Exposure Act of 2020 to ensure that servicemembers and veterans with previous exposure to burn pits received the care they needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. I am listing these bills and the work and time and the bipartisan nature of them because on the Veterans Affairs' Committee there has been no issue I have been more focused on. We are going to take the lessons from Vietnam, Agent Orange, and not say: You are going to wait three or four or five decades while you die of cancer. And I am committed to this issue, and I have been. But I am also committed to passing legislation that is worthy of all veterans that we are serving. So I have had some reservations about the current bill and the process by which it has come to the Senate floor, because the process has thwarted opportunities to make this a better bill, to make it serve our veterans in a better, holistic way. And, again, this is an issue I have been focused on since my first days in the U.S. Senate. So what are the issues? Well, as I mentioned, some of the things in there--a lot of the things in this bill are very necessary. The bill that I just mentioned that I cosponsored with Senator Manchin, the Veterans Burn Pits Exposure Recognition Act, was incorporated into the PACT Act that we will be voting on tomorrow, the Sergeant Robinson Honoring our PACT Act. In fact, many bipartisan bills from the Veterans' Affairs Committee were included in this bill that we are going to be voting on tomorrow. But ultimately, what we had going on in the Veterans' Affairs Committee was an agreement that when we brought this big bill--and it is big--to the Senate floor, we would have the ability to bring amendments to try to improve it, to try to make it better for all veterans in the entire VA system, a system that we know has challenges implementing sweeping mandates from Congress. This is a sweeping mandate from Congress that we are voting on. As I mentioned, the issue of toxic exposure, which I have been focused on since my first year here in the U.S. Senate, has always been a bipartisan bill. Four bills I just mentioned that I have led on have all had Democratic cosponsors leading with me as well. But what happened this week and last week was the bipartisan nature of trying to tackle one of the biggest issues facing our veterans was shut down. For whatever reason, and I don't know why--somebody should ask the majority leader--all the amendments that we were going to bring to the floor to make this bill better were shut down. We have not had one amendment on this comprehensive bill, and, like I said, a number of us have been focused on this issue for years. What were we trying to do with these amendments? We are trying to make this a better bill. Bring your ideas to the floor, debate them, vote on them. Why wouldn't we want to do that? Why wouldn't we want to do that? Don't we owe it to all of our veterans to do that? My primary concern, as I have mentioned, is making sure that not just the constituency impacted by this legislation, which we need--those exposed to toxic exposure primarily from burn pits are taken care of--but that the whole VA system remains robust and strong. And I think some of the amendments--I know some of the amendments that we were going to bring--as a matter of fact, on the Veterans' Affairs Committee there was a commitment to make sure we were bringing these amendments to the floor--would have made this bill better. What are the biggest concerns? Well, I pressed the Secretary of the VA just yesterday in his testimony before the Veterans' Affairs Committee on one of the biggest concerns I have and one of the biggest concerns many Senators have and one of the biggest concerns our Veterans' Affairs Committee has, and it is this: This bill that I will be supporting tomorrow is estimated to bring an additional 2.5 million claims to the VA--2.5 million. My question to the Secretary was simple but really important: Mr. Secretary, is the VA system ready to absorb the roughly 2\1/2\ million additional claims that are likely to be generated in the next 3 years by the PACT Act? Are you ready? We have some ideas and amendments that we think can make it ready. But again, for whatever reason, the majority leader didn't want to hear about those. In an already stretched VA, with a huge backlog already and challenges as we speak, the Secretary testified about them yesterday, about hiring qualified medical personnel across the country but especially in my State, in Alaska. The concern that I raised with the Secretary yesterday, the concern that we are trying to address with the amendment process here on the Senate floor is this: When you bring that many into a system that is not ready, you can collapse the whole system. You can collapse the whole system. And then every veteran loses. A young marine with his legs amputated after an IED explosion in Afghanistan who needs help, he is going to be delayed. A Vietnam veteran who needscare, he is going to be delayed. A Gulf war veteran, she is going to be delayed. If you are collapsing the whole system, every veteran loses. Every veteran loses. Now, I have actually seen this in my State. And I know the Presiding Officer's State has had some challenges with the VA. Several years ago, I held a field hearing in Arizona on some of the challenges in the VA, but I have seen the system collapse in Alaska. In 2015, my first year in the U.S. Senate, due to legislation that had been passed the year before, we essentially had the system in Alaska collapse. Somehow, some way, legislation and ideas from the VA thought it was really smart to remove the ability to actually make appointments for veterans in Alaska not by officials from the VA who live in Alaska but somewhere in the lower 48--I think it was Louisiana or somewhere--not a good idea. The whole system cratered. I have seen it. And no veteran benefits. No one benefits. In my first year here in 2015, it was my No. 1 priority to get the VA to fix the broken system in Alaska, and we have made huge progress. But I have seen it firsthand. When a system that is supposed to take care of veterans craters, of course, every veteran suffers. So we don't want that to happen with the implementation of this important bill. And the Secretary of the VA assured me, assured Senator Tillis in questioning yesterday, that this won't happen, that the system won't be overburdened, that they are prepared for this. Well, I hope he is right. I have my doubts, but I hope he is right. But here is the point: A bipartisan amendment process, particularly from Senators--I will give you one example. Senator Moran, ranking member on Veterans' Affairs, has been working this issue like me for years. Particularly from Senators who actually know the issue, a bipartisan amendment process would have helped ensure that this possibility would be much less. I will give you a couple of examples of what, for whatever reason, the majority leader didn't want to bring up on this important legislation. We had amendments to make sure that the VA didn't get ahead of the science. You need to connect the science and exposure to the disease. That is simple. That is what is expected--it is not simple. It is a complicated process, but it is just the rigor of a bill that you want to make sure that those who are exposed and sick and with a disease are the ones who get the care. Right now, in this bill, there are 23 respiratory illnesses and cancers that will be added to the list of presumptive ailments that will allow a veteran to be diagnosed with toxic exposure and qualify for benefits and any other disease the Secretary of the VA determines is warranted based on a positive association with certain substances, chemicals, or airborne hazards. Some of those 23 presumptives, as we are calling them, are based on science. Some aren't. I have asked the VA; I have asked the Secretary: Hey, where did we get these 23? The answer, I am still waiting for. That is what the amendment process is for, to make sure this bill has rigor to take care of all veterans. Let me mention another amendment offered by Senator Moran, an amendment that he was promised to get a floor vote on that didn't happen and I think would have made the bill stronger. It would have preserved the Trump-era gains on community care access standards and, importantly, serve as a relief valve for veterans to receive care as millions are going to be added into the system. So, again, if you have 2\1/2\ million additional claims and the VA is overwhelmed and now there is a giant backlog for everybody, this amendment would have said: Well, the veterans in the system can go out and get community care. That is a good idea. It is actually how it works in Alaska because we don't have a full-service VA hospital, one of only three States in the country. But that is a really smart idea, a safety valve. If the system looks like it is going to crater because it is overwhelmed, hey, let some doctors in town help the veterans. We couldn't bring that amendment up. So I pressed the VA Secretary on this because I have seen it when a system collapses, and my veterans were really hurt in Alaska when it did--the VA system in my State. And I am going to take his word for it now that the VA can handle 2\1/2\ million more claims in the next 3 years. But I am going to be watching like a hawk--watching like a hawk in my oversight role. Like I said, there is nothing I care more about than our veterans, our military, and their family members. We had the opportunity on an important bill that I will be supporting to make it better. And we sat in the Senate all week and didn't bring up one amendment to even try. The Secretary is assuring us. OK. All good. Good to go. Well, some of us had ideas to make sure it would have been better to go. We couldn't bring them up. I hope there aren't problems with this implementation. If the system is in danger of collapsing as a result of this bill, I hope that whoever is majority leader at that time--2, 3, 4 years from now--understands that the care for all veterans is what the VA is all about, and I hope if we need it, we will have the opportunity to bring good ideas to the Senate floor to fix these kind of things because veterans are not a partisan issue in the Senate. They are not. I have seen it my whole career here. I sit on the committee. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. But for whatever reason, our ability, in a bipartisan way, to try to improve this bill that we are going to vote on tomorrow was not granted to other Senators. And I think that was a missed opportunity because I think we would have made this a better bill. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2022-06-15-pt1-PgS2976-5 | null | 4,600 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to give today's reality check. The Federal Reserve today raised interest rates 75 basis points--three-quarters of a point--with a statement they may come back and do that again in another month. A point and a half in 2 months is a pretty dramatic effect. It is going to be a situation where many people, 40 and younger, are about to face interest rates they have never faced in their lifetime. The cost of buying a car that is already high is about to get higher. The cost of buying a home that is already really high is about to get much higher. Inflation is now at 8.6 percent. A lot of people are beginning to feel what that really means. This is not some strange anomaly. This is inflation over the last decade. It has bounced around about the same level, basically, for a decade until right there--March of 2021--and then it just skyrockets at that point. This is the reality that we are facing at this point. What does inflation really look like when you say it is 8.6 percent? Well, people know what that feels like. The cost of eggs has gone up 32 percent in the past year--32 percent for eggs. The cost of milk is up 16 percent; the cost of butter, also 16 percent; the cost of coffee, 15 percent; the cost of baby formula, if you can find it, is up 13 percent. And gas prices? Oh, hello. Gas prices--that really has had an effect. This is gas prices since January of 2017. Again, we look, and it stays about the same until January of 2021. I wonder what happened then. And then look at this. Then, with the conversation about gas prices that, per the administration lately, has been about, ``Well, it is all Putin's fault,'' well, here are the rising gas prices since President Biden's inauguration--right there--and right there is the war that began in Russia. So this little increase right here is the part that is actually there. This is our consumer price inflation. This is on gas prices. It is the same thing. To be able to see this flat line on gas prices, that spike--that is the invasion of Ukraine happening right there--and to be able to see what has been added onto it since then. So this is not just about the invasion in Ukraine. This has been ongoing since late January 2021. The challenge now is, Is this something intentional or is this something accidental? Quite frankly, I think it is a bit of both. We all remember very well this moment during the Presidential campaign. It was when President Biden wascampaigning, and he walked over to a young lady on the campaign stop and said: [L]ook in my eyes. I guarantee you . . . we are going to end fossil fuel. I guarantee you. That was this moment that happened here. This was not something totally accidental. It was a drive to say, We have got to shift to solar; we have got to shift to wind; we have got to shift to hydro; we have got to shift to other things; we are going to get rid of fossil fuels; and we are going to accelerate that as fast as possible. I have to tell you that I live in a State in which we use a lot of wind power. We use a lot of solar power. We use hydropower. We have a very diverse energy portfolio. But right now, the people in my State are paying much higher prices for gasoline, much higher prices for natural gas, and much higher prices for electricity because the policies that have been put in place are driving up the costs, and people feel it. This is what it looks like at this point. This is the last 24 months of retail average prices--right there, January 2021--and then to be able to see what is happening with prices all over the country. Now, the administration's response, just in the past couple of weeks, has been this statement. President Biden has said: My administration will continue to do everything it can to lower prices for the American people. I love the words ``continue to do'' in there. They are going to continue to do everything that they can. They are going to keep doing these things that clearly have driven up prices overwhelmingly for the American people. It was, let's say, Putin's fault. It has been the oil companies' fault. It has been the refineries' fault. That is the new one that he actually just put out in the last 24 hours--that it is all the fault of the refineries that are just taking in too much profit. The challenge has been an ongoing attack on American energy from the very beginning. Literally, on day 1, when President Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, he started his process of fulfilling his promise that he made during the campaign: ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuels.'' So day 1 was canceling the Keystone Pipeline and getting crude oil from Canada--about 800,000 barrels a day. What he didn't announce on this day is that we still have to have that same 800,000 barrels a day from somewhere because it is heavy crude. We purchase some of our heavy crude from other places, so we still have to get it. His announcement, though, on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. What people don't realize is that this announcement on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. How did that foreign policy work out? Terribly. On day 1: We are not going to get oil from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. We are going to get it from other places instead. He put a moratorium on new Federal oil and gas leasing. That moratorium, by the way, still stays in place in multiple areas, and 24 percent of our oil and gas in the United States comes from Federal lands and waters--24 percent. So what this did was say, for the future of how we are going to develop, we are not going to develop in those areas anymore. I am going to cut off 24 percent of the supply coming in. Again, this goes back to his campaign promise of ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuel.'' He declined to defend the gulf lease sale 257. That is offshore. Basically, an environmental group went in and sued and said: We don't think they followed the process. The administration was, like, We are not going to challenge that. We are going to let the environmental group just take this whole thing down, and we are not going to increase our supply of oil coming from the gulf. He limited the seismic studies necessary for new production in the gulf. What does that matter? Well, he has opened up some areas and said: You can drill for more oil in these areas. Oh, but, by the way, you are allowed to do that, but if you want to do seismic testing before you do it--which is a standard that you have to do seismic testing--oh, we are not doing any more seismic testing this whole year. We are not going to allow you to actually prepare a site. We are just going to tell you that you can do it. That is this mode that the administration is in: Produce more oil, but I am not going to actually allow you to do that with the permitting. He has failed to implement a 5-year offshore leasing program. What difference does that make? By law--by law, now--the administration is required to be able to put a 5-year offshore leasing proposal in place. The current one expires on June 30 of this year. That is days away. There is no present plan in place to be able to replace it. In fact, I personally asked Secretary Haaland, the Secretary of the Interior, and she said: ``We plan by June 30--the deadline to have a new one in place--to be able to put out a comment of what we could do if we do a new plan.'' I said: ``When will that be complete?'' Her response to me was, ``We don't have a deadline as to when that will be complete.'' So, what is required by law to have a plan for how we are going to do offshore leasing, they are going to, instead, by the day it should be in place, begin discussing when they might do it in the days ahead. Again, it goes back to: We are going to talk about it, but we are actually not going to put this lease sale plan in place. He canceled a lease sale in Alaska's Cook Inlet, which is where oil comes from. He closed off half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to any future energy development. He pushed regulations that would slow or halt a buildout of natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas export infrastructure. This is a FERC piece. They actually put a new leader in place in that spot, and then the first action they took was to make putting pipelines that were heading to the gulf to be able to sell natural gas to Europe harder to do and more expensive to do. If we wanted to put natural gas pipelines across our country, he would also make it more expensive and more complicated. So, literally, as the price is going up for natural gas, he has made it even more expensive to be able to transport natural gas and harder to be able to sell it to our allies. He proposed new financial regulations designed to drive investment for traditional energy projects. This body will remember nominees who were put up by the Biden administration to go to the Federal Reserve who stated out loud that their goal of going to the Federal Reserve was to cut off access to capital for any kind of energy development that was a fossil fuel. They are literally saying: You can't get loans and money to get access to that. So they will make it harder to actually move it when you get it, if you can get it at all on Federal lands; and they will make it harder to be able to get access to capital. He has also proposed raising taxes on oil and gas development. Do you remember my comment--or his comment, actually--saying he is going to continue to do everything he can to lower the prices of energy for the American people? Well, what he has actually done is he has proposed a whole new set of taxes on all energy companies. In fact, even recently, there was a conversation about a windfall profits tax on energy companies. Now, here is the basic economics that this group knows well: If you tax it more, you get less of it. If you get less of it, the price goes up. This is not hard. This is basic economics. Yet this administration has proposed multiple new taxes in their budget that they just put out in the previous month. At the same time, he said: I am going to continue to do what I can to lower prices, at the same time he put out proposals to dramatically increase oil and gas costs. Nominate anti-traditional energy activists for key posts. We have seen that. He has turned to hostile nations like Iran and Venezuela to meet the U.S. energy demand instead of turning to U.S. producers. It has been interesting. I have heard several people say: Well, we have got high numbers of production of oil and gas here in the United States. But the fact is, we are still a half a million barrels less now of production than what we were prepandemic. We have not caught up on actual production here; and the Biden administration has made it even harder to go get it. While the Biden administration is planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to talk to them about getting more oil, our friends in Canada are saying: Why don't you come to Canada and talk to us about production? We can increase supply to the United States. American producers are saying: We can increase supply to the United States if you will lift regulations, allow us to get permits, stop making it harder to move it, stop making it more expensive to get it, and stop adding more taxes onto us. We can produce more in the United States. Listen, the price of oil right now is about $117 a barrel. There is plenty of incentive to go get it, but the administration continues to make it harder and harder and harder and more and more unpredictable to actually go get it, so folks are not going to get more. While the Biden administration blames speculators on Wall Street and rich oil companies and everyone else, the basic facts are that the administration's policies are what are driving this problem. Are there solutions to this? Of course, there are. There are ways to be able to resolve this. We can restart Federal leasing onshore and offshore. I am not talking about having massive rigs everywhere. We do oil drilling and gas drilling better than anyone else in the world. While the administration is going over to Saudi Arabia to go get oil to be able to use in the United States, don't we think that we produce it cleaner than Saudi Arabia does? What in the world? If we are going to need to use it, then why aren't we producing it here in the United States? If this is all about a global climate challenge, then why aren't we focused on production here rather than running overseas and trying to be able to get it there? Restart the permitting process. Restart the leasing onshore and offshore. Stop all of the regulations that are designed to limit and to punish oil and gas production--the administration just did a moratorium on this; it would make a significant difference--actually put in timelines for permitting and litigation. Again, I have mentioned Canada several times, but if there is a mine that is going in in Canada for things like lithium and other things that we need and the whole world needs--they have deadlines and timelines to be able to do that--it takes about 5 years to be able to do a mine in those areas. It takes 15 years to be able to do that in the United States, if you can get it done at all, because there are no timelines and deadlines. It is the same thing with the production of oil and gas. When there is this constant litigation challenge all of the time, it makes it more difficult to go get it. People need to be engaged in the process. The community needs to be heard--Tribes, local governments. People need to be heard and consulted in the process. But with no deadlines out there, there is no incentive to be able to actually go after it. Promote projects that enhance mutual security like the Keystone Pipeline and like other pipelines. We learned, when there was a security problem on the Colonial Pipeline--coming out last year to North Carolina--and North Carolina suddenly didn't have refined products, gasoline, the whole east coast discovered: We are dependent on one pipeline--one. If that one pipeline actually has a structural failure, what happens to the east coast? Listen, you can multiply that all over the country. While this administration fights every pipeline company that is trying to put in a pipeline, they increase our risk of having a major problem and large sections of the country losing access to energy. They are gambling with our future at this point, while we are watching prices exceed $5 a gallon. Focus on the solutions that don't raise taxes on energy or limit U.S. energy production. I did have to laugh last week when the President made a speech and said he was working on bringing down the cost of energy. So the announcement was, I am going to bring down the cost of energy by dropping tariffs on solar panels coming from the Far East. Talk about out of touch. That is out of touch. That is out of touch. Because, if we are going to produce solar panels, then why aren't we incentivizing the production of solar panels here in America rather than encouraging the production of solar panels overseas in the Far East? How in the world is dropping tariffs on solar panels from the Far East going to help folks filling up their tank with gas next week? The President said he was going to solve energy issues and the price at the pump by increasing the amount of ethanol that we would use. Remember that one? That was about 5 months ago. He said that we would just have more ethanol. He went to Iowa and made a big announcement: We will just do more ethanol. And the prices continue to be able to skyrocket and rise. The President then came on and said: All right, we still have a higher and higher and higher price. So the ethanol whole thing didn't work when he put that out here, and so he came back and said: We are going to do this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Remember that announcement? That announcement was made right about there on this chart. That is when that announcement was made. How is it going for gas prices since his announcement that we are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve? It still continues to be able to rise. These prices aren't based on short-term input from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They are based on long-term supply. That is basic economics. Now the talk has been a temporary gas tax holiday: We will do a temporary gas tax holiday, and that is going to give people relief. Can I remind everyone that we are over $5 a gallon? The temporary gas tax holiday would drop the price 18 cents. Eighteen cents is what it would drop the price. We are not trying to get an 18-cent drop. We are trying to get it back to where it was over here, or how about over here, where we were at $2 a gallon, not 18 cents. Besides the fact, if you drop the price by 18 cents just for this year, it puts a $20 billion hole in our infrastructure--in our building for bridges and highways and roads--to get an 18-cent bump. There has also been the proposal out there that he is going to take over refineries. That was today. Again, it seems like every week there is a new thing that they throw out. Now it is a letter that he sent to the major refineries. In the letter that the President sent to the major refineries, he wrote: [M]y administration is prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term . . . to ensure that every region of this country is appropriately supplied. Great. So the President is going to go into the refineries, and he is going to take them over. The same administration that is managing our baby formula is now going to manage our refineries. That is going to work out terrific. Our refineries right now are running at 95-percent capacity--95 percent. The interesting thing about our refineries is that America has not built a new refinery since 1977. And just in the past 3 years, we have lost almost a million barrels a day of refining capacity in the United States from refineries shutting down. Maybe the better question the President could ask is ``How do we start increasing our ability to refine,'' not how is he going to take over refineries and run it himself. We have a major structural problem right now. This is just evidence of what is going on across the whole economy. There are answers. There are solutions. But they are not raising taxes, and taking over refineries, and putting oil out from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or running to Saudi Arabia. That is not going to solve our energy problems. And I can assure us, we are not going to solve our 8.6-inflation rate until we solve the price of energy, because the price of energy is baked into every single product that we buy--everything. And if this doesn't get solved, this doesn't get better. Mr. President, do what needs to be done to increase supply in America so that the price will go down. We all believe--we all believe--that, in the decades ahead, we are going to have more electric vehicles; we will have more renewable energy. We all believe that. But 98 percent of the vehicles on theroad right now run on oil and gas, and fulfilling your promise--your promise--that you are going to get rid of fossil fuels right now by making it harder to do pipelines, harder to get capital, harder to do permitting, and more complicated regulations is causing this mess. Thirty years from now, we may all be driving electric vehicles--great. We don't today. Today, we need solutions for how we are going to move in the country. That involves increasing supply. That will get down inflation. That will help us as a nation. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2022-06-15-pt1-PgS2978 | null | 4,601 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to give today's reality check. The Federal Reserve today raised interest rates 75 basis points--three-quarters of a point--with a statement they may come back and do that again in another month. A point and a half in 2 months is a pretty dramatic effect. It is going to be a situation where many people, 40 and younger, are about to face interest rates they have never faced in their lifetime. The cost of buying a car that is already high is about to get higher. The cost of buying a home that is already really high is about to get much higher. Inflation is now at 8.6 percent. A lot of people are beginning to feel what that really means. This is not some strange anomaly. This is inflation over the last decade. It has bounced around about the same level, basically, for a decade until right there--March of 2021--and then it just skyrockets at that point. This is the reality that we are facing at this point. What does inflation really look like when you say it is 8.6 percent? Well, people know what that feels like. The cost of eggs has gone up 32 percent in the past year--32 percent for eggs. The cost of milk is up 16 percent; the cost of butter, also 16 percent; the cost of coffee, 15 percent; the cost of baby formula, if you can find it, is up 13 percent. And gas prices? Oh, hello. Gas prices--that really has had an effect. This is gas prices since January of 2017. Again, we look, and it stays about the same until January of 2021. I wonder what happened then. And then look at this. Then, with the conversation about gas prices that, per the administration lately, has been about, ``Well, it is all Putin's fault,'' well, here are the rising gas prices since President Biden's inauguration--right there--and right there is the war that began in Russia. So this little increase right here is the part that is actually there. This is our consumer price inflation. This is on gas prices. It is the same thing. To be able to see this flat line on gas prices, that spike--that is the invasion of Ukraine happening right there--and to be able to see what has been added onto it since then. So this is not just about the invasion in Ukraine. This has been ongoing since late January 2021. The challenge now is, Is this something intentional or is this something accidental? Quite frankly, I think it is a bit of both. We all remember very well this moment during the Presidential campaign. It was when President Biden wascampaigning, and he walked over to a young lady on the campaign stop and said: [L]ook in my eyes. I guarantee you . . . we are going to end fossil fuel. I guarantee you. That was this moment that happened here. This was not something totally accidental. It was a drive to say, We have got to shift to solar; we have got to shift to wind; we have got to shift to hydro; we have got to shift to other things; we are going to get rid of fossil fuels; and we are going to accelerate that as fast as possible. I have to tell you that I live in a State in which we use a lot of wind power. We use a lot of solar power. We use hydropower. We have a very diverse energy portfolio. But right now, the people in my State are paying much higher prices for gasoline, much higher prices for natural gas, and much higher prices for electricity because the policies that have been put in place are driving up the costs, and people feel it. This is what it looks like at this point. This is the last 24 months of retail average prices--right there, January 2021--and then to be able to see what is happening with prices all over the country. Now, the administration's response, just in the past couple of weeks, has been this statement. President Biden has said: My administration will continue to do everything it can to lower prices for the American people. I love the words ``continue to do'' in there. They are going to continue to do everything that they can. They are going to keep doing these things that clearly have driven up prices overwhelmingly for the American people. It was, let's say, Putin's fault. It has been the oil companies' fault. It has been the refineries' fault. That is the new one that he actually just put out in the last 24 hours--that it is all the fault of the refineries that are just taking in too much profit. The challenge has been an ongoing attack on American energy from the very beginning. Literally, on day 1, when President Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, he started his process of fulfilling his promise that he made during the campaign: ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuels.'' So day 1 was canceling the Keystone Pipeline and getting crude oil from Canada--about 800,000 barrels a day. What he didn't announce on this day is that we still have to have that same 800,000 barrels a day from somewhere because it is heavy crude. We purchase some of our heavy crude from other places, so we still have to get it. His announcement, though, on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. What people don't realize is that this announcement on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. How did that foreign policy work out? Terribly. On day 1: We are not going to get oil from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. We are going to get it from other places instead. He put a moratorium on new Federal oil and gas leasing. That moratorium, by the way, still stays in place in multiple areas, and 24 percent of our oil and gas in the United States comes from Federal lands and waters--24 percent. So what this did was say, for the future of how we are going to develop, we are not going to develop in those areas anymore. I am going to cut off 24 percent of the supply coming in. Again, this goes back to his campaign promise of ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuel.'' He declined to defend the gulf lease sale 257. That is offshore. Basically, an environmental group went in and sued and said: We don't think they followed the process. The administration was, like, We are not going to challenge that. We are going to let the environmental group just take this whole thing down, and we are not going to increase our supply of oil coming from the gulf. He limited the seismic studies necessary for new production in the gulf. What does that matter? Well, he has opened up some areas and said: You can drill for more oil in these areas. Oh, but, by the way, you are allowed to do that, but if you want to do seismic testing before you do it--which is a standard that you have to do seismic testing--oh, we are not doing any more seismic testing this whole year. We are not going to allow you to actually prepare a site. We are just going to tell you that you can do it. That is this mode that the administration is in: Produce more oil, but I am not going to actually allow you to do that with the permitting. He has failed to implement a 5-year offshore leasing program. What difference does that make? By law--by law, now--the administration is required to be able to put a 5-year offshore leasing proposal in place. The current one expires on June 30 of this year. That is days away. There is no present plan in place to be able to replace it. In fact, I personally asked Secretary Haaland, the Secretary of the Interior, and she said: ``We plan by June 30--the deadline to have a new one in place--to be able to put out a comment of what we could do if we do a new plan.'' I said: ``When will that be complete?'' Her response to me was, ``We don't have a deadline as to when that will be complete.'' So, what is required by law to have a plan for how we are going to do offshore leasing, they are going to, instead, by the day it should be in place, begin discussing when they might do it in the days ahead. Again, it goes back to: We are going to talk about it, but we are actually not going to put this lease sale plan in place. He canceled a lease sale in Alaska's Cook Inlet, which is where oil comes from. He closed off half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to any future energy development. He pushed regulations that would slow or halt a buildout of natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas export infrastructure. This is a FERC piece. They actually put a new leader in place in that spot, and then the first action they took was to make putting pipelines that were heading to the gulf to be able to sell natural gas to Europe harder to do and more expensive to do. If we wanted to put natural gas pipelines across our country, he would also make it more expensive and more complicated. So, literally, as the price is going up for natural gas, he has made it even more expensive to be able to transport natural gas and harder to be able to sell it to our allies. He proposed new financial regulations designed to drive investment for traditional energy projects. This body will remember nominees who were put up by the Biden administration to go to the Federal Reserve who stated out loud that their goal of going to the Federal Reserve was to cut off access to capital for any kind of energy development that was a fossil fuel. They are literally saying: You can't get loans and money to get access to that. So they will make it harder to actually move it when you get it, if you can get it at all on Federal lands; and they will make it harder to be able to get access to capital. He has also proposed raising taxes on oil and gas development. Do you remember my comment--or his comment, actually--saying he is going to continue to do everything he can to lower the prices of energy for the American people? Well, what he has actually done is he has proposed a whole new set of taxes on all energy companies. In fact, even recently, there was a conversation about a windfall profits tax on energy companies. Now, here is the basic economics that this group knows well: If you tax it more, you get less of it. If you get less of it, the price goes up. This is not hard. This is basic economics. Yet this administration has proposed multiple new taxes in their budget that they just put out in the previous month. At the same time, he said: I am going to continue to do what I can to lower prices, at the same time he put out proposals to dramatically increase oil and gas costs. Nominate anti-traditional energy activists for key posts. We have seen that. He has turned to hostile nations like Iran and Venezuela to meet the U.S. energy demand instead of turning to U.S. producers. It has been interesting. I have heard several people say: Well, we have got high numbers of production of oil and gas here in the United States. But the fact is, we are still a half a million barrels less now of production than what we were prepandemic. We have not caught up on actual production here; and the Biden administration has made it even harder to go get it. While the Biden administration is planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to talk to them about getting more oil, our friends in Canada are saying: Why don't you come to Canada and talk to us about production? We can increase supply to the United States. American producers are saying: We can increase supply to the United States if you will lift regulations, allow us to get permits, stop making it harder to move it, stop making it more expensive to get it, and stop adding more taxes onto us. We can produce more in the United States. Listen, the price of oil right now is about $117 a barrel. There is plenty of incentive to go get it, but the administration continues to make it harder and harder and harder and more and more unpredictable to actually go get it, so folks are not going to get more. While the Biden administration blames speculators on Wall Street and rich oil companies and everyone else, the basic facts are that the administration's policies are what are driving this problem. Are there solutions to this? Of course, there are. There are ways to be able to resolve this. We can restart Federal leasing onshore and offshore. I am not talking about having massive rigs everywhere. We do oil drilling and gas drilling better than anyone else in the world. While the administration is going over to Saudi Arabia to go get oil to be able to use in the United States, don't we think that we produce it cleaner than Saudi Arabia does? What in the world? If we are going to need to use it, then why aren't we producing it here in the United States? If this is all about a global climate challenge, then why aren't we focused on production here rather than running overseas and trying to be able to get it there? Restart the permitting process. Restart the leasing onshore and offshore. Stop all of the regulations that are designed to limit and to punish oil and gas production--the administration just did a moratorium on this; it would make a significant difference--actually put in timelines for permitting and litigation. Again, I have mentioned Canada several times, but if there is a mine that is going in in Canada for things like lithium and other things that we need and the whole world needs--they have deadlines and timelines to be able to do that--it takes about 5 years to be able to do a mine in those areas. It takes 15 years to be able to do that in the United States, if you can get it done at all, because there are no timelines and deadlines. It is the same thing with the production of oil and gas. When there is this constant litigation challenge all of the time, it makes it more difficult to go get it. People need to be engaged in the process. The community needs to be heard--Tribes, local governments. People need to be heard and consulted in the process. But with no deadlines out there, there is no incentive to be able to actually go after it. Promote projects that enhance mutual security like the Keystone Pipeline and like other pipelines. We learned, when there was a security problem on the Colonial Pipeline--coming out last year to North Carolina--and North Carolina suddenly didn't have refined products, gasoline, the whole east coast discovered: We are dependent on one pipeline--one. If that one pipeline actually has a structural failure, what happens to the east coast? Listen, you can multiply that all over the country. While this administration fights every pipeline company that is trying to put in a pipeline, they increase our risk of having a major problem and large sections of the country losing access to energy. They are gambling with our future at this point, while we are watching prices exceed $5 a gallon. Focus on the solutions that don't raise taxes on energy or limit U.S. energy production. I did have to laugh last week when the President made a speech and said he was working on bringing down the cost of energy. So the announcement was, I am going to bring down the cost of energy by dropping tariffs on solar panels coming from the Far East. Talk about out of touch. That is out of touch. That is out of touch. Because, if we are going to produce solar panels, then why aren't we incentivizing the production of solar panels here in America rather than encouraging the production of solar panels overseas in the Far East? How in the world is dropping tariffs on solar panels from the Far East going to help folks filling up their tank with gas next week? The President said he was going to solve energy issues and the price at the pump by increasing the amount of ethanol that we would use. Remember that one? That was about 5 months ago. He said that we would just have more ethanol. He went to Iowa and made a big announcement: We will just do more ethanol. And the prices continue to be able to skyrocket and rise. The President then came on and said: All right, we still have a higher and higher and higher price. So the ethanol whole thing didn't work when he put that out here, and so he came back and said: We are going to do this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Remember that announcement? That announcement was made right about there on this chart. That is when that announcement was made. How is it going for gas prices since his announcement that we are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve? It still continues to be able to rise. These prices aren't based on short-term input from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They are based on long-term supply. That is basic economics. Now the talk has been a temporary gas tax holiday: We will do a temporary gas tax holiday, and that is going to give people relief. Can I remind everyone that we are over $5 a gallon? The temporary gas tax holiday would drop the price 18 cents. Eighteen cents is what it would drop the price. We are not trying to get an 18-cent drop. We are trying to get it back to where it was over here, or how about over here, where we were at $2 a gallon, not 18 cents. Besides the fact, if you drop the price by 18 cents just for this year, it puts a $20 billion hole in our infrastructure--in our building for bridges and highways and roads--to get an 18-cent bump. There has also been the proposal out there that he is going to take over refineries. That was today. Again, it seems like every week there is a new thing that they throw out. Now it is a letter that he sent to the major refineries. In the letter that the President sent to the major refineries, he wrote: [M]y administration is prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term . . . to ensure that every region of this country is appropriately supplied. Great. So the President is going to go into the refineries, and he is going to take them over. The same administration that is managing our baby formula is now going to manage our refineries. That is going to work out terrific. Our refineries right now are running at 95-percent capacity--95 percent. The interesting thing about our refineries is that America has not built a new refinery since 1977. And just in the past 3 years, we have lost almost a million barrels a day of refining capacity in the United States from refineries shutting down. Maybe the better question the President could ask is ``How do we start increasing our ability to refine,'' not how is he going to take over refineries and run it himself. We have a major structural problem right now. This is just evidence of what is going on across the whole economy. There are answers. There are solutions. But they are not raising taxes, and taking over refineries, and putting oil out from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or running to Saudi Arabia. That is not going to solve our energy problems. And I can assure us, we are not going to solve our 8.6-inflation rate until we solve the price of energy, because the price of energy is baked into every single product that we buy--everything. And if this doesn't get solved, this doesn't get better. Mr. President, do what needs to be done to increase supply in America so that the price will go down. We all believe--we all believe--that, in the decades ahead, we are going to have more electric vehicles; we will have more renewable energy. We all believe that. But 98 percent of the vehicles on theroad right now run on oil and gas, and fulfilling your promise--your promise--that you are going to get rid of fossil fuels right now by making it harder to do pipelines, harder to get capital, harder to do permitting, and more complicated regulations is causing this mess. Thirty years from now, we may all be driving electric vehicles--great. We don't today. Today, we need solutions for how we are going to move in the country. That involves increasing supply. That will get down inflation. That will help us as a nation. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2022-06-15-pt1-PgS2978 | null | 4,602 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to give today's reality check. The Federal Reserve today raised interest rates 75 basis points--three-quarters of a point--with a statement they may come back and do that again in another month. A point and a half in 2 months is a pretty dramatic effect. It is going to be a situation where many people, 40 and younger, are about to face interest rates they have never faced in their lifetime. The cost of buying a car that is already high is about to get higher. The cost of buying a home that is already really high is about to get much higher. Inflation is now at 8.6 percent. A lot of people are beginning to feel what that really means. This is not some strange anomaly. This is inflation over the last decade. It has bounced around about the same level, basically, for a decade until right there--March of 2021--and then it just skyrockets at that point. This is the reality that we are facing at this point. What does inflation really look like when you say it is 8.6 percent? Well, people know what that feels like. The cost of eggs has gone up 32 percent in the past year--32 percent for eggs. The cost of milk is up 16 percent; the cost of butter, also 16 percent; the cost of coffee, 15 percent; the cost of baby formula, if you can find it, is up 13 percent. And gas prices? Oh, hello. Gas prices--that really has had an effect. This is gas prices since January of 2017. Again, we look, and it stays about the same until January of 2021. I wonder what happened then. And then look at this. Then, with the conversation about gas prices that, per the administration lately, has been about, ``Well, it is all Putin's fault,'' well, here are the rising gas prices since President Biden's inauguration--right there--and right there is the war that began in Russia. So this little increase right here is the part that is actually there. This is our consumer price inflation. This is on gas prices. It is the same thing. To be able to see this flat line on gas prices, that spike--that is the invasion of Ukraine happening right there--and to be able to see what has been added onto it since then. So this is not just about the invasion in Ukraine. This has been ongoing since late January 2021. The challenge now is, Is this something intentional or is this something accidental? Quite frankly, I think it is a bit of both. We all remember very well this moment during the Presidential campaign. It was when President Biden wascampaigning, and he walked over to a young lady on the campaign stop and said: [L]ook in my eyes. I guarantee you . . . we are going to end fossil fuel. I guarantee you. That was this moment that happened here. This was not something totally accidental. It was a drive to say, We have got to shift to solar; we have got to shift to wind; we have got to shift to hydro; we have got to shift to other things; we are going to get rid of fossil fuels; and we are going to accelerate that as fast as possible. I have to tell you that I live in a State in which we use a lot of wind power. We use a lot of solar power. We use hydropower. We have a very diverse energy portfolio. But right now, the people in my State are paying much higher prices for gasoline, much higher prices for natural gas, and much higher prices for electricity because the policies that have been put in place are driving up the costs, and people feel it. This is what it looks like at this point. This is the last 24 months of retail average prices--right there, January 2021--and then to be able to see what is happening with prices all over the country. Now, the administration's response, just in the past couple of weeks, has been this statement. President Biden has said: My administration will continue to do everything it can to lower prices for the American people. I love the words ``continue to do'' in there. They are going to continue to do everything that they can. They are going to keep doing these things that clearly have driven up prices overwhelmingly for the American people. It was, let's say, Putin's fault. It has been the oil companies' fault. It has been the refineries' fault. That is the new one that he actually just put out in the last 24 hours--that it is all the fault of the refineries that are just taking in too much profit. The challenge has been an ongoing attack on American energy from the very beginning. Literally, on day 1, when President Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, he started his process of fulfilling his promise that he made during the campaign: ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuels.'' So day 1 was canceling the Keystone Pipeline and getting crude oil from Canada--about 800,000 barrels a day. What he didn't announce on this day is that we still have to have that same 800,000 barrels a day from somewhere because it is heavy crude. We purchase some of our heavy crude from other places, so we still have to get it. His announcement, though, on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. What people don't realize is that this announcement on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. How did that foreign policy work out? Terribly. On day 1: We are not going to get oil from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. We are going to get it from other places instead. He put a moratorium on new Federal oil and gas leasing. That moratorium, by the way, still stays in place in multiple areas, and 24 percent of our oil and gas in the United States comes from Federal lands and waters--24 percent. So what this did was say, for the future of how we are going to develop, we are not going to develop in those areas anymore. I am going to cut off 24 percent of the supply coming in. Again, this goes back to his campaign promise of ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuel.'' He declined to defend the gulf lease sale 257. That is offshore. Basically, an environmental group went in and sued and said: We don't think they followed the process. The administration was, like, We are not going to challenge that. We are going to let the environmental group just take this whole thing down, and we are not going to increase our supply of oil coming from the gulf. He limited the seismic studies necessary for new production in the gulf. What does that matter? Well, he has opened up some areas and said: You can drill for more oil in these areas. Oh, but, by the way, you are allowed to do that, but if you want to do seismic testing before you do it--which is a standard that you have to do seismic testing--oh, we are not doing any more seismic testing this whole year. We are not going to allow you to actually prepare a site. We are just going to tell you that you can do it. That is this mode that the administration is in: Produce more oil, but I am not going to actually allow you to do that with the permitting. He has failed to implement a 5-year offshore leasing program. What difference does that make? By law--by law, now--the administration is required to be able to put a 5-year offshore leasing proposal in place. The current one expires on June 30 of this year. That is days away. There is no present plan in place to be able to replace it. In fact, I personally asked Secretary Haaland, the Secretary of the Interior, and she said: ``We plan by June 30--the deadline to have a new one in place--to be able to put out a comment of what we could do if we do a new plan.'' I said: ``When will that be complete?'' Her response to me was, ``We don't have a deadline as to when that will be complete.'' So, what is required by law to have a plan for how we are going to do offshore leasing, they are going to, instead, by the day it should be in place, begin discussing when they might do it in the days ahead. Again, it goes back to: We are going to talk about it, but we are actually not going to put this lease sale plan in place. He canceled a lease sale in Alaska's Cook Inlet, which is where oil comes from. He closed off half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to any future energy development. He pushed regulations that would slow or halt a buildout of natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas export infrastructure. This is a FERC piece. They actually put a new leader in place in that spot, and then the first action they took was to make putting pipelines that were heading to the gulf to be able to sell natural gas to Europe harder to do and more expensive to do. If we wanted to put natural gas pipelines across our country, he would also make it more expensive and more complicated. So, literally, as the price is going up for natural gas, he has made it even more expensive to be able to transport natural gas and harder to be able to sell it to our allies. He proposed new financial regulations designed to drive investment for traditional energy projects. This body will remember nominees who were put up by the Biden administration to go to the Federal Reserve who stated out loud that their goal of going to the Federal Reserve was to cut off access to capital for any kind of energy development that was a fossil fuel. They are literally saying: You can't get loans and money to get access to that. So they will make it harder to actually move it when you get it, if you can get it at all on Federal lands; and they will make it harder to be able to get access to capital. He has also proposed raising taxes on oil and gas development. Do you remember my comment--or his comment, actually--saying he is going to continue to do everything he can to lower the prices of energy for the American people? Well, what he has actually done is he has proposed a whole new set of taxes on all energy companies. In fact, even recently, there was a conversation about a windfall profits tax on energy companies. Now, here is the basic economics that this group knows well: If you tax it more, you get less of it. If you get less of it, the price goes up. This is not hard. This is basic economics. Yet this administration has proposed multiple new taxes in their budget that they just put out in the previous month. At the same time, he said: I am going to continue to do what I can to lower prices, at the same time he put out proposals to dramatically increase oil and gas costs. Nominate anti-traditional energy activists for key posts. We have seen that. He has turned to hostile nations like Iran and Venezuela to meet the U.S. energy demand instead of turning to U.S. producers. It has been interesting. I have heard several people say: Well, we have got high numbers of production of oil and gas here in the United States. But the fact is, we are still a half a million barrels less now of production than what we were prepandemic. We have not caught up on actual production here; and the Biden administration has made it even harder to go get it. While the Biden administration is planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to talk to them about getting more oil, our friends in Canada are saying: Why don't you come to Canada and talk to us about production? We can increase supply to the United States. American producers are saying: We can increase supply to the United States if you will lift regulations, allow us to get permits, stop making it harder to move it, stop making it more expensive to get it, and stop adding more taxes onto us. We can produce more in the United States. Listen, the price of oil right now is about $117 a barrel. There is plenty of incentive to go get it, but the administration continues to make it harder and harder and harder and more and more unpredictable to actually go get it, so folks are not going to get more. While the Biden administration blames speculators on Wall Street and rich oil companies and everyone else, the basic facts are that the administration's policies are what are driving this problem. Are there solutions to this? Of course, there are. There are ways to be able to resolve this. We can restart Federal leasing onshore and offshore. I am not talking about having massive rigs everywhere. We do oil drilling and gas drilling better than anyone else in the world. While the administration is going over to Saudi Arabia to go get oil to be able to use in the United States, don't we think that we produce it cleaner than Saudi Arabia does? What in the world? If we are going to need to use it, then why aren't we producing it here in the United States? If this is all about a global climate challenge, then why aren't we focused on production here rather than running overseas and trying to be able to get it there? Restart the permitting process. Restart the leasing onshore and offshore. Stop all of the regulations that are designed to limit and to punish oil and gas production--the administration just did a moratorium on this; it would make a significant difference--actually put in timelines for permitting and litigation. Again, I have mentioned Canada several times, but if there is a mine that is going in in Canada for things like lithium and other things that we need and the whole world needs--they have deadlines and timelines to be able to do that--it takes about 5 years to be able to do a mine in those areas. It takes 15 years to be able to do that in the United States, if you can get it done at all, because there are no timelines and deadlines. It is the same thing with the production of oil and gas. When there is this constant litigation challenge all of the time, it makes it more difficult to go get it. People need to be engaged in the process. The community needs to be heard--Tribes, local governments. People need to be heard and consulted in the process. But with no deadlines out there, there is no incentive to be able to actually go after it. Promote projects that enhance mutual security like the Keystone Pipeline and like other pipelines. We learned, when there was a security problem on the Colonial Pipeline--coming out last year to North Carolina--and North Carolina suddenly didn't have refined products, gasoline, the whole east coast discovered: We are dependent on one pipeline--one. If that one pipeline actually has a structural failure, what happens to the east coast? Listen, you can multiply that all over the country. While this administration fights every pipeline company that is trying to put in a pipeline, they increase our risk of having a major problem and large sections of the country losing access to energy. They are gambling with our future at this point, while we are watching prices exceed $5 a gallon. Focus on the solutions that don't raise taxes on energy or limit U.S. energy production. I did have to laugh last week when the President made a speech and said he was working on bringing down the cost of energy. So the announcement was, I am going to bring down the cost of energy by dropping tariffs on solar panels coming from the Far East. Talk about out of touch. That is out of touch. That is out of touch. Because, if we are going to produce solar panels, then why aren't we incentivizing the production of solar panels here in America rather than encouraging the production of solar panels overseas in the Far East? How in the world is dropping tariffs on solar panels from the Far East going to help folks filling up their tank with gas next week? The President said he was going to solve energy issues and the price at the pump by increasing the amount of ethanol that we would use. Remember that one? That was about 5 months ago. He said that we would just have more ethanol. He went to Iowa and made a big announcement: We will just do more ethanol. And the prices continue to be able to skyrocket and rise. The President then came on and said: All right, we still have a higher and higher and higher price. So the ethanol whole thing didn't work when he put that out here, and so he came back and said: We are going to do this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Remember that announcement? That announcement was made right about there on this chart. That is when that announcement was made. How is it going for gas prices since his announcement that we are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve? It still continues to be able to rise. These prices aren't based on short-term input from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They are based on long-term supply. That is basic economics. Now the talk has been a temporary gas tax holiday: We will do a temporary gas tax holiday, and that is going to give people relief. Can I remind everyone that we are over $5 a gallon? The temporary gas tax holiday would drop the price 18 cents. Eighteen cents is what it would drop the price. We are not trying to get an 18-cent drop. We are trying to get it back to where it was over here, or how about over here, where we were at $2 a gallon, not 18 cents. Besides the fact, if you drop the price by 18 cents just for this year, it puts a $20 billion hole in our infrastructure--in our building for bridges and highways and roads--to get an 18-cent bump. There has also been the proposal out there that he is going to take over refineries. That was today. Again, it seems like every week there is a new thing that they throw out. Now it is a letter that he sent to the major refineries. In the letter that the President sent to the major refineries, he wrote: [M]y administration is prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term . . . to ensure that every region of this country is appropriately supplied. Great. So the President is going to go into the refineries, and he is going to take them over. The same administration that is managing our baby formula is now going to manage our refineries. That is going to work out terrific. Our refineries right now are running at 95-percent capacity--95 percent. The interesting thing about our refineries is that America has not built a new refinery since 1977. And just in the past 3 years, we have lost almost a million barrels a day of refining capacity in the United States from refineries shutting down. Maybe the better question the President could ask is ``How do we start increasing our ability to refine,'' not how is he going to take over refineries and run it himself. We have a major structural problem right now. This is just evidence of what is going on across the whole economy. There are answers. There are solutions. But they are not raising taxes, and taking over refineries, and putting oil out from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or running to Saudi Arabia. That is not going to solve our energy problems. And I can assure us, we are not going to solve our 8.6-inflation rate until we solve the price of energy, because the price of energy is baked into every single product that we buy--everything. And if this doesn't get solved, this doesn't get better. Mr. President, do what needs to be done to increase supply in America so that the price will go down. We all believe--we all believe--that, in the decades ahead, we are going to have more electric vehicles; we will have more renewable energy. We all believe that. But 98 percent of the vehicles on theroad right now run on oil and gas, and fulfilling your promise--your promise--that you are going to get rid of fossil fuels right now by making it harder to do pipelines, harder to get capital, harder to do permitting, and more complicated regulations is causing this mess. Thirty years from now, we may all be driving electric vehicles--great. We don't today. Today, we need solutions for how we are going to move in the country. That involves increasing supply. That will get down inflation. That will help us as a nation. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2022-06-15-pt1-PgS2978 | null | 4,603 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to give today's reality check. The Federal Reserve today raised interest rates 75 basis points--three-quarters of a point--with a statement they may come back and do that again in another month. A point and a half in 2 months is a pretty dramatic effect. It is going to be a situation where many people, 40 and younger, are about to face interest rates they have never faced in their lifetime. The cost of buying a car that is already high is about to get higher. The cost of buying a home that is already really high is about to get much higher. Inflation is now at 8.6 percent. A lot of people are beginning to feel what that really means. This is not some strange anomaly. This is inflation over the last decade. It has bounced around about the same level, basically, for a decade until right there--March of 2021--and then it just skyrockets at that point. This is the reality that we are facing at this point. What does inflation really look like when you say it is 8.6 percent? Well, people know what that feels like. The cost of eggs has gone up 32 percent in the past year--32 percent for eggs. The cost of milk is up 16 percent; the cost of butter, also 16 percent; the cost of coffee, 15 percent; the cost of baby formula, if you can find it, is up 13 percent. And gas prices? Oh, hello. Gas prices--that really has had an effect. This is gas prices since January of 2017. Again, we look, and it stays about the same until January of 2021. I wonder what happened then. And then look at this. Then, with the conversation about gas prices that, per the administration lately, has been about, ``Well, it is all Putin's fault,'' well, here are the rising gas prices since President Biden's inauguration--right there--and right there is the war that began in Russia. So this little increase right here is the part that is actually there. This is our consumer price inflation. This is on gas prices. It is the same thing. To be able to see this flat line on gas prices, that spike--that is the invasion of Ukraine happening right there--and to be able to see what has been added onto it since then. So this is not just about the invasion in Ukraine. This has been ongoing since late January 2021. The challenge now is, Is this something intentional or is this something accidental? Quite frankly, I think it is a bit of both. We all remember very well this moment during the Presidential campaign. It was when President Biden wascampaigning, and he walked over to a young lady on the campaign stop and said: [L]ook in my eyes. I guarantee you . . . we are going to end fossil fuel. I guarantee you. That was this moment that happened here. This was not something totally accidental. It was a drive to say, We have got to shift to solar; we have got to shift to wind; we have got to shift to hydro; we have got to shift to other things; we are going to get rid of fossil fuels; and we are going to accelerate that as fast as possible. I have to tell you that I live in a State in which we use a lot of wind power. We use a lot of solar power. We use hydropower. We have a very diverse energy portfolio. But right now, the people in my State are paying much higher prices for gasoline, much higher prices for natural gas, and much higher prices for electricity because the policies that have been put in place are driving up the costs, and people feel it. This is what it looks like at this point. This is the last 24 months of retail average prices--right there, January 2021--and then to be able to see what is happening with prices all over the country. Now, the administration's response, just in the past couple of weeks, has been this statement. President Biden has said: My administration will continue to do everything it can to lower prices for the American people. I love the words ``continue to do'' in there. They are going to continue to do everything that they can. They are going to keep doing these things that clearly have driven up prices overwhelmingly for the American people. It was, let's say, Putin's fault. It has been the oil companies' fault. It has been the refineries' fault. That is the new one that he actually just put out in the last 24 hours--that it is all the fault of the refineries that are just taking in too much profit. The challenge has been an ongoing attack on American energy from the very beginning. Literally, on day 1, when President Biden canceled the Keystone Pipeline, he started his process of fulfilling his promise that he made during the campaign: ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuels.'' So day 1 was canceling the Keystone Pipeline and getting crude oil from Canada--about 800,000 barrels a day. What he didn't announce on this day is that we still have to have that same 800,000 barrels a day from somewhere because it is heavy crude. We purchase some of our heavy crude from other places, so we still have to get it. His announcement, though, on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. What people don't realize is that this announcement on day 1 was, We are not going to get it from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. How did that foreign policy work out? Terribly. On day 1: We are not going to get oil from Canada. We are going to get it from Russia. We are going to get it from other places instead. He put a moratorium on new Federal oil and gas leasing. That moratorium, by the way, still stays in place in multiple areas, and 24 percent of our oil and gas in the United States comes from Federal lands and waters--24 percent. So what this did was say, for the future of how we are going to develop, we are not going to develop in those areas anymore. I am going to cut off 24 percent of the supply coming in. Again, this goes back to his campaign promise of ``I guarantee you I am going to end fossil fuel.'' He declined to defend the gulf lease sale 257. That is offshore. Basically, an environmental group went in and sued and said: We don't think they followed the process. The administration was, like, We are not going to challenge that. We are going to let the environmental group just take this whole thing down, and we are not going to increase our supply of oil coming from the gulf. He limited the seismic studies necessary for new production in the gulf. What does that matter? Well, he has opened up some areas and said: You can drill for more oil in these areas. Oh, but, by the way, you are allowed to do that, but if you want to do seismic testing before you do it--which is a standard that you have to do seismic testing--oh, we are not doing any more seismic testing this whole year. We are not going to allow you to actually prepare a site. We are just going to tell you that you can do it. That is this mode that the administration is in: Produce more oil, but I am not going to actually allow you to do that with the permitting. He has failed to implement a 5-year offshore leasing program. What difference does that make? By law--by law, now--the administration is required to be able to put a 5-year offshore leasing proposal in place. The current one expires on June 30 of this year. That is days away. There is no present plan in place to be able to replace it. In fact, I personally asked Secretary Haaland, the Secretary of the Interior, and she said: ``We plan by June 30--the deadline to have a new one in place--to be able to put out a comment of what we could do if we do a new plan.'' I said: ``When will that be complete?'' Her response to me was, ``We don't have a deadline as to when that will be complete.'' So, what is required by law to have a plan for how we are going to do offshore leasing, they are going to, instead, by the day it should be in place, begin discussing when they might do it in the days ahead. Again, it goes back to: We are going to talk about it, but we are actually not going to put this lease sale plan in place. He canceled a lease sale in Alaska's Cook Inlet, which is where oil comes from. He closed off half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to any future energy development. He pushed regulations that would slow or halt a buildout of natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas export infrastructure. This is a FERC piece. They actually put a new leader in place in that spot, and then the first action they took was to make putting pipelines that were heading to the gulf to be able to sell natural gas to Europe harder to do and more expensive to do. If we wanted to put natural gas pipelines across our country, he would also make it more expensive and more complicated. So, literally, as the price is going up for natural gas, he has made it even more expensive to be able to transport natural gas and harder to be able to sell it to our allies. He proposed new financial regulations designed to drive investment for traditional energy projects. This body will remember nominees who were put up by the Biden administration to go to the Federal Reserve who stated out loud that their goal of going to the Federal Reserve was to cut off access to capital for any kind of energy development that was a fossil fuel. They are literally saying: You can't get loans and money to get access to that. So they will make it harder to actually move it when you get it, if you can get it at all on Federal lands; and they will make it harder to be able to get access to capital. He has also proposed raising taxes on oil and gas development. Do you remember my comment--or his comment, actually--saying he is going to continue to do everything he can to lower the prices of energy for the American people? Well, what he has actually done is he has proposed a whole new set of taxes on all energy companies. In fact, even recently, there was a conversation about a windfall profits tax on energy companies. Now, here is the basic economics that this group knows well: If you tax it more, you get less of it. If you get less of it, the price goes up. This is not hard. This is basic economics. Yet this administration has proposed multiple new taxes in their budget that they just put out in the previous month. At the same time, he said: I am going to continue to do what I can to lower prices, at the same time he put out proposals to dramatically increase oil and gas costs. Nominate anti-traditional energy activists for key posts. We have seen that. He has turned to hostile nations like Iran and Venezuela to meet the U.S. energy demand instead of turning to U.S. producers. It has been interesting. I have heard several people say: Well, we have got high numbers of production of oil and gas here in the United States. But the fact is, we are still a half a million barrels less now of production than what we were prepandemic. We have not caught up on actual production here; and the Biden administration has made it even harder to go get it. While the Biden administration is planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to talk to them about getting more oil, our friends in Canada are saying: Why don't you come to Canada and talk to us about production? We can increase supply to the United States. American producers are saying: We can increase supply to the United States if you will lift regulations, allow us to get permits, stop making it harder to move it, stop making it more expensive to get it, and stop adding more taxes onto us. We can produce more in the United States. Listen, the price of oil right now is about $117 a barrel. There is plenty of incentive to go get it, but the administration continues to make it harder and harder and harder and more and more unpredictable to actually go get it, so folks are not going to get more. While the Biden administration blames speculators on Wall Street and rich oil companies and everyone else, the basic facts are that the administration's policies are what are driving this problem. Are there solutions to this? Of course, there are. There are ways to be able to resolve this. We can restart Federal leasing onshore and offshore. I am not talking about having massive rigs everywhere. We do oil drilling and gas drilling better than anyone else in the world. While the administration is going over to Saudi Arabia to go get oil to be able to use in the United States, don't we think that we produce it cleaner than Saudi Arabia does? What in the world? If we are going to need to use it, then why aren't we producing it here in the United States? If this is all about a global climate challenge, then why aren't we focused on production here rather than running overseas and trying to be able to get it there? Restart the permitting process. Restart the leasing onshore and offshore. Stop all of the regulations that are designed to limit and to punish oil and gas production--the administration just did a moratorium on this; it would make a significant difference--actually put in timelines for permitting and litigation. Again, I have mentioned Canada several times, but if there is a mine that is going in in Canada for things like lithium and other things that we need and the whole world needs--they have deadlines and timelines to be able to do that--it takes about 5 years to be able to do a mine in those areas. It takes 15 years to be able to do that in the United States, if you can get it done at all, because there are no timelines and deadlines. It is the same thing with the production of oil and gas. When there is this constant litigation challenge all of the time, it makes it more difficult to go get it. People need to be engaged in the process. The community needs to be heard--Tribes, local governments. People need to be heard and consulted in the process. But with no deadlines out there, there is no incentive to be able to actually go after it. Promote projects that enhance mutual security like the Keystone Pipeline and like other pipelines. We learned, when there was a security problem on the Colonial Pipeline--coming out last year to North Carolina--and North Carolina suddenly didn't have refined products, gasoline, the whole east coast discovered: We are dependent on one pipeline--one. If that one pipeline actually has a structural failure, what happens to the east coast? Listen, you can multiply that all over the country. While this administration fights every pipeline company that is trying to put in a pipeline, they increase our risk of having a major problem and large sections of the country losing access to energy. They are gambling with our future at this point, while we are watching prices exceed $5 a gallon. Focus on the solutions that don't raise taxes on energy or limit U.S. energy production. I did have to laugh last week when the President made a speech and said he was working on bringing down the cost of energy. So the announcement was, I am going to bring down the cost of energy by dropping tariffs on solar panels coming from the Far East. Talk about out of touch. That is out of touch. That is out of touch. Because, if we are going to produce solar panels, then why aren't we incentivizing the production of solar panels here in America rather than encouraging the production of solar panels overseas in the Far East? How in the world is dropping tariffs on solar panels from the Far East going to help folks filling up their tank with gas next week? The President said he was going to solve energy issues and the price at the pump by increasing the amount of ethanol that we would use. Remember that one? That was about 5 months ago. He said that we would just have more ethanol. He went to Iowa and made a big announcement: We will just do more ethanol. And the prices continue to be able to skyrocket and rise. The President then came on and said: All right, we still have a higher and higher and higher price. So the ethanol whole thing didn't work when he put that out here, and so he came back and said: We are going to do this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Remember that announcement? That announcement was made right about there on this chart. That is when that announcement was made. How is it going for gas prices since his announcement that we are going to release a million barrels a day from this Strategic Petroleum Reserve? It still continues to be able to rise. These prices aren't based on short-term input from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They are based on long-term supply. That is basic economics. Now the talk has been a temporary gas tax holiday: We will do a temporary gas tax holiday, and that is going to give people relief. Can I remind everyone that we are over $5 a gallon? The temporary gas tax holiday would drop the price 18 cents. Eighteen cents is what it would drop the price. We are not trying to get an 18-cent drop. We are trying to get it back to where it was over here, or how about over here, where we were at $2 a gallon, not 18 cents. Besides the fact, if you drop the price by 18 cents just for this year, it puts a $20 billion hole in our infrastructure--in our building for bridges and highways and roads--to get an 18-cent bump. There has also been the proposal out there that he is going to take over refineries. That was today. Again, it seems like every week there is a new thing that they throw out. Now it is a letter that he sent to the major refineries. In the letter that the President sent to the major refineries, he wrote: [M]y administration is prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term . . . to ensure that every region of this country is appropriately supplied. Great. So the President is going to go into the refineries, and he is going to take them over. The same administration that is managing our baby formula is now going to manage our refineries. That is going to work out terrific. Our refineries right now are running at 95-percent capacity--95 percent. The interesting thing about our refineries is that America has not built a new refinery since 1977. And just in the past 3 years, we have lost almost a million barrels a day of refining capacity in the United States from refineries shutting down. Maybe the better question the President could ask is ``How do we start increasing our ability to refine,'' not how is he going to take over refineries and run it himself. We have a major structural problem right now. This is just evidence of what is going on across the whole economy. There are answers. There are solutions. But they are not raising taxes, and taking over refineries, and putting oil out from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or running to Saudi Arabia. That is not going to solve our energy problems. And I can assure us, we are not going to solve our 8.6-inflation rate until we solve the price of energy, because the price of energy is baked into every single product that we buy--everything. And if this doesn't get solved, this doesn't get better. Mr. President, do what needs to be done to increase supply in America so that the price will go down. We all believe--we all believe--that, in the decades ahead, we are going to have more electric vehicles; we will have more renewable energy. We all believe that. But 98 percent of the vehicles on theroad right now run on oil and gas, and fulfilling your promise--your promise--that you are going to get rid of fossil fuels right now by making it harder to do pipelines, harder to get capital, harder to do permitting, and more complicated regulations is causing this mess. Thirty years from now, we may all be driving electric vehicles--great. We don't today. Today, we need solutions for how we are going to move in the country. That involves increasing supply. That will get down inflation. That will help us as a nation. With that, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2022-06-15-pt1-PgS2978 | null | 4,604 |
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: Ms. JOHNSON of Texas: Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. H.R. 3952. A bill to strengthen the role of the Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in order to promote scientific integrity and advance the Administration's world-class research and development portfolio; with an amendment (Rept. 117-373, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. PALLONE: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 7233. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for requirements under Medicaid State plans for health screenings and referrals for certain eligible juveniles in public institutions; and to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue clear and specific guidance under the Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance programs to improve the delivery of health care services, including mental health services, in elementary and secondary schools and school-based health centers; with amendments (Rept. 117- 374). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-06-16-pt1-PgH5643 | null | 4,605 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this Sunday, we commemorate the 157th Juneteenth, a portmanteau of June and the nineteenth, which celebrates the liberation of the last remaining enslaved Black Americans at the end of the Civil War. This is our newest Federal holiday, which we will observe on Monday, but African-American communities have celebrated Juneteenth as Emancipation Day, Jubilee Day, or Black Independence Day as far back as 1886 in Texas. On this date in 1865, U.S. Army Major General Gordon Granger arrived at a Confederate outpost in Galveston, TX, where he delivered the news of Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to 250,000 still-enslaved Texans. Many United States Colored Troops--USCT--who fought for freedom and to preserve the Union, accompanied Granger. Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which granted Black Americans their freedom, 2 years earlier. Robert E. Lee had surrendered to U.S. Army Lt. General Ulysses Grant 2 months earlier at Appomattox. In my home State of Maryland, abolitionists Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman paved the way for future civil rights activists by risking their lives to help bring enslaved people to freedom. Their work has had a profound impact on our community and on Maryland's rich cultural history. African-American history is American history. We all must learn the lessons of Juneteenth and understand how our lives have been changed because of it. We cannot celebrate the freedoms brought forth on Juneteenth without acknowledging there was slavery in the United States of America. Slavery is a part of American history. The Constitution originally protected slavery through the fugitive slave clause and three-fifths clause. We cannot and should not hide from these facts or try to erase them from our history books or suppress them in our classrooms. In Maryland, we often look to the work of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who spent his life fighting for the rights of Black Americans and trying to reverse systemic discrimination. Marshall, arguing before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and later serving as the first African-American Associate Justice on the Court, set a precedent for future generations of Black men and women that even the highest honors are within their reach. The Senate recently confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson to be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. While Thurgood Marshall was an inspiration, his work of reversing systemic racism is far from complete. It is our responsibility as a Nation to continue the work Justice Marshall and activists like him started. Though we have made progress, the fight for racial justice will never be complete until we have achieved equitable treatment for people of all races and can truly guarantee equality of opportunity. The pursuit of racial justice will ensure that we live up to our Nation's promise of equality for all people, regardless of the color of their skin. Countering systemic racism and advancing racial justice should be a daily occurrence. We must learn from our past, actively challenge our own prejudices, and take conscious steps to dismantle the racist structures embedded in our society. On President Biden's first day in office, he signed an Executive order entitled ``Advancing Racial Equity and Support from Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.'' The President directed Federal Agencies to assess how their programs and policies might be perpetuating systemic barriers to opportunity and to propose Equity Action Plans that contain specific Agency commitments to redress inequities and promote equitable outcomes in communities. The Biden-Harris administration has already taken numerous steps to expand opportunities for African-Americans. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law permanently reauthorizes the Minority Business Development Agency for the first time and enhances its authority. The administration has stepped up its efforts to combat racial discrimination in the housing market and to help African-Americans get fair treatment when it comes to staying in their homes and on their farms and receiving disaster assistance after tragedy strikes. In particular, as the pandemic exacerbated preexisting racial disparities, the administration took strong steps to improve outcomes for African-Americans with respect to education, healthcare, and transportation. As we commemorate this historic holiday, I encourage all Americans to reflect on the many lessons of the story of Juneteenth and commit ourselves to the pursuit of racial justice and reconciliation. If we do that, individually and collectively, Juneteenth truly will become a Jubilee. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-06-16-pt1-PgS3001-5 | null | 4,606 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4382. A letter from the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting a report of a violation of the Antideficiency Act, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1351; Public Law 97-258; (96 Stat. 926); to the Committee on Appropriations. EC-4383. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, transmitting the 2021 management report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4384. A letter from the Chairman of the Board, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4385. A letter from the Immediate Past National President, Women's Army Corps Veterans' Association, transmitting the Association's annual audit for the year ending June 30, 2021, pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 3111; Public Law 98-584, Sec. 12; (98 Stat. 3099); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4386. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's Report to Congress on Implementing IWG Recommendations on Improving the Consultation Process Required Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Pesticide Registration and Registration Review; jointly to the Committees on Agriculture and Energy and Commerce. EC-4387. A letter from the National Commander, Civil Air Patrol, transmitting the Civil Air Patrol's 2021 annual report; jointly to the Committees on Armed Services and Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-06-17-pt1-PgH5684-3 | null | 4,607 |
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-2022-06-21-pt1-PgH5689-9 | null | 4,608 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 720) calling for stability and the cessation of violence and condemning ISIS-affiliated terrorist activity in northern Mozambique, including the Cabo Delgado Province, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. MANNING | House | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgH5711 | null | 4,609 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentlewoman from Texas, the whole number of the House is 430. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgH5717-4 | null | 4,610 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Deutch). Pursuant to clause 8 of ruleXX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7777) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to establish an industrial control systems cybersecurity training initiative, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Deutch) | House | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgH5717-5 | null | 4,611 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, with Republican policies in place, American workers and families were enjoying one of the best economic moments in a generation. Unemployment was at a 50-year low. Inflation was very low at the same time. Our economy was growing robustly, and workers were reaping the benefits: Real wages were climbing. In fact, wages at the bottom of the income distribution were growing faster than that at the top. In other words, on our watch, working-class Americans were getting bigger percentage raises than their bosses. Under these conditions, the American people were looking forward to the future. Satisfaction with the direction of our country was at a 15-year high. Consumer confidence was hovering near its highest level since 2000, and small business optimism had set an alltime record high. Republican policies helped create that environment, from cutting redtape to passing the most comprehensive tax cuts and tax reform in a generation. Now, Democrats said the 2017 tax bill would not strengthen the economy and would starve the Federal Government of money, but we Republicans knew better. And sure enough, with our tax bill in place, Federal revenues are at historic levels. The past fiscal year's nominal corporate tax receipts were the highest they have been since 2007. Individual income tax receipts just hit an alltime record high as well, and they are on pace to climb even higher this year. Overall, Treasury Department revenues just recorded their largest 1-year surge in 44 years. So that is what has happened since the 2017 tax reform that Democrats literally predicted would be ``Armageddon": tax cuts for American families, record-setting tax revenues, and the best economy for working families in a generation prior to the pandemic. Unfortunately, most of our Democratic colleagues have a terrible track record when it comes to economic policies and predictions. The tax reform they called Armageddon preceded low inflation, high employment, and robust growth. And what about on their watch? Democrats setting policy on party lines decided on trillions of dollars in reckless spending. That has bought us the worst inflation in 40 years, anemic growth, and now, on top of all of that, the threat of rising unemployment and a possible recession. Just as Senate Democrats were preparing to dump $2 trillion in reckless spending on our economy, the Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near term, are very real. President Biden said: The risk is not doing too much. The risk is not doing enough. Secretary Yellen said: [T]he price of doing too little is much higher than the price of doing something big. Well, they were all wrong, and American families are paying dearly for it. The Democratic leader claimed: The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. And: We cannot do too little. We cannot lock our country into a long and slow recovery. Well, if Democrats did not want a long recovery, mission accomplished. A long and steady recovery with stable prices, rising real wages, falling unemployment, and strong growth would have been exactly what the doctor ordered, but the Democrats' policies helped take that option entirely off the table for our country. Instead, their decisions have fueled skyrocketing prices, a decline in Americans' real incomes, and cornered the Federal Reserve into having to raise rates sharply and potentially stop or reverse the recovery altogether. So, faced with this mess, what is our all-Democratic government planning next? Are our colleagues admitting their mistakes and trimming back their appetites? Unfortunately, not--just the opposite. Even now, with the evidence of a historic, self-inflicted policy disaster piling up all around them, Democrats are reviving talks for yet another party-line taxing-and-spending spree this summer. Even with the economy teetering on the brink of a recession, even with families' real incomes already falling rapidly on their watch, Senate Democrats are reportedly behind closed doors, dreaming up--listen to this--historic new tax hikes to drop on top of our economy at the very worst possible time. The same Democrats who wanted to pass trillions more in spending last year now want to rush through huge new tax hikes. The same party that spent 2021 trying to inflate their way out of inflation now wants to spend 2022 tax-hiking their way right into a recession. You could not invent--could not invent--a worse time for Washington Democrats to pile on new tax hikes on our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3018-2 | null | 4,612 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, with Republican policies in place, American workers and families were enjoying one of the best economic moments in a generation. Unemployment was at a 50-year low. Inflation was very low at the same time. Our economy was growing robustly, and workers were reaping the benefits: Real wages were climbing. In fact, wages at the bottom of the income distribution were growing faster than that at the top. In other words, on our watch, working-class Americans were getting bigger percentage raises than their bosses. Under these conditions, the American people were looking forward to the future. Satisfaction with the direction of our country was at a 15-year high. Consumer confidence was hovering near its highest level since 2000, and small business optimism had set an alltime record high. Republican policies helped create that environment, from cutting redtape to passing the most comprehensive tax cuts and tax reform in a generation. Now, Democrats said the 2017 tax bill would not strengthen the economy and would starve the Federal Government of money, but we Republicans knew better. And sure enough, with our tax bill in place, Federal revenues are at historic levels. The past fiscal year's nominal corporate tax receipts were the highest they have been since 2007. Individual income tax receipts just hit an alltime record high as well, and they are on pace to climb even higher this year. Overall, Treasury Department revenues just recorded their largest 1-year surge in 44 years. So that is what has happened since the 2017 tax reform that Democrats literally predicted would be ``Armageddon": tax cuts for American families, record-setting tax revenues, and the best economy for working families in a generation prior to the pandemic. Unfortunately, most of our Democratic colleagues have a terrible track record when it comes to economic policies and predictions. The tax reform they called Armageddon preceded low inflation, high employment, and robust growth. And what about on their watch? Democrats setting policy on party lines decided on trillions of dollars in reckless spending. That has bought us the worst inflation in 40 years, anemic growth, and now, on top of all of that, the threat of rising unemployment and a possible recession. Just as Senate Democrats were preparing to dump $2 trillion in reckless spending on our economy, the Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near term, are very real. President Biden said: The risk is not doing too much. The risk is not doing enough. Secretary Yellen said: [T]he price of doing too little is much higher than the price of doing something big. Well, they were all wrong, and American families are paying dearly for it. The Democratic leader claimed: The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. And: We cannot do too little. We cannot lock our country into a long and slow recovery. Well, if Democrats did not want a long recovery, mission accomplished. A long and steady recovery with stable prices, rising real wages, falling unemployment, and strong growth would have been exactly what the doctor ordered, but the Democrats' policies helped take that option entirely off the table for our country. Instead, their decisions have fueled skyrocketing prices, a decline in Americans' real incomes, and cornered the Federal Reserve into having to raise rates sharply and potentially stop or reverse the recovery altogether. So, faced with this mess, what is our all-Democratic government planning next? Are our colleagues admitting their mistakes and trimming back their appetites? Unfortunately, not--just the opposite. Even now, with the evidence of a historic, self-inflicted policy disaster piling up all around them, Democrats are reviving talks for yet another party-line taxing-and-spending spree this summer. Even with the economy teetering on the brink of a recession, even with families' real incomes already falling rapidly on their watch, Senate Democrats are reportedly behind closed doors, dreaming up--listen to this--historic new tax hikes to drop on top of our economy at the very worst possible time. The same Democrats who wanted to pass trillions more in spending last year now want to rush through huge new tax hikes. The same party that spent 2021 trying to inflate their way out of inflation now wants to spend 2022 tax-hiking their way right into a recession. You could not invent--could not invent--a worse time for Washington Democrats to pile on new tax hikes on our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3018-2 | null | 4,613 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, with Republican policies in place, American workers and families were enjoying one of the best economic moments in a generation. Unemployment was at a 50-year low. Inflation was very low at the same time. Our economy was growing robustly, and workers were reaping the benefits: Real wages were climbing. In fact, wages at the bottom of the income distribution were growing faster than that at the top. In other words, on our watch, working-class Americans were getting bigger percentage raises than their bosses. Under these conditions, the American people were looking forward to the future. Satisfaction with the direction of our country was at a 15-year high. Consumer confidence was hovering near its highest level since 2000, and small business optimism had set an alltime record high. Republican policies helped create that environment, from cutting redtape to passing the most comprehensive tax cuts and tax reform in a generation. Now, Democrats said the 2017 tax bill would not strengthen the economy and would starve the Federal Government of money, but we Republicans knew better. And sure enough, with our tax bill in place, Federal revenues are at historic levels. The past fiscal year's nominal corporate tax receipts were the highest they have been since 2007. Individual income tax receipts just hit an alltime record high as well, and they are on pace to climb even higher this year. Overall, Treasury Department revenues just recorded their largest 1-year surge in 44 years. So that is what has happened since the 2017 tax reform that Democrats literally predicted would be ``Armageddon": tax cuts for American families, record-setting tax revenues, and the best economy for working families in a generation prior to the pandemic. Unfortunately, most of our Democratic colleagues have a terrible track record when it comes to economic policies and predictions. The tax reform they called Armageddon preceded low inflation, high employment, and robust growth. And what about on their watch? Democrats setting policy on party lines decided on trillions of dollars in reckless spending. That has bought us the worst inflation in 40 years, anemic growth, and now, on top of all of that, the threat of rising unemployment and a possible recession. Just as Senate Democrats were preparing to dump $2 trillion in reckless spending on our economy, the Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near term, are very real. President Biden said: The risk is not doing too much. The risk is not doing enough. Secretary Yellen said: [T]he price of doing too little is much higher than the price of doing something big. Well, they were all wrong, and American families are paying dearly for it. The Democratic leader claimed: The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. And: We cannot do too little. We cannot lock our country into a long and slow recovery. Well, if Democrats did not want a long recovery, mission accomplished. A long and steady recovery with stable prices, rising real wages, falling unemployment, and strong growth would have been exactly what the doctor ordered, but the Democrats' policies helped take that option entirely off the table for our country. Instead, their decisions have fueled skyrocketing prices, a decline in Americans' real incomes, and cornered the Federal Reserve into having to raise rates sharply and potentially stop or reverse the recovery altogether. So, faced with this mess, what is our all-Democratic government planning next? Are our colleagues admitting their mistakes and trimming back their appetites? Unfortunately, not--just the opposite. Even now, with the evidence of a historic, self-inflicted policy disaster piling up all around them, Democrats are reviving talks for yet another party-line taxing-and-spending spree this summer. Even with the economy teetering on the brink of a recession, even with families' real incomes already falling rapidly on their watch, Senate Democrats are reportedly behind closed doors, dreaming up--listen to this--historic new tax hikes to drop on top of our economy at the very worst possible time. The same Democrats who wanted to pass trillions more in spending last year now want to rush through huge new tax hikes. The same party that spent 2021 trying to inflate their way out of inflation now wants to spend 2022 tax-hiking their way right into a recession. You could not invent--could not invent--a worse time for Washington Democrats to pile on new tax hikes on our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3018-2 | null | 4,614 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a little more than 2 years ago, with Republican policies in place, American workers and families were enjoying one of the best economic moments in a generation. Unemployment was at a 50-year low. Inflation was very low at the same time. Our economy was growing robustly, and workers were reaping the benefits: Real wages were climbing. In fact, wages at the bottom of the income distribution were growing faster than that at the top. In other words, on our watch, working-class Americans were getting bigger percentage raises than their bosses. Under these conditions, the American people were looking forward to the future. Satisfaction with the direction of our country was at a 15-year high. Consumer confidence was hovering near its highest level since 2000, and small business optimism had set an alltime record high. Republican policies helped create that environment, from cutting redtape to passing the most comprehensive tax cuts and tax reform in a generation. Now, Democrats said the 2017 tax bill would not strengthen the economy and would starve the Federal Government of money, but we Republicans knew better. And sure enough, with our tax bill in place, Federal revenues are at historic levels. The past fiscal year's nominal corporate tax receipts were the highest they have been since 2007. Individual income tax receipts just hit an alltime record high as well, and they are on pace to climb even higher this year. Overall, Treasury Department revenues just recorded their largest 1-year surge in 44 years. So that is what has happened since the 2017 tax reform that Democrats literally predicted would be ``Armageddon": tax cuts for American families, record-setting tax revenues, and the best economy for working families in a generation prior to the pandemic. Unfortunately, most of our Democratic colleagues have a terrible track record when it comes to economic policies and predictions. The tax reform they called Armageddon preceded low inflation, high employment, and robust growth. And what about on their watch? Democrats setting policy on party lines decided on trillions of dollars in reckless spending. That has bought us the worst inflation in 40 years, anemic growth, and now, on top of all of that, the threat of rising unemployment and a possible recession. Just as Senate Democrats were preparing to dump $2 trillion in reckless spending on our economy, the Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near term, are very real. President Biden said: The risk is not doing too much. The risk is not doing enough. Secretary Yellen said: [T]he price of doing too little is much higher than the price of doing something big. Well, they were all wrong, and American families are paying dearly for it. The Democratic leader claimed: The dangers of undershooting our response are far greater than overshooting. And: We cannot do too little. We cannot lock our country into a long and slow recovery. Well, if Democrats did not want a long recovery, mission accomplished. A long and steady recovery with stable prices, rising real wages, falling unemployment, and strong growth would have been exactly what the doctor ordered, but the Democrats' policies helped take that option entirely off the table for our country. Instead, their decisions have fueled skyrocketing prices, a decline in Americans' real incomes, and cornered the Federal Reserve into having to raise rates sharply and potentially stop or reverse the recovery altogether. So, faced with this mess, what is our all-Democratic government planning next? Are our colleagues admitting their mistakes and trimming back their appetites? Unfortunately, not--just the opposite. Even now, with the evidence of a historic, self-inflicted policy disaster piling up all around them, Democrats are reviving talks for yet another party-line taxing-and-spending spree this summer. Even with the economy teetering on the brink of a recession, even with families' real incomes already falling rapidly on their watch, Senate Democrats are reportedly behind closed doors, dreaming up--listen to this--historic new tax hikes to drop on top of our economy at the very worst possible time. The same Democrats who wanted to pass trillions more in spending last year now want to rush through huge new tax hikes. The same party that spent 2021 trying to inflate their way out of inflation now wants to spend 2022 tax-hiking their way right into a recession. You could not invent--could not invent--a worse time for Washington Democrats to pile on new tax hikes on our country. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3018-2 | null | 4,615 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 28 days ago, an 18-year-old young man opened fire on students at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX. He murdered 21 people--19 children and 2 teachers. In the process, he effectively committed suicide as well. This was an attack that was so cruel, so brutal, and inhumane that it has brought much of our Nation to its knees in mourning. Since the shooting, my office has received--as I am sure many other Members of Congress have--I have received tens of thousands of calls and letters and emails with a singular message: Do something. Do something. Not do nothing, but do something. Texans are disgusted and outraged by what happened at Robb Elementary, and they want Congress to take appropriate action to prevent the loss of more innocent lives. I don't want us to pass a bill for the purpose of checking a box. I want to make sure we actually do something useful, something that is capable of becoming a law, something that will have the potential to save lives. I am happy to report as a result of the hard work of a number of Senators in this Chamber that we have made some serious progress. In particular, over the last few weeks, Mr. Murphy, the Senator from Connecticut; Ms. Sinema, the Senator from Arizona; Mr. Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina; and I have searched high and low for common ground. Now, there are some people who would say, What is the use? Why try? We know this is an issue that divides much of the country, depending on where you live, and maybe even divides people living in the same household. But I think we have found some areas where there is space for compromise. And we have also found that there are some redlines and no middle ground. We have talked; we have debated; we have disagreed; and, finally, we have reached an agreement among the four of us. But, obviously, this is not something that will become law or fail to become law because of a small group of Senators. The truth is we had a larger group of 20 Senators--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats--come forward and sign on to an agreed set of principles, and I believe as Senators see the text that supports those principles, they will see we have tried our best to be true as to what we said those agreed principles should be. So soon, very soon--not soon enough for me--but very soon, we will see the text of bipartisan legislation that will help keep our children and our communities safer. We know there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. We are imperfect human beings. But we have to try, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. One of the pillars of this legislation is support for community-based mental health care. Following the violent attacks, we have all heard about missed signs, and the fact is the New York Times recently profiled the type of young man: typically alienated, isolated, not receiving any sort of support or medical or psychiatric care, certainly not complying with their doctors' orders when it comes to taking their medication that allows them to manage their mental illness challenges. We know that this profile is one that Salvador Ramos fit, the shooter in Uvalde. He was a deeply troubled young man. He was isolated. He was bullied in school. He cut himself because he said he liked the way it made him look. It made him look tough. He had a history of fighting, of assaulting fellow students, of threatening sexual assault of young women, and torturing and killing animals. It is a familiar profile. This man, this young man, I think was crying out for help. But he got no help, notwithstanding the best efforts of people around him. He shot his own grandmother before he went to Robb Elementary School because she wantedhim to go back to the classroom after being out of the classroom for 2 years because of COVID mitigation practices. So our goal with this legislation is to try to help people in crisis get treatment before they reach a point like Salvador Ramos. Now, I want to be clear: Not everybody who is suffering a mental health crisis is a threat to themselves and others. Matter of fact, the opposite is true. Many people suffer in silence with their parents, their families, their siblings, trying to help them to no avail. But there is a small subset of people like Salvador Ramos who are a danger to themselves and others if they don't get the kind of help they need. So the provision of the bill which represents the single largest investment in community-based mental health treatment in American history is drawn from bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Stabenow and Senator Blunt. I think there are eight demonstration projects around the country. We want to make this kind of access to community-based mental health care available all across the country, and our bill will help to do that. It expands high-quality mental health and addiction services nationwide through the expansion of certified community behavioral health clinics. Many of these providers already operate in communities across the country, but our legislation expands the networks of clinics to deliver even stronger and more fulsome support to our communities. We also include provisions to expand support of care in our schools because it is at school that many of our young people will be identified as needing support. Teachers actually spend more time than parents, typically, with our school-aged children; and the supported services that will be part of this bill will help identify students that need that help so that intervention can come as early as possible. As the Presiding Officer probably knows, 60 percent of gun deaths in America are suicides--suicides. We not only want to try our best to do things that will hopefully stop the Salvador Ramoses in the future from hurting other people, we want to try to help them and keep them from hurting themselves as well. So I believe this huge investment in America's mental health delivery system is an investment in safer and healthier communities. Another pillar of the legislation is school safety. The Uvalde shooter was able to enter Robb Elementary School through a door that was not locked when it should have been. That is an obvious vulnerability. Schools need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario, which means evaluating physical security measures, reviewing current protocol, adopting best practices, which are broadly available through publications and studies by the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies. And they also need to be able to add or expand the number of school resource officers as appropriate. I have said it before, and I will say it again: No parent should have to send their child to school fearful for their child's safety, and no child should have to go to school and be afraid for their safety. All of our students and teachers and the administrators and others in our schools deserve to feel safe, and parents deserve peace of mind, and that is what I hope these additional resources will provide. Now, the final range portion of this bill beyond mental health and school safety involves a range of provisions to prevent these sort of violent attacks from occurring in the future. Again, I believe that law-abiding citizens are not the problem. I don't believe law-abiding citizens are a threat to public health, and this bill honors that commitment. So unless a person is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated mentally ill, their ability to purchase a firearm will not be impacted by this legislation. Now, some have suggested provisions that I believe would infringe on Second Amendment rights and really not get to the root of the problem. For example, there is no particular ban on a type of gun or no mandatory waiting periods, no background checks of intrafamily or friend-to-friend transfer, none of these are included in the legislation. And some of our colleagues clearly would like to see that. But, again, that is because law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. What we are trying to do is prevent dangerous individuals from unleashing violence on their communities. And one way of achieving that goal is through more robust crisis intervention programs. Now, that is a broad term that describes a range of initiatives that aim to reduce violence, protect the public, and connect individuals in crisis with the help they need. It could include something called assisted outpatient treatment, which allows courts to order people with mental health challenges to receive outpatient treatment to ensure they receive the care they needed, and the court will hold them accountable to make sure they make the doctors' appointments and take the medications they need in order to remain productive. But beyond AOTs--or assisted outpatient treatment--there are very effective regimes like mental health courts, like I saw in Dallas, TX, not that long ago. Now, one of the things that encourages compliance is the fact that you have a judge, somebody wearing a black robe, saying: You will do this. And if that is what it takes, that is fine with me. But there are also drug courts, veterans' courts, and the like which aim to treat the root cause, not the symptom. And across the country, there are hundreds of mental health and veterans' treatment courts and thousands of drug court programs that have delivered incredible results. I have been clear at the outset that I am interested in providing law enforcement-related grants to all 50 States to put forward a range of crisis intervention programs that the State deems best to help reduce suicide and violence. Now, some of our colleagues wanted to focus this money solely on the 19 States that have passed some form of red flag law, and, frankly, that is a choice that is up to the State. But we are not introducing a national red flag law, but we are providing the availability of law enforcement-related grants to crisis intervention programs, whether you adopted a red flag program or not. Perhaps you have chosen something different. Well, this grant program will get every State funding that implements programs that they themselves have adopted to stop individuals in crisis from reaching the point of violence or self-harm. If any State wants to pass a law, obviously, under our Constitution, they have plenary authority to pass whatever crisis intervention laws they choose to do so. But one of the things that we have agreed upon is they have to have robust due process protections because we are talking about a constitutional right. So if the new law does not include due process protections, it will not be eligible for these grants, no matter what form that crisis intervention program takes. Our bill also provides increased protection for domestic violence victims. It shouldn't matter whether a person is married to their abuser, if the abuser is convicted of domestic violence, and many people have what I would call nontraditional relationships, whether they are living together, they have a child together, or whether they just have a long-term romantic or intimate relationship. Eighty-six percent of gun-owning households support that sort of protection for domestic violence victims, where, too often, a gun is involved. Again, this doesn't limit law-abiding gun owners' rights unless somebody is convicted of domestic abuse under their State laws. Their gun rights will not be impacted. Again, this portion of the bill includes critical due process protections which, as we all know, is part of our Constitution. You shall not be deprived of your rights without due process of law. One new feature that we proposed is that those who are convicted of nonspousal misdemeanor domestic abuse--not felony but misdemeanor domestic violence--will have an opportunity after 5 years to have their Second Amendment rights restored, but they have to have a clean record. And this is an incentive, in fact, I think, for peoplewho have made a mistake and have committed domestic violence and received a misdemeanor conviction to straighten up their act and to not repeat it. Our bill also strengthens the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, to ensure it is more fulsome and accurate. In Uvalde, this young man, Salvador Ramos, turned 18. He went in and passed a background check. It is like he was born yesterday because there was no way for the National Instant Criminal Background checks system to look back on any mental health adjudications or criminal convictions, which would have barred him from purchasing a firearm had it occurred as an adult. If a 17-year-old is convicted of a violent crime or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that information should show up in the background check system if he tries to purchase a firearm when he turns 18. Eighty-seven percent of gun-owning households in America support making juvenile records available in the background check system, and this legislation will make that possible. Now, the States will control what information they are willing to share, but our legislation provides an incentive for States to upload the records that reflect on the suitability of an individual to purchase a firearm, allow them to upload juvenile records into the National Instant Criminal Background System to ensure that firearms are not falling into the hands of those under 21 who would be prohibited from purchasing that gun if they were an adult when it happened. So I know this bill is not going to please everyone. Some think it goes too far; others think it doesn't go far enough, and I get it. But the nature of compromise and the nature of actually wanting to get a result requires that everybody try to find common ground where we can, and that is particularly hard in a 50-50 U.S. Senate. But I believe the same people who are telling us to do something are sending us a clear message to do what we can to keep our children and communities safe. I am confident this legislation moves us in a positive direction. I want to thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard in this process that has gotten us this far. My understanding is that the text will be released essentially at any moment, although the principles upon which that text is written have been public for quite a while now. This legislation is the product of good-faith, bipartisan negotiations. It includes bills and ideas offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and it makes changes that are supported by vast majorities of Americans. And I think, most importantly, it has the real potential to become a law and to create real changes in communities across this country--safer, healthier communities; stronger, more secure schools; saving lives. That is what we are all about. So I am eager to discuss more details with our colleagues as they review the text in the coming days, and I hope we can continue to show the same sort of good faith and the openness to other ideas that have brought us to this point as we debate and we vote on this bipartisan legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3021-2 | null | 4,616 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 28 days ago, an 18-year-old young man opened fire on students at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX. He murdered 21 people--19 children and 2 teachers. In the process, he effectively committed suicide as well. This was an attack that was so cruel, so brutal, and inhumane that it has brought much of our Nation to its knees in mourning. Since the shooting, my office has received--as I am sure many other Members of Congress have--I have received tens of thousands of calls and letters and emails with a singular message: Do something. Do something. Not do nothing, but do something. Texans are disgusted and outraged by what happened at Robb Elementary, and they want Congress to take appropriate action to prevent the loss of more innocent lives. I don't want us to pass a bill for the purpose of checking a box. I want to make sure we actually do something useful, something that is capable of becoming a law, something that will have the potential to save lives. I am happy to report as a result of the hard work of a number of Senators in this Chamber that we have made some serious progress. In particular, over the last few weeks, Mr. Murphy, the Senator from Connecticut; Ms. Sinema, the Senator from Arizona; Mr. Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina; and I have searched high and low for common ground. Now, there are some people who would say, What is the use? Why try? We know this is an issue that divides much of the country, depending on where you live, and maybe even divides people living in the same household. But I think we have found some areas where there is space for compromise. And we have also found that there are some redlines and no middle ground. We have talked; we have debated; we have disagreed; and, finally, we have reached an agreement among the four of us. But, obviously, this is not something that will become law or fail to become law because of a small group of Senators. The truth is we had a larger group of 20 Senators--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats--come forward and sign on to an agreed set of principles, and I believe as Senators see the text that supports those principles, they will see we have tried our best to be true as to what we said those agreed principles should be. So soon, very soon--not soon enough for me--but very soon, we will see the text of bipartisan legislation that will help keep our children and our communities safer. We know there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. We are imperfect human beings. But we have to try, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. One of the pillars of this legislation is support for community-based mental health care. Following the violent attacks, we have all heard about missed signs, and the fact is the New York Times recently profiled the type of young man: typically alienated, isolated, not receiving any sort of support or medical or psychiatric care, certainly not complying with their doctors' orders when it comes to taking their medication that allows them to manage their mental illness challenges. We know that this profile is one that Salvador Ramos fit, the shooter in Uvalde. He was a deeply troubled young man. He was isolated. He was bullied in school. He cut himself because he said he liked the way it made him look. It made him look tough. He had a history of fighting, of assaulting fellow students, of threatening sexual assault of young women, and torturing and killing animals. It is a familiar profile. This man, this young man, I think was crying out for help. But he got no help, notwithstanding the best efforts of people around him. He shot his own grandmother before he went to Robb Elementary School because she wantedhim to go back to the classroom after being out of the classroom for 2 years because of COVID mitigation practices. So our goal with this legislation is to try to help people in crisis get treatment before they reach a point like Salvador Ramos. Now, I want to be clear: Not everybody who is suffering a mental health crisis is a threat to themselves and others. Matter of fact, the opposite is true. Many people suffer in silence with their parents, their families, their siblings, trying to help them to no avail. But there is a small subset of people like Salvador Ramos who are a danger to themselves and others if they don't get the kind of help they need. So the provision of the bill which represents the single largest investment in community-based mental health treatment in American history is drawn from bipartisan legislation introduced by Senator Stabenow and Senator Blunt. I think there are eight demonstration projects around the country. We want to make this kind of access to community-based mental health care available all across the country, and our bill will help to do that. It expands high-quality mental health and addiction services nationwide through the expansion of certified community behavioral health clinics. Many of these providers already operate in communities across the country, but our legislation expands the networks of clinics to deliver even stronger and more fulsome support to our communities. We also include provisions to expand support of care in our schools because it is at school that many of our young people will be identified as needing support. Teachers actually spend more time than parents, typically, with our school-aged children; and the supported services that will be part of this bill will help identify students that need that help so that intervention can come as early as possible. As the Presiding Officer probably knows, 60 percent of gun deaths in America are suicides--suicides. We not only want to try our best to do things that will hopefully stop the Salvador Ramoses in the future from hurting other people, we want to try to help them and keep them from hurting themselves as well. So I believe this huge investment in America's mental health delivery system is an investment in safer and healthier communities. Another pillar of the legislation is school safety. The Uvalde shooter was able to enter Robb Elementary School through a door that was not locked when it should have been. That is an obvious vulnerability. Schools need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario, which means evaluating physical security measures, reviewing current protocol, adopting best practices, which are broadly available through publications and studies by the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies. And they also need to be able to add or expand the number of school resource officers as appropriate. I have said it before, and I will say it again: No parent should have to send their child to school fearful for their child's safety, and no child should have to go to school and be afraid for their safety. All of our students and teachers and the administrators and others in our schools deserve to feel safe, and parents deserve peace of mind, and that is what I hope these additional resources will provide. Now, the final range portion of this bill beyond mental health and school safety involves a range of provisions to prevent these sort of violent attacks from occurring in the future. Again, I believe that law-abiding citizens are not the problem. I don't believe law-abiding citizens are a threat to public health, and this bill honors that commitment. So unless a person is convicted of a crime or is adjudicated mentally ill, their ability to purchase a firearm will not be impacted by this legislation. Now, some have suggested provisions that I believe would infringe on Second Amendment rights and really not get to the root of the problem. For example, there is no particular ban on a type of gun or no mandatory waiting periods, no background checks of intrafamily or friend-to-friend transfer, none of these are included in the legislation. And some of our colleagues clearly would like to see that. But, again, that is because law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. What we are trying to do is prevent dangerous individuals from unleashing violence on their communities. And one way of achieving that goal is through more robust crisis intervention programs. Now, that is a broad term that describes a range of initiatives that aim to reduce violence, protect the public, and connect individuals in crisis with the help they need. It could include something called assisted outpatient treatment, which allows courts to order people with mental health challenges to receive outpatient treatment to ensure they receive the care they needed, and the court will hold them accountable to make sure they make the doctors' appointments and take the medications they need in order to remain productive. But beyond AOTs--or assisted outpatient treatment--there are very effective regimes like mental health courts, like I saw in Dallas, TX, not that long ago. Now, one of the things that encourages compliance is the fact that you have a judge, somebody wearing a black robe, saying: You will do this. And if that is what it takes, that is fine with me. But there are also drug courts, veterans' courts, and the like which aim to treat the root cause, not the symptom. And across the country, there are hundreds of mental health and veterans' treatment courts and thousands of drug court programs that have delivered incredible results. I have been clear at the outset that I am interested in providing law enforcement-related grants to all 50 States to put forward a range of crisis intervention programs that the State deems best to help reduce suicide and violence. Now, some of our colleagues wanted to focus this money solely on the 19 States that have passed some form of red flag law, and, frankly, that is a choice that is up to the State. But we are not introducing a national red flag law, but we are providing the availability of law enforcement-related grants to crisis intervention programs, whether you adopted a red flag program or not. Perhaps you have chosen something different. Well, this grant program will get every State funding that implements programs that they themselves have adopted to stop individuals in crisis from reaching the point of violence or self-harm. If any State wants to pass a law, obviously, under our Constitution, they have plenary authority to pass whatever crisis intervention laws they choose to do so. But one of the things that we have agreed upon is they have to have robust due process protections because we are talking about a constitutional right. So if the new law does not include due process protections, it will not be eligible for these grants, no matter what form that crisis intervention program takes. Our bill also provides increased protection for domestic violence victims. It shouldn't matter whether a person is married to their abuser, if the abuser is convicted of domestic violence, and many people have what I would call nontraditional relationships, whether they are living together, they have a child together, or whether they just have a long-term romantic or intimate relationship. Eighty-six percent of gun-owning households support that sort of protection for domestic violence victims, where, too often, a gun is involved. Again, this doesn't limit law-abiding gun owners' rights unless somebody is convicted of domestic abuse under their State laws. Their gun rights will not be impacted. Again, this portion of the bill includes critical due process protections which, as we all know, is part of our Constitution. You shall not be deprived of your rights without due process of law. One new feature that we proposed is that those who are convicted of nonspousal misdemeanor domestic abuse--not felony but misdemeanor domestic violence--will have an opportunity after 5 years to have their Second Amendment rights restored, but they have to have a clean record. And this is an incentive, in fact, I think, for peoplewho have made a mistake and have committed domestic violence and received a misdemeanor conviction to straighten up their act and to not repeat it. Our bill also strengthens the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, to ensure it is more fulsome and accurate. In Uvalde, this young man, Salvador Ramos, turned 18. He went in and passed a background check. It is like he was born yesterday because there was no way for the National Instant Criminal Background checks system to look back on any mental health adjudications or criminal convictions, which would have barred him from purchasing a firearm had it occurred as an adult. If a 17-year-old is convicted of a violent crime or adjudicated as mentally incompetent, that information should show up in the background check system if he tries to purchase a firearm when he turns 18. Eighty-seven percent of gun-owning households in America support making juvenile records available in the background check system, and this legislation will make that possible. Now, the States will control what information they are willing to share, but our legislation provides an incentive for States to upload the records that reflect on the suitability of an individual to purchase a firearm, allow them to upload juvenile records into the National Instant Criminal Background System to ensure that firearms are not falling into the hands of those under 21 who would be prohibited from purchasing that gun if they were an adult when it happened. So I know this bill is not going to please everyone. Some think it goes too far; others think it doesn't go far enough, and I get it. But the nature of compromise and the nature of actually wanting to get a result requires that everybody try to find common ground where we can, and that is particularly hard in a 50-50 U.S. Senate. But I believe the same people who are telling us to do something are sending us a clear message to do what we can to keep our children and communities safe. I am confident this legislation moves us in a positive direction. I want to thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard in this process that has gotten us this far. My understanding is that the text will be released essentially at any moment, although the principles upon which that text is written have been public for quite a while now. This legislation is the product of good-faith, bipartisan negotiations. It includes bills and ideas offered by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and it makes changes that are supported by vast majorities of Americans. And I think, most importantly, it has the real potential to become a law and to create real changes in communities across this country--safer, healthier communities; stronger, more secure schools; saving lives. That is what we are all about. So I am eager to discuss more details with our colleagues as they review the text in the coming days, and I hope we can continue to show the same sort of good faith and the openness to other ideas that have brought us to this point as we debate and we vote on this bipartisan legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3021-2 | null | 4,617 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to visit with my colleagues about a group that we refer to as pharmacy benefit managers, but around Washington, the shorthand for that term is PBMs. Many Americans may not know about PBMs. They are very obscure in the whole pharmaceutical business. Yet the PBM market is nearly $500 billion, and they are powerful in our pharmaceutical drug supply chain. It is our duty in Congress to understand, first, how PBMs operate; second, hold them accountable; and, third, work to lower prescription drug costs for the taxpayers and for the consumers. In 2018, I pressed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate PBMs. I saw the ongoing consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and its impact on drug prices, driving those prices up. But I didn't wait for the FTC to act. I have pursued, one, bipartisan legislation; two, held hearings; and, three, conducted oversight. Most recently, Senator Cantwell and I have introduced the PBM Transparency Act. This bill prohibits PBMs from engaging in spread pricing. This is a situation where PBMs charge an insurer more than they charge the pharmacy and then they pocket the difference. Iowans call that gaming the system. Another practice we prohibit in our bill: clawbacks. In Medicare Part D, these are sometimes called retroactive direct and indirect remuneration fees--or DIR, for short. Iowa pharmacists have told me clawbacks are costing patients more in higher copays and also costing the local pharmacy. This practice is putting rural and independent pharmacists out of business. In addition, our bill will incentivize fair and transparent PBM practices, benefiting consumers and taxpayers. The bill has the support of community pharmacists, manufacturers, and patient advocacy organizations. Not surprisingly, this industry we call PBMs oppose the Cantwell-Grassley bill. They say my bill is ``anti-competitive'' and, in their words, an ``expansion of power at the FTC.'' They also claim that their industry is already well-regulated. Nothing could be further from the truth. My bill establishes transparency and accountability. So good news: Tomorrow, the Commerce Committee will mark up the PBM Transparency Act. I don't happen to sit on this very important Commerce Committee, but I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Finally, I have never given up on passing the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill, known as the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. Despite the Democrats having the majority for 18 months, we have not passed a prescription drug bill. So we still have high prescription drug prices. By now, I would assume they would be interested in advancing a bipartisan prescription drug bill. They can get 60-plus votes, save the taxpayers $95 billion and seniors, who are consumers, $72 billion--rather than a partisan effort that doesn't have 60 votes here in the U.S. Senate. I want my colleagues to know I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3021 | null | 4,618 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I would also like to take this moment to celebrate the confirmation last month of Judge Robert Huie, now serving in the Southern District of California. Judge Huie is a resident of San Diego, where he has lived and worked for nearly 20 years, but his roots in California, in fact, began generations ago. His grandfather immigrated to San Francisco from China in the 1930s, making his home there until joining the U.S. Army. Judge Huie is a talented lawyer who has continually sought out opportunities to promote justice. He earned his undergraduate degree from Calvin College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. His career includes 12 years of service as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California. During that time, he investigated and prosecuted more than 600 district court cases and two dozen appeals on matters ranging from public corruption to securities fraud, to bank robberies. And at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Judge Huie took the initiative to create a districtwide working group that combated pandemic-related fraud. Judge Huie's commitment to service, his strong work ethic, and his insightful legal thinking will benefit the community of the Southern District. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud of the work that we continue to do to confirm outstanding, effective, and diverse judges across the Federal court system. That is especially important in places like the Southern District and Eastern District of California--two of the busiest Federal judicial districts in the entire country. As we confirm more nominees like Judge de Alba and Judge Huie, we are building a Federal court system that can better deliver on the promise of equal justice for all. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PADILLA | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3023-2 | null | 4,619 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, when I returned to Connecticut after the shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, I sawa level of fear on the faces of the parents and children whom I spoke to that I have never seen before. This country has lived through mass shooting after mass shooting, rising rates of homicide, but there was something different in the eyes of these families as they once again had to contemplate the idea that our schools are no longer safe places, that our supermarkets are no longer safe spaces. But they also were contemplating the idea that Congress was so caught up in its own politics, so addicted to backing into our own corners that we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful about the thing that matters most to parents and to families in this country: the physical safety of their children. Think about it. What matters more to you than the physical well-being of your children? You would give away everything--your job, your car, the roof over your head--in order to guarantee that your children were safe from physical harm. So the anxiety and the fear that I saw in Connecticut and that I think many of my colleagues saw when they returned to their States was not just for the safety of their children but also a fear about the ability of government to rise to this moment and do something and do something meaningful. I believe that this week we will pass legislation that will become the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation Congress will have passed in 30 years. This is a breakthrough, and more importantly, it is a bipartisan breakthrough. I am glad to join my friend Senator Cornyn on the floor today to talk a little bit about the piece of legislation that our colleagues will be able to look at hopefully in a matter of moments and that this body will be able to consider this week. I want to thank Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, and Senator Sinema in particular. It was a hard road to get to this compromise, but nothing worthwhile is easy. And nobody in a compromise gets everything they want. This bill will be too little for many; it will be too much for others. But it isn't a box-checking exercise. This bill is not window dressing. This bill is going to save lives. This bill is going to save thousands of lives. It is going to be something that every single Member of this Senate who votes for it can be proud of. I want to tell you a little bit about it, and some of this has already been covered by my friend Senator Cornyn. First, let me talk about the provisions in this bill that change our Nation's firearms laws. First, we are going to invest in the development of crisis intervention orders. We are going to give money out to States that they will be able to use to implement what are commonly called red flag laws. These are laws that allow local authorities and courts to take weapons, firearms, temporarily away from individuals who are threatening to hurt themselves or others. We just saw Connecticut's red flag law be used just in the last month or so to take weapons away from a young man who was making threats to shoot up schools, potentially saving dozens of lives. Under this bill, every State will be able to use significant new Federal dollars to be able to expand their programs to try to stop dangerous people--people contemplating mass murder or suicide--from being able to have access to the weapons that allow them to perpetrate that crime. As Senator Cornyn said, we will also make those dollars eligible for a narrow range of other court-based anti-violence interventions--something that was very important to our Republican colleagues. Second, this bill is going to make sure that no domestic abusers can purchase or own a gun. We are closing the boyfriend loophole. What we know is that in States that have taken this step already, there are 10 percent fewer intimate partner deaths. This is an incredibly important step forward. We know this provision alone is going to save lives of so many women who unfortunately die at the hands of a boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend who hunts them down with a firearm. To be consistent with State felony restoration rights, this legislation will allow individuals to be able to get their right back after a period of time but only for first-time offenders and only if there are no crimes of violence in the intervening time. This bill will provide for enhanced background checks for younger buyers. What we know is that the profile of the modern mass shooter is often in the 18- to 21-year-old range, and so this bill has enhanced background checks for those individuals, including a call to the local police department--a process that can take up to 3 days and up to 10 days if there are particular signs of concern that investigators need to perform followup on. That enhanced background check is going to make sure that younger buyers who are in crisis have another check performed--perhaps a short period of time in between their decision to buy a lethal weapon to perform a crime and their ability to get that weapon. This bill has new criminal statutes banning gun trafficking and straw purchasing. This is incredibly important for our cities. We have a flow of illegal guns coming into these cities, and yet, for decades, for some reason, Congress has not given our Federal authorities the ability to interrupt these gun-running rings because we have no effective ban at a Federal level on trafficking and straw-purchasing. We will after we pass this law. Finally, we clarify under this bill who needs to register as a federally licensed gun dealer. One of the individuals who sold a weapon to a mass shooter in Odessa, TX, should have been licensed as a Federal dealer, but he wasn't, and he sold the gun to a person who was prohibited from buying the gun because of his mental health history, without a background check. We will clarify in this law that individuals like that need to register as Federal firearms dealers, and they need to perform background checks. As Senator Cornyn said, this bill makes a historic investment in mental health--a historic investment in mental health. Thanks to Debbie Stabenow and Roy Blunt, we are going to be able to expand the certified community health center model nationally. That literally means millions of people in this country in underserved areas who have no access to mental health are going to be able to get it after we pass this bill. We have significant new funding in this bill for school-based health centers to make sure that kids are better served, especially those kids who are in crisis. We have help in this bill for pediatricians who are trying to do telehealth consults with behavioral health professionals who are trying to get more training on mental health so they can help their patients. Finally, we make investments in school and community safety, funds to help schools make their campuses safer places but also funds for community-based programs that are doing good work in cities from Boston to Hartford to Dallas interrupting cycles of violence in our communities. For 30 years--murder after murder, suicide after suicide, mass shooting after mass shooting--Congress did nothing. This week, we have a chance to break this 30-year period of silence with a bill that changes our laws in a way that will save thousands of lives. It is a compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is a path forward to the way that both Republicans and Democrats can work together to address some of the most vexing, most difficult challenges this Nation faces. We have a chance to show parents and kids and families that we take their safety seriously and we are prepared to do not just something but something that saves lives in order to protect them. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3023-4 | null | 4,620 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, when I returned to Connecticut after the shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, I sawa level of fear on the faces of the parents and children whom I spoke to that I have never seen before. This country has lived through mass shooting after mass shooting, rising rates of homicide, but there was something different in the eyes of these families as they once again had to contemplate the idea that our schools are no longer safe places, that our supermarkets are no longer safe spaces. But they also were contemplating the idea that Congress was so caught up in its own politics, so addicted to backing into our own corners that we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful about the thing that matters most to parents and to families in this country: the physical safety of their children. Think about it. What matters more to you than the physical well-being of your children? You would give away everything--your job, your car, the roof over your head--in order to guarantee that your children were safe from physical harm. So the anxiety and the fear that I saw in Connecticut and that I think many of my colleagues saw when they returned to their States was not just for the safety of their children but also a fear about the ability of government to rise to this moment and do something and do something meaningful. I believe that this week we will pass legislation that will become the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation Congress will have passed in 30 years. This is a breakthrough, and more importantly, it is a bipartisan breakthrough. I am glad to join my friend Senator Cornyn on the floor today to talk a little bit about the piece of legislation that our colleagues will be able to look at hopefully in a matter of moments and that this body will be able to consider this week. I want to thank Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, and Senator Sinema in particular. It was a hard road to get to this compromise, but nothing worthwhile is easy. And nobody in a compromise gets everything they want. This bill will be too little for many; it will be too much for others. But it isn't a box-checking exercise. This bill is not window dressing. This bill is going to save lives. This bill is going to save thousands of lives. It is going to be something that every single Member of this Senate who votes for it can be proud of. I want to tell you a little bit about it, and some of this has already been covered by my friend Senator Cornyn. First, let me talk about the provisions in this bill that change our Nation's firearms laws. First, we are going to invest in the development of crisis intervention orders. We are going to give money out to States that they will be able to use to implement what are commonly called red flag laws. These are laws that allow local authorities and courts to take weapons, firearms, temporarily away from individuals who are threatening to hurt themselves or others. We just saw Connecticut's red flag law be used just in the last month or so to take weapons away from a young man who was making threats to shoot up schools, potentially saving dozens of lives. Under this bill, every State will be able to use significant new Federal dollars to be able to expand their programs to try to stop dangerous people--people contemplating mass murder or suicide--from being able to have access to the weapons that allow them to perpetrate that crime. As Senator Cornyn said, we will also make those dollars eligible for a narrow range of other court-based anti-violence interventions--something that was very important to our Republican colleagues. Second, this bill is going to make sure that no domestic abusers can purchase or own a gun. We are closing the boyfriend loophole. What we know is that in States that have taken this step already, there are 10 percent fewer intimate partner deaths. This is an incredibly important step forward. We know this provision alone is going to save lives of so many women who unfortunately die at the hands of a boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend who hunts them down with a firearm. To be consistent with State felony restoration rights, this legislation will allow individuals to be able to get their right back after a period of time but only for first-time offenders and only if there are no crimes of violence in the intervening time. This bill will provide for enhanced background checks for younger buyers. What we know is that the profile of the modern mass shooter is often in the 18- to 21-year-old range, and so this bill has enhanced background checks for those individuals, including a call to the local police department--a process that can take up to 3 days and up to 10 days if there are particular signs of concern that investigators need to perform followup on. That enhanced background check is going to make sure that younger buyers who are in crisis have another check performed--perhaps a short period of time in between their decision to buy a lethal weapon to perform a crime and their ability to get that weapon. This bill has new criminal statutes banning gun trafficking and straw purchasing. This is incredibly important for our cities. We have a flow of illegal guns coming into these cities, and yet, for decades, for some reason, Congress has not given our Federal authorities the ability to interrupt these gun-running rings because we have no effective ban at a Federal level on trafficking and straw-purchasing. We will after we pass this law. Finally, we clarify under this bill who needs to register as a federally licensed gun dealer. One of the individuals who sold a weapon to a mass shooter in Odessa, TX, should have been licensed as a Federal dealer, but he wasn't, and he sold the gun to a person who was prohibited from buying the gun because of his mental health history, without a background check. We will clarify in this law that individuals like that need to register as Federal firearms dealers, and they need to perform background checks. As Senator Cornyn said, this bill makes a historic investment in mental health--a historic investment in mental health. Thanks to Debbie Stabenow and Roy Blunt, we are going to be able to expand the certified community health center model nationally. That literally means millions of people in this country in underserved areas who have no access to mental health are going to be able to get it after we pass this bill. We have significant new funding in this bill for school-based health centers to make sure that kids are better served, especially those kids who are in crisis. We have help in this bill for pediatricians who are trying to do telehealth consults with behavioral health professionals who are trying to get more training on mental health so they can help their patients. Finally, we make investments in school and community safety, funds to help schools make their campuses safer places but also funds for community-based programs that are doing good work in cities from Boston to Hartford to Dallas interrupting cycles of violence in our communities. For 30 years--murder after murder, suicide after suicide, mass shooting after mass shooting--Congress did nothing. This week, we have a chance to break this 30-year period of silence with a bill that changes our laws in a way that will save thousands of lives. It is a compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is a path forward to the way that both Republicans and Democrats can work together to address some of the most vexing, most difficult challenges this Nation faces. We have a chance to show parents and kids and families that we take their safety seriously and we are prepared to do not just something but something that saves lives in order to protect them. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3023-4 | null | 4,621 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | At 3:22 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 2543. An act 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. H.R. 7606. An act to establish the Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters within the Department of Agriculture. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3029-3 | null | 4,622 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 3:22 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 2543. An act 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. H.R. 7606. An act to establish the Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters within the Department of Agriculture. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3029-3 | null | 4,623 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 2543. An act 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; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 7606. An act to establish the Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters within the Department of Agriculture; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3029-4 | null | 4,624 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 2543. An act 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; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. H.R. 7606. An act to establish the Office of the Special Investigator for Competition Matters within the Department of Agriculture; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3029-4 | null | 4,625 |
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-2022-06-23-pt1-PgH5836-7 | null | 4,626 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2089) to amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that grants provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for State veterans' cemeteries do not restrict States from authorizing the interment of certain deceased members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces in such cemeteries, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgH5853-2 | null | 4,627 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgH5853 | null | 4,628 |
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. 6493) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prevent certain alcohol and substance misuse, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgH5855 | null | 4,629 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4399. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Findings in Support of a Sustainable National Flood Insurance Program''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4400. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Borrowing Authority''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4401. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Establishing Financial Resilience''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4402. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Risk-Informed Approach for a Modern NFIP''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4403. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Disclosure of Flood Risk Information Prior to Real Estate Transactions''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4404. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Use of Replacement Cost Value in Determining Premium Rates''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4405. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Consideration of Cloastal and Inland Locations in Determining Premium Rates''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4406. A letter from the Deputy Assitant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Multi-Year Reauthorization''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4407. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Excessive Loss Properties''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4408. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Flood Compliance and Mitigation Coverage''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4409. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Inrease Maximum Coverage Limits''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4410. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Study the Efficacy of the Mandatory Purchase Requirement''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4411. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Prohibit Coverage for New Construction in High-Risk Areas/Commercial Properties''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4412. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Clarify Period to File Suit''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4413. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Reduce Reporting Complexity''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4414. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Remove Barriers to Switching to Private Policies''; to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4415. A letter from the Policy Advisor, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Occupant Protection for Vehicles With Automated Driving Systems [Docket No.: NHTSA-2021-0003] (RIN: 2127-AM06) received April 26, 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-4416. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislaive Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum entitled ``Regional Actions to Manage, Mitigate, and Reduce Irregular Migration''; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4417. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's Semiannual Report of the Office of Inspector General for the 6-month period of October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4418. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the semiannual reports to Congress from the Treasury Inspector General and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration covering the reporting period of October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4419. A letter from the Associate Administrator for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting three (3) notifications of a designation of acting officer, nomination, action on nomination, or 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-4420. A letter from the General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, transmitting the Board's Semiannual Inspector General Report for the period October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4421. A letter from the Director for Legislative Affairs, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), transmitting the Council's final rule -- National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions (RIN: 0331-AA05) received May 17, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-4422. A letter from the Regulations Writer, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, transmitting the administration's final rule -- Reducing Burden on Families Acting as Representative Payees of Social Security Payments [Docket No.: SSA-2021- 0046] (RIN: 0960-AI52) received June 16, 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-4423. A letter from the Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, transmitting notification of a projection that the asset reserves held in the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will become inadequate under the meaning of Section 709 of the Social Security Act, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 910(a); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VII, Sec. 709 (as added by Public Law 98-21, Sec. 143); (97 Stat. 102) (H. Doc. No. 117--128); to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. EC-4424. A letter from the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, transmitting The 2022 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 910(a); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title VII, Sec. 709 (as added by Public Law 98-21, Sec. 143); (97 Stat. 102) and 42 U.S.C. 401(c)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title II, Sec. 201 (as amended by Public Law 100-647, Sec. 8005(a)); (102 Stat. 3781) (H. Doc. No. 117--127); to the Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed. EC-4425. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) entitled ``Means-Tested Assistance Program''; jointly to the Committees on Financial Services and Ways and Means. EC-4426. A letter from the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, transmitting The 2022 Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395ddd(i)(2); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1893(i)(2) (as amended by Public Law 111-148, Sec. 6402(j)(1)(B)); (124 Stat. 762) (H. Doc. No. 117--126); jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and ordered to be printed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgH5875-4 | null | 4,630 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Remembering Leona I. Faust Now, Madam President, on a different and sadder subject, I wish to offer a few words this morning in honor of Leona Faust, the Senate Librarian, who passed away after decades of working to serve in this body. In Psalm 19, it is written: Day after day they pour forth speech; Night after night they reveal knowledge. This Chamber is well accustomed to long speeches from many Members day after day, but for a century and a half, it has been the responsibility of one person, the Senate Librarian, to help reveal, preserve, and safeguard the knowledge and work of this body. For 44 years, that was the work Leona dedicated herself to with intelligence and grace. Leona's first day on the job was very different from what library employees might encounter today. When she was first hired in 1978, her responsibilities were primarily to manage hundreds of calls that came every day inquiring about the status of this or that piece of legislation. In time, Leona, who became the Librarian in 2010, worked dramatically to improve the efficiency of the Library. She modernized it, digitized it, and made it far more accessible for Members and their staffs. Her accomplishments forever changed the way information flows across the Senate and democracy--democracy itself--is better off for her work. But most of all today, we pay tribute to Leona not for what she did but for what she was--a beloved member of the Senate community, a friend to so many, and someone whom we will miss very, very dearly. Today, all of us keep her memory permanently in our hearts and her family in our prayers. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3102 | null | 4,631 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Border Security Madam President, on another matter, in 2021, on President Biden's watch, each monthly total for illegal migrant apprehensions was higher than the same month's number the previous year. The same thing is happening in 2022. Every month has topped the total from 12 months prior. In fact, this past May didn't just eclipse May of 2021; it set a new alltime record. Border Patrol officers conducted nearly 240,000 apprehensions in May, and 25 percent of them--an ``unusually high'' rate--involved migrants they had apprehended before in just the past year. These jaw-dropping numbers are a clear and direct symptom of failed leadership. The Biden administration is making a conscious decision--a conscious decision--to fumble the ball. Last spring, right after apprehensions hit a 20-year high, President Biden claimed: It's way down . . . We've now gotten control. Look, no reasonable person could have looked at the facts and concluded that things were under control, but that is exactly what President Biden and his team insisted. Apparently, a functionally open border is how they define success. A functionally open border is how, apparently, they define success. Senate Democrats rubberstamped the Biden nominees who are presiding over this failure. The Biden DHS swiftly issued internal guidance encouraging ICE and CBP personnel to use more politically correct terminology when referring to the border crisis. They were quicker to police employees' language than to actually police the border. Vice President Harris spent her time as the administration's supposed border czar, staying as far away as possible from the border itself. Just this spring President Biden submitted a budget request that would cut funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. He also promised to cut out the emergency authorities that border officials were relying on--in the absence of a coherent strategy from his administration--to turn away thousands of illegal migrants every single day. Their response to a functional open border is just to hit the gas pedal. Stable prices, public safety, and secure borders are three of the most fundamental duties of any government. Sadly, for our country, the Biden administration has swung and missed three times. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3103 | null | 4,632 |
formal | politically correct | null | racist | Border Security Madam President, on another matter, in 2021, on President Biden's watch, each monthly total for illegal migrant apprehensions was higher than the same month's number the previous year. The same thing is happening in 2022. Every month has topped the total from 12 months prior. In fact, this past May didn't just eclipse May of 2021; it set a new alltime record. Border Patrol officers conducted nearly 240,000 apprehensions in May, and 25 percent of them--an ``unusually high'' rate--involved migrants they had apprehended before in just the past year. These jaw-dropping numbers are a clear and direct symptom of failed leadership. The Biden administration is making a conscious decision--a conscious decision--to fumble the ball. Last spring, right after apprehensions hit a 20-year high, President Biden claimed: It's way down . . . We've now gotten control. Look, no reasonable person could have looked at the facts and concluded that things were under control, but that is exactly what President Biden and his team insisted. Apparently, a functionally open border is how they define success. A functionally open border is how, apparently, they define success. Senate Democrats rubberstamped the Biden nominees who are presiding over this failure. The Biden DHS swiftly issued internal guidance encouraging ICE and CBP personnel to use more politically correct terminology when referring to the border crisis. They were quicker to police employees' language than to actually police the border. Vice President Harris spent her time as the administration's supposed border czar, staying as far away as possible from the border itself. Just this spring President Biden submitted a budget request that would cut funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. He also promised to cut out the emergency authorities that border officials were relying on--in the absence of a coherent strategy from his administration--to turn away thousands of illegal migrants every single day. Their response to a functional open border is just to hit the gas pedal. Stable prices, public safety, and secure borders are three of the most fundamental duties of any government. Sadly, for our country, the Biden administration has swung and missed three times. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3103 | null | 4,633 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, for months, American moms and dads have endured an unprecedented baby formula shortage. All of us know someone that this crisis has personally affected. In May alone, reports showed that the out-of-stock rate jumped from 43 percent to 74 percent nationally. In my home State of Utah, that out-of-stock rate is much higher. And while the Biden administration made ambitious attempts to invoke the Defense Production Act and fly in formula from other countries, these efforts ultimately provided less than 2 days' worth of formula for our country's hungry babies--less than 2 days. So yesterday, I took to the floor asking that this body take immediate action to address our Nation's massiveformula shortage by unanimously passing my FORMULA Act, something that I have come repeatedly to the Senate floor in an effort to pass and it has been met with objections so far. My bill included three measures to accomplish this goal. The first was a regulatory component, one that would remove certain FDA requirements for imported formula, mostly dealing with labeling. And I will explain more about that one in a moment. The second removed the restrictions that limited the availability of formula brands available to WIC recipients. And, finally, the bill temporarily suspended import tariffs on formula, increasing supply and decreasing consumer costs. These three components would provide immediate relief to anxiety-ridden parents who were forced to scour supermarkets, make dangerous homemade formula, or, even worse, hospitalize their infants. I need not explain why a problem of this magnitude is so deserving of our immediate attention. After addressing the Senate on each of these topics, I engaged in a lengthy and substantive debate with my friend and distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Bob Casey. I listened intently to his objections regarding his concern for the safety and quality of formula crossing over our borders. And while I appreciate my colleague's concerns, I still believe that this body can and must fix this problem, a problem that is, no doubt, the sole creation of the Federal Government. It is no accident, for example, that we are the only country facing this particular shortage. No other country is dealing with this because our country and our own Federal laws in this area and the way they have been enforced and implemented have caused it. So I am determined to provide relief to families dealing with this inexplicably, unnecessarily prolonged crisis. For far too long, the people enduring this mess have gone without answers. And so in the spirit of comity and compromise, I have modified my request by removing the FDA regulatory component of the bill. I hoped that this would resolve any reservations that my colleague from Pennsylvania may have had regarding the safety of these products. And I should add here, those concerns are not concerns that I agree with for the simple reason that the countries that, under my bill, we would have allowed to produce formula, to have that formula introduced into the United States, they are countries that we have already identified as having safe regulatory systems. They are countries with regulatory systems that are strong enough, in fact, that we allow imports of their pharmaceutical products produced in those countries because their standards are as rigorous as those imposed by our own FDA. Nonetheless, I offered to remove that and made that a request for passage by unanimous consent. Still, my friend objected to expanding the range of products available to WIC recipients. Remember, this component to the bill would have simply allowed American moms and dads who were beneficiaries under the WIC program to use their vouchers to purchase any form of formula they would prefer, or more commonly these days, any form of formula that is available. Whereas, right now, the WIC vouchers require you to stick to the brand specified on the vouchers in question. My distinguished colleague objected also to that version of what I offered, despite the retention of FDA regulatory authority and the fact that wealthy Americans are personally importing these products already from Europe. And while I find this unfortunate, I was still determined to make an argument and to, ultimately, formulate an agreement consistent with that argument to fix a problem that our Federal Government has made and has created and in which it has made no discernible progress in its attempts to resolve it. So, again, in the spirit of comity and compromise and a willingness to do absolutely whatever it takes to provide whatever relief we can provide to hungry babies throughout America suffering from malnutrition, I modified my request yet again. This time to include only the provisions related to the tariff suspension. And while I am hopeful that we will be able to come together to address the concerns of my colleagues and pass the first two provisions of my bill as well, I hope to report today to families across the country that my legislation has achieved unanimous support and passed the Senate. This would be an incredible win for families and for hungry babies nationwide. My bill would make meaningful headway in dealing with an issue that some doctors call ``the worst crisis of their careers.'' By suspending the import tariff on formula imports or providing cheaper access to formulas to individual consumers and to retailers alike, no longer will access to these safe formulas be limited to a select group of wealthy individuals because, again, wealthy individuals have been able to pay the higher prices and suffer the inconvenience of going online or otherwise making a special order on their own of these European formulas. Again, these European formulas from the countries that we are talking about--countries covered by the bill--are countries that produce safe, effective formula and that are regulated by regulatory bodies that are every bit as stringent as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And on that basis, in fact, we import pharmaceutical products from those same countries. Currently, formula is produced in those countries, countries like France and Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Babies there do just fine on those formulas. In fact, they do great. And some American families have been able to benefit from those formulas as they have ordered it online, but they pay higher prices, and they have to deal with restrictions that make it more difficult to access those things. So this bill will open that up. This is relief that really is long overdue, particularly for Utahns who have the largest families, the most children per capita, and, also, the highest birthrate. Not coincidentally, those are some of the same reasons why the baby formula shortage is felt so acutely in Utah, but it is being felt acutely throughout the United States. I hope that we can come together and pass even more meaningful reforms that will help solve the problem completely and once and for all. I am grateful, however, that the countless hours of behind-the-scenes work and successful negotiations with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis have resulted in a win for the most vulnerable Americans. Passing my FORMULA Act is a victory for families and for babies in Utah and everywhere else in the United States. And so, to that end, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, S. 4261. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3108 | null | 4,634 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Karen Fisher for her decades of leadership toward innovation and systematic change to improve the health of Americans. Karen may be retiring from a momentous health policy career, but the Nation will long feel the positive impact of her work. From 2011 to 2016, the Senate Finance Committee was fortunate to benefit from Karen's expertise on the Medicare program and other key health policy issues. Serving as senior health counsel, Karen led the committee's work in 2015 to permanently repeal the outdated and flawed sustainable growth rate--SGR--formula previously used to determine Medicare physician payments and to replace it with a new payment system that advances value-based care for the millions who rely on the Medicare program as a lifeline. In addition to her historic role in permanently retiring the SGR, Karen oversaw legislative activities related to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation--CMMI--and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute--PCORI--as she uplifted the transformative effect alternative payment models could have in driving greater commitments to quality and value in healthcare. She also served--and continues to serve--as a mentor to early-career staff on the Committee and across Capitol Hill, offering professional guidance and networking opportunities for the next generation of female leaders. At the Association of American Medical Colleges--AAMC--Karen has continued her commitment to improve healthcare through public policy. Throughout her nearly 6 years as chief public policy officer, the AAMC has been an important voice on the need to expand access to healthcare nationwide by strengthening coverage through both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid program and by addressing shortages of physicians and other health professionals. Her more than 25 years of experience also have been an essential asset during the COVID pandemic, as she liaised between Federal policymakers and the academic medicine community to support the heroic efforts of the country's health professionals and scientists in treating patients, expanding access to telehealth, developing and administering COVID tests, advancing research on new countermeasures, developing and deploying vaccines, and enhancing health equity interventions. I know that I speak for health policy professionals nationwide as I express my gratitude for Karen's dedication, talent, mentorship, leadership, and persistence in public service and in betterment of the Nation's health. Thank you, Karen. I am wishing you and your family all the best for a very well-deserved retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3155 | null | 4,635 |
formal | take back | null | white supremacist | Mr. KING. Mr. President, as most of us here in the Senate know, this Chamber functions with a dedicated and able staff to support us. Because we are a relatively small body that has to oversee the actions of the far larger executive branch, we rely on specialists detailed from other Agencies throughout the government. It is really a two-way deal. When they come here, they learn about the intricacies of the legislative process and get to participate in it. In return, we benefit from their years of experience in the Agency they come from. In my case as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we rely on the Government Accountability Office or GAO staff who specialize in nuclear and space systems to help us on the programmatic details of a multitude of programs in the Department of Energy and Defense, and every year, the committee sponsors one of them to spend a year with us. For the past year, we were fortunate enough to have Ms. Camille Pease with us from the GAO as our detailee, and now, her year is up, and she is heading back. Because of the way the Armed Services Committee works in preparing for a markup, members such as myself and Senator Fischer, our ranking member on the subcommittee, spend a tremendous amount of time with staff, including Cami, on hearings and briefings in order to build a legislative record and develop legislation for our annual markup of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. In every aspect, Cami was there to enrich us with her expertise on the National Nuclear Security Administration. In return, I hope she is wiser on how we work in this Chamber, and in the Armed Services Committee in particular, on a bipartisan legislative process that has managed to produce a NDAA for the past 61 years. So we thank you, Cami, for spending time with us, and we wish you the best on your return to the GAO. We hope your time with us will help you in the years to come. I hope you take back to the GAO that, when it comes to the national security of this nation, and the NDAA in particular, this Chamber does work in a bipartisan and productive fashion, and it is my hope it will continue to do so in the years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KING | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3156 | null | 4,636 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein): S. 4482. A bill to help persons in the United States experiencing homelessness and significant behavioral health issues, including substance use disorders, by authorizing a grant program within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist State and local governments, Continuums of Care, community-based organizations that administer both health and homelessness services, and providers of services to people experiencing homelessness, better coordinate health care and homelessness services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3164 | null | 4,637 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MERKLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 697 Whereas plastic pollution represents a global threat that will require individual and collective action, both nationally and internationally, to address; Whereas, since the 1950s, over 8,000,000,000 tons of plastic have been produced worldwide; Whereas, in the United States-- (1) just 9 percent of plastic waste is sorted for recycling; and (2) less than 3 percent of plastic waste is recycled into a similar quality product; Whereas a recent study found that, despite the United States only accounting for 4 percent of the global population in 2016, in that same year the United States-- (1) generated 17 percent of all plastic waste; and (2) ranked third among all countries contributing to coastal plastic pollution; Whereas single-use plastics account for at least 40 percent of the plastic produced every year; Whereas over 12,000,000 tons of plastic waste enter the ocean every year from land-based sources alone; Whereas, if no action is taken, the flow of plastics into the ocean is expected to triple by 2040; Whereas studies estimate that there are between 15,000,000,000,000 and 51,000,000,000,000 pieces of plastic in the oceans; Whereas, globally, 100,000 marine mammals die every year as a result of plastic pollution; Whereas plastics, and associated chemicals of plastics, directly impact human health; Whereas studies suggest that, every week, humans swallow the amount of plastic that is in a credit card; Whereas taking action to reduce plastic use, collect and clean up litter, and reuse and recycle more plastics will lead to less plastic pollution; Whereas, every July, people challenge themselves to reduce their plastic footprint through ``Plastics Free July''; Whereas, during the International Coastal Cleanup in 2020, nearly 950,000 people across the globe cleaned up over 10,000 tons of plastic from beaches; Whereas switching to reusable items instead of single-use items can prevent waste, save water, and reduce litter; and Whereas July 2022 is an appropriate month to designate as Plastic Pollution Action Month to recommit to taking action, individually and as a country, to reduce plastic pollution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates July 2022 as ``Plastic Pollution Action Month''; (2) recognizes the dangers to human health and the environment posed by plastic pollution; and (3) encourages all individuals in the United States to protect, conserve, maintain, and rebuild the environment by responsibly participating in activities to reduce plastic pollution in July 2022 and year-round. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3167-4 | null | 4,638 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MERKLEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 697 Whereas plastic pollution represents a global threat that will require individual and collective action, both nationally and internationally, to address; Whereas, since the 1950s, over 8,000,000,000 tons of plastic have been produced worldwide; Whereas, in the United States-- (1) just 9 percent of plastic waste is sorted for recycling; and (2) less than 3 percent of plastic waste is recycled into a similar quality product; Whereas a recent study found that, despite the United States only accounting for 4 percent of the global population in 2016, in that same year the United States-- (1) generated 17 percent of all plastic waste; and (2) ranked third among all countries contributing to coastal plastic pollution; Whereas single-use plastics account for at least 40 percent of the plastic produced every year; Whereas over 12,000,000 tons of plastic waste enter the ocean every year from land-based sources alone; Whereas, if no action is taken, the flow of plastics into the ocean is expected to triple by 2040; Whereas studies estimate that there are between 15,000,000,000,000 and 51,000,000,000,000 pieces of plastic in the oceans; Whereas, globally, 100,000 marine mammals die every year as a result of plastic pollution; Whereas plastics, and associated chemicals of plastics, directly impact human health; Whereas studies suggest that, every week, humans swallow the amount of plastic that is in a credit card; Whereas taking action to reduce plastic use, collect and clean up litter, and reuse and recycle more plastics will lead to less plastic pollution; Whereas, every July, people challenge themselves to reduce their plastic footprint through ``Plastics Free July''; Whereas, during the International Coastal Cleanup in 2020, nearly 950,000 people across the globe cleaned up over 10,000 tons of plastic from beaches; Whereas switching to reusable items instead of single-use items can prevent waste, save water, and reduce litter; and Whereas July 2022 is an appropriate month to designate as Plastic Pollution Action Month to recommit to taking action, individually and as a country, to reduce plastic pollution: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates July 2022 as ``Plastic Pollution Action Month''; (2) recognizes the dangers to human health and the environment posed by plastic pollution; and (3) encourages all individuals in the United States to protect, conserve, maintain, and rebuild the environment by responsibly participating in activities to reduce plastic pollution in July 2022 and year-round. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3167-4 | null | 4,639 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 5122. Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Lee) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5099 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Mr. Murphy (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Tillis)) to the bill S. 2938, to make our communities safer; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 18, strike lines 15 through 17, and insert the following: (A) a school-based health center, as that term is defined in section 399Z-1(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(a)(3)); and | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3169-2 | null | 4,640 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 5122. Mr. LANKFORD (for himself, Mr. Daines, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Lee) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5099 proposed by Mr. Schumer (for Mr. Murphy (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Sinema, and Mr. Tillis)) to the bill S. 2938, to make our communities safer; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 18, strike lines 15 through 17, and insert the following: (A) a school-based health center, as that term is defined in section 399Z-1(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(a)(3)); and | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-06-23-pt1-PgS3169-3 | null | 4,641 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4434. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing [EERE-2009-BT-BC-0021] (RIN: 1904- AC11) received June 13, 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-4435. A letter from the Senior Policy and Regulations Coordinator, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Withdrawing Rule on Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely [Docket No.: HHS-OS-2020-0012] (RIN: 0991-AC24) received June 13, 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-4436. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, CMCS, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's Major final rule -- Medicaid Program; Reassignment of Medicaid Provider Claims [CMS-2444-F] (RIN: 0938-AU73) received June 13, 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-4437. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Cocamidopropylamine Oxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ- OPP-2021-0582; FRL-8959-01-OCSPP] received June 24, 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-4438. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Nevada; Clark County Department of Environment and Sustainability [EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0106; FRL-9527-01-R9] received June 24, 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-4439. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Indiana Portion of the Chicago- Naperville Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard, NOx RACT Waiver, and Serious Plan Elements [EPA-R05-OAR-2020- 0743; EPA-R05-OAR-2021-0886; EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0123; FRL-9567- 01-R5] received June 24, 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-4440. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Redesignation of the Illinois Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2022-0137; FRL-9604-02-R5] received June 24, 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-4441. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fluopicolide; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0728; FRL-9622-01- OCSPP] received June 24, 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-4442. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0013; FRL-9738-01-OCSPP] received June 24, 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-4443. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: General Provisions; Technical Correction [EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148; FRL-7527-02-OAR, | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-06-28-pt1-PgH5921-9 | null | 4,642 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4460. A letter from the Chief of Planning and Regulatory Affairs Office, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Civil Rights Update to the Federal-State Agreement [FNS-2016-0078] (RIN: 0584-AE56) received June 24, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-4461. A letter from the Alternate OSD FRLO, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Small Business Specialist Review Threshold Update (DFARS Case 2022- D002) [Docket: DARS-2022-0011] (RIN: 0750-AL54) received June 13, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4462. A letter from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Office of Regulations, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's final rule -- Prohibition on Inclusion of Adverse Information in Consumer Reporting in Cases of Human Trafficking (Regulation V) [Docket No.: CFPB-2022-0023] (RIN: 3170-AB12) received June 24, 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-4463. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Updating EDGAR Filing Requirements and Form 144 Filings [Release Nos.: 33-11070; 34-95025; File Nos. S7-16-21 and S7- 24-20] (RINs: 3235-AM15 and 3235-AM78) received June 13, 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-4464. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Division, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting the Commission's direct final rule -- Safety Standard for Baby Changing Products [Docket No.: CPSC-2016-0023] received June 13, 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-4465. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers [EERE-2016-BT-TP-0011] (RIN: 1904-AD95) received June 13, 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-4466. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final determination -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks [EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021] (RIN: 1904-AD90) received June 13, 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-4467. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Direct Heating Equipment [EERE-2019-BT-TP-003] (RIN: 1904-AE30) received June 13, 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-4468. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and Advertisements; Delayed Effective Date [Docket No.: FDA-2019- N-3065] (RIN: 0910-AI39) received June 13, 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-4469. A letter from the Section Chief, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of N- Ethylhexedrone, alpha-Pyrrolidinohexanophenone, 4-Methyl- alpha-ethylaminopentiophenone, 4'-Methyl-alpha- pyrrolidinohexiophenone, alpha-Pyrrolidinoheptaphenone, and 4'-Chloro-alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone in Schedule I [Docket No.: DEA-495] received June 22, 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-4470. A letter from the Section Chief, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Methoxetamine (MXE) in Schedule I [Docket No.: DEA-568] received June 22, 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-4471. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- 5-Decyne-4,7-Diol, 2,4,7,9-Tetramethyl- and 6-Dodecyne-5,8-Diol, 2,5,8,11- Tetramethyl-; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0663; FRL-9875-01-OCSPP] received June 14, 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-4472. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Michigan: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions [EPA-R05-RCRA-2021-0389; FRL-9917-03-R5] received June 14, 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-4473. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- IN-11669: Cellulose, Ethyl 2-Hydroxyethyl Ether; Tolerance Exemption [EPA-HQ-OPP- 2022-0188; FRL-9858-01-OCSPP] received June 14, 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-4474. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0453; FRL-9816-01- OCSPP] received June 14, 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-4475. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Rescission of Clean Data Determination and Call for Attainment Plan Revision for the Yuma, AZ 1987 PM10 Moderate Nonattainment Area [EPA-R09- OAR-2021-0249; FRL-8724-02-R9] received May 19, 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-4476. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval for Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS; Correction [EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0215; FRL-8999-03-R5] received May 19, 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-4477. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Colorado; Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area; Nonattainment NSR Permit Program Certification for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard [EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0644; FRL-9164-02-R8] received May 19, 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-4478. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Pennsylvania; Revision of the Maximum Allowable Sulfur Content Limit for Number 2 and Lighter Commercial Fuel Oil in Allegheny County [EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0558; FRL-9224-02-R3] received May 19, 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-4479. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; OR; Air Contaminant Discharge Permit Fee Revision [EPA-R10- OAR-2020-0684; FRL-9402-02-R10] received May 19, 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-4480. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Conditional Approval; Colorado; Revisions to Regulation Number 7 and Oil and Natural Gas RACT Requirements for 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Denver Metro/North Front Range Nonattainment Area [EPA-R08-OAR-2021-0931; FRL-9541-02-R8] received May 19, 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-4481. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Mandestrobin; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0204 and EPA-HQ-OPP- 2021-0432; FRL-9745-01-OCSPP] received May 19, 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-4482. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Streptomyces sp. strain SYM00257; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0401; FRL-9783-01-OCSPP] received May 19, 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-4483. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Complex Polymeric Polyhdroxy Acid (CPPA); Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance [EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0632; FRL-9800-01-OCSPP] received May 19, 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-4484. A letter from the Associate Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Approval of Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program Revisions; Negative Declaration of Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators and Administrative Updates; South Dakota [EPA- R08-OAR-2021-0732; FRL-9829-02-R8] received May 19, 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-4485. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, transmitting the Board's final rule -- Transition to a New Record Keeping System received June 13, 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-4486. A letter from the Director, Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting the Commission's interim final rule -- Reporting Independent Expenditures [Notice 2022-13] received June 22, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on House Administration. EC-4487. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Listing, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's temporary rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Emergency Listing of the Dixie Valley Toad as Endangered [Docket No.: FWS-R8-ES-2022- 0024; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] (RIN: 1018-BG21) received June 27, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-4488. A letter from the Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's temporary rule -- Exercise of Time-Limited Authority To Increase the Numerical Limitation for Second Half of FY 2022 for the H-2B Temporary Nonagricultural Worker Program and Portability Flexibility for H-2B Workers Seeking To Change Employers [CIS No.: 2719-22] (RIN: 1615-AC79) received May 24, 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-4489. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31428; Amdt. No.: 4008] received June 13, 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-4490. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. 31427; Amdt. No.: 4007] received June 13, 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-4491. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-47, V-54, V-69, V-94, V-140, V-278, V-305, and Revocation of V-397; Southeastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021- 1030; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASW-10] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received June 13, 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-4492. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Eastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0991; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-7] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received June 13, 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-4493. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-215 and Establishment of RNAV Route T-408; Central United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0919; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-32] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received June 13, 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-4494. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Removal of VOR Federal Airways; Southeastern United States [Docket No.: FAA- 2021-1093; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-8] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received June 13, 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-4495. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0504; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00531-T; Amendment 39-22035; AD 2022-09- 15] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4496. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2021- 1183; Project Identifier AD-2021-01193-E; AD 2022-09-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4497. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0086; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01035-T; Amendment 39-22026; AD 2022-09-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4498. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0098; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01084-T; Amendment 39-22032; AD 2022-09-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4499. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0089; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01027-T; Amendment 39-22031; AD 2022-09-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4500. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 0099; Project Identifier 2019-CE-019-AD; Amendment 39-22045; AD 2022-10-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4501. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Rolls- Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA- 2021-1004; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00480-E; Amendment 39-22030; AD 2022-09-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4502. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0585; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00603-T; Amendment 39-22053; AD 2022-11-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received June 13, 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-4503. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Removal of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1021; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-9] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received May 6, 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-4504. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-354, and T-421; Eastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0914; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-10] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received May 6, 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-4505. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Administrative Rulemaking ---- Criminal Referrals [Docket No.: PHMSA-2021-0119] (RIN: 2137- AF58) received May 19, 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-4506. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other Related Amendments: Technical Corrections [Docket No.: PHMSA-2011- 0023; Amdt. No.: 191-32] (RIN: 2137-AF38) received June 24, 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-4507. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- National Service Life Insurance Premium Payment and Loan Amendment (RIN: 2900-AR29) received June 22, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-4508. A letter from the Director, Regulations and Disclosure Law Division, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Certain Archaeological Artifacts and Ethnological Material From Peru [CBP Dec. 22-11] (RIN: 1515-AE73) received June 22, 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-4509. A letter from the Program Manager, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of the Paulsell Valley Viticultural Area [Docket No.: TTB-2021- 0005; T.D. TTB-181; Ref: Notice No.: 202] (RIN: 1513-AC81) received June 13, 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-4510. A letter from the Program Manager, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of the Upper Lake Valley Viticultural Area and Modification of the Clear Lake Viticultural Area [Docket No.: TTB-2021-0001; T.D. TTB-182; Ref: Notice No.: 200] (RIN: 1513-AC73) received June 13, 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-4511. A letter from the Program Manager, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of the Rocky Reach Viticultural Area [Docket No.: TTB-2021-0006; T.D. TTB-183; Ref: Notice No.: 203] (RIN: 1513-AC83) received June 13, 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-4512. A letter from the Program Manager, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of the Mount Pisgah, Polk County, Oregon Viticultural Area [Docket No.: TTB-2020- 0008; T.D. TTB-180; Ref: Notice No.: 193] (RIN: 1513-AC58) received June 13, 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-4513. A letter from the Branch Chief, Publications and Regulations, Legal Processing Division, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Simplified procedures for certain bona fide residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico) to claim the child tax credit under Sec. 24 (Rev. Proc. 2022-22) received June 13, 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-4514. 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 June 24, 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. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-01-pt1-PgH5926-3 | null | 4,643 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The President notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates he had approved and signed bills of the Senate of the following titles: April 13, 2022: S. 3294. An Act to obtain and direct the placement in the Capitol or on the Capitol Grounds of a statue to honor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sandra Day O'Connor and a statue to honor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May 5, 2022: S. 233. An Act to designate the Rocksprings Station of the U.S. Border Patrol located on West Main Street in Rocksprings, Texas, as the ``Donna M. Doss Border Patrol Station''. S. 2629. An Act to establish cybercrime reporting mechanisms, and for other purposes. May 6, 2022: S. 400. An Act to designate the headquarters building of the Department of Transportation located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC, as the ``William T. Coleman, Jr., Federal Building''. May 9, 2022: S. 3522. An Act to provide enhanced authority for the President to enter into agreements with the Government of Ukraine to lend or lease defense articles to that Government to protect civilian populations in Ukraine from Russian military invasion, and for other purposes. May 10, 2022: S. 1226. An Act to designate the United States courthouse located at 1501 North 6th Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as they ``Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse'', and for other purposes. S. 2126. An Act to designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building'', and for other purposes. May 12, 2022: S. 270. An Act to amend the Act entitled ``Act to provide for the establishment of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes'' to provide for inclusion of additional related sites in the National Park System, and for other purposes. S. 497. An Act to establish the American Fisheries Advisory Committee to assist in the awarding of fisheries research and development grants, and for other purposes. S. 658. An Act to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with cybersecurity consortia for training, and for other purposes. May 13, 2022: S. 812. An Act to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization, and for other purposes. S. 3059. An Act to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for a periodic transaction reporting requirement for Federal judicial officers and the online publication of financial disclosure reports of Federal judicial officers, and for other purposes. June 7, 2022: S. 1760. An Act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs planned to be built in Oahu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel Kahikina Akaka Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic''. S. 1872. An Act to award a Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the United States Army Rangers Veterans of World War II in recognition of their extraordinary service during World War II. S. 2102. An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide mammography screening for veterans who served in locations associated with toxic exposure. S. 2514. An Act to rename the Provo Veterans Center in Orem, Utah, as the ``Col. Gail S. Halvorsen `Candy Bomber' Veterans Center''. S. 2533. An Act to improve mammography services furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2687. An Act to provide the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs testimonial subpoena authority, 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. S. 4089. An Act to restore entitlement to education assistance under Veterans Rapid Retraining Program in cases of a closure of an educational institution or a disapproval of a program of education, and for other purposes. S. 4119. An Act to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. June 16, 2022: S. 66. An Act to require the Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia to develop a plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in South Florida, and for other purposes. S. 2201. An Act to manage supply chain risk through counterintelligence training, and for other purposes. S. 3580. An Act to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to prohibited acts by ocean common carriers or marine terminal operators, and for other purposes. S. 4160. An Act to amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches. June 21, 2022: S. 1097. An Act to establish a Federal rotational cyber workforce program for the Federal cyber workforce. S. 2520. An Act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for engagements with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and for other purposes. S. 3823. An Act to amend title 11, United States Code, to modify the eligibility requirements for a debtor under chapter 13, and for other purposes. June 25, 2022: S. 2089. An Act to amend the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to extend child nutrition waiver authority, and for other purposes. S. 2938. An Act to make our communities safer. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-01-pt1-PgH5926 | null | 4,644 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | The President notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates he had approved and signed bills of the Senate of the following titles: April 13, 2022: S. 3294. An Act to obtain and direct the placement in the Capitol or on the Capitol Grounds of a statue to honor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sandra Day O'Connor and a statue to honor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May 5, 2022: S. 233. An Act to designate the Rocksprings Station of the U.S. Border Patrol located on West Main Street in Rocksprings, Texas, as the ``Donna M. Doss Border Patrol Station''. S. 2629. An Act to establish cybercrime reporting mechanisms, and for other purposes. May 6, 2022: S. 400. An Act to designate the headquarters building of the Department of Transportation located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC, as the ``William T. Coleman, Jr., Federal Building''. May 9, 2022: S. 3522. An Act to provide enhanced authority for the President to enter into agreements with the Government of Ukraine to lend or lease defense articles to that Government to protect civilian populations in Ukraine from Russian military invasion, and for other purposes. May 10, 2022: S. 1226. An Act to designate the United States courthouse located at 1501 North 6th Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as they ``Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse'', and for other purposes. S. 2126. An Act to designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building'', and for other purposes. May 12, 2022: S. 270. An Act to amend the Act entitled ``Act to provide for the establishment of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes'' to provide for inclusion of additional related sites in the National Park System, and for other purposes. S. 497. An Act to establish the American Fisheries Advisory Committee to assist in the awarding of fisheries research and development grants, and for other purposes. S. 658. An Act to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with cybersecurity consortia for training, and for other purposes. May 13, 2022: S. 812. An Act to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization, and for other purposes. S. 3059. An Act to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for a periodic transaction reporting requirement for Federal judicial officers and the online publication of financial disclosure reports of Federal judicial officers, and for other purposes. June 7, 2022: S. 1760. An Act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs planned to be built in Oahu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel Kahikina Akaka Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic''. S. 1872. An Act to award a Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the United States Army Rangers Veterans of World War II in recognition of their extraordinary service during World War II. S. 2102. An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide mammography screening for veterans who served in locations associated with toxic exposure. S. 2514. An Act to rename the Provo Veterans Center in Orem, Utah, as the ``Col. Gail S. Halvorsen `Candy Bomber' Veterans Center''. S. 2533. An Act to improve mammography services furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2687. An Act to provide the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs testimonial subpoena authority, 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. S. 4089. An Act to restore entitlement to education assistance under Veterans Rapid Retraining Program in cases of a closure of an educational institution or a disapproval of a program of education, and for other purposes. S. 4119. An Act to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. June 16, 2022: S. 66. An Act to require the Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia to develop a plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in South Florida, and for other purposes. S. 2201. An Act to manage supply chain risk through counterintelligence training, and for other purposes. S. 3580. An Act to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to prohibited acts by ocean common carriers or marine terminal operators, and for other purposes. S. 4160. An Act to amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches. June 21, 2022: S. 1097. An Act to establish a Federal rotational cyber workforce program for the Federal cyber workforce. S. 2520. An Act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for engagements with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and for other purposes. S. 3823. An Act to amend title 11, United States Code, to modify the eligibility requirements for a debtor under chapter 13, and for other purposes. June 25, 2022: S. 2089. An Act to amend the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to extend child nutrition waiver authority, and for other purposes. S. 2938. An Act to make our communities safer. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-01-pt1-PgH5926 | null | 4,645 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The President notified the Clerk of the House that on the following dates he had approved and signed bills of the Senate of the following titles: April 13, 2022: S. 3294. An Act to obtain and direct the placement in the Capitol or on the Capitol Grounds of a statue to honor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Sandra Day O'Connor and a statue to honor Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May 5, 2022: S. 233. An Act to designate the Rocksprings Station of the U.S. Border Patrol located on West Main Street in Rocksprings, Texas, as the ``Donna M. Doss Border Patrol Station''. S. 2629. An Act to establish cybercrime reporting mechanisms, and for other purposes. May 6, 2022: S. 400. An Act to designate the headquarters building of the Department of Transportation located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, in Washington, DC, as the ``William T. Coleman, Jr., Federal Building''. May 9, 2022: S. 3522. An Act to provide enhanced authority for the President to enter into agreements with the Government of Ukraine to lend or lease defense articles to that Government to protect civilian populations in Ukraine from Russian military invasion, and for other purposes. May 10, 2022: S. 1226. An Act to designate the United States courthouse located at 1501 North 6th Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as they ``Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse'', and for other purposes. S. 2126. An Act to designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ``Louisa Swain Federal Office Building'', and for other purposes. May 12, 2022: S. 270. An Act to amend the Act entitled ``Act to provide for the establishment of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in the State of Kansas, and for other purposes'' to provide for inclusion of additional related sites in the National Park System, and for other purposes. S. 497. An Act to establish the American Fisheries Advisory Committee to assist in the awarding of fisheries research and development grants, and for other purposes. S. 658. An Act to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to work with cybersecurity consortia for training, and for other purposes. May 13, 2022: S. 812. An Act to direct the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to regain observer status for Taiwan in the World Health Organization, and for other purposes. S. 3059. An Act to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to provide for a periodic transaction reporting requirement for Federal judicial officers and the online publication of financial disclosure reports of Federal judicial officers, and for other purposes. June 7, 2022: S. 1760. An Act to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs planned to be built in Oahu, Hawaii, as the ``Daniel Kahikina Akaka Department of Veterans Affairs Community-Based Outpatient Clinic''. S. 1872. An Act to award a Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the United States Army Rangers Veterans of World War II in recognition of their extraordinary service during World War II. S. 2102. An Act to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Under Secretary for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide mammography screening for veterans who served in locations associated with toxic exposure. S. 2514. An Act to rename the Provo Veterans Center in Orem, Utah, as the ``Col. Gail S. Halvorsen `Candy Bomber' Veterans Center''. S. 2533. An Act to improve mammography services furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. S. 2687. An Act to provide the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs testimonial subpoena authority, 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. S. 4089. An Act to restore entitlement to education assistance under Veterans Rapid Retraining Program in cases of a closure of an educational institution or a disapproval of a program of education, and for other purposes. S. 4119. An Act to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. June 16, 2022: S. 66. An Act to require the Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia to develop a plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in South Florida, and for other purposes. S. 2201. An Act to manage supply chain risk through counterintelligence training, and for other purposes. S. 3580. An Act to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to prohibited acts by ocean common carriers or marine terminal operators, and for other purposes. S. 4160. An Act to amend title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches. June 21, 2022: S. 1097. An Act to establish a Federal rotational cyber workforce program for the Federal cyber workforce. S. 2520. An Act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for engagements with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and for other purposes. S. 3823. An Act to amend title 11, United States Code, to modify the eligibility requirements for a debtor under chapter 13, and for other purposes. June 25, 2022: S. 2089. An Act to amend the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to extend child nutrition waiver authority, and for other purposes. S. 2938. An Act to make our communities safer. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-01-pt1-PgH5926 | null | 4,646 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Reverend John Kellogg, Christ Church, Washington Parish, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer: O, God, the fountain of wisdom, whose will is good and gracious, and whose law is truth: We beseech You so to guide and bless our Representatives in Congress, that they may enact such laws as shall please You, to the glory of Your name and the welfare of this people. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-05-pt1-PgH5933-3 | null | 4,647 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4515. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting authorization of the three officers whose names appear on the enclosed list to wear the insignia of the grade of rear admiral (lower half), pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777(b)(3)(B); Public Law 104- 106, Sec. 503(a)(1) (as added by Public Law 108-136, Sec. 509(a)(3)); (117 Stat. 1458); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4516. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment), Department of Defense, transmitting the Department of the Navy's Climate Action 2030 report; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4517. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report to Congress on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's FY 2021 Annual Report, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 7712; Public Law 108-199, Sec. 613(a); (118 Stat. 221); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4518. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Nicaragua that was declared in Executive order 13851 of November 27, 2018, 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-4519. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to North Korea that was declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, 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-4520. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans that was declared in Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, 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-4521. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Yemen that was declared in Executive Order 13611 of May 16, 2012, 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-4522. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation that was declared in Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, 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-4523. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Belarus that was declared in Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, 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-4524. 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 12170 of November 14, 1979, 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-4525. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the threat from securities investments that finance certain companies of the People's Republic of China that was declared in Executive Order 13959 of November 12, 2020, 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-4526. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Syria that was declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, 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-4527. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the Central African Republic that was declared in Executive Order 13667 of May 12, 2014, 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-4528. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to foreign persons involved in the global illicit drug trade that was declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2001, 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-4529. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the situation in Hong Kong that was declared in Executive Order 13936 of July 14, 2020, 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-4530. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4531. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4532. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's Semiannual Report to Congress, covering the six-month period ending March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. EC-4533. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a determination under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4534. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4535. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 24-443, ``Urban Forest Preservation Authority Amendment Act of 2022'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4536. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 24-442, ``Flood Resilience Amendment Act of 2022'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4537. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 24-441, ``Pro Bono Legal Representation Expansion Amendment Act of 2022'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4538. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, transmitting the Administration's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2022 through 2026; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4539. A letter from the Federal Co-Chair, Denali Commission, transmitting the Commission's March 2022 Semi- Annual Inspector General report, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4540. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of Transportation, transmitting six (6) 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-4541. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's semiannual report from the Office of Inspector General for the period of October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4542. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, transmitting the 2021 management report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4543. A letter from the President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, transmitting the 2021 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101- 576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4544. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, transmitting the 2021 Management Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4545. A letter from the President and CEO, Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh, transmitting the 2021 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4546. A letter from the Chairman and General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, transmitting the Semiannual Report of the Office of the Inspector General for the period October 1, 2021-March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4547. A letter from the Chair, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting the Board's Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report to Congress, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107-174, 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4548. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report on Visa Inadmissibility Determination for Russian National Roman Abramovich; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4549. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's FY 2017-2019 Competitive Acquisition Ombudsman Report to Congress, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(f); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1847, (as amended by Sec. 154(b)(3)); (122 Stat. 2565); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-05-pt1-PgH5933-7 | null | 4,648 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4515. A letter from the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting authorization of the three officers whose names appear on the enclosed list to wear the insignia of the grade of rear admiral (lower half), pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777(b)(3)(B); Public Law 104- 106, Sec. 503(a)(1) (as added by Public Law 108-136, Sec. 509(a)(3)); (117 Stat. 1458); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4516. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment), Department of Defense, transmitting the Department of the Navy's Climate Action 2030 report; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4517. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report to Congress on the Millennium Challenge Corporation's FY 2021 Annual Report, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 7712; Public Law 108-199, Sec. 613(a); (118 Stat. 221); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4518. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Nicaragua that was declared in Executive order 13851 of November 27, 2018, 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-4519. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to North Korea that was declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, 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-4520. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the Western Balkans that was declared in Executive Order 13219 of June 26, 2001, 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-4521. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Yemen that was declared in Executive Order 13611 of May 16, 2012, 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-4522. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to specified harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation that was declared in Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, 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-4523. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Belarus that was declared in Executive Order 13405 of June 16, 2006, 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-4524. 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 12170 of November 14, 1979, 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-4525. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the threat from securities investments that finance certain companies of the People's Republic of China that was declared in Executive Order 13959 of November 12, 2020, 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-4526. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to Syria that was declared in Executive Order 13338 of May 11, 2004, 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-4527. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the Central African Republic that was declared in Executive Order 13667 of May 12, 2014, 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-4528. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to foreign persons involved in the global illicit drug trade that was declared in Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2001, 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-4529. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to the situation in Hong Kong that was declared in Executive Order 13936 of July 14, 2020, 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-4530. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4531. A letter from the Assistant Legal Advisor, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4532. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's Semiannual Report to Congress, covering the six-month period ending March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. EC-4533. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a determination under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4534. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4535. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 24-443, ``Urban Forest Preservation Authority Amendment Act of 2022'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4536. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 24-442, ``Flood Resilience Amendment Act of 2022'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4537. A letter from the Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting DC Act 24-441, ``Pro Bono Legal Representation Expansion Amendment Act of 2022'', pursuant to Public Law 93-198, Sec. 602(c)(1); (87 Stat. 814); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4538. A letter from the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, transmitting the Administration's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2022 through 2026; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4539. A letter from the Federal Co-Chair, Denali Commission, transmitting the Commission's March 2022 Semi- Annual Inspector General report, pursuant to section 5(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4540. A letter from the Attorney-Advisor, Department of Transportation, transmitting six (6) 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-4541. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's semiannual report from the Office of Inspector General for the period of October 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4542. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, transmitting the 2021 management report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4543. A letter from the President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, transmitting the 2021 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101- 576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4544. A letter from the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, transmitting the 2021 Management Report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4545. A letter from the President and CEO, Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh, transmitting the 2021 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4546. A letter from the Chairman and General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, transmitting the Semiannual Report of the Office of the Inspector General for the period October 1, 2021-March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4547. A letter from the Chair, National Transportation Safety Board, transmitting the Board's Fiscal Year 2021 Annual Report to Congress, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 2301 note; Public Law 107-174, 203(a) (as amended by Public Law 109-435, Sec. 604(f)); (120 Stat. 3242); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4548. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report on Visa Inadmissibility Determination for Russian National Roman Abramovich; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-4549. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's FY 2017-2019 Competitive Acquisition Ombudsman Report to Congress, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(f); Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, Sec. 1847, (as amended by Sec. 154(b)(3)); (122 Stat. 2565); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-05-pt1-PgH5933-7 | null | 4,649 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-4593. A letter from the Undersecretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting authorization of the eleven officers whose names appear on the enclosed list to wear the insignia of the grade of rear admiral or rear admiral (lower half), pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777(b)(3)(B); Public Law 104-106, Sec. 503(a)(1) (as added by Public Law 108-136, Sec. 509(a)(3)); (117 Stat. 1458); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4594. A letter from the Secretary of the Army, Department of Defense, transmitting a report titled, ``Transfer of Surplus Firearms to the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety'', pursuant to Public Law 115-91, Sec. 1091(d); (131 Stat. 1608); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4595. A letter from the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army, transmitting notification to Congress of the anticipated use of Selected Reserve units that will be ordered to active duty under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 12304b, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 12304b(d); Public Law 112-81, Sec. 516(a)(1); (125 Stat. 1396); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4596. A letter from the Chairman, Appraisal Subcommittee, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, transmitting the Council's 2021 Annual Report, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3332(a)(5); Public Law 101-73, Sec. 1103 (as amended by Public Law 111-203, Sec. 1473(b)); (124 Stat. 2190); to the Committee on Financial Services. EC-4597. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting an update on cooperative efforts with the governments of Mexico, the People's Republic of China, and other countries of concern with respect to combating foreign opioid traffickers, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 2311(a)(1)(C); Public Law 116-92, Sec. 7211(a)(1)(C); (133 Stat. 2264); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4598. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the Treasury, transmitting a six-month periodic report on the national emergency with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption that was declared in Executive Order 13818 of December 20, 2017, 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-4599. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report concerning international agreements other than treaties entered into by the United States to be transmitted to the Congress within the sixty-day period specified in the Case- Zablocki Act, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); Public Law 92- 403, Sec. 1(a) (as amended by Public Law 108-458, Sec. 7121(b)); (118 Stat. 3807); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4600. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report entitled, ``Supplement to the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report''; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4601. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a determination under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4602. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4603. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification of a drawdown under section 506(a)(1) and section 614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4604. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a determination under section 614(a)(1) and Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4605. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification of a drawdown under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-4606. A letter from the Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, transmitting the Commission's Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period ending March 31, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4607. A letter from the Senior Vice President and Controller, Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, transmitting the 2021 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4608. A letter from the President and CEO, Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, transmitting the 2021 management report and financial statements of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106(a)(1); Public Law 97-258 (as amended by Public Law 101-576, Sec. 306(a)); (104 Stat. 2854); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-4609. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Peachtree City, GA [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1057; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-38] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4610. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class E Airspace; Falmouth, MA [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0988; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ANE-8] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4611. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Griffin, GA [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1053; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-37] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4612. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Uvalde, TX [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0636; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASW-13] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4613. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Olney, TX [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1135; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASW-26] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4614. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iuka, MS [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1191; Airspace Docket No.: 21- ASO-40] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4615. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D, Class E, and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Atlanta, GA Area [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0941; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-31] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4616. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Lawrenceville, GA [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1108; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-39] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4617. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of the Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Grove, OK [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1149; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASW-27] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received April 14, 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-4618. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Elkton, MD [Docket No.: FAA-2021-1190; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AEA-41 (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4619. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class E Airspace; Dewitt, AR [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0938; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASW-18] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4620. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Modification of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, OR; Correction [Docket No.: FAA- 2021-0816; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ANM-27] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4621. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- IFR Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31417; Amdt. No.: 564] received April 14, 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-4622. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of V-6, V-10, V-30, V- 100, and V-233 in the Vicinity of Litchfield, MI [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0596; Airspace Docket No.: 20-AGL-15] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received April 14, 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-4623. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Southeastern United States [Docket No.: FAA- 2021-0913; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-11] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4624. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Removal of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; South-Central FL Metroplex Project. [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0940; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-12] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4625. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; South and Central United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0920; Airspace Docket No.: 21- ASW-7] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4626. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes Q-140 and Q-812; NY [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0029; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AEA-19] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4627. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes T-212, T-216, T-218, and T-221; Eastern United States. [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0974; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AEA-15] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4628. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment and Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Eastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0912; Airspace Docket No.: 21-ASO-6] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 14, 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-4629. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Stormwater Infrastructure Funding and Financing Report to Congress, pursuant to Public Law 115-270, Sec. 4101(c); (1323 Stat. 3871); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-4630. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the FY 2021 Report to Congress of the Medicare- Medicaid Coordination Office, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1315b(e); Public Law 111-148, Sec. 2602(e); (124 Stat. 316); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgH5943-7 | null | 4,650 |
formal | Aiden | null | transphobic | Highland Park Shooting Madam President, on June 8, 15 days after their 10-year-old daughter Lexi was murdered--murdered--at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, Kimberly and Felix Rubio testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In their testimony, Kimberly and Felix recalled the last time they ever saw their daughter. There was a school assembly. Lexi had received a Good Citizen Award and had been recognized for receiving straight A's. The family said: We are going to celebrate tonight. We are going to take the whole family out for ice cream, her parents told her. She was overjoyed. Then they said goodbye and sent her off to the classroom. Less than an hour later, in Uvalde, TX, an 18-year-old man armed with a military-style assault rifle stormed into Lexi's fourth grade classroom and shot and killed her and 18 of her classmates, along with 2 teachers who tried their best to protect the kids. It was the deadliest school shooting in America in the decade since Sandy Hook in Connecticut. In her remarks to Congress, Lexi's mom Kimberly issued a prophetic warning. She said: There's a mom listening to our testimony thinking, ``I can't even imagine [the pain of this family]''--not knowing that our pain will one day be [her pain], unless we [do something] now. That happened before our Fourth of July break, and I will have to tell you that there was an occurrence during that break, which I will never forget. If I had to choose one town to take one of my kids or grandkids to for a Fourth of July parade, it would be Highland Park, IL. What a great little town it is. People really care in that town, and they care for one another. It is a beautiful little suburban community in Chicago. I happen to know the mayor, Nancy Rotering, personally, and I know how hard she works to make that a great town to live in. Fourth of July was the day for their parade, and, as usual, thousands came out, carrying little American flags, proud of their country, wanting to celebrate not just America but Highland Park, that great community. Unfortunately, 1 week ago today, a young man armed with a military-style assault rifle climbed onto the roof of a building in Highland Park, IL, and, from his sniper's perch, opened fire on families gathered to watch the Fourth of July parade. Listen closely. He fired more than 80 rounds in less than a minute--80 rounds in less than a minute. He killed seven people and injured dozens more. I called the mayor of Highland Park a couple hours after this happened. I was in Michigan on a family vacation and was on my way as quickly as I could drive back to Highland Park in my home State. I reached Mayor Nancy Rotering and said: Can you tell me anything? She said: It is horrible. It is terrible. We are still looking to find the shooter. Can you imagine, she said they found a 2-year-old toddler wandering about, covered in blood. Fortunately, that toddler, the little boy, hadn't been shot, but they were circulating photos of his face in the hopes that they could identify family members. They figured the worse--that little boy would be out alone because he had lost his parents. Kevin and Irina McCarthy were among those victims on the Fourth of July. They went to the parade with that 2-year-old boy, whose name is Aiden. When the shooting started, Kevin placed his body over Aiden to protect him. He died protecting his son. His son's mother died right next to him. Another parade-goer saw Aiden, his little legs smeared with his father's blood, and carried him to safety. The poor little boy could not even say his full name. They started searching for relatives and family. Aiden is now with his grandparents. He lost both his mom and dad at that parade. Jacki Sundheim was a beloved preschool teacher at North Shore Congregation Israel. You should see the outpouring of letters talking about these people whose names I have mentioned here, how beloved they were in their community. Jacki was one of them. Katie Goldstein went to the parade with her daughter Cassie. When the shooting started, Katie and her daughter starting running, but Katie was shot in the chest and fell. Cassie said she leaned over her dying mother and told her she loved her, but she couldn't stop running because the gunman was still shooting. Stephen Strauss, what a story--a financial adviser who still worked full time at the age of 88 because he loved his work, and he loved life. He used to take the train in from Highland Park to downtown Chicago every single day. He and his wife Linda were 2 months shy of their 60th wedding anniversary. Nicolas Toledo-Zaragosa came to Highland Park 2 years ago from Mexico to visit his family. He was in a wheelchair following a recent accident. He was shot in the chest and killed in that same wheelchair. Eduardo Uvaldo was a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He and his wife had just celebrated their 50th anniversary. The Fourth of July was Eduardo's favorite holiday. He couldn't wait to go to the parade. He was shot in the back of the head and died 2 days later in the hospital. Now there is an additional story I want you to hear. It is about this little boy. Cooper Roberts was among the 46 parade-goers who were injured. He went to the parade with his twin brother Luke and his mom and dad. He is 8 years old. He loves playing baseball and soccer. His brother Luke suffered shrapnel wounds in his arm, and his mom Keely was shot in her leg and in her foot. I want to read from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times that was printed just within the last 2 days to tell you what has happened to this little boy. The bullet that hit [this little boy] Cooper Roberts in the mass shooting at Highland Park's Fourth of July parade tore a ``very perilous'' path through his small body. You see, the military-assault weapon which was used by the shooter is not just another gun; it is a military-style weapon. Smith & Wesson, which makes the weapon, advertised it as an M&P weapon. I didn't know what that meant. Now I do--military and police weapon. The bullets that leave that gun, shot from that gun, travel at two to three times the velocity of an ordinary gun. When they hit the human body, they don't just pass through it; they shred the organs in the body on the way out the other side. For poor little Cooper who was shot: [I]t caught his liver and esophagus, severed his spinal cord and caused so much internal bleeding that doctors had to take extraordinary measures to save his life. Despite the horrific injuries, his doctors said Sunday that Cooper's condition has been stabilized. He was scheduled for more surgery Monday at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital. The family put out a written statement that said: He is in a great deal of pain--physically and emotionally-- especially as the family had to share with him the devastating news that he is paralyzed from the waist down. Cooper's twin and ``best friend'' Luke also was wounded, struck by shrapnel in his leg. Their mother, Keely Roberts, was injured as well. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured. . . . The bullet that struck Cooper entered his upper abdomen, just below his diaphragm, ``not his chest as originally believed,'' according to the doctors, who said it damaged the left side of his liver, his esophagus and his abdominal aorta. That last injury-- To his aorta-- was so bad that the doctors had to replace a section of the large blood vessel with a ``synthetic graft in adult size so he can grow into it.'' A hole in his esophagus was sewn closed, and the portion of his liver hit by the gunshot was repaired. The surgery planned Monday was for more repairs on his esophagus. Cooper's abdomen was temporarily kept open with a ``specialized vacuum dressing'' because of the ``severity'' of his wounds and the number of blood transfusions he underwent, according to his family. They said the bullet exited his back, severing his spinal cord. While he is paralyzed from the waist down, [they report he] suffered no brain damage and has experienced no effect on his cognitive function. He was able to breathe on his own and speak by Friday after being kept on a ventilator for four days. He remains in serious condition. ``The family wishes to acknowledge and thank the many, many people--emergency medics, police, fire department, nurses and doctors and both hospitals--who did'' [such extraordinary work]. I read the details of this because I want those who are following this debate to hear them and take a look at this. What did he do wrong? He went to the Fourth of July parade with his mom and dad. I am sure he was as happy as you see him in this picture. And because a man with a military-style rifle went berserk and fired on his family, his life has changed forever. Why? Why do we put up with this in this country? This break--Fourth of July break--will always be remembered by me as not just another recess from the Senate but a moment when my State was under attack from the madness that we have in this country when it comes to weapons under the Second Amendment. The Senator from Kentucky said earlier we need originalists, we need textualists in the U.S. Senate. The Presiding Officer has heard that many times. Stick with the words of the Constitution. Just go back and find out what they meant. Let me read the Second Amendment so there is no question what it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Do you think, in their wildest imagination, the Founding Fathers conceived of a weapon that could fire off 90 rounds in less than a minute? At a time when you are dealing with muskets and it took minutes to load the musket even if you were skilled, do you think they even had that in a concept they could imagine? I don't. Originalism? Keep and bear arms? How did it come to the point now where that has been a rationalization for the sale of a military assault weapon? AR-15s are the generic class of these weapons, these military assault weapons. I set out on a journey to figure out just how many there were in America. I started asking. The honest answer is people don't know. Somewhere between 10 and 20 million--10 and 20 million military assault weapons already sold in America. The total number of firearms in this country: 400 million for a nation of 350 million people, more than 1 firearm for every living American. That is the point we have reached. And if you want the right to bear a firearm for sport or hunting purposes, count me as supporting that effort. It is a tradition in my family in the Midwest and many, but I can tell you this; it is a tradition which was treated very, very sensibly. Guns--and they were possessed by most members of my family--were always under lock and key for fear that a child could get their hands on it. What is happening now when these young people below the age of 21 are turning around and buying these weapons? And let's take a look at what the industry is doing with these weapons because it tells us the story of what is happening. According to the Gun Violence Archive, the Highland Park parade shooting was the 309th mass shooting this year in America--309 already in 27 weeks, more than 11 mass shootings each week, more than 1 a day. What is a mass shooting? When four people are injured or killed by gunfire. And while mass shootings get the most headlines, they are far from the only shootings in America. At least 220 people were killed and close to 570 others were injured in shootings over the Fourth of July weekend, according to the Gun Violence Archive. We have come to accept this as the reality of life in America. Other countries look at us and shake their heads: How can these great Americans, as smart as they are, let this situation spin out of control? Thirty miles south of Highland Park on the Fourth of July in the city of Chicago, 10 people were killed, 62 injured by gun violence over that weekend. Now, the new bipartisan gun law, which the President highlighted today at the White House, passed last month. It didn't go as far as many of us liked, but it will save lives. And it certainly doesn't violate any aspect of the Second Amendment. It is the most significant gun law we have considered and passed in 30 years. So what do you think if I ask you the question: What are the symbols of American freedom and independence? What would you say? Oh, the Declaration of Independence? I agree. The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Certainly. The Emancipation Proclamation? I might include that. Fireworks and a Fourth of July parade? Well, let me show you what the marketing giants in the shooting industry have identified: ``Engineered to the specs of freedom and independence.'' The MMR tactical rifle, part of the same class of weapons used by the killer in Highland Park--this is what one gun manufacturer, Mossberg, wants you to believe is the epitome of American freedom and independence. This is an actual ad for an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle shown here. And, incidentally, it has a high-capacity magazine. The shooter in Highland Park had three of these high-capacity magazines and was able to fire 90 rounds because of it. Take a look at this advertisement from the same industry telling civilians, ``Use what they use''--use the same guns that soldiers and marines use in combat but use them, sadly, in towns like Highland Park, IL, and Uvalde, TX. This ad is from a company called Daniel Defense. One of their semiautomatic assault rifles was used to murder those 19 children in Uvalde, TX. Daniel Defense semiautomatic assault rifles were also found in the room of the killer who murdered--murdered--60 concertgoers and injured more than 400 others at the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas in 2017, the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. But, with pride, they advertise these weapons. These kinds of reckless ads for assault weapons didn't exist 30 years ago. That is when gun manufacturers looked into the future and saw a problem. They realized that Americansweren't going out hunting like they used to or even sport shooting. So they had to create a new craving, a new appetite for a weapon. They needed to attract a new customer to new sorts of weapons. So they created ads like these, equating freedom and independence with these little killing machines. It gets worse. Here is an ad for a new assault rifle that came out this year. The AR-15 is the weapon of choice, as I mentioned, for mass shootings. This is an ad for a JR-15, a junior AR-15. It is manufactured by Wee 1 Tactical. I am sorry to say it is an Illinois company. It is like an AR-15, but it is designed for kids--20 percent smaller and lighter. It is designed for children under the age of 18. Look at the logos in this ad and look closely. They are the same logos that are imprinted on the weapon. They show these skulls of children with pacifiers in their mouths. You will find that same symbol on the gun that they sell. Today, the tobacco companies are creating vaping products with flavors like cotton candy and gummy bears to hook kids on nicotine. This gun manufacturer uses cartoon skulls sucking on pacifiers to try to hook children on using military-style assault weapons. Those weapons belong not at towns like Highland Park but on the battlefield--not in our communities and certainly not in the hands of children. Current Federal law affords the firearms industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability. What would you think if a major automobile manufacturer sold a car in this country and the brakes did not work? Should they be held liable? Few would question that. But if a gun manufacturer makes a gun that is inherently dangerous or negligently manufactured, that is dangerous in and of itself, the gun industry has bought immunity in the law at the Federal level so they cannot be sued for that dangerous product. Dangerous car? The manufacturer can be sued. Dangerous gun? No liability. Current Federal law allows the firearm industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability, but that immunity is not unlimited. Firearms manufacturers do not have a license to recklessly peddle high-powered killing machines to those who should not have them. They should be held accountable, and, believe me, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to look at that law. These assault rifles, these weapons of war, are killing our kids and threatening our communities in Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and so many other places. The death tolls and the tragedies will continue to multiply until we act. Madam President, I will close by saying today I saw our Governor, JB Pritzker, who came to the ceremony at the White House, together with Nancy Rotering, the mayor of Highland Park. I want to commend both of them for their leadership, and I want to thank the first responders. One week ago, the night of the shooting, I finally made it to Highland Park and went through and thanked all of the first responders--the ATF agents who so quickly identified this rifle as belonging to the man who was ultimately charged. I say to my colleagues: Let's waste no time and put a director at ATF. We need him now more than ever. And to all those who responded, gave up their Fourth of July and did what they were asked to do so many times, risked their own lives for the safety of others, our heartfelt thanks. We owe them everything. From the medical crews who turned around on an emergency basis and did such miraculous things for all the people who were injured, our thanks are there and will be forever. But now it is our turn not just to praise those who showed courage but to show courage ourselves. Can we summon the courage to put an end to these military assault rifles and say that this is not part of any Second Amendment right in America; that these are killing weapons? Sadly, we have too many lost lives to show for it. I will close with Cooper's picture again. This perfect little boy--8 years old--went to the Fourth of July parade to celebrate our country and be with his family, and his life will never be the same. What are we going to do about it? I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189-2 | null | 4,651 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Highland Park Shooting Madam President, on June 8, 15 days after their 10-year-old daughter Lexi was murdered--murdered--at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, Kimberly and Felix Rubio testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In their testimony, Kimberly and Felix recalled the last time they ever saw their daughter. There was a school assembly. Lexi had received a Good Citizen Award and had been recognized for receiving straight A's. The family said: We are going to celebrate tonight. We are going to take the whole family out for ice cream, her parents told her. She was overjoyed. Then they said goodbye and sent her off to the classroom. Less than an hour later, in Uvalde, TX, an 18-year-old man armed with a military-style assault rifle stormed into Lexi's fourth grade classroom and shot and killed her and 18 of her classmates, along with 2 teachers who tried their best to protect the kids. It was the deadliest school shooting in America in the decade since Sandy Hook in Connecticut. In her remarks to Congress, Lexi's mom Kimberly issued a prophetic warning. She said: There's a mom listening to our testimony thinking, ``I can't even imagine [the pain of this family]''--not knowing that our pain will one day be [her pain], unless we [do something] now. That happened before our Fourth of July break, and I will have to tell you that there was an occurrence during that break, which I will never forget. If I had to choose one town to take one of my kids or grandkids to for a Fourth of July parade, it would be Highland Park, IL. What a great little town it is. People really care in that town, and they care for one another. It is a beautiful little suburban community in Chicago. I happen to know the mayor, Nancy Rotering, personally, and I know how hard she works to make that a great town to live in. Fourth of July was the day for their parade, and, as usual, thousands came out, carrying little American flags, proud of their country, wanting to celebrate not just America but Highland Park, that great community. Unfortunately, 1 week ago today, a young man armed with a military-style assault rifle climbed onto the roof of a building in Highland Park, IL, and, from his sniper's perch, opened fire on families gathered to watch the Fourth of July parade. Listen closely. He fired more than 80 rounds in less than a minute--80 rounds in less than a minute. He killed seven people and injured dozens more. I called the mayor of Highland Park a couple hours after this happened. I was in Michigan on a family vacation and was on my way as quickly as I could drive back to Highland Park in my home State. I reached Mayor Nancy Rotering and said: Can you tell me anything? She said: It is horrible. It is terrible. We are still looking to find the shooter. Can you imagine, she said they found a 2-year-old toddler wandering about, covered in blood. Fortunately, that toddler, the little boy, hadn't been shot, but they were circulating photos of his face in the hopes that they could identify family members. They figured the worse--that little boy would be out alone because he had lost his parents. Kevin and Irina McCarthy were among those victims on the Fourth of July. They went to the parade with that 2-year-old boy, whose name is Aiden. When the shooting started, Kevin placed his body over Aiden to protect him. He died protecting his son. His son's mother died right next to him. Another parade-goer saw Aiden, his little legs smeared with his father's blood, and carried him to safety. The poor little boy could not even say his full name. They started searching for relatives and family. Aiden is now with his grandparents. He lost both his mom and dad at that parade. Jacki Sundheim was a beloved preschool teacher at North Shore Congregation Israel. You should see the outpouring of letters talking about these people whose names I have mentioned here, how beloved they were in their community. Jacki was one of them. Katie Goldstein went to the parade with her daughter Cassie. When the shooting started, Katie and her daughter starting running, but Katie was shot in the chest and fell. Cassie said she leaned over her dying mother and told her she loved her, but she couldn't stop running because the gunman was still shooting. Stephen Strauss, what a story--a financial adviser who still worked full time at the age of 88 because he loved his work, and he loved life. He used to take the train in from Highland Park to downtown Chicago every single day. He and his wife Linda were 2 months shy of their 60th wedding anniversary. Nicolas Toledo-Zaragosa came to Highland Park 2 years ago from Mexico to visit his family. He was in a wheelchair following a recent accident. He was shot in the chest and killed in that same wheelchair. Eduardo Uvaldo was a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He and his wife had just celebrated their 50th anniversary. The Fourth of July was Eduardo's favorite holiday. He couldn't wait to go to the parade. He was shot in the back of the head and died 2 days later in the hospital. Now there is an additional story I want you to hear. It is about this little boy. Cooper Roberts was among the 46 parade-goers who were injured. He went to the parade with his twin brother Luke and his mom and dad. He is 8 years old. He loves playing baseball and soccer. His brother Luke suffered shrapnel wounds in his arm, and his mom Keely was shot in her leg and in her foot. I want to read from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times that was printed just within the last 2 days to tell you what has happened to this little boy. The bullet that hit [this little boy] Cooper Roberts in the mass shooting at Highland Park's Fourth of July parade tore a ``very perilous'' path through his small body. You see, the military-assault weapon which was used by the shooter is not just another gun; it is a military-style weapon. Smith & Wesson, which makes the weapon, advertised it as an M&P weapon. I didn't know what that meant. Now I do--military and police weapon. The bullets that leave that gun, shot from that gun, travel at two to three times the velocity of an ordinary gun. When they hit the human body, they don't just pass through it; they shred the organs in the body on the way out the other side. For poor little Cooper who was shot: [I]t caught his liver and esophagus, severed his spinal cord and caused so much internal bleeding that doctors had to take extraordinary measures to save his life. Despite the horrific injuries, his doctors said Sunday that Cooper's condition has been stabilized. He was scheduled for more surgery Monday at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital. The family put out a written statement that said: He is in a great deal of pain--physically and emotionally-- especially as the family had to share with him the devastating news that he is paralyzed from the waist down. Cooper's twin and ``best friend'' Luke also was wounded, struck by shrapnel in his leg. Their mother, Keely Roberts, was injured as well. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured. . . . The bullet that struck Cooper entered his upper abdomen, just below his diaphragm, ``not his chest as originally believed,'' according to the doctors, who said it damaged the left side of his liver, his esophagus and his abdominal aorta. That last injury-- To his aorta-- was so bad that the doctors had to replace a section of the large blood vessel with a ``synthetic graft in adult size so he can grow into it.'' A hole in his esophagus was sewn closed, and the portion of his liver hit by the gunshot was repaired. The surgery planned Monday was for more repairs on his esophagus. Cooper's abdomen was temporarily kept open with a ``specialized vacuum dressing'' because of the ``severity'' of his wounds and the number of blood transfusions he underwent, according to his family. They said the bullet exited his back, severing his spinal cord. While he is paralyzed from the waist down, [they report he] suffered no brain damage and has experienced no effect on his cognitive function. He was able to breathe on his own and speak by Friday after being kept on a ventilator for four days. He remains in serious condition. ``The family wishes to acknowledge and thank the many, many people--emergency medics, police, fire department, nurses and doctors and both hospitals--who did'' [such extraordinary work]. I read the details of this because I want those who are following this debate to hear them and take a look at this. What did he do wrong? He went to the Fourth of July parade with his mom and dad. I am sure he was as happy as you see him in this picture. And because a man with a military-style rifle went berserk and fired on his family, his life has changed forever. Why? Why do we put up with this in this country? This break--Fourth of July break--will always be remembered by me as not just another recess from the Senate but a moment when my State was under attack from the madness that we have in this country when it comes to weapons under the Second Amendment. The Senator from Kentucky said earlier we need originalists, we need textualists in the U.S. Senate. The Presiding Officer has heard that many times. Stick with the words of the Constitution. Just go back and find out what they meant. Let me read the Second Amendment so there is no question what it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Do you think, in their wildest imagination, the Founding Fathers conceived of a weapon that could fire off 90 rounds in less than a minute? At a time when you are dealing with muskets and it took minutes to load the musket even if you were skilled, do you think they even had that in a concept they could imagine? I don't. Originalism? Keep and bear arms? How did it come to the point now where that has been a rationalization for the sale of a military assault weapon? AR-15s are the generic class of these weapons, these military assault weapons. I set out on a journey to figure out just how many there were in America. I started asking. The honest answer is people don't know. Somewhere between 10 and 20 million--10 and 20 million military assault weapons already sold in America. The total number of firearms in this country: 400 million for a nation of 350 million people, more than 1 firearm for every living American. That is the point we have reached. And if you want the right to bear a firearm for sport or hunting purposes, count me as supporting that effort. It is a tradition in my family in the Midwest and many, but I can tell you this; it is a tradition which was treated very, very sensibly. Guns--and they were possessed by most members of my family--were always under lock and key for fear that a child could get their hands on it. What is happening now when these young people below the age of 21 are turning around and buying these weapons? And let's take a look at what the industry is doing with these weapons because it tells us the story of what is happening. According to the Gun Violence Archive, the Highland Park parade shooting was the 309th mass shooting this year in America--309 already in 27 weeks, more than 11 mass shootings each week, more than 1 a day. What is a mass shooting? When four people are injured or killed by gunfire. And while mass shootings get the most headlines, they are far from the only shootings in America. At least 220 people were killed and close to 570 others were injured in shootings over the Fourth of July weekend, according to the Gun Violence Archive. We have come to accept this as the reality of life in America. Other countries look at us and shake their heads: How can these great Americans, as smart as they are, let this situation spin out of control? Thirty miles south of Highland Park on the Fourth of July in the city of Chicago, 10 people were killed, 62 injured by gun violence over that weekend. Now, the new bipartisan gun law, which the President highlighted today at the White House, passed last month. It didn't go as far as many of us liked, but it will save lives. And it certainly doesn't violate any aspect of the Second Amendment. It is the most significant gun law we have considered and passed in 30 years. So what do you think if I ask you the question: What are the symbols of American freedom and independence? What would you say? Oh, the Declaration of Independence? I agree. The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Certainly. The Emancipation Proclamation? I might include that. Fireworks and a Fourth of July parade? Well, let me show you what the marketing giants in the shooting industry have identified: ``Engineered to the specs of freedom and independence.'' The MMR tactical rifle, part of the same class of weapons used by the killer in Highland Park--this is what one gun manufacturer, Mossberg, wants you to believe is the epitome of American freedom and independence. This is an actual ad for an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle shown here. And, incidentally, it has a high-capacity magazine. The shooter in Highland Park had three of these high-capacity magazines and was able to fire 90 rounds because of it. Take a look at this advertisement from the same industry telling civilians, ``Use what they use''--use the same guns that soldiers and marines use in combat but use them, sadly, in towns like Highland Park, IL, and Uvalde, TX. This ad is from a company called Daniel Defense. One of their semiautomatic assault rifles was used to murder those 19 children in Uvalde, TX. Daniel Defense semiautomatic assault rifles were also found in the room of the killer who murdered--murdered--60 concertgoers and injured more than 400 others at the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas in 2017, the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. But, with pride, they advertise these weapons. These kinds of reckless ads for assault weapons didn't exist 30 years ago. That is when gun manufacturers looked into the future and saw a problem. They realized that Americansweren't going out hunting like they used to or even sport shooting. So they had to create a new craving, a new appetite for a weapon. They needed to attract a new customer to new sorts of weapons. So they created ads like these, equating freedom and independence with these little killing machines. It gets worse. Here is an ad for a new assault rifle that came out this year. The AR-15 is the weapon of choice, as I mentioned, for mass shootings. This is an ad for a JR-15, a junior AR-15. It is manufactured by Wee 1 Tactical. I am sorry to say it is an Illinois company. It is like an AR-15, but it is designed for kids--20 percent smaller and lighter. It is designed for children under the age of 18. Look at the logos in this ad and look closely. They are the same logos that are imprinted on the weapon. They show these skulls of children with pacifiers in their mouths. You will find that same symbol on the gun that they sell. Today, the tobacco companies are creating vaping products with flavors like cotton candy and gummy bears to hook kids on nicotine. This gun manufacturer uses cartoon skulls sucking on pacifiers to try to hook children on using military-style assault weapons. Those weapons belong not at towns like Highland Park but on the battlefield--not in our communities and certainly not in the hands of children. Current Federal law affords the firearms industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability. What would you think if a major automobile manufacturer sold a car in this country and the brakes did not work? Should they be held liable? Few would question that. But if a gun manufacturer makes a gun that is inherently dangerous or negligently manufactured, that is dangerous in and of itself, the gun industry has bought immunity in the law at the Federal level so they cannot be sued for that dangerous product. Dangerous car? The manufacturer can be sued. Dangerous gun? No liability. Current Federal law allows the firearm industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability, but that immunity is not unlimited. Firearms manufacturers do not have a license to recklessly peddle high-powered killing machines to those who should not have them. They should be held accountable, and, believe me, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to look at that law. These assault rifles, these weapons of war, are killing our kids and threatening our communities in Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and so many other places. The death tolls and the tragedies will continue to multiply until we act. Madam President, I will close by saying today I saw our Governor, JB Pritzker, who came to the ceremony at the White House, together with Nancy Rotering, the mayor of Highland Park. I want to commend both of them for their leadership, and I want to thank the first responders. One week ago, the night of the shooting, I finally made it to Highland Park and went through and thanked all of the first responders--the ATF agents who so quickly identified this rifle as belonging to the man who was ultimately charged. I say to my colleagues: Let's waste no time and put a director at ATF. We need him now more than ever. And to all those who responded, gave up their Fourth of July and did what they were asked to do so many times, risked their own lives for the safety of others, our heartfelt thanks. We owe them everything. From the medical crews who turned around on an emergency basis and did such miraculous things for all the people who were injured, our thanks are there and will be forever. But now it is our turn not just to praise those who showed courage but to show courage ourselves. Can we summon the courage to put an end to these military assault rifles and say that this is not part of any Second Amendment right in America; that these are killing weapons? Sadly, we have too many lost lives to show for it. I will close with Cooper's picture again. This perfect little boy--8 years old--went to the Fourth of July parade to celebrate our country and be with his family, and his life will never be the same. What are we going to do about it? I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189-2 | null | 4,652 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Highland Park Shooting Madam President, on June 8, 15 days after their 10-year-old daughter Lexi was murdered--murdered--at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, Kimberly and Felix Rubio testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In their testimony, Kimberly and Felix recalled the last time they ever saw their daughter. There was a school assembly. Lexi had received a Good Citizen Award and had been recognized for receiving straight A's. The family said: We are going to celebrate tonight. We are going to take the whole family out for ice cream, her parents told her. She was overjoyed. Then they said goodbye and sent her off to the classroom. Less than an hour later, in Uvalde, TX, an 18-year-old man armed with a military-style assault rifle stormed into Lexi's fourth grade classroom and shot and killed her and 18 of her classmates, along with 2 teachers who tried their best to protect the kids. It was the deadliest school shooting in America in the decade since Sandy Hook in Connecticut. In her remarks to Congress, Lexi's mom Kimberly issued a prophetic warning. She said: There's a mom listening to our testimony thinking, ``I can't even imagine [the pain of this family]''--not knowing that our pain will one day be [her pain], unless we [do something] now. That happened before our Fourth of July break, and I will have to tell you that there was an occurrence during that break, which I will never forget. If I had to choose one town to take one of my kids or grandkids to for a Fourth of July parade, it would be Highland Park, IL. What a great little town it is. People really care in that town, and they care for one another. It is a beautiful little suburban community in Chicago. I happen to know the mayor, Nancy Rotering, personally, and I know how hard she works to make that a great town to live in. Fourth of July was the day for their parade, and, as usual, thousands came out, carrying little American flags, proud of their country, wanting to celebrate not just America but Highland Park, that great community. Unfortunately, 1 week ago today, a young man armed with a military-style assault rifle climbed onto the roof of a building in Highland Park, IL, and, from his sniper's perch, opened fire on families gathered to watch the Fourth of July parade. Listen closely. He fired more than 80 rounds in less than a minute--80 rounds in less than a minute. He killed seven people and injured dozens more. I called the mayor of Highland Park a couple hours after this happened. I was in Michigan on a family vacation and was on my way as quickly as I could drive back to Highland Park in my home State. I reached Mayor Nancy Rotering and said: Can you tell me anything? She said: It is horrible. It is terrible. We are still looking to find the shooter. Can you imagine, she said they found a 2-year-old toddler wandering about, covered in blood. Fortunately, that toddler, the little boy, hadn't been shot, but they were circulating photos of his face in the hopes that they could identify family members. They figured the worse--that little boy would be out alone because he had lost his parents. Kevin and Irina McCarthy were among those victims on the Fourth of July. They went to the parade with that 2-year-old boy, whose name is Aiden. When the shooting started, Kevin placed his body over Aiden to protect him. He died protecting his son. His son's mother died right next to him. Another parade-goer saw Aiden, his little legs smeared with his father's blood, and carried him to safety. The poor little boy could not even say his full name. They started searching for relatives and family. Aiden is now with his grandparents. He lost both his mom and dad at that parade. Jacki Sundheim was a beloved preschool teacher at North Shore Congregation Israel. You should see the outpouring of letters talking about these people whose names I have mentioned here, how beloved they were in their community. Jacki was one of them. Katie Goldstein went to the parade with her daughter Cassie. When the shooting started, Katie and her daughter starting running, but Katie was shot in the chest and fell. Cassie said she leaned over her dying mother and told her she loved her, but she couldn't stop running because the gunman was still shooting. Stephen Strauss, what a story--a financial adviser who still worked full time at the age of 88 because he loved his work, and he loved life. He used to take the train in from Highland Park to downtown Chicago every single day. He and his wife Linda were 2 months shy of their 60th wedding anniversary. Nicolas Toledo-Zaragosa came to Highland Park 2 years ago from Mexico to visit his family. He was in a wheelchair following a recent accident. He was shot in the chest and killed in that same wheelchair. Eduardo Uvaldo was a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He and his wife had just celebrated their 50th anniversary. The Fourth of July was Eduardo's favorite holiday. He couldn't wait to go to the parade. He was shot in the back of the head and died 2 days later in the hospital. Now there is an additional story I want you to hear. It is about this little boy. Cooper Roberts was among the 46 parade-goers who were injured. He went to the parade with his twin brother Luke and his mom and dad. He is 8 years old. He loves playing baseball and soccer. His brother Luke suffered shrapnel wounds in his arm, and his mom Keely was shot in her leg and in her foot. I want to read from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times that was printed just within the last 2 days to tell you what has happened to this little boy. The bullet that hit [this little boy] Cooper Roberts in the mass shooting at Highland Park's Fourth of July parade tore a ``very perilous'' path through his small body. You see, the military-assault weapon which was used by the shooter is not just another gun; it is a military-style weapon. Smith & Wesson, which makes the weapon, advertised it as an M&P weapon. I didn't know what that meant. Now I do--military and police weapon. The bullets that leave that gun, shot from that gun, travel at two to three times the velocity of an ordinary gun. When they hit the human body, they don't just pass through it; they shred the organs in the body on the way out the other side. For poor little Cooper who was shot: [I]t caught his liver and esophagus, severed his spinal cord and caused so much internal bleeding that doctors had to take extraordinary measures to save his life. Despite the horrific injuries, his doctors said Sunday that Cooper's condition has been stabilized. He was scheduled for more surgery Monday at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital. The family put out a written statement that said: He is in a great deal of pain--physically and emotionally-- especially as the family had to share with him the devastating news that he is paralyzed from the waist down. Cooper's twin and ``best friend'' Luke also was wounded, struck by shrapnel in his leg. Their mother, Keely Roberts, was injured as well. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured. . . . The bullet that struck Cooper entered his upper abdomen, just below his diaphragm, ``not his chest as originally believed,'' according to the doctors, who said it damaged the left side of his liver, his esophagus and his abdominal aorta. That last injury-- To his aorta-- was so bad that the doctors had to replace a section of the large blood vessel with a ``synthetic graft in adult size so he can grow into it.'' A hole in his esophagus was sewn closed, and the portion of his liver hit by the gunshot was repaired. The surgery planned Monday was for more repairs on his esophagus. Cooper's abdomen was temporarily kept open with a ``specialized vacuum dressing'' because of the ``severity'' of his wounds and the number of blood transfusions he underwent, according to his family. They said the bullet exited his back, severing his spinal cord. While he is paralyzed from the waist down, [they report he] suffered no brain damage and has experienced no effect on his cognitive function. He was able to breathe on his own and speak by Friday after being kept on a ventilator for four days. He remains in serious condition. ``The family wishes to acknowledge and thank the many, many people--emergency medics, police, fire department, nurses and doctors and both hospitals--who did'' [such extraordinary work]. I read the details of this because I want those who are following this debate to hear them and take a look at this. What did he do wrong? He went to the Fourth of July parade with his mom and dad. I am sure he was as happy as you see him in this picture. And because a man with a military-style rifle went berserk and fired on his family, his life has changed forever. Why? Why do we put up with this in this country? This break--Fourth of July break--will always be remembered by me as not just another recess from the Senate but a moment when my State was under attack from the madness that we have in this country when it comes to weapons under the Second Amendment. The Senator from Kentucky said earlier we need originalists, we need textualists in the U.S. Senate. The Presiding Officer has heard that many times. Stick with the words of the Constitution. Just go back and find out what they meant. Let me read the Second Amendment so there is no question what it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Do you think, in their wildest imagination, the Founding Fathers conceived of a weapon that could fire off 90 rounds in less than a minute? At a time when you are dealing with muskets and it took minutes to load the musket even if you were skilled, do you think they even had that in a concept they could imagine? I don't. Originalism? Keep and bear arms? How did it come to the point now where that has been a rationalization for the sale of a military assault weapon? AR-15s are the generic class of these weapons, these military assault weapons. I set out on a journey to figure out just how many there were in America. I started asking. The honest answer is people don't know. Somewhere between 10 and 20 million--10 and 20 million military assault weapons already sold in America. The total number of firearms in this country: 400 million for a nation of 350 million people, more than 1 firearm for every living American. That is the point we have reached. And if you want the right to bear a firearm for sport or hunting purposes, count me as supporting that effort. It is a tradition in my family in the Midwest and many, but I can tell you this; it is a tradition which was treated very, very sensibly. Guns--and they were possessed by most members of my family--were always under lock and key for fear that a child could get their hands on it. What is happening now when these young people below the age of 21 are turning around and buying these weapons? And let's take a look at what the industry is doing with these weapons because it tells us the story of what is happening. According to the Gun Violence Archive, the Highland Park parade shooting was the 309th mass shooting this year in America--309 already in 27 weeks, more than 11 mass shootings each week, more than 1 a day. What is a mass shooting? When four people are injured or killed by gunfire. And while mass shootings get the most headlines, they are far from the only shootings in America. At least 220 people were killed and close to 570 others were injured in shootings over the Fourth of July weekend, according to the Gun Violence Archive. We have come to accept this as the reality of life in America. Other countries look at us and shake their heads: How can these great Americans, as smart as they are, let this situation spin out of control? Thirty miles south of Highland Park on the Fourth of July in the city of Chicago, 10 people were killed, 62 injured by gun violence over that weekend. Now, the new bipartisan gun law, which the President highlighted today at the White House, passed last month. It didn't go as far as many of us liked, but it will save lives. And it certainly doesn't violate any aspect of the Second Amendment. It is the most significant gun law we have considered and passed in 30 years. So what do you think if I ask you the question: What are the symbols of American freedom and independence? What would you say? Oh, the Declaration of Independence? I agree. The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Certainly. The Emancipation Proclamation? I might include that. Fireworks and a Fourth of July parade? Well, let me show you what the marketing giants in the shooting industry have identified: ``Engineered to the specs of freedom and independence.'' The MMR tactical rifle, part of the same class of weapons used by the killer in Highland Park--this is what one gun manufacturer, Mossberg, wants you to believe is the epitome of American freedom and independence. This is an actual ad for an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle shown here. And, incidentally, it has a high-capacity magazine. The shooter in Highland Park had three of these high-capacity magazines and was able to fire 90 rounds because of it. Take a look at this advertisement from the same industry telling civilians, ``Use what they use''--use the same guns that soldiers and marines use in combat but use them, sadly, in towns like Highland Park, IL, and Uvalde, TX. This ad is from a company called Daniel Defense. One of their semiautomatic assault rifles was used to murder those 19 children in Uvalde, TX. Daniel Defense semiautomatic assault rifles were also found in the room of the killer who murdered--murdered--60 concertgoers and injured more than 400 others at the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas in 2017, the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. But, with pride, they advertise these weapons. These kinds of reckless ads for assault weapons didn't exist 30 years ago. That is when gun manufacturers looked into the future and saw a problem. They realized that Americansweren't going out hunting like they used to or even sport shooting. So they had to create a new craving, a new appetite for a weapon. They needed to attract a new customer to new sorts of weapons. So they created ads like these, equating freedom and independence with these little killing machines. It gets worse. Here is an ad for a new assault rifle that came out this year. The AR-15 is the weapon of choice, as I mentioned, for mass shootings. This is an ad for a JR-15, a junior AR-15. It is manufactured by Wee 1 Tactical. I am sorry to say it is an Illinois company. It is like an AR-15, but it is designed for kids--20 percent smaller and lighter. It is designed for children under the age of 18. Look at the logos in this ad and look closely. They are the same logos that are imprinted on the weapon. They show these skulls of children with pacifiers in their mouths. You will find that same symbol on the gun that they sell. Today, the tobacco companies are creating vaping products with flavors like cotton candy and gummy bears to hook kids on nicotine. This gun manufacturer uses cartoon skulls sucking on pacifiers to try to hook children on using military-style assault weapons. Those weapons belong not at towns like Highland Park but on the battlefield--not in our communities and certainly not in the hands of children. Current Federal law affords the firearms industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability. What would you think if a major automobile manufacturer sold a car in this country and the brakes did not work? Should they be held liable? Few would question that. But if a gun manufacturer makes a gun that is inherently dangerous or negligently manufactured, that is dangerous in and of itself, the gun industry has bought immunity in the law at the Federal level so they cannot be sued for that dangerous product. Dangerous car? The manufacturer can be sued. Dangerous gun? No liability. Current Federal law allows the firearm industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability, but that immunity is not unlimited. Firearms manufacturers do not have a license to recklessly peddle high-powered killing machines to those who should not have them. They should be held accountable, and, believe me, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to look at that law. These assault rifles, these weapons of war, are killing our kids and threatening our communities in Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and so many other places. The death tolls and the tragedies will continue to multiply until we act. Madam President, I will close by saying today I saw our Governor, JB Pritzker, who came to the ceremony at the White House, together with Nancy Rotering, the mayor of Highland Park. I want to commend both of them for their leadership, and I want to thank the first responders. One week ago, the night of the shooting, I finally made it to Highland Park and went through and thanked all of the first responders--the ATF agents who so quickly identified this rifle as belonging to the man who was ultimately charged. I say to my colleagues: Let's waste no time and put a director at ATF. We need him now more than ever. And to all those who responded, gave up their Fourth of July and did what they were asked to do so many times, risked their own lives for the safety of others, our heartfelt thanks. We owe them everything. From the medical crews who turned around on an emergency basis and did such miraculous things for all the people who were injured, our thanks are there and will be forever. But now it is our turn not just to praise those who showed courage but to show courage ourselves. Can we summon the courage to put an end to these military assault rifles and say that this is not part of any Second Amendment right in America; that these are killing weapons? Sadly, we have too many lost lives to show for it. I will close with Cooper's picture again. This perfect little boy--8 years old--went to the Fourth of July parade to celebrate our country and be with his family, and his life will never be the same. What are we going to do about it? I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189-2 | null | 4,653 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Highland Park Shooting Madam President, on June 8, 15 days after their 10-year-old daughter Lexi was murdered--murdered--at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX, Kimberly and Felix Rubio testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. In their testimony, Kimberly and Felix recalled the last time they ever saw their daughter. There was a school assembly. Lexi had received a Good Citizen Award and had been recognized for receiving straight A's. The family said: We are going to celebrate tonight. We are going to take the whole family out for ice cream, her parents told her. She was overjoyed. Then they said goodbye and sent her off to the classroom. Less than an hour later, in Uvalde, TX, an 18-year-old man armed with a military-style assault rifle stormed into Lexi's fourth grade classroom and shot and killed her and 18 of her classmates, along with 2 teachers who tried their best to protect the kids. It was the deadliest school shooting in America in the decade since Sandy Hook in Connecticut. In her remarks to Congress, Lexi's mom Kimberly issued a prophetic warning. She said: There's a mom listening to our testimony thinking, ``I can't even imagine [the pain of this family]''--not knowing that our pain will one day be [her pain], unless we [do something] now. That happened before our Fourth of July break, and I will have to tell you that there was an occurrence during that break, which I will never forget. If I had to choose one town to take one of my kids or grandkids to for a Fourth of July parade, it would be Highland Park, IL. What a great little town it is. People really care in that town, and they care for one another. It is a beautiful little suburban community in Chicago. I happen to know the mayor, Nancy Rotering, personally, and I know how hard she works to make that a great town to live in. Fourth of July was the day for their parade, and, as usual, thousands came out, carrying little American flags, proud of their country, wanting to celebrate not just America but Highland Park, that great community. Unfortunately, 1 week ago today, a young man armed with a military-style assault rifle climbed onto the roof of a building in Highland Park, IL, and, from his sniper's perch, opened fire on families gathered to watch the Fourth of July parade. Listen closely. He fired more than 80 rounds in less than a minute--80 rounds in less than a minute. He killed seven people and injured dozens more. I called the mayor of Highland Park a couple hours after this happened. I was in Michigan on a family vacation and was on my way as quickly as I could drive back to Highland Park in my home State. I reached Mayor Nancy Rotering and said: Can you tell me anything? She said: It is horrible. It is terrible. We are still looking to find the shooter. Can you imagine, she said they found a 2-year-old toddler wandering about, covered in blood. Fortunately, that toddler, the little boy, hadn't been shot, but they were circulating photos of his face in the hopes that they could identify family members. They figured the worse--that little boy would be out alone because he had lost his parents. Kevin and Irina McCarthy were among those victims on the Fourth of July. They went to the parade with that 2-year-old boy, whose name is Aiden. When the shooting started, Kevin placed his body over Aiden to protect him. He died protecting his son. His son's mother died right next to him. Another parade-goer saw Aiden, his little legs smeared with his father's blood, and carried him to safety. The poor little boy could not even say his full name. They started searching for relatives and family. Aiden is now with his grandparents. He lost both his mom and dad at that parade. Jacki Sundheim was a beloved preschool teacher at North Shore Congregation Israel. You should see the outpouring of letters talking about these people whose names I have mentioned here, how beloved they were in their community. Jacki was one of them. Katie Goldstein went to the parade with her daughter Cassie. When the shooting started, Katie and her daughter starting running, but Katie was shot in the chest and fell. Cassie said she leaned over her dying mother and told her she loved her, but she couldn't stop running because the gunman was still shooting. Stephen Strauss, what a story--a financial adviser who still worked full time at the age of 88 because he loved his work, and he loved life. He used to take the train in from Highland Park to downtown Chicago every single day. He and his wife Linda were 2 months shy of their 60th wedding anniversary. Nicolas Toledo-Zaragosa came to Highland Park 2 years ago from Mexico to visit his family. He was in a wheelchair following a recent accident. He was shot in the chest and killed in that same wheelchair. Eduardo Uvaldo was a father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. He and his wife had just celebrated their 50th anniversary. The Fourth of July was Eduardo's favorite holiday. He couldn't wait to go to the parade. He was shot in the back of the head and died 2 days later in the hospital. Now there is an additional story I want you to hear. It is about this little boy. Cooper Roberts was among the 46 parade-goers who were injured. He went to the parade with his twin brother Luke and his mom and dad. He is 8 years old. He loves playing baseball and soccer. His brother Luke suffered shrapnel wounds in his arm, and his mom Keely was shot in her leg and in her foot. I want to read from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times that was printed just within the last 2 days to tell you what has happened to this little boy. The bullet that hit [this little boy] Cooper Roberts in the mass shooting at Highland Park's Fourth of July parade tore a ``very perilous'' path through his small body. You see, the military-assault weapon which was used by the shooter is not just another gun; it is a military-style weapon. Smith & Wesson, which makes the weapon, advertised it as an M&P weapon. I didn't know what that meant. Now I do--military and police weapon. The bullets that leave that gun, shot from that gun, travel at two to three times the velocity of an ordinary gun. When they hit the human body, they don't just pass through it; they shred the organs in the body on the way out the other side. For poor little Cooper who was shot: [I]t caught his liver and esophagus, severed his spinal cord and caused so much internal bleeding that doctors had to take extraordinary measures to save his life. Despite the horrific injuries, his doctors said Sunday that Cooper's condition has been stabilized. He was scheduled for more surgery Monday at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital. The family put out a written statement that said: He is in a great deal of pain--physically and emotionally-- especially as the family had to share with him the devastating news that he is paralyzed from the waist down. Cooper's twin and ``best friend'' Luke also was wounded, struck by shrapnel in his leg. Their mother, Keely Roberts, was injured as well. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured. . . . The bullet that struck Cooper entered his upper abdomen, just below his diaphragm, ``not his chest as originally believed,'' according to the doctors, who said it damaged the left side of his liver, his esophagus and his abdominal aorta. That last injury-- To his aorta-- was so bad that the doctors had to replace a section of the large blood vessel with a ``synthetic graft in adult size so he can grow into it.'' A hole in his esophagus was sewn closed, and the portion of his liver hit by the gunshot was repaired. The surgery planned Monday was for more repairs on his esophagus. Cooper's abdomen was temporarily kept open with a ``specialized vacuum dressing'' because of the ``severity'' of his wounds and the number of blood transfusions he underwent, according to his family. They said the bullet exited his back, severing his spinal cord. While he is paralyzed from the waist down, [they report he] suffered no brain damage and has experienced no effect on his cognitive function. He was able to breathe on his own and speak by Friday after being kept on a ventilator for four days. He remains in serious condition. ``The family wishes to acknowledge and thank the many, many people--emergency medics, police, fire department, nurses and doctors and both hospitals--who did'' [such extraordinary work]. I read the details of this because I want those who are following this debate to hear them and take a look at this. What did he do wrong? He went to the Fourth of July parade with his mom and dad. I am sure he was as happy as you see him in this picture. And because a man with a military-style rifle went berserk and fired on his family, his life has changed forever. Why? Why do we put up with this in this country? This break--Fourth of July break--will always be remembered by me as not just another recess from the Senate but a moment when my State was under attack from the madness that we have in this country when it comes to weapons under the Second Amendment. The Senator from Kentucky said earlier we need originalists, we need textualists in the U.S. Senate. The Presiding Officer has heard that many times. Stick with the words of the Constitution. Just go back and find out what they meant. Let me read the Second Amendment so there is no question what it says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Do you think, in their wildest imagination, the Founding Fathers conceived of a weapon that could fire off 90 rounds in less than a minute? At a time when you are dealing with muskets and it took minutes to load the musket even if you were skilled, do you think they even had that in a concept they could imagine? I don't. Originalism? Keep and bear arms? How did it come to the point now where that has been a rationalization for the sale of a military assault weapon? AR-15s are the generic class of these weapons, these military assault weapons. I set out on a journey to figure out just how many there were in America. I started asking. The honest answer is people don't know. Somewhere between 10 and 20 million--10 and 20 million military assault weapons already sold in America. The total number of firearms in this country: 400 million for a nation of 350 million people, more than 1 firearm for every living American. That is the point we have reached. And if you want the right to bear a firearm for sport or hunting purposes, count me as supporting that effort. It is a tradition in my family in the Midwest and many, but I can tell you this; it is a tradition which was treated very, very sensibly. Guns--and they were possessed by most members of my family--were always under lock and key for fear that a child could get their hands on it. What is happening now when these young people below the age of 21 are turning around and buying these weapons? And let's take a look at what the industry is doing with these weapons because it tells us the story of what is happening. According to the Gun Violence Archive, the Highland Park parade shooting was the 309th mass shooting this year in America--309 already in 27 weeks, more than 11 mass shootings each week, more than 1 a day. What is a mass shooting? When four people are injured or killed by gunfire. And while mass shootings get the most headlines, they are far from the only shootings in America. At least 220 people were killed and close to 570 others were injured in shootings over the Fourth of July weekend, according to the Gun Violence Archive. We have come to accept this as the reality of life in America. Other countries look at us and shake their heads: How can these great Americans, as smart as they are, let this situation spin out of control? Thirty miles south of Highland Park on the Fourth of July in the city of Chicago, 10 people were killed, 62 injured by gun violence over that weekend. Now, the new bipartisan gun law, which the President highlighted today at the White House, passed last month. It didn't go as far as many of us liked, but it will save lives. And it certainly doesn't violate any aspect of the Second Amendment. It is the most significant gun law we have considered and passed in 30 years. So what do you think if I ask you the question: What are the symbols of American freedom and independence? What would you say? Oh, the Declaration of Independence? I agree. The Constitution and Bill of Rights? Certainly. The Emancipation Proclamation? I might include that. Fireworks and a Fourth of July parade? Well, let me show you what the marketing giants in the shooting industry have identified: ``Engineered to the specs of freedom and independence.'' The MMR tactical rifle, part of the same class of weapons used by the killer in Highland Park--this is what one gun manufacturer, Mossberg, wants you to believe is the epitome of American freedom and independence. This is an actual ad for an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle shown here. And, incidentally, it has a high-capacity magazine. The shooter in Highland Park had three of these high-capacity magazines and was able to fire 90 rounds because of it. Take a look at this advertisement from the same industry telling civilians, ``Use what they use''--use the same guns that soldiers and marines use in combat but use them, sadly, in towns like Highland Park, IL, and Uvalde, TX. This ad is from a company called Daniel Defense. One of their semiautomatic assault rifles was used to murder those 19 children in Uvalde, TX. Daniel Defense semiautomatic assault rifles were also found in the room of the killer who murdered--murdered--60 concertgoers and injured more than 400 others at the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas in 2017, the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States. But, with pride, they advertise these weapons. These kinds of reckless ads for assault weapons didn't exist 30 years ago. That is when gun manufacturers looked into the future and saw a problem. They realized that Americansweren't going out hunting like they used to or even sport shooting. So they had to create a new craving, a new appetite for a weapon. They needed to attract a new customer to new sorts of weapons. So they created ads like these, equating freedom and independence with these little killing machines. It gets worse. Here is an ad for a new assault rifle that came out this year. The AR-15 is the weapon of choice, as I mentioned, for mass shootings. This is an ad for a JR-15, a junior AR-15. It is manufactured by Wee 1 Tactical. I am sorry to say it is an Illinois company. It is like an AR-15, but it is designed for kids--20 percent smaller and lighter. It is designed for children under the age of 18. Look at the logos in this ad and look closely. They are the same logos that are imprinted on the weapon. They show these skulls of children with pacifiers in their mouths. You will find that same symbol on the gun that they sell. Today, the tobacco companies are creating vaping products with flavors like cotton candy and gummy bears to hook kids on nicotine. This gun manufacturer uses cartoon skulls sucking on pacifiers to try to hook children on using military-style assault weapons. Those weapons belong not at towns like Highland Park but on the battlefield--not in our communities and certainly not in the hands of children. Current Federal law affords the firearms industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability. What would you think if a major automobile manufacturer sold a car in this country and the brakes did not work? Should they be held liable? Few would question that. But if a gun manufacturer makes a gun that is inherently dangerous or negligently manufactured, that is dangerous in and of itself, the gun industry has bought immunity in the law at the Federal level so they cannot be sued for that dangerous product. Dangerous car? The manufacturer can be sued. Dangerous gun? No liability. Current Federal law allows the firearm industry broad and unjustifiable immunity from civil liability, but that immunity is not unlimited. Firearms manufacturers do not have a license to recklessly peddle high-powered killing machines to those who should not have them. They should be held accountable, and, believe me, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to look at that law. These assault rifles, these weapons of war, are killing our kids and threatening our communities in Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and so many other places. The death tolls and the tragedies will continue to multiply until we act. Madam President, I will close by saying today I saw our Governor, JB Pritzker, who came to the ceremony at the White House, together with Nancy Rotering, the mayor of Highland Park. I want to commend both of them for their leadership, and I want to thank the first responders. One week ago, the night of the shooting, I finally made it to Highland Park and went through and thanked all of the first responders--the ATF agents who so quickly identified this rifle as belonging to the man who was ultimately charged. I say to my colleagues: Let's waste no time and put a director at ATF. We need him now more than ever. And to all those who responded, gave up their Fourth of July and did what they were asked to do so many times, risked their own lives for the safety of others, our heartfelt thanks. We owe them everything. From the medical crews who turned around on an emergency basis and did such miraculous things for all the people who were injured, our thanks are there and will be forever. But now it is our turn not just to praise those who showed courage but to show courage ourselves. Can we summon the courage to put an end to these military assault rifles and say that this is not part of any Second Amendment right in America; that these are killing weapons? Sadly, we have too many lost lives to show for it. I will close with Cooper's picture again. This perfect little boy--8 years old--went to the Fourth of July parade to celebrate our country and be with his family, and his life will never be the same. What are we going to do about it? I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189-2 | null | 4,654 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Prescription Drugs Madam President, there is also this talk about the Democrats in favor of a tax hike. Let me put this in perspective. The Democrats are trying to achieve something that the vast majority of the American people want desperately: Find a way to control the spiraling cost of prescription drugs. I can't think of a single issue more popular with the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and so the Senators have been working on it. Senator Shaheen, Senator Schumer, Senator Manchin, and others have been discussing ways to reduce the cost of insulin to no more than $35 a month. Wouldn't that be a break for the millions of diabetic Americans who many times have to cut the amount of insulin that they use because they can't afford it, to have affordable, lifesaving medicine? Isn't that something we all should applaud? And doesn't it reduce costs overall for us to bring down the spiraling cost of prescription drugs? The Senator from Kentucky talks a lot about the cost American families are facing. We know that is a fact. One of the first things they will identify is the cost of prescription drugs. We want to do something about it. The Senator from Kentucky has said no, he won't support this effort to corral in these costs of prescription drugs as long as there is an increase in taxes. It turns out the increase in taxes were the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. Yes, I think they ought to pay more in taxes, and if their paying more in taxes means that families pay less for prescription drugs, sign me up for it, and sign most Americans up for it. The notion of tax hikes on the wealthiest people in this country does not strike me as inflationary; it strikes me as common sense if it is then turning into lower prescription drug prices for American families. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189 | null | 4,655 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Prescription Drugs Madam President, there is also this talk about the Democrats in favor of a tax hike. Let me put this in perspective. The Democrats are trying to achieve something that the vast majority of the American people want desperately: Find a way to control the spiraling cost of prescription drugs. I can't think of a single issue more popular with the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and so the Senators have been working on it. Senator Shaheen, Senator Schumer, Senator Manchin, and others have been discussing ways to reduce the cost of insulin to no more than $35 a month. Wouldn't that be a break for the millions of diabetic Americans who many times have to cut the amount of insulin that they use because they can't afford it, to have affordable, lifesaving medicine? Isn't that something we all should applaud? And doesn't it reduce costs overall for us to bring down the spiraling cost of prescription drugs? The Senator from Kentucky talks a lot about the cost American families are facing. We know that is a fact. One of the first things they will identify is the cost of prescription drugs. We want to do something about it. The Senator from Kentucky has said no, he won't support this effort to corral in these costs of prescription drugs as long as there is an increase in taxes. It turns out the increase in taxes were the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. Yes, I think they ought to pay more in taxes, and if their paying more in taxes means that families pay less for prescription drugs, sign me up for it, and sign most Americans up for it. The notion of tax hikes on the wealthiest people in this country does not strike me as inflationary; it strikes me as common sense if it is then turning into lower prescription drug prices for American families. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189 | null | 4,656 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Prescription Drugs Madam President, there is also this talk about the Democrats in favor of a tax hike. Let me put this in perspective. The Democrats are trying to achieve something that the vast majority of the American people want desperately: Find a way to control the spiraling cost of prescription drugs. I can't think of a single issue more popular with the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and so the Senators have been working on it. Senator Shaheen, Senator Schumer, Senator Manchin, and others have been discussing ways to reduce the cost of insulin to no more than $35 a month. Wouldn't that be a break for the millions of diabetic Americans who many times have to cut the amount of insulin that they use because they can't afford it, to have affordable, lifesaving medicine? Isn't that something we all should applaud? And doesn't it reduce costs overall for us to bring down the spiraling cost of prescription drugs? The Senator from Kentucky talks a lot about the cost American families are facing. We know that is a fact. One of the first things they will identify is the cost of prescription drugs. We want to do something about it. The Senator from Kentucky has said no, he won't support this effort to corral in these costs of prescription drugs as long as there is an increase in taxes. It turns out the increase in taxes were the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. Yes, I think they ought to pay more in taxes, and if their paying more in taxes means that families pay less for prescription drugs, sign me up for it, and sign most Americans up for it. The notion of tax hikes on the wealthiest people in this country does not strike me as inflationary; it strikes me as common sense if it is then turning into lower prescription drug prices for American families. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3189 | null | 4,657 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Police Departments Madam President, on to my last statement, it wasn't too long ago I came to the Senate floor to talk about the dangers of bad blue city policies, ideas like defunding and degrading the police, progressive prosecutors, and bail reform. These policies are dangerous for our citizens, our children, and our communities. Well, a few weeks later, I am up here again with an update. Americans agreed with those statements I have made. Americans are concerned about the nationwide rise in violent crime, and they don't trust politicians who allow crime to continue. I don't blame them, and most Americans don't blame them for being upset. New York Governor Kathy Hochul was forced to change bail laws to allow judges to set bail for more repeat offenders and those accused of gun crimes. About 66 percent of the registered voters in New York overwhelmingly support that change that took place in New York. Why wouldn't they? Keeping dangerous criminals away from the innocent public makes our communities safer, and New Yorkers now know that and probably did always know it. Across the country, in San Francisco of all places, another referendum on safety happened. Voters there recalled their progressive prosecutor, Chesa Boudin. Boudin refused to charge or prosecute certain violent crimes, like felony domestic violence. After only 2 years on the job, even liberal San Franciscans rejected his soft-on-crime approach, and he was fired. Why wouldn't they? Prosecuting dangerous criminals for the crimes they commit makes the community safer, and San Franciscans now know it. Nationwide, it looks like Americans have cause for hope when it comes to violent crime. Compared to last year, many cities are a bit safer, but a few cities are getting worse, sadly to say. Why? Because they are still using the bad ideas that Americans are rejecting. Homicides in Los Angeles are up compared to this time last year. Well, they have a progressive prosecutor, George Gascon. Homicides in Washington, DC, are up. Well, we have police defunding to thank for that statistic. Now the city is trying to play catch-up to fix its mistake while their citizens are still in danger. Homicides in Milwaukee are up. Well, they have bad bail reform policies. These policies led a dangerous man who should have been locked up run his car through a parade last year. I will spend a few minutes focusing on bail reform. We know that only a few hundred people commit most of the murders in any given cities. These criminals get arrested an average of 12 times. Most Americans know what logic tells us: Keeping people who commit crimes off the streets increases public safety. It seems pretty simple to me. If most crimes are committed by a small group of individuals who commit crimes over and over again and we can keep these repeat offenders away from innocent people, innocent Americans, then we should do just that. The best way to do this is through effective bail policies. The Federal bail system assesses the risk to society posed by the individual who is arrested. States would do well to mirror the Federal system. Americans are paying the price for bad policies that they don't want. It is time to stop these terrible, progressive blue city ideas to make Americans safe again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3193-2 | null | 4,658 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, during the immediate past recess, the bipartisan conference committee negotiations over the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, otherwise known as USICA, have officially come to a screeching halt. It has been more than a year since the Senate actually passed this bill--more than a year. Eight months later, House Democrats passed their own partisan bill, which looked more like the failed ``Build Back Broke'' agenda, rather than a serious attempt to protect our national security by countering the Chinese threat. And earlier this summer, a conference committee was appointed and began negotiating a compromise bill that would finally fund the CHIPS Act and make other critical investments in our national security and competitiveness. Of course, the CHIPS Act was designed to try to bring back on shore American manufacturing of advanced semiconductors, which I will talk more about in a moment. But with the CHIPS funding on the five-yard line, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, has tossed a grenade into the end zone. And why would you possibly jeopardize such an important national security priority? Apparently, so Democrats can try to, yet again, pass their unpopular social welfare bill that doesn't even appear to have universal Democratic support. Forget the bipartisan bill to safeguard our national security; forget commonsense safeguards to protect our most critical supply chains; forget new American manufacturing jobs and big investments in States all across the country. Senator Schumer has chosen to revive the ``Build Back Broke'' bill because we are just months from an election where polls suggest that his party is going to get swept out of control and then instead of majority leader, he will become the minority leader. So let's take a moment to recall how we happened to get here. More than 2 years ago, Congress began working to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and address a major supply chain vulnerability. Semiconductors or microcircuits underpin all of the modern technology we depend upon every day: the cell phones in our pockets, the cars in our driveways, the tractors our farmers drive, and missile systems that our troops use abroad. Chips keep us safe; they keep us connected; and they ensure that we have fresh food, clean water, and a way to get to work every day. The United States relies on strong supplies of semiconductors, and we lead the way in chip design, but here is the kicker. While we lead the way in chip design, we outsource the actual manufacturing abroad. That is right. We manufacture none of the world's most advanced chips--zero. Seventy-five percent of these chips come from East Asia, and a whopping 90 percent of them are made in Taiwan. Given the explicit threat of war by the Chinese Communist Party against Taiwan, that is a grave cause for concern. Furthermore, having just lived through a pandemic, consider what another pandemic or natural disaster might do to disrupt the supply chain of these critical semiconductors. And when you consider the fact that global chip demand is expected to increase by 56 percent over the next decade, it is clear that the problem is going to get worse. A major disruption in our global chip supply would halt manufacturing on everything from laptop computers to cars, to anti-tank Javelin missiles being used in Ukraine against Russian aggressors. This is a matter of both economic and national security, which is why addressing the chip shortage has been a bipartisan priority. In 2020, 96 Senators supported passing the CHIPS for America Act as part of the national defense authorization bill. That was way back in 2020. And it took less than 6 months from the time it became law until the Senate passed a bill to fund the CHIPS Program. That bill was called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate with a vote of 68 to 32. Despite the broad bipartisan support for the CHIPS Program, the House refused to pass the Senate bill not because it was a bad bill, but because it wasn't a partisan grab bag that provided billions for longstanding liberal policies. Their ``Build Back Broke'' agenda was 6 feet under, and they saw a must-pass national security bill as a convenient way to resurrect it. Their partisan legislation known as the COMPETES Act, included handouts for labor unions, a key supporter for the Democratic Party. The labor bosses were promised some pretty big benefits that never came to pass, and this was the way that House Democrats saw to respond. They also tacked on a range of unrelated partisan provisions, like an $8 billion payment to a U.N. climate slush fund, which has provided more than $100 million to China. The stated purpose of our efforts in USICA--the United States Innovation and Competition Act--has been to counter threats from China, not to subsidize them with taxpayer dollars, which apparently is what the House has chosen to do. Well, throughout the conference committee process, Republicans have pushed back against the long list of unrelated and downright harmful provisions. This bill should be about safeguarding our critical supply chains and strengthening our competitiveness, not doling out partisan political favors. Negotiations have made progress, but, frankly, we are running out of time, and time is of the essence. Last month, more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. And we are seeing signs that a failure to act will lead to these critical investments being made not in the United States but outside of the United States, just the opposite of what we hoped to attain. A company called GlobalWafers is planning to build a silicon wafer factory in Sherman, TX, that would create up to 1,500 jobs and produce 1.2 million wafers a month. These silicon wafers are an essential component of semiconductors. But last month, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said the CEO told her that the plan was contingent on Congress passing the CHIPS Act funding. Unless the funding is approved by the August recess, the company will scrap plans for the facility. A couple of weeks ago, the CEO of Intel expressed a similar sentiment. He said the company could expand chip production in Europe instead of the United States if Congress fails to pass this funding. So the stakes are high, as is the need to move quickly, but apparently none of that matters to the majority leader and House Democrats. They have chosen to ignore this rapidly closing window of opportunity and the national security risks associated with the current chip shortage. They have chosen to ignore the jobs and investments this bill would bring to States all across this country. They have chosen to ignore the symphony of voices from across the spectrum who want to get this done. And for what? Apparently, another unwanted and unnecessary partisan spending spree--this trillion-dollar proposal known as a reconciliation bill, which is a spinoff of Build Back Better, which I affectionately call ``Build Back Broke.'' This proposal would attack oil and gas producers at a time when gas prices remain at record highs, and one of the most urgent needs of everyday, working American families is to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump so they can afford to take their kids to school and go to work. Yet the partisan reconciliation bill that the majority leader contemplates bringing up would actually make that problem worse, not better. This partisan reconciliation bill would also increase taxes on American families, as their budgets are already being pummeled by inflation. And it could be that we are already in a recession, technically defined as two quarters of negative GDP. Well, one thing President Obama recognized back after the great recession of 2008, is it is not a time to raise taxes, and apparently the current Biden administration did not learn that lesson, nor did the majority leader. This bill would simply make inflation worse, not better. Why the Democratic leader has prioritized partisan politics over sound, bipartisan policy is lost on me. Why he would elevate partisanship above national security is lost on me. And why he would show contempt for the challenges families are facing due to failed policies of the Biden administration is lost on me. But now he is doubling down. His decision to pursue this partisan reconciliation bill won't just hurt families, it risks our ability to pass critical CHIPS funding on a timely basis. To reiterate the words of the Republican leader: There will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Our Democratic colleagues cannot spend their mornings working on a purely partisan spending spree for the next 4 weeks and expect Republicans to work with them on a bipartisan bill in the afternoon. We simply don't have time for these antics. Bipartisan conference negotiations require compromise and confidence that the person sitting across the table from you is negotiating in good faith. Senator Schumer's tactics have jeopardized the good faith that has driven this process up until now. From the beginning, what was originally known as Endless Frontiers to now the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA--this has been a big bipartisan effort. Two years ago, I introduced the CHIPS for America Act with Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on which I sit, and a Democrat. We worked in good faith to get it signed into law as part of the national defense reuthorization act. And we all worked together--68 of us--to make sure that the bill was funded through the bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. And more recently, I have been trying to help broker an agreement that can get this bill signed into law as part of the conference committee process. My desire to fund the CHIPS Act has not changed, but Senator Schumer's choices have taken an already difficult job and made it nearly impossible. He is trying to turn what has been a bipartisan process into a partisan exercise. I hope the Democratic leader will reconsider and will abandon his partisan spending spree so that we can spend the next 3 weeks passing the CHIPS funding as part of the USICA with broad bipartisan support. This is a matter of national security and economic competitiveness, and it should not become a victim of partisan games. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3194 | null | 4,659 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, during the immediate past recess, the bipartisan conference committee negotiations over the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, otherwise known as USICA, have officially come to a screeching halt. It has been more than a year since the Senate actually passed this bill--more than a year. Eight months later, House Democrats passed their own partisan bill, which looked more like the failed ``Build Back Broke'' agenda, rather than a serious attempt to protect our national security by countering the Chinese threat. And earlier this summer, a conference committee was appointed and began negotiating a compromise bill that would finally fund the CHIPS Act and make other critical investments in our national security and competitiveness. Of course, the CHIPS Act was designed to try to bring back on shore American manufacturing of advanced semiconductors, which I will talk more about in a moment. But with the CHIPS funding on the five-yard line, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, has tossed a grenade into the end zone. And why would you possibly jeopardize such an important national security priority? Apparently, so Democrats can try to, yet again, pass their unpopular social welfare bill that doesn't even appear to have universal Democratic support. Forget the bipartisan bill to safeguard our national security; forget commonsense safeguards to protect our most critical supply chains; forget new American manufacturing jobs and big investments in States all across the country. Senator Schumer has chosen to revive the ``Build Back Broke'' bill because we are just months from an election where polls suggest that his party is going to get swept out of control and then instead of majority leader, he will become the minority leader. So let's take a moment to recall how we happened to get here. More than 2 years ago, Congress began working to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and address a major supply chain vulnerability. Semiconductors or microcircuits underpin all of the modern technology we depend upon every day: the cell phones in our pockets, the cars in our driveways, the tractors our farmers drive, and missile systems that our troops use abroad. Chips keep us safe; they keep us connected; and they ensure that we have fresh food, clean water, and a way to get to work every day. The United States relies on strong supplies of semiconductors, and we lead the way in chip design, but here is the kicker. While we lead the way in chip design, we outsource the actual manufacturing abroad. That is right. We manufacture none of the world's most advanced chips--zero. Seventy-five percent of these chips come from East Asia, and a whopping 90 percent of them are made in Taiwan. Given the explicit threat of war by the Chinese Communist Party against Taiwan, that is a grave cause for concern. Furthermore, having just lived through a pandemic, consider what another pandemic or natural disaster might do to disrupt the supply chain of these critical semiconductors. And when you consider the fact that global chip demand is expected to increase by 56 percent over the next decade, it is clear that the problem is going to get worse. A major disruption in our global chip supply would halt manufacturing on everything from laptop computers to cars, to anti-tank Javelin missiles being used in Ukraine against Russian aggressors. This is a matter of both economic and national security, which is why addressing the chip shortage has been a bipartisan priority. In 2020, 96 Senators supported passing the CHIPS for America Act as part of the national defense authorization bill. That was way back in 2020. And it took less than 6 months from the time it became law until the Senate passed a bill to fund the CHIPS Program. That bill was called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate with a vote of 68 to 32. Despite the broad bipartisan support for the CHIPS Program, the House refused to pass the Senate bill not because it was a bad bill, but because it wasn't a partisan grab bag that provided billions for longstanding liberal policies. Their ``Build Back Broke'' agenda was 6 feet under, and they saw a must-pass national security bill as a convenient way to resurrect it. Their partisan legislation known as the COMPETES Act, included handouts for labor unions, a key supporter for the Democratic Party. The labor bosses were promised some pretty big benefits that never came to pass, and this was the way that House Democrats saw to respond. They also tacked on a range of unrelated partisan provisions, like an $8 billion payment to a U.N. climate slush fund, which has provided more than $100 million to China. The stated purpose of our efforts in USICA--the United States Innovation and Competition Act--has been to counter threats from China, not to subsidize them with taxpayer dollars, which apparently is what the House has chosen to do. Well, throughout the conference committee process, Republicans have pushed back against the long list of unrelated and downright harmful provisions. This bill should be about safeguarding our critical supply chains and strengthening our competitiveness, not doling out partisan political favors. Negotiations have made progress, but, frankly, we are running out of time, and time is of the essence. Last month, more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. And we are seeing signs that a failure to act will lead to these critical investments being made not in the United States but outside of the United States, just the opposite of what we hoped to attain. A company called GlobalWafers is planning to build a silicon wafer factory in Sherman, TX, that would create up to 1,500 jobs and produce 1.2 million wafers a month. These silicon wafers are an essential component of semiconductors. But last month, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said the CEO told her that the plan was contingent on Congress passing the CHIPS Act funding. Unless the funding is approved by the August recess, the company will scrap plans for the facility. A couple of weeks ago, the CEO of Intel expressed a similar sentiment. He said the company could expand chip production in Europe instead of the United States if Congress fails to pass this funding. So the stakes are high, as is the need to move quickly, but apparently none of that matters to the majority leader and House Democrats. They have chosen to ignore this rapidly closing window of opportunity and the national security risks associated with the current chip shortage. They have chosen to ignore the jobs and investments this bill would bring to States all across this country. They have chosen to ignore the symphony of voices from across the spectrum who want to get this done. And for what? Apparently, another unwanted and unnecessary partisan spending spree--this trillion-dollar proposal known as a reconciliation bill, which is a spinoff of Build Back Better, which I affectionately call ``Build Back Broke.'' This proposal would attack oil and gas producers at a time when gas prices remain at record highs, and one of the most urgent needs of everyday, working American families is to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump so they can afford to take their kids to school and go to work. Yet the partisan reconciliation bill that the majority leader contemplates bringing up would actually make that problem worse, not better. This partisan reconciliation bill would also increase taxes on American families, as their budgets are already being pummeled by inflation. And it could be that we are already in a recession, technically defined as two quarters of negative GDP. Well, one thing President Obama recognized back after the great recession of 2008, is it is not a time to raise taxes, and apparently the current Biden administration did not learn that lesson, nor did the majority leader. This bill would simply make inflation worse, not better. Why the Democratic leader has prioritized partisan politics over sound, bipartisan policy is lost on me. Why he would elevate partisanship above national security is lost on me. And why he would show contempt for the challenges families are facing due to failed policies of the Biden administration is lost on me. But now he is doubling down. His decision to pursue this partisan reconciliation bill won't just hurt families, it risks our ability to pass critical CHIPS funding on a timely basis. To reiterate the words of the Republican leader: There will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Our Democratic colleagues cannot spend their mornings working on a purely partisan spending spree for the next 4 weeks and expect Republicans to work with them on a bipartisan bill in the afternoon. We simply don't have time for these antics. Bipartisan conference negotiations require compromise and confidence that the person sitting across the table from you is negotiating in good faith. Senator Schumer's tactics have jeopardized the good faith that has driven this process up until now. From the beginning, what was originally known as Endless Frontiers to now the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA--this has been a big bipartisan effort. Two years ago, I introduced the CHIPS for America Act with Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on which I sit, and a Democrat. We worked in good faith to get it signed into law as part of the national defense reuthorization act. And we all worked together--68 of us--to make sure that the bill was funded through the bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. And more recently, I have been trying to help broker an agreement that can get this bill signed into law as part of the conference committee process. My desire to fund the CHIPS Act has not changed, but Senator Schumer's choices have taken an already difficult job and made it nearly impossible. He is trying to turn what has been a bipartisan process into a partisan exercise. I hope the Democratic leader will reconsider and will abandon his partisan spending spree so that we can spend the next 3 weeks passing the CHIPS funding as part of the USICA with broad bipartisan support. This is a matter of national security and economic competitiveness, and it should not become a victim of partisan games. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3194 | null | 4,660 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, during the immediate past recess, the bipartisan conference committee negotiations over the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, otherwise known as USICA, have officially come to a screeching halt. It has been more than a year since the Senate actually passed this bill--more than a year. Eight months later, House Democrats passed their own partisan bill, which looked more like the failed ``Build Back Broke'' agenda, rather than a serious attempt to protect our national security by countering the Chinese threat. And earlier this summer, a conference committee was appointed and began negotiating a compromise bill that would finally fund the CHIPS Act and make other critical investments in our national security and competitiveness. Of course, the CHIPS Act was designed to try to bring back on shore American manufacturing of advanced semiconductors, which I will talk more about in a moment. But with the CHIPS funding on the five-yard line, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, has tossed a grenade into the end zone. And why would you possibly jeopardize such an important national security priority? Apparently, so Democrats can try to, yet again, pass their unpopular social welfare bill that doesn't even appear to have universal Democratic support. Forget the bipartisan bill to safeguard our national security; forget commonsense safeguards to protect our most critical supply chains; forget new American manufacturing jobs and big investments in States all across the country. Senator Schumer has chosen to revive the ``Build Back Broke'' bill because we are just months from an election where polls suggest that his party is going to get swept out of control and then instead of majority leader, he will become the minority leader. So let's take a moment to recall how we happened to get here. More than 2 years ago, Congress began working to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and address a major supply chain vulnerability. Semiconductors or microcircuits underpin all of the modern technology we depend upon every day: the cell phones in our pockets, the cars in our driveways, the tractors our farmers drive, and missile systems that our troops use abroad. Chips keep us safe; they keep us connected; and they ensure that we have fresh food, clean water, and a way to get to work every day. The United States relies on strong supplies of semiconductors, and we lead the way in chip design, but here is the kicker. While we lead the way in chip design, we outsource the actual manufacturing abroad. That is right. We manufacture none of the world's most advanced chips--zero. Seventy-five percent of these chips come from East Asia, and a whopping 90 percent of them are made in Taiwan. Given the explicit threat of war by the Chinese Communist Party against Taiwan, that is a grave cause for concern. Furthermore, having just lived through a pandemic, consider what another pandemic or natural disaster might do to disrupt the supply chain of these critical semiconductors. And when you consider the fact that global chip demand is expected to increase by 56 percent over the next decade, it is clear that the problem is going to get worse. A major disruption in our global chip supply would halt manufacturing on everything from laptop computers to cars, to anti-tank Javelin missiles being used in Ukraine against Russian aggressors. This is a matter of both economic and national security, which is why addressing the chip shortage has been a bipartisan priority. In 2020, 96 Senators supported passing the CHIPS for America Act as part of the national defense authorization bill. That was way back in 2020. And it took less than 6 months from the time it became law until the Senate passed a bill to fund the CHIPS Program. That bill was called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate with a vote of 68 to 32. Despite the broad bipartisan support for the CHIPS Program, the House refused to pass the Senate bill not because it was a bad bill, but because it wasn't a partisan grab bag that provided billions for longstanding liberal policies. Their ``Build Back Broke'' agenda was 6 feet under, and they saw a must-pass national security bill as a convenient way to resurrect it. Their partisan legislation known as the COMPETES Act, included handouts for labor unions, a key supporter for the Democratic Party. The labor bosses were promised some pretty big benefits that never came to pass, and this was the way that House Democrats saw to respond. They also tacked on a range of unrelated partisan provisions, like an $8 billion payment to a U.N. climate slush fund, which has provided more than $100 million to China. The stated purpose of our efforts in USICA--the United States Innovation and Competition Act--has been to counter threats from China, not to subsidize them with taxpayer dollars, which apparently is what the House has chosen to do. Well, throughout the conference committee process, Republicans have pushed back against the long list of unrelated and downright harmful provisions. This bill should be about safeguarding our critical supply chains and strengthening our competitiveness, not doling out partisan political favors. Negotiations have made progress, but, frankly, we are running out of time, and time is of the essence. Last month, more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. And we are seeing signs that a failure to act will lead to these critical investments being made not in the United States but outside of the United States, just the opposite of what we hoped to attain. A company called GlobalWafers is planning to build a silicon wafer factory in Sherman, TX, that would create up to 1,500 jobs and produce 1.2 million wafers a month. These silicon wafers are an essential component of semiconductors. But last month, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said the CEO told her that the plan was contingent on Congress passing the CHIPS Act funding. Unless the funding is approved by the August recess, the company will scrap plans for the facility. A couple of weeks ago, the CEO of Intel expressed a similar sentiment. He said the company could expand chip production in Europe instead of the United States if Congress fails to pass this funding. So the stakes are high, as is the need to move quickly, but apparently none of that matters to the majority leader and House Democrats. They have chosen to ignore this rapidly closing window of opportunity and the national security risks associated with the current chip shortage. They have chosen to ignore the jobs and investments this bill would bring to States all across this country. They have chosen to ignore the symphony of voices from across the spectrum who want to get this done. And for what? Apparently, another unwanted and unnecessary partisan spending spree--this trillion-dollar proposal known as a reconciliation bill, which is a spinoff of Build Back Better, which I affectionately call ``Build Back Broke.'' This proposal would attack oil and gas producers at a time when gas prices remain at record highs, and one of the most urgent needs of everyday, working American families is to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump so they can afford to take their kids to school and go to work. Yet the partisan reconciliation bill that the majority leader contemplates bringing up would actually make that problem worse, not better. This partisan reconciliation bill would also increase taxes on American families, as their budgets are already being pummeled by inflation. And it could be that we are already in a recession, technically defined as two quarters of negative GDP. Well, one thing President Obama recognized back after the great recession of 2008, is it is not a time to raise taxes, and apparently the current Biden administration did not learn that lesson, nor did the majority leader. This bill would simply make inflation worse, not better. Why the Democratic leader has prioritized partisan politics over sound, bipartisan policy is lost on me. Why he would elevate partisanship above national security is lost on me. And why he would show contempt for the challenges families are facing due to failed policies of the Biden administration is lost on me. But now he is doubling down. His decision to pursue this partisan reconciliation bill won't just hurt families, it risks our ability to pass critical CHIPS funding on a timely basis. To reiterate the words of the Republican leader: There will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Our Democratic colleagues cannot spend their mornings working on a purely partisan spending spree for the next 4 weeks and expect Republicans to work with them on a bipartisan bill in the afternoon. We simply don't have time for these antics. Bipartisan conference negotiations require compromise and confidence that the person sitting across the table from you is negotiating in good faith. Senator Schumer's tactics have jeopardized the good faith that has driven this process up until now. From the beginning, what was originally known as Endless Frontiers to now the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA--this has been a big bipartisan effort. Two years ago, I introduced the CHIPS for America Act with Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on which I sit, and a Democrat. We worked in good faith to get it signed into law as part of the national defense reuthorization act. And we all worked together--68 of us--to make sure that the bill was funded through the bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. And more recently, I have been trying to help broker an agreement that can get this bill signed into law as part of the conference committee process. My desire to fund the CHIPS Act has not changed, but Senator Schumer's choices have taken an already difficult job and made it nearly impossible. He is trying to turn what has been a bipartisan process into a partisan exercise. I hope the Democratic leader will reconsider and will abandon his partisan spending spree so that we can spend the next 3 weeks passing the CHIPS funding as part of the USICA with broad bipartisan support. This is a matter of national security and economic competitiveness, and it should not become a victim of partisan games. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3194 | null | 4,661 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, during the immediate past recess, the bipartisan conference committee negotiations over the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, otherwise known as USICA, have officially come to a screeching halt. It has been more than a year since the Senate actually passed this bill--more than a year. Eight months later, House Democrats passed their own partisan bill, which looked more like the failed ``Build Back Broke'' agenda, rather than a serious attempt to protect our national security by countering the Chinese threat. And earlier this summer, a conference committee was appointed and began negotiating a compromise bill that would finally fund the CHIPS Act and make other critical investments in our national security and competitiveness. Of course, the CHIPS Act was designed to try to bring back on shore American manufacturing of advanced semiconductors, which I will talk more about in a moment. But with the CHIPS funding on the five-yard line, the majority leader, the Senator from New York, has tossed a grenade into the end zone. And why would you possibly jeopardize such an important national security priority? Apparently, so Democrats can try to, yet again, pass their unpopular social welfare bill that doesn't even appear to have universal Democratic support. Forget the bipartisan bill to safeguard our national security; forget commonsense safeguards to protect our most critical supply chains; forget new American manufacturing jobs and big investments in States all across the country. Senator Schumer has chosen to revive the ``Build Back Broke'' bill because we are just months from an election where polls suggest that his party is going to get swept out of control and then instead of majority leader, he will become the minority leader. So let's take a moment to recall how we happened to get here. More than 2 years ago, Congress began working to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing and address a major supply chain vulnerability. Semiconductors or microcircuits underpin all of the modern technology we depend upon every day: the cell phones in our pockets, the cars in our driveways, the tractors our farmers drive, and missile systems that our troops use abroad. Chips keep us safe; they keep us connected; and they ensure that we have fresh food, clean water, and a way to get to work every day. The United States relies on strong supplies of semiconductors, and we lead the way in chip design, but here is the kicker. While we lead the way in chip design, we outsource the actual manufacturing abroad. That is right. We manufacture none of the world's most advanced chips--zero. Seventy-five percent of these chips come from East Asia, and a whopping 90 percent of them are made in Taiwan. Given the explicit threat of war by the Chinese Communist Party against Taiwan, that is a grave cause for concern. Furthermore, having just lived through a pandemic, consider what another pandemic or natural disaster might do to disrupt the supply chain of these critical semiconductors. And when you consider the fact that global chip demand is expected to increase by 56 percent over the next decade, it is clear that the problem is going to get worse. A major disruption in our global chip supply would halt manufacturing on everything from laptop computers to cars, to anti-tank Javelin missiles being used in Ukraine against Russian aggressors. This is a matter of both economic and national security, which is why addressing the chip shortage has been a bipartisan priority. In 2020, 96 Senators supported passing the CHIPS for America Act as part of the national defense authorization bill. That was way back in 2020. And it took less than 6 months from the time it became law until the Senate passed a bill to fund the CHIPS Program. That bill was called the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate with a vote of 68 to 32. Despite the broad bipartisan support for the CHIPS Program, the House refused to pass the Senate bill not because it was a bad bill, but because it wasn't a partisan grab bag that provided billions for longstanding liberal policies. Their ``Build Back Broke'' agenda was 6 feet under, and they saw a must-pass national security bill as a convenient way to resurrect it. Their partisan legislation known as the COMPETES Act, included handouts for labor unions, a key supporter for the Democratic Party. The labor bosses were promised some pretty big benefits that never came to pass, and this was the way that House Democrats saw to respond. They also tacked on a range of unrelated partisan provisions, like an $8 billion payment to a U.N. climate slush fund, which has provided more than $100 million to China. The stated purpose of our efforts in USICA--the United States Innovation and Competition Act--has been to counter threats from China, not to subsidize them with taxpayer dollars, which apparently is what the House has chosen to do. Well, throughout the conference committee process, Republicans have pushed back against the long list of unrelated and downright harmful provisions. This bill should be about safeguarding our critical supply chains and strengthening our competitiveness, not doling out partisan political favors. Negotiations have made progress, but, frankly, we are running out of time, and time is of the essence. Last month, more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. And we are seeing signs that a failure to act will lead to these critical investments being made not in the United States but outside of the United States, just the opposite of what we hoped to attain. A company called GlobalWafers is planning to build a silicon wafer factory in Sherman, TX, that would create up to 1,500 jobs and produce 1.2 million wafers a month. These silicon wafers are an essential component of semiconductors. But last month, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said the CEO told her that the plan was contingent on Congress passing the CHIPS Act funding. Unless the funding is approved by the August recess, the company will scrap plans for the facility. A couple of weeks ago, the CEO of Intel expressed a similar sentiment. He said the company could expand chip production in Europe instead of the United States if Congress fails to pass this funding. So the stakes are high, as is the need to move quickly, but apparently none of that matters to the majority leader and House Democrats. They have chosen to ignore this rapidly closing window of opportunity and the national security risks associated with the current chip shortage. They have chosen to ignore the jobs and investments this bill would bring to States all across this country. They have chosen to ignore the symphony of voices from across the spectrum who want to get this done. And for what? Apparently, another unwanted and unnecessary partisan spending spree--this trillion-dollar proposal known as a reconciliation bill, which is a spinoff of Build Back Better, which I affectionately call ``Build Back Broke.'' This proposal would attack oil and gas producers at a time when gas prices remain at record highs, and one of the most urgent needs of everyday, working American families is to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump so they can afford to take their kids to school and go to work. Yet the partisan reconciliation bill that the majority leader contemplates bringing up would actually make that problem worse, not better. This partisan reconciliation bill would also increase taxes on American families, as their budgets are already being pummeled by inflation. And it could be that we are already in a recession, technically defined as two quarters of negative GDP. Well, one thing President Obama recognized back after the great recession of 2008, is it is not a time to raise taxes, and apparently the current Biden administration did not learn that lesson, nor did the majority leader. This bill would simply make inflation worse, not better. Why the Democratic leader has prioritized partisan politics over sound, bipartisan policy is lost on me. Why he would elevate partisanship above national security is lost on me. And why he would show contempt for the challenges families are facing due to failed policies of the Biden administration is lost on me. But now he is doubling down. His decision to pursue this partisan reconciliation bill won't just hurt families, it risks our ability to pass critical CHIPS funding on a timely basis. To reiterate the words of the Republican leader: There will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Our Democratic colleagues cannot spend their mornings working on a purely partisan spending spree for the next 4 weeks and expect Republicans to work with them on a bipartisan bill in the afternoon. We simply don't have time for these antics. Bipartisan conference negotiations require compromise and confidence that the person sitting across the table from you is negotiating in good faith. Senator Schumer's tactics have jeopardized the good faith that has driven this process up until now. From the beginning, what was originally known as Endless Frontiers to now the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA--this has been a big bipartisan effort. Two years ago, I introduced the CHIPS for America Act with Senator Warner, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on which I sit, and a Democrat. We worked in good faith to get it signed into law as part of the national defense reuthorization act. And we all worked together--68 of us--to make sure that the bill was funded through the bipartisan U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. And more recently, I have been trying to help broker an agreement that can get this bill signed into law as part of the conference committee process. My desire to fund the CHIPS Act has not changed, but Senator Schumer's choices have taken an already difficult job and made it nearly impossible. He is trying to turn what has been a bipartisan process into a partisan exercise. I hope the Democratic leader will reconsider and will abandon his partisan spending spree so that we can spend the next 3 weeks passing the CHIPS funding as part of the USICA with broad bipartisan support. This is a matter of national security and economic competitiveness, and it should not become a victim of partisan games. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3194 | null | 4,662 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, St. Joseph Healthcare of Bangor, ME, was founded in 1947 by the Felician Sisters with a mission to support the wellness and healing of a patient's mind, body, and spirit. On this 75th anniversary, I congratulate this outstanding institution for carrying out that mission with expertise and compassion. St. Joseph is a 112-bed acute care community hospital that brings together primary care providers and specialists focused on delivering personalized medicine in more than 30 departments. It is a member of Covenant Health, an innovative, Catholic regional health delivery network that is a leader in values-based, not-for-profit health and elder care. The St. Joseph story began in 1855 in Warsaw, Poland, when Blessed Angela founded the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Felix, an order dedicated to serving the poor, the sick, and the disabled. The Felician Sisters were founded with a particular focus on serving the Polish countryside. St. Joseph Healthcare continues that tradition by its efforts to ensure healthcare services for rural Maine. St. Joseph's contributions as a healthcare provider are enormous but only part of its mission. The hospital's facilities have been applied to such needs as providing laundry and food services to the area's homeless shelters. A food pantry, an elementary school backpack program, and a community vegetable exchange stand help alleviate food insecurity. St. Joseph's Closet provides patients who are being discharged with needed clothing. The Blessing Bag program provides food, winter clothing, and basic personal hygiene items to homeless emergency room patients. Countless other acts of kindness complement the St. Joseph mission of meeting the spiritual and religious needs of patients regardless of their beliefs and traditions or spirituality. The 16th century Capuchin friar canonized St. Felix was known in his time as ``the saint of the streets of Rome'' for his daily journeys through the city dispensing food, medicine, and comfort to the poor, the sick, and the troubled. The dedicated staff and leadership of St. Joseph Healthcare continue that legacy through the streets of Bangor and the country roads of Maine, and I thank them for their blessed service. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. COLLINS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3198-4 | null | 4,663 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to share a few words today to honor an outstanding leader and friend of mine who recently passed away. Eric Feaver was a force in Montana and a lifelong advocate for educators across our State. He was the former president of Montana's teacher's union who devoted more than 40 years to improving the State's public school system. His commitment to Montana's workingfamilies was tangible and had a profound impact on public policy. It is safe to say the Treasure State wouldn't be what it is today without him. As a fierce advocate for the labor movement, Eric was an inspiration to fellow labor leaders, politicians, teachers, students, and community members alike. It takes a lot these days to reach across party lines, but Eric consistently worked with those who held different views. Just ask some of the folks who worked with Eric. They will tell you, even though they didn't always agree with him, they respected him. Raised in Oklahoma and sent to Vietnam as a conscientious objector and U.S. Army combat medic at the age of 23, Eric first planted roots in Montana when he landed a teaching job at Helena Junior High School in 1974. It didn't take long for Eric to find his way into the State's labor movement, where he would spend nearly 50 years helping shape education and union policy. As a result of Eric's charisma and expertise, he was elected president of the Montana Education Association in 1984, and in 2000, he led MEA to a monumental merger with the Montana Federation of Teachers. As president of MEA-MFT, Eric spearheaded another major merger, which resulted in the creation of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, an organization that today represents more than 25,000 public sector employees. Over the years, Eric continued to bring together folks across Montana. And he managed to do a lot of good for the State's workforce and public schools in the process. But even more than his accomplishments, I think Eric will be remembered for his passion--his genuine commitment to making the Treasure State a better, fairer place to live and work. I am lucky to have called Eric a friend. His legacy and his friendship have left a lasting imprint on me and so many others. I extend my deepest condolences to Eric's wife, Ellen; their two daughters, Amity and Ashley; two sons-in-law, Rich and TJ; grandchildren, Tristin, Cameron, Braden, Halo, Ethan, and Oliver; and his brothers, Douglas and Edward. While Eric is no longer with us, he will go down in Montana history as one of the State's greatest labor leaders and champions of public education. He will be sorely missed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3199-3 | null | 4,664 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to share a few words today to honor an outstanding leader and friend of mine who recently passed away. Eric Feaver was a force in Montana and a lifelong advocate for educators across our State. He was the former president of Montana's teacher's union who devoted more than 40 years to improving the State's public school system. His commitment to Montana's workingfamilies was tangible and had a profound impact on public policy. It is safe to say the Treasure State wouldn't be what it is today without him. As a fierce advocate for the labor movement, Eric was an inspiration to fellow labor leaders, politicians, teachers, students, and community members alike. It takes a lot these days to reach across party lines, but Eric consistently worked with those who held different views. Just ask some of the folks who worked with Eric. They will tell you, even though they didn't always agree with him, they respected him. Raised in Oklahoma and sent to Vietnam as a conscientious objector and U.S. Army combat medic at the age of 23, Eric first planted roots in Montana when he landed a teaching job at Helena Junior High School in 1974. It didn't take long for Eric to find his way into the State's labor movement, where he would spend nearly 50 years helping shape education and union policy. As a result of Eric's charisma and expertise, he was elected president of the Montana Education Association in 1984, and in 2000, he led MEA to a monumental merger with the Montana Federation of Teachers. As president of MEA-MFT, Eric spearheaded another major merger, which resulted in the creation of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, an organization that today represents more than 25,000 public sector employees. Over the years, Eric continued to bring together folks across Montana. And he managed to do a lot of good for the State's workforce and public schools in the process. But even more than his accomplishments, I think Eric will be remembered for his passion--his genuine commitment to making the Treasure State a better, fairer place to live and work. I am lucky to have called Eric a friend. His legacy and his friendship have left a lasting imprint on me and so many others. I extend my deepest condolences to Eric's wife, Ellen; their two daughters, Amity and Ashley; two sons-in-law, Rich and TJ; grandchildren, Tristin, Cameron, Braden, Halo, Ethan, and Oliver; and his brothers, Douglas and Edward. While Eric is no longer with us, he will go down in Montana history as one of the State's greatest labor leaders and champions of public education. He will be sorely missed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3199-3 | null | 4,665 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. I also come to the floor today, as was noted, to talk about Ukraine. Russia's brutal assault continues. We must do more here, not just in the United States but around the world, to help Ukraine stand up to this brutality. This marks the 17th consecutive week in session that I have been on the floor to discuss the unprovoked illegal and deadly assault on the people of Ukraine. This invasion started 138 days ago, and it is more critical than ever that the United States and our allies support the efforts of Ukraine to defend itself against this assault. Let me just recap briefly the situation on the ground. A lot has happened since we talked a couple of weeks ago. First, here in the north, you can see the light blue, which is the Ukrainian advances. The Ukrainians have been successful in pushing back against the Russian offensive and taking back some of the territory around the city of Kharkiv. This is a critical area, obviously. Kharkiv is the sister city of my hometown, Cincinnati, OH. I was involved in that sister city arrangement 40 years ago, and it is a beautiful city. It has been almost flattened by the unending and barbaric attacks from Russia. In the outskirts of Kharkiv, again, Ukrainian forces are not just holding the line but also making gradual advances, same as through here, in Kherson. You can see there is, again, the light blue here that indicates where the Ukrainians have made progress here in the south. In the south and in Kharkiv, there has been progress made. This is very important in the south here because, as you know, Russia's goal is to try to shut off the entire Black Sea from Ukraine being able to access and, therefore, to continue to be one of the great exporters of the world. They have blocked any passage here of the ships that could be sending wheat and other grains to the rest of the world, including to Africa, where they are very dependent on Ukrainian wheat to keep people from starving, and yet the Russians are blocking these. But these cities are still in the control of Ukraine, and it is essential that continue, that Russia not create a landlocked Ukraine, which would, over the long term, be incredibly detrimental to the economy of Ukraine. It is vital that they do well there. I will say, though, that here in the east, it is a different situation. Here is Donetsk and Luhansk, the Donbas region. Here is where Russia has made incremental progress in the last couple of weeks, using, again, bombs and missiles that are flattening cities, killing civilians. This city of Severodonetsk, you have heard about--it is about right here--has fallen to the Russian forces after a months-long battle in the last couple of weeks. Its twin city, Lysychansk, which is also in this region, has also fallen, completing Russia's brutal conquest of what is called the Luhansk region. So Donetsk is still partly in Russian control--partly not. Luhansk is now in Russian control. But it is important to remember this: Russia paid dearly for every inch of Luhansk--by the way, much of which they flattened. They literally destroyed before occupying it. They lost troops, and they lost military equipment. But, significantly, because taking this area required massive amounts of resources from Russia, it drew attention away from the north--Kharkiv, as we saw, and down here in Kherson. So it enabled these brave Ukrainian forces in these other places to make progress, not just to hold out against the overwhelming Russian onslaught but to make progress. The Russians have now announced they are in an ``operational pause,'' meaning they are claiming they are going to stop their large-scale offenses until their soldiers have rested. But as in the past, they can't be trusted. And, in fact, small-scale offensive missile strikes and rocket attacks continue all along this front line. We also must not downplay even what these sporadic strikes can do. Consider the tragedy that occurred about 2 weeks ago at a shopping mall in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk. This is in central Ukraine, the area we just talked about. As more than 1,000 innocent Ukrainian civilians shopped with their friends and families at this shopping mall, a Russian strategic bomber launched a large Kh-22 missile. Now, this is a long-range, nuclear-capable missile that was initially designed to destroy aircraft carriers--aircraft carriers--and they shot it into the middle of a shopping mall--turned it into a burning inferno. You can see here in this photograph. As a result of the explosion and the fire, 20 people were killed immediately, and more than 50 were wounded. Dozens more were declared missing. We are still getting the final numbers from this horrific tragedy, but it occurred during the summit of the so-called G7. That is the group of developed countries, larger economies--Japan, United States, and a few European countries--who were meeting to talk about the issue of Russia and Ukraine, among other things. The G7 rightfully condemned this atrocity as ``an abominable attack,'' an attack on civilians in a shopping mall. Just yesterday evening in Chasiv, Chasiv Yar, which is a residential town in eastern Ukraine, a Russian rocket attack struck an apartment complex and killed at least 15 people. More than 20 people are believed to be trapped in the rubble as emergency workers continue to work today to be able to free those who were trapped, to try to rescue innocent civilians who are under attack. Again, this is an apartment complex. People are trapped inside it, even as we talk. These barbaric, cowardly, long-range missile attacks on civilian targets have to be condemned by all of us, but they have to be stopped in two ways. One is by providing Ukrainians what they need in terms of anti-aircraft, anti-missile technology, but also by giving the Ukrainians the ability to use these longer-range missiles themselves. Right now, the Russians can sit back with impunity and launch these attacks. I join the people of Ukraine in mourning for the loss of these innocent civilians at the hands of Russia's cruelty. The terror, by the way, that is caused by these attacks is not an accident. It is part of the Russian war plan, to cause terror. Striking civilian targets is certainly one thing they are doing. Continuing to blockade those Black Sea ports I talked about is another one, increasing the economic cost of this war on the Ukrainian people. This is one reason why, by the way, a couple of weeks ago just before we left for the recess, we had a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a resolution to name Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. That passed on a bipartisan basis, and my hope is that it comes here to the floor of the U.S. Senate, so we can all go on record, again, condemning what is going on over there and making it clear that Russia has become a pariah country, that this is not normal behavior, even in the tragedy of war. Striking civilian targets deliberately is, unfortunately, continuing day in and day out. In response to these brutal acts, the bravery and effectiveness of the Ukrainian defenders has been impressive but not surprising. Think about it. They are defending their families. They are also defending freedom, defending their homeland. The stakes of this war are high, and the fate of a sovereign country hangs in the balance. But I will say today, it is not just about Ukraine, as important as that is. It is bigger than that because, if President Putin is successful in taking more of Ukraine than he already controls--let's see the map again. If he does, in fact, expand beyond what he has already done, taking Crimea, taking this area of Luhansk andDonetsk, taking the southern part of Ukraine, he is not going to stop there. I don't think anybody believes that or is so naive to believe that. In 2016, he stated, ``The borders of Russia never end.'' This was after he attacked Ukraine the first time. That was in 2016. In a speech claiming victory in May of this year, President Putin painted Ukrainians as Nazis. Remember, the President of Ukraine is Jewish. His family went through the ordeal of the Holocaust. But he was painting Ukrainians somehow as Nazis, saying that the invasion of Ukraine was inevitable and that he was forced into this conflict by NATO. NATO is not an offensive association; it is strictly defensive. The disinformation and lies also come from those around him. Vladimir Medinsky, one of President Putin's senior advisers, lamented that Russia's territory was greatly diminished from the time when Moscow controlled more than 14 currently independent nations, including Finland and Poland. This territorial retreat ``is not forever,'' he said. Europeans are waking up to this one-time unimaginable threat. According to a European Council on Foreign Relations opinion poll conducted 2 months ago, a possible Russian invasion of their nation is seen as one of the top three threats now by 53 percent of Swedes, 54 percent of Romanians, and 40 percent of Germans. I was just in Romania a few weeks ago and got to hear from Romanians directly about this concern. I also went to Moldova, where there is even more of a concern because there is a Russian-occupied area called Transnistria right along their country. So what can be done to stop and reverse the Russian gains here in the east? The most important issue to me is to help these brave Ukrainians be able to defend themselves by giving them the weapons to level the playing field with Russia so they are not constantly outgunned. I have heard this from President Zelenskyy. We have all heard it from Russian forces that they are making some progress in the east because they have these weapons, these missiles, and the Ukrainians do not. We also heard about this from members of the European Parliament who came here to visit us about 3 weeks ago, came to the Ukraine Caucus. We talked about the caucus earlier. We also heard from some fighter pilots who came about 2-and-a-half weeks ago and met with our Ukrainian Caucus. What they need are the weapons to be able to respond. Their words have been explicit and direct: Russian artillery outguns theirs in terms of range, in terms of accuracy. They can sit back and fire on the Ukrainians' military and civilian targets, and the Ukrainians cannot respond. They cannot reach them. Ukraine needs advanced Western rocket artillery systems to even those odds. Thankfully, the United States and several of our allies have these exact systems. The UK has some systems. Germany has some systems. Over the past month, the United States has provided Ukraine with several of what are called HIMARS or high mobility artillery rocket systems. We have got hundreds of these in our inventory, by the way, and many of which are not with active units, in other words, they would be available. These are superior to Russian artillery in almost every way: mobility, reload time, accuracy, and most importantly, range. And yet, during Ukraine's hour of need, we continue to move too slowly. In the initial tranche of HIMARS, say about 6 weeks ago, only four of these units were announced. They are now in service, as we understand it, and they are working. Four more were announced a few weeks ago, and another four were announced this past Friday. Reports are these are still in transit. They are not yet being used to protect these Ukrainian civilians who are being bombed. They need more, and they need them now. Several have come from Germany and from the UK; but they need more, and they need them now. How many do they need? It depends who you talk to, but the Ukrainian military officials who have spoken out on this, who are the experts, say they need at least 48 of these systems to be able to begin to turn the tables in the east. The United States is now committed to 12; only 4 are definitely in place. We need to move faster. Apparently, there was a lot of discussion within the Agencies, within the White House, about whether to do this or not; that is what took longer for these HIMARS to be approved. My view is we have had the dialogue. These systems are no more escalatory than Javelins were or other weapons. These are defensive weapons. These are the ability for Ukraine to defend itself, and I hope we can continue to provide them and move more quickly. They are working. They are proving their worth. Let me show you a photograph of what HIMARS can do to Russian logistics. These are images of Russian ammunition dumps exploding after reportedly being struck by missiles from a HIMARS system. Previously, Ukraine could not reach these munition dumps, but now with HIMARS, they can. Striking these ammo dumps can have a devastating impact on Russian forces. These are depots of weapons that are behind the Russian lines but in the country of Ukraine. And, finally, they can access them. Striking them is going to have a devastating impact. According to Serhii Kuzan, the chairman of the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center in Kyiv, Ukraine has used HIMARS rockets to now destroy 20 warehouses of Russian artillery ammunition. As I said earlier, Russian soldiers are currently in an ``operational pause'' to recover and resupply before future offenses, so they say, but they cannot resupply without ammunition. So destroying these hubs will set Russia's timetables back and buy Ukraine more time to prepare and to receive more Western military equipment like the HIMARS. These pictures are exactly the proof we need to show that what we are sending is now making a difference. Imagine what they could do if they had enough to be able to truly push back. These HIMARS systems arrived in Ukraine too late to avoid some of the damage that we have been talking about today and, certainly, some of these cities, like Severodonetsk we talked about that has now fallen to the Russians or Lysychansk, which has fallen to the Russians. They arrived too late for the thousands of brave Ukrainians who were killed and wounded defending those cities. If we don't act quickly, then future HIMARS rockets will arrive too late to save more Ukrainian citizens, more Ukrainian soldiers, more Ukrainian innocents. Time is of the essence, and I urge the administration not to delay. Again, I am pleased they are getting those weapons in. I wish it had been sooner. And we now have to encourage more and faster. When people, understandably, ask about our support for Ukraine, our taxpayer-funded aid to the tune of billions of dollars, they deserve to know that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. In my view, that means spending it on weapons like HIMARS that are actually making a difference on the battlefield. I believe the aid that we and our allies are providing is a wise investment that will pay dividends over time, but let's provide them the right aid. Ukrainians are defending their country with bravery and skill, exceeding all expectations, and they are ensuring that their country is not being handed over to President Putin. We have to assure them that the United States and their allies are doing all we can to help them save their country. We know that making any territorial concessions to Russia would only embolden President Putin and other future would-be conquerors. The lesson that they would learn is that with enough patience they can wear down the West and get what we want. So I was pleased to see 2 weeks ago, when the leaders of the so-called G7 countries--again, U.S., Japan, European countries--stated: We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We saw how territorial concessions in the late 1930s only increased Nazi Germany's appetite, and this is clearly no different. Russia's goals are not limited to just the Donbas or southern Ukraine. President Zelenskyy clearly understands this. He said to CNN recently: Ukrainians are not ready to give away their land, to accept that these territories belong to Russia. This is our land. I could not agree more. In fact, it goes beyond Ukraine. President Putin will conquer as much of the former Soviet empire as we let him. We must stop him here in Ukraine. With regard to sanctions, the EU is still using Russian oil and gas, sending roughly $870 million a day to help fund the Russian war machine. We have the capacity here in the United States to help our partners and shore up our domestic energy production--not only important for Americans to get the cost of gas down with more supply, but also critical for our allies. We are seeing some small progress, but much more needs to be done to reduce this reliance on Russian energy. By the end of this year, we expect coal and oil to be phased out. The United States must do its part and increase our energy production, while at the same time be a leader in developing new energy technologies that can help reduce emissions and increase national as well as global security. This is not either or. It should be all of the above. We should be producing what we need right now to ensure that Europe can stop its dependency on Russia and sending this almost a billion dollars a day to fund the war machine, but at the same time we should be producing energy from all sources, including green energy, including nuclear energy. And like sanctions and military aid, when the United States leads, the world tends to follow. But most importantly, our allies and enemies watch us. This is true with regard to a revived NATO right now. In fact, in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as we talked about earlier, both Sweden and Finland have applied to join NATO, shrugging off long histories of neutrality. In Brussels, NATO Ambassadors, on July 5, signed the accession protocols that put them a step closer. Now, all 30 NATO nations will review their applications for ratification. Canada, Estonia, Denmark, Norway, and Germany have already ratified Finland and Sweden's applications. Let's join them. Let's do it this week. Let's do it through an expedited procedure and just get it done. I look forward to voting in favor of those applications in committee and on the floor. We cannot forget that Russia has claimed this war started because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Of course, they did. They reaffirmed that in 2014 when they threw off a corrupt Russia-backed government. They are looking westward to Europe, to us, to freedom, to democracy. They want to join NATO and the European Union and form ever-closer bonds with the transatlantic community. I have long believed that NATO deserved a NATO membership action plan to provide a clear path to eventual NATO membership, and they have made significant progress in doing this. This brutal invasion is just Russia's latest attempt to throw that progress off course. We must not be deterred. Now, as we enter the fifth month of this war--I have come down here every week to talk about it--we have seen the resilience and the fortitude of the Ukrainians. Even as their brothers and husbands go to fight for the homeland, the women of Ukraine are incredibly brave as well, and I have seen them at the border with Poland; I have seen them at the border with Moldova; and I have seen them as they come to the United States and talk about what is going on in their country. They know this is the fight, during our generation, where democracy is on the line. How this war develops will have far-reaching impact on the entire globe. In Ohio, I see this all the time. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Cleveland for what was called ``Amplify the Voice: A Benefit Concert for Ukraine.'' We had 1,000 people come to this beautiful Severance Hall, which is the music center for the Cleveland Orchestra, and one of the premier orchestras in the world, by the way. They made the center available to the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus to perform to, again, an audience of people who were Ukrainian Americans but also from every nationality, particularly the nationalities communities, as we call them in Cleveland, which would be people from Eastern and Central Europe who understand the importance of this fight. So Lithuanians were there; Poles were there; Romanians were there; Hungarians were there--people from all over the region. The concert raised funds for the United Ukrainian Organizations of Ohio's Fund to Aid Ukraine. They are doing great work. It is amazing how many people who spoke who are doing something to help with regard to Ukraine--medical supplies, armored vests, helping with regard to emergency supplies just so people can have enough food to get by when they are subject to some of these bombings we have seen today. We also heard a beautiful concert. Ukrainians of all stripes certainly understand what is going on and why this is so important and have for a long time because they know what it is like to live under the thumb of authoritarianism. They broke away from it many times during their history and again more recently in 1991 and again in 2014. I was in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, where Ukrainians decided for themselves that they wanted to turn away from Russian domination and turn to us. I believe we can help them win this time. I am confident of it. That is why I have introduced a bipartisan resolution with Senators Manchin, Murkowski, and Hassan to recognize the U.S. commitment to help rebuild Ukraine. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, more than 7 million civilians have fled their homeland, and there has been about $600 billion worth of damage to Ukraine's infrastructure. By the way, those refugees, those civilians whom I have met--they all want to go home. And in a sense, it is not perfect to call them refugees because they are really just Ukrainians who are temporarily forced to leave their country, but they all want to go home and rebuild Ukraine. It is not just a human toll we see captured in images and videos, but people's homes and livelihoods have vanished overnight. So they are going to need help. The countries of the free world are with us, and we have to be sure that they step up, including some countries that were less comfortable providing military assistance that are providing more monetary assistance--some of those countries are really going to need to step up in terms of helping to get Ukraine back on its feet. Now is not the time for us to back away. We have to be able to win this militarily and then begin the rebuilding. It is not a time for us to be tentative or equivocal. At this critical juncture, let's lead our allies to provide what Ukraine needs to protect their homeland and to defend democracy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3204 | null | 4,666 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. I also come to the floor today, as was noted, to talk about Ukraine. Russia's brutal assault continues. We must do more here, not just in the United States but around the world, to help Ukraine stand up to this brutality. This marks the 17th consecutive week in session that I have been on the floor to discuss the unprovoked illegal and deadly assault on the people of Ukraine. This invasion started 138 days ago, and it is more critical than ever that the United States and our allies support the efforts of Ukraine to defend itself against this assault. Let me just recap briefly the situation on the ground. A lot has happened since we talked a couple of weeks ago. First, here in the north, you can see the light blue, which is the Ukrainian advances. The Ukrainians have been successful in pushing back against the Russian offensive and taking back some of the territory around the city of Kharkiv. This is a critical area, obviously. Kharkiv is the sister city of my hometown, Cincinnati, OH. I was involved in that sister city arrangement 40 years ago, and it is a beautiful city. It has been almost flattened by the unending and barbaric attacks from Russia. In the outskirts of Kharkiv, again, Ukrainian forces are not just holding the line but also making gradual advances, same as through here, in Kherson. You can see there is, again, the light blue here that indicates where the Ukrainians have made progress here in the south. In the south and in Kharkiv, there has been progress made. This is very important in the south here because, as you know, Russia's goal is to try to shut off the entire Black Sea from Ukraine being able to access and, therefore, to continue to be one of the great exporters of the world. They have blocked any passage here of the ships that could be sending wheat and other grains to the rest of the world, including to Africa, where they are very dependent on Ukrainian wheat to keep people from starving, and yet the Russians are blocking these. But these cities are still in the control of Ukraine, and it is essential that continue, that Russia not create a landlocked Ukraine, which would, over the long term, be incredibly detrimental to the economy of Ukraine. It is vital that they do well there. I will say, though, that here in the east, it is a different situation. Here is Donetsk and Luhansk, the Donbas region. Here is where Russia has made incremental progress in the last couple of weeks, using, again, bombs and missiles that are flattening cities, killing civilians. This city of Severodonetsk, you have heard about--it is about right here--has fallen to the Russian forces after a months-long battle in the last couple of weeks. Its twin city, Lysychansk, which is also in this region, has also fallen, completing Russia's brutal conquest of what is called the Luhansk region. So Donetsk is still partly in Russian control--partly not. Luhansk is now in Russian control. But it is important to remember this: Russia paid dearly for every inch of Luhansk--by the way, much of which they flattened. They literally destroyed before occupying it. They lost troops, and they lost military equipment. But, significantly, because taking this area required massive amounts of resources from Russia, it drew attention away from the north--Kharkiv, as we saw, and down here in Kherson. So it enabled these brave Ukrainian forces in these other places to make progress, not just to hold out against the overwhelming Russian onslaught but to make progress. The Russians have now announced they are in an ``operational pause,'' meaning they are claiming they are going to stop their large-scale offenses until their soldiers have rested. But as in the past, they can't be trusted. And, in fact, small-scale offensive missile strikes and rocket attacks continue all along this front line. We also must not downplay even what these sporadic strikes can do. Consider the tragedy that occurred about 2 weeks ago at a shopping mall in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk. This is in central Ukraine, the area we just talked about. As more than 1,000 innocent Ukrainian civilians shopped with their friends and families at this shopping mall, a Russian strategic bomber launched a large Kh-22 missile. Now, this is a long-range, nuclear-capable missile that was initially designed to destroy aircraft carriers--aircraft carriers--and they shot it into the middle of a shopping mall--turned it into a burning inferno. You can see here in this photograph. As a result of the explosion and the fire, 20 people were killed immediately, and more than 50 were wounded. Dozens more were declared missing. We are still getting the final numbers from this horrific tragedy, but it occurred during the summit of the so-called G7. That is the group of developed countries, larger economies--Japan, United States, and a few European countries--who were meeting to talk about the issue of Russia and Ukraine, among other things. The G7 rightfully condemned this atrocity as ``an abominable attack,'' an attack on civilians in a shopping mall. Just yesterday evening in Chasiv, Chasiv Yar, which is a residential town in eastern Ukraine, a Russian rocket attack struck an apartment complex and killed at least 15 people. More than 20 people are believed to be trapped in the rubble as emergency workers continue to work today to be able to free those who were trapped, to try to rescue innocent civilians who are under attack. Again, this is an apartment complex. People are trapped inside it, even as we talk. These barbaric, cowardly, long-range missile attacks on civilian targets have to be condemned by all of us, but they have to be stopped in two ways. One is by providing Ukrainians what they need in terms of anti-aircraft, anti-missile technology, but also by giving the Ukrainians the ability to use these longer-range missiles themselves. Right now, the Russians can sit back with impunity and launch these attacks. I join the people of Ukraine in mourning for the loss of these innocent civilians at the hands of Russia's cruelty. The terror, by the way, that is caused by these attacks is not an accident. It is part of the Russian war plan, to cause terror. Striking civilian targets is certainly one thing they are doing. Continuing to blockade those Black Sea ports I talked about is another one, increasing the economic cost of this war on the Ukrainian people. This is one reason why, by the way, a couple of weeks ago just before we left for the recess, we had a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a resolution to name Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. That passed on a bipartisan basis, and my hope is that it comes here to the floor of the U.S. Senate, so we can all go on record, again, condemning what is going on over there and making it clear that Russia has become a pariah country, that this is not normal behavior, even in the tragedy of war. Striking civilian targets deliberately is, unfortunately, continuing day in and day out. In response to these brutal acts, the bravery and effectiveness of the Ukrainian defenders has been impressive but not surprising. Think about it. They are defending their families. They are also defending freedom, defending their homeland. The stakes of this war are high, and the fate of a sovereign country hangs in the balance. But I will say today, it is not just about Ukraine, as important as that is. It is bigger than that because, if President Putin is successful in taking more of Ukraine than he already controls--let's see the map again. If he does, in fact, expand beyond what he has already done, taking Crimea, taking this area of Luhansk andDonetsk, taking the southern part of Ukraine, he is not going to stop there. I don't think anybody believes that or is so naive to believe that. In 2016, he stated, ``The borders of Russia never end.'' This was after he attacked Ukraine the first time. That was in 2016. In a speech claiming victory in May of this year, President Putin painted Ukrainians as Nazis. Remember, the President of Ukraine is Jewish. His family went through the ordeal of the Holocaust. But he was painting Ukrainians somehow as Nazis, saying that the invasion of Ukraine was inevitable and that he was forced into this conflict by NATO. NATO is not an offensive association; it is strictly defensive. The disinformation and lies also come from those around him. Vladimir Medinsky, one of President Putin's senior advisers, lamented that Russia's territory was greatly diminished from the time when Moscow controlled more than 14 currently independent nations, including Finland and Poland. This territorial retreat ``is not forever,'' he said. Europeans are waking up to this one-time unimaginable threat. According to a European Council on Foreign Relations opinion poll conducted 2 months ago, a possible Russian invasion of their nation is seen as one of the top three threats now by 53 percent of Swedes, 54 percent of Romanians, and 40 percent of Germans. I was just in Romania a few weeks ago and got to hear from Romanians directly about this concern. I also went to Moldova, where there is even more of a concern because there is a Russian-occupied area called Transnistria right along their country. So what can be done to stop and reverse the Russian gains here in the east? The most important issue to me is to help these brave Ukrainians be able to defend themselves by giving them the weapons to level the playing field with Russia so they are not constantly outgunned. I have heard this from President Zelenskyy. We have all heard it from Russian forces that they are making some progress in the east because they have these weapons, these missiles, and the Ukrainians do not. We also heard about this from members of the European Parliament who came here to visit us about 3 weeks ago, came to the Ukraine Caucus. We talked about the caucus earlier. We also heard from some fighter pilots who came about 2-and-a-half weeks ago and met with our Ukrainian Caucus. What they need are the weapons to be able to respond. Their words have been explicit and direct: Russian artillery outguns theirs in terms of range, in terms of accuracy. They can sit back and fire on the Ukrainians' military and civilian targets, and the Ukrainians cannot respond. They cannot reach them. Ukraine needs advanced Western rocket artillery systems to even those odds. Thankfully, the United States and several of our allies have these exact systems. The UK has some systems. Germany has some systems. Over the past month, the United States has provided Ukraine with several of what are called HIMARS or high mobility artillery rocket systems. We have got hundreds of these in our inventory, by the way, and many of which are not with active units, in other words, they would be available. These are superior to Russian artillery in almost every way: mobility, reload time, accuracy, and most importantly, range. And yet, during Ukraine's hour of need, we continue to move too slowly. In the initial tranche of HIMARS, say about 6 weeks ago, only four of these units were announced. They are now in service, as we understand it, and they are working. Four more were announced a few weeks ago, and another four were announced this past Friday. Reports are these are still in transit. They are not yet being used to protect these Ukrainian civilians who are being bombed. They need more, and they need them now. Several have come from Germany and from the UK; but they need more, and they need them now. How many do they need? It depends who you talk to, but the Ukrainian military officials who have spoken out on this, who are the experts, say they need at least 48 of these systems to be able to begin to turn the tables in the east. The United States is now committed to 12; only 4 are definitely in place. We need to move faster. Apparently, there was a lot of discussion within the Agencies, within the White House, about whether to do this or not; that is what took longer for these HIMARS to be approved. My view is we have had the dialogue. These systems are no more escalatory than Javelins were or other weapons. These are defensive weapons. These are the ability for Ukraine to defend itself, and I hope we can continue to provide them and move more quickly. They are working. They are proving their worth. Let me show you a photograph of what HIMARS can do to Russian logistics. These are images of Russian ammunition dumps exploding after reportedly being struck by missiles from a HIMARS system. Previously, Ukraine could not reach these munition dumps, but now with HIMARS, they can. Striking these ammo dumps can have a devastating impact on Russian forces. These are depots of weapons that are behind the Russian lines but in the country of Ukraine. And, finally, they can access them. Striking them is going to have a devastating impact. According to Serhii Kuzan, the chairman of the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center in Kyiv, Ukraine has used HIMARS rockets to now destroy 20 warehouses of Russian artillery ammunition. As I said earlier, Russian soldiers are currently in an ``operational pause'' to recover and resupply before future offenses, so they say, but they cannot resupply without ammunition. So destroying these hubs will set Russia's timetables back and buy Ukraine more time to prepare and to receive more Western military equipment like the HIMARS. These pictures are exactly the proof we need to show that what we are sending is now making a difference. Imagine what they could do if they had enough to be able to truly push back. These HIMARS systems arrived in Ukraine too late to avoid some of the damage that we have been talking about today and, certainly, some of these cities, like Severodonetsk we talked about that has now fallen to the Russians or Lysychansk, which has fallen to the Russians. They arrived too late for the thousands of brave Ukrainians who were killed and wounded defending those cities. If we don't act quickly, then future HIMARS rockets will arrive too late to save more Ukrainian citizens, more Ukrainian soldiers, more Ukrainian innocents. Time is of the essence, and I urge the administration not to delay. Again, I am pleased they are getting those weapons in. I wish it had been sooner. And we now have to encourage more and faster. When people, understandably, ask about our support for Ukraine, our taxpayer-funded aid to the tune of billions of dollars, they deserve to know that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. In my view, that means spending it on weapons like HIMARS that are actually making a difference on the battlefield. I believe the aid that we and our allies are providing is a wise investment that will pay dividends over time, but let's provide them the right aid. Ukrainians are defending their country with bravery and skill, exceeding all expectations, and they are ensuring that their country is not being handed over to President Putin. We have to assure them that the United States and their allies are doing all we can to help them save their country. We know that making any territorial concessions to Russia would only embolden President Putin and other future would-be conquerors. The lesson that they would learn is that with enough patience they can wear down the West and get what we want. So I was pleased to see 2 weeks ago, when the leaders of the so-called G7 countries--again, U.S., Japan, European countries--stated: We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We saw how territorial concessions in the late 1930s only increased Nazi Germany's appetite, and this is clearly no different. Russia's goals are not limited to just the Donbas or southern Ukraine. President Zelenskyy clearly understands this. He said to CNN recently: Ukrainians are not ready to give away their land, to accept that these territories belong to Russia. This is our land. I could not agree more. In fact, it goes beyond Ukraine. President Putin will conquer as much of the former Soviet empire as we let him. We must stop him here in Ukraine. With regard to sanctions, the EU is still using Russian oil and gas, sending roughly $870 million a day to help fund the Russian war machine. We have the capacity here in the United States to help our partners and shore up our domestic energy production--not only important for Americans to get the cost of gas down with more supply, but also critical for our allies. We are seeing some small progress, but much more needs to be done to reduce this reliance on Russian energy. By the end of this year, we expect coal and oil to be phased out. The United States must do its part and increase our energy production, while at the same time be a leader in developing new energy technologies that can help reduce emissions and increase national as well as global security. This is not either or. It should be all of the above. We should be producing what we need right now to ensure that Europe can stop its dependency on Russia and sending this almost a billion dollars a day to fund the war machine, but at the same time we should be producing energy from all sources, including green energy, including nuclear energy. And like sanctions and military aid, when the United States leads, the world tends to follow. But most importantly, our allies and enemies watch us. This is true with regard to a revived NATO right now. In fact, in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as we talked about earlier, both Sweden and Finland have applied to join NATO, shrugging off long histories of neutrality. In Brussels, NATO Ambassadors, on July 5, signed the accession protocols that put them a step closer. Now, all 30 NATO nations will review their applications for ratification. Canada, Estonia, Denmark, Norway, and Germany have already ratified Finland and Sweden's applications. Let's join them. Let's do it this week. Let's do it through an expedited procedure and just get it done. I look forward to voting in favor of those applications in committee and on the floor. We cannot forget that Russia has claimed this war started because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Of course, they did. They reaffirmed that in 2014 when they threw off a corrupt Russia-backed government. They are looking westward to Europe, to us, to freedom, to democracy. They want to join NATO and the European Union and form ever-closer bonds with the transatlantic community. I have long believed that NATO deserved a NATO membership action plan to provide a clear path to eventual NATO membership, and they have made significant progress in doing this. This brutal invasion is just Russia's latest attempt to throw that progress off course. We must not be deterred. Now, as we enter the fifth month of this war--I have come down here every week to talk about it--we have seen the resilience and the fortitude of the Ukrainians. Even as their brothers and husbands go to fight for the homeland, the women of Ukraine are incredibly brave as well, and I have seen them at the border with Poland; I have seen them at the border with Moldova; and I have seen them as they come to the United States and talk about what is going on in their country. They know this is the fight, during our generation, where democracy is on the line. How this war develops will have far-reaching impact on the entire globe. In Ohio, I see this all the time. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Cleveland for what was called ``Amplify the Voice: A Benefit Concert for Ukraine.'' We had 1,000 people come to this beautiful Severance Hall, which is the music center for the Cleveland Orchestra, and one of the premier orchestras in the world, by the way. They made the center available to the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus to perform to, again, an audience of people who were Ukrainian Americans but also from every nationality, particularly the nationalities communities, as we call them in Cleveland, which would be people from Eastern and Central Europe who understand the importance of this fight. So Lithuanians were there; Poles were there; Romanians were there; Hungarians were there--people from all over the region. The concert raised funds for the United Ukrainian Organizations of Ohio's Fund to Aid Ukraine. They are doing great work. It is amazing how many people who spoke who are doing something to help with regard to Ukraine--medical supplies, armored vests, helping with regard to emergency supplies just so people can have enough food to get by when they are subject to some of these bombings we have seen today. We also heard a beautiful concert. Ukrainians of all stripes certainly understand what is going on and why this is so important and have for a long time because they know what it is like to live under the thumb of authoritarianism. They broke away from it many times during their history and again more recently in 1991 and again in 2014. I was in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, where Ukrainians decided for themselves that they wanted to turn away from Russian domination and turn to us. I believe we can help them win this time. I am confident of it. That is why I have introduced a bipartisan resolution with Senators Manchin, Murkowski, and Hassan to recognize the U.S. commitment to help rebuild Ukraine. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, more than 7 million civilians have fled their homeland, and there has been about $600 billion worth of damage to Ukraine's infrastructure. By the way, those refugees, those civilians whom I have met--they all want to go home. And in a sense, it is not perfect to call them refugees because they are really just Ukrainians who are temporarily forced to leave their country, but they all want to go home and rebuild Ukraine. It is not just a human toll we see captured in images and videos, but people's homes and livelihoods have vanished overnight. So they are going to need help. The countries of the free world are with us, and we have to be sure that they step up, including some countries that were less comfortable providing military assistance that are providing more monetary assistance--some of those countries are really going to need to step up in terms of helping to get Ukraine back on its feet. Now is not the time for us to back away. We have to be able to win this militarily and then begin the rebuilding. It is not a time for us to be tentative or equivocal. At this critical juncture, let's lead our allies to provide what Ukraine needs to protect their homeland and to defend democracy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3204 | null | 4,667 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. I also come to the floor today, as was noted, to talk about Ukraine. Russia's brutal assault continues. We must do more here, not just in the United States but around the world, to help Ukraine stand up to this brutality. This marks the 17th consecutive week in session that I have been on the floor to discuss the unprovoked illegal and deadly assault on the people of Ukraine. This invasion started 138 days ago, and it is more critical than ever that the United States and our allies support the efforts of Ukraine to defend itself against this assault. Let me just recap briefly the situation on the ground. A lot has happened since we talked a couple of weeks ago. First, here in the north, you can see the light blue, which is the Ukrainian advances. The Ukrainians have been successful in pushing back against the Russian offensive and taking back some of the territory around the city of Kharkiv. This is a critical area, obviously. Kharkiv is the sister city of my hometown, Cincinnati, OH. I was involved in that sister city arrangement 40 years ago, and it is a beautiful city. It has been almost flattened by the unending and barbaric attacks from Russia. In the outskirts of Kharkiv, again, Ukrainian forces are not just holding the line but also making gradual advances, same as through here, in Kherson. You can see there is, again, the light blue here that indicates where the Ukrainians have made progress here in the south. In the south and in Kharkiv, there has been progress made. This is very important in the south here because, as you know, Russia's goal is to try to shut off the entire Black Sea from Ukraine being able to access and, therefore, to continue to be one of the great exporters of the world. They have blocked any passage here of the ships that could be sending wheat and other grains to the rest of the world, including to Africa, where they are very dependent on Ukrainian wheat to keep people from starving, and yet the Russians are blocking these. But these cities are still in the control of Ukraine, and it is essential that continue, that Russia not create a landlocked Ukraine, which would, over the long term, be incredibly detrimental to the economy of Ukraine. It is vital that they do well there. I will say, though, that here in the east, it is a different situation. Here is Donetsk and Luhansk, the Donbas region. Here is where Russia has made incremental progress in the last couple of weeks, using, again, bombs and missiles that are flattening cities, killing civilians. This city of Severodonetsk, you have heard about--it is about right here--has fallen to the Russian forces after a months-long battle in the last couple of weeks. Its twin city, Lysychansk, which is also in this region, has also fallen, completing Russia's brutal conquest of what is called the Luhansk region. So Donetsk is still partly in Russian control--partly not. Luhansk is now in Russian control. But it is important to remember this: Russia paid dearly for every inch of Luhansk--by the way, much of which they flattened. They literally destroyed before occupying it. They lost troops, and they lost military equipment. But, significantly, because taking this area required massive amounts of resources from Russia, it drew attention away from the north--Kharkiv, as we saw, and down here in Kherson. So it enabled these brave Ukrainian forces in these other places to make progress, not just to hold out against the overwhelming Russian onslaught but to make progress. The Russians have now announced they are in an ``operational pause,'' meaning they are claiming they are going to stop their large-scale offenses until their soldiers have rested. But as in the past, they can't be trusted. And, in fact, small-scale offensive missile strikes and rocket attacks continue all along this front line. We also must not downplay even what these sporadic strikes can do. Consider the tragedy that occurred about 2 weeks ago at a shopping mall in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk. This is in central Ukraine, the area we just talked about. As more than 1,000 innocent Ukrainian civilians shopped with their friends and families at this shopping mall, a Russian strategic bomber launched a large Kh-22 missile. Now, this is a long-range, nuclear-capable missile that was initially designed to destroy aircraft carriers--aircraft carriers--and they shot it into the middle of a shopping mall--turned it into a burning inferno. You can see here in this photograph. As a result of the explosion and the fire, 20 people were killed immediately, and more than 50 were wounded. Dozens more were declared missing. We are still getting the final numbers from this horrific tragedy, but it occurred during the summit of the so-called G7. That is the group of developed countries, larger economies--Japan, United States, and a few European countries--who were meeting to talk about the issue of Russia and Ukraine, among other things. The G7 rightfully condemned this atrocity as ``an abominable attack,'' an attack on civilians in a shopping mall. Just yesterday evening in Chasiv, Chasiv Yar, which is a residential town in eastern Ukraine, a Russian rocket attack struck an apartment complex and killed at least 15 people. More than 20 people are believed to be trapped in the rubble as emergency workers continue to work today to be able to free those who were trapped, to try to rescue innocent civilians who are under attack. Again, this is an apartment complex. People are trapped inside it, even as we talk. These barbaric, cowardly, long-range missile attacks on civilian targets have to be condemned by all of us, but they have to be stopped in two ways. One is by providing Ukrainians what they need in terms of anti-aircraft, anti-missile technology, but also by giving the Ukrainians the ability to use these longer-range missiles themselves. Right now, the Russians can sit back with impunity and launch these attacks. I join the people of Ukraine in mourning for the loss of these innocent civilians at the hands of Russia's cruelty. The terror, by the way, that is caused by these attacks is not an accident. It is part of the Russian war plan, to cause terror. Striking civilian targets is certainly one thing they are doing. Continuing to blockade those Black Sea ports I talked about is another one, increasing the economic cost of this war on the Ukrainian people. This is one reason why, by the way, a couple of weeks ago just before we left for the recess, we had a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a resolution to name Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. That passed on a bipartisan basis, and my hope is that it comes here to the floor of the U.S. Senate, so we can all go on record, again, condemning what is going on over there and making it clear that Russia has become a pariah country, that this is not normal behavior, even in the tragedy of war. Striking civilian targets deliberately is, unfortunately, continuing day in and day out. In response to these brutal acts, the bravery and effectiveness of the Ukrainian defenders has been impressive but not surprising. Think about it. They are defending their families. They are also defending freedom, defending their homeland. The stakes of this war are high, and the fate of a sovereign country hangs in the balance. But I will say today, it is not just about Ukraine, as important as that is. It is bigger than that because, if President Putin is successful in taking more of Ukraine than he already controls--let's see the map again. If he does, in fact, expand beyond what he has already done, taking Crimea, taking this area of Luhansk andDonetsk, taking the southern part of Ukraine, he is not going to stop there. I don't think anybody believes that or is so naive to believe that. In 2016, he stated, ``The borders of Russia never end.'' This was after he attacked Ukraine the first time. That was in 2016. In a speech claiming victory in May of this year, President Putin painted Ukrainians as Nazis. Remember, the President of Ukraine is Jewish. His family went through the ordeal of the Holocaust. But he was painting Ukrainians somehow as Nazis, saying that the invasion of Ukraine was inevitable and that he was forced into this conflict by NATO. NATO is not an offensive association; it is strictly defensive. The disinformation and lies also come from those around him. Vladimir Medinsky, one of President Putin's senior advisers, lamented that Russia's territory was greatly diminished from the time when Moscow controlled more than 14 currently independent nations, including Finland and Poland. This territorial retreat ``is not forever,'' he said. Europeans are waking up to this one-time unimaginable threat. According to a European Council on Foreign Relations opinion poll conducted 2 months ago, a possible Russian invasion of their nation is seen as one of the top three threats now by 53 percent of Swedes, 54 percent of Romanians, and 40 percent of Germans. I was just in Romania a few weeks ago and got to hear from Romanians directly about this concern. I also went to Moldova, where there is even more of a concern because there is a Russian-occupied area called Transnistria right along their country. So what can be done to stop and reverse the Russian gains here in the east? The most important issue to me is to help these brave Ukrainians be able to defend themselves by giving them the weapons to level the playing field with Russia so they are not constantly outgunned. I have heard this from President Zelenskyy. We have all heard it from Russian forces that they are making some progress in the east because they have these weapons, these missiles, and the Ukrainians do not. We also heard about this from members of the European Parliament who came here to visit us about 3 weeks ago, came to the Ukraine Caucus. We talked about the caucus earlier. We also heard from some fighter pilots who came about 2-and-a-half weeks ago and met with our Ukrainian Caucus. What they need are the weapons to be able to respond. Their words have been explicit and direct: Russian artillery outguns theirs in terms of range, in terms of accuracy. They can sit back and fire on the Ukrainians' military and civilian targets, and the Ukrainians cannot respond. They cannot reach them. Ukraine needs advanced Western rocket artillery systems to even those odds. Thankfully, the United States and several of our allies have these exact systems. The UK has some systems. Germany has some systems. Over the past month, the United States has provided Ukraine with several of what are called HIMARS or high mobility artillery rocket systems. We have got hundreds of these in our inventory, by the way, and many of which are not with active units, in other words, they would be available. These are superior to Russian artillery in almost every way: mobility, reload time, accuracy, and most importantly, range. And yet, during Ukraine's hour of need, we continue to move too slowly. In the initial tranche of HIMARS, say about 6 weeks ago, only four of these units were announced. They are now in service, as we understand it, and they are working. Four more were announced a few weeks ago, and another four were announced this past Friday. Reports are these are still in transit. They are not yet being used to protect these Ukrainian civilians who are being bombed. They need more, and they need them now. Several have come from Germany and from the UK; but they need more, and they need them now. How many do they need? It depends who you talk to, but the Ukrainian military officials who have spoken out on this, who are the experts, say they need at least 48 of these systems to be able to begin to turn the tables in the east. The United States is now committed to 12; only 4 are definitely in place. We need to move faster. Apparently, there was a lot of discussion within the Agencies, within the White House, about whether to do this or not; that is what took longer for these HIMARS to be approved. My view is we have had the dialogue. These systems are no more escalatory than Javelins were or other weapons. These are defensive weapons. These are the ability for Ukraine to defend itself, and I hope we can continue to provide them and move more quickly. They are working. They are proving their worth. Let me show you a photograph of what HIMARS can do to Russian logistics. These are images of Russian ammunition dumps exploding after reportedly being struck by missiles from a HIMARS system. Previously, Ukraine could not reach these munition dumps, but now with HIMARS, they can. Striking these ammo dumps can have a devastating impact on Russian forces. These are depots of weapons that are behind the Russian lines but in the country of Ukraine. And, finally, they can access them. Striking them is going to have a devastating impact. According to Serhii Kuzan, the chairman of the Ukrainian Security and Cooperation Center in Kyiv, Ukraine has used HIMARS rockets to now destroy 20 warehouses of Russian artillery ammunition. As I said earlier, Russian soldiers are currently in an ``operational pause'' to recover and resupply before future offenses, so they say, but they cannot resupply without ammunition. So destroying these hubs will set Russia's timetables back and buy Ukraine more time to prepare and to receive more Western military equipment like the HIMARS. These pictures are exactly the proof we need to show that what we are sending is now making a difference. Imagine what they could do if they had enough to be able to truly push back. These HIMARS systems arrived in Ukraine too late to avoid some of the damage that we have been talking about today and, certainly, some of these cities, like Severodonetsk we talked about that has now fallen to the Russians or Lysychansk, which has fallen to the Russians. They arrived too late for the thousands of brave Ukrainians who were killed and wounded defending those cities. If we don't act quickly, then future HIMARS rockets will arrive too late to save more Ukrainian citizens, more Ukrainian soldiers, more Ukrainian innocents. Time is of the essence, and I urge the administration not to delay. Again, I am pleased they are getting those weapons in. I wish it had been sooner. And we now have to encourage more and faster. When people, understandably, ask about our support for Ukraine, our taxpayer-funded aid to the tune of billions of dollars, they deserve to know that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. In my view, that means spending it on weapons like HIMARS that are actually making a difference on the battlefield. I believe the aid that we and our allies are providing is a wise investment that will pay dividends over time, but let's provide them the right aid. Ukrainians are defending their country with bravery and skill, exceeding all expectations, and they are ensuring that their country is not being handed over to President Putin. We have to assure them that the United States and their allies are doing all we can to help them save their country. We know that making any territorial concessions to Russia would only embolden President Putin and other future would-be conquerors. The lesson that they would learn is that with enough patience they can wear down the West and get what we want. So I was pleased to see 2 weeks ago, when the leaders of the so-called G7 countries--again, U.S., Japan, European countries--stated: We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military, and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We saw how territorial concessions in the late 1930s only increased Nazi Germany's appetite, and this is clearly no different. Russia's goals are not limited to just the Donbas or southern Ukraine. President Zelenskyy clearly understands this. He said to CNN recently: Ukrainians are not ready to give away their land, to accept that these territories belong to Russia. This is our land. I could not agree more. In fact, it goes beyond Ukraine. President Putin will conquer as much of the former Soviet empire as we let him. We must stop him here in Ukraine. With regard to sanctions, the EU is still using Russian oil and gas, sending roughly $870 million a day to help fund the Russian war machine. We have the capacity here in the United States to help our partners and shore up our domestic energy production--not only important for Americans to get the cost of gas down with more supply, but also critical for our allies. We are seeing some small progress, but much more needs to be done to reduce this reliance on Russian energy. By the end of this year, we expect coal and oil to be phased out. The United States must do its part and increase our energy production, while at the same time be a leader in developing new energy technologies that can help reduce emissions and increase national as well as global security. This is not either or. It should be all of the above. We should be producing what we need right now to ensure that Europe can stop its dependency on Russia and sending this almost a billion dollars a day to fund the war machine, but at the same time we should be producing energy from all sources, including green energy, including nuclear energy. And like sanctions and military aid, when the United States leads, the world tends to follow. But most importantly, our allies and enemies watch us. This is true with regard to a revived NATO right now. In fact, in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as we talked about earlier, both Sweden and Finland have applied to join NATO, shrugging off long histories of neutrality. In Brussels, NATO Ambassadors, on July 5, signed the accession protocols that put them a step closer. Now, all 30 NATO nations will review their applications for ratification. Canada, Estonia, Denmark, Norway, and Germany have already ratified Finland and Sweden's applications. Let's join them. Let's do it this week. Let's do it through an expedited procedure and just get it done. I look forward to voting in favor of those applications in committee and on the floor. We cannot forget that Russia has claimed this war started because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Of course, they did. They reaffirmed that in 2014 when they threw off a corrupt Russia-backed government. They are looking westward to Europe, to us, to freedom, to democracy. They want to join NATO and the European Union and form ever-closer bonds with the transatlantic community. I have long believed that NATO deserved a NATO membership action plan to provide a clear path to eventual NATO membership, and they have made significant progress in doing this. This brutal invasion is just Russia's latest attempt to throw that progress off course. We must not be deterred. Now, as we enter the fifth month of this war--I have come down here every week to talk about it--we have seen the resilience and the fortitude of the Ukrainians. Even as their brothers and husbands go to fight for the homeland, the women of Ukraine are incredibly brave as well, and I have seen them at the border with Poland; I have seen them at the border with Moldova; and I have seen them as they come to the United States and talk about what is going on in their country. They know this is the fight, during our generation, where democracy is on the line. How this war develops will have far-reaching impact on the entire globe. In Ohio, I see this all the time. A couple of weeks ago, I was in Cleveland for what was called ``Amplify the Voice: A Benefit Concert for Ukraine.'' We had 1,000 people come to this beautiful Severance Hall, which is the music center for the Cleveland Orchestra, and one of the premier orchestras in the world, by the way. They made the center available to the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus to perform to, again, an audience of people who were Ukrainian Americans but also from every nationality, particularly the nationalities communities, as we call them in Cleveland, which would be people from Eastern and Central Europe who understand the importance of this fight. So Lithuanians were there; Poles were there; Romanians were there; Hungarians were there--people from all over the region. The concert raised funds for the United Ukrainian Organizations of Ohio's Fund to Aid Ukraine. They are doing great work. It is amazing how many people who spoke who are doing something to help with regard to Ukraine--medical supplies, armored vests, helping with regard to emergency supplies just so people can have enough food to get by when they are subject to some of these bombings we have seen today. We also heard a beautiful concert. Ukrainians of all stripes certainly understand what is going on and why this is so important and have for a long time because they know what it is like to live under the thumb of authoritarianism. They broke away from it many times during their history and again more recently in 1991 and again in 2014. I was in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, where Ukrainians decided for themselves that they wanted to turn away from Russian domination and turn to us. I believe we can help them win this time. I am confident of it. That is why I have introduced a bipartisan resolution with Senators Manchin, Murkowski, and Hassan to recognize the U.S. commitment to help rebuild Ukraine. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, more than 7 million civilians have fled their homeland, and there has been about $600 billion worth of damage to Ukraine's infrastructure. By the way, those refugees, those civilians whom I have met--they all want to go home. And in a sense, it is not perfect to call them refugees because they are really just Ukrainians who are temporarily forced to leave their country, but they all want to go home and rebuild Ukraine. It is not just a human toll we see captured in images and videos, but people's homes and livelihoods have vanished overnight. So they are going to need help. The countries of the free world are with us, and we have to be sure that they step up, including some countries that were less comfortable providing military assistance that are providing more monetary assistance--some of those countries are really going to need to step up in terms of helping to get Ukraine back on its feet. Now is not the time for us to back away. We have to be able to win this militarily and then begin the rebuilding. It is not a time for us to be tentative or equivocal. At this critical juncture, let's lead our allies to provide what Ukraine needs to protect their homeland and to defend democracy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-11-pt1-PgS3204 | null | 4,668 |
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-2022-07-12-pt1-PgH5949-3 | null | 4,669 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath of office to the gentleman from Nebraska, the whole number of the House is 431. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgH5968-3 | null | 4,670 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 521) to permit disabled law enforcement officers, customs and border protection officers, firefighters, air traffic controllers, nuclear materials couriers, members of the Capitol Police, members of the Supreme Court Police, employees of the Central Intelligence Agency performing intelligence activities abroad or having specialized security requirements, and diplomatic security special agents of the Department of State to receive retirement benefits in the same manner as if they had not been disabled, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette) | House | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgH5968-4 | null | 4,671 |
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. 5271) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2245 Rosa L Parks Boulevard in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ``Thelma Harper Post Office Building'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgH5969 | null | 4,672 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: ML-185. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 223, memorializing the Congress of the United States and to urge and request the Federal Reserve Board, the office of the comptroller of the currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Credit Union Administration, and the office of financial institutions to refrain from enacting or adopting laws, rules, regulations, or guidance that restricts the ability of banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, trust companies, or payment processors to offer products or services to the fossil fuel industry.; to the Committee on Financial Services. ML-186. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 203, memorializing the Congress of the United States and to urge and request the Federal Reserve Board, the office of the comptroller of the currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Credit Union Administration, and the office of financial institutions to refrain from enacting or adopting laws, rules, regulations, or guidance that restricts the ability of banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, trust companies, or payment processors to offer products or services to the fossil fuel industry.; to the Committee on Financial Services. ML-187. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 20, urging the United States Congress to enact legislation to address the rise in illegal text messages; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-188. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 26, urging the United States Congress to enact legislation to address the rise in illegal text messages; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-189. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 114, urging the adoption of policies that will help lead to energy independence and lower energy costs in the United States, including ending the state's efforts to shut down Line 5; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-190. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of West Virginia, relative to House Resolution 5, Regarding the urgent need to improve grid stability and benefit national security by ensuring available baseload generation through the deployment of dispatchable low carbon electric generation options; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-191. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution 22-004, concerning support for Ukraine against Russian aggression; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-192. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 94, urging the state and each county to adopt The Global Pact For The Environment To Achieve The United Nations Paris Agreement and the 2030 Development Agenda, and to specifically adopt the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, numbers 13 through 17; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-193. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 95. affirming Hawai'i's ongoing commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Endorsement Of The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-194. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 108, affirming Hawai'i's ongoing commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Endorsement Of The Fossil Fuel Non- Proliferation Treaty; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-195. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 28, condemning Russia's attack on Ukraine and supporting swift and severe economic sanctions imposed on Russia; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-196. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, relative to House Resolution 9, supporting the principles of federalism; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-197. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, relative to House Joint Resolution H. 3205, requesting the Congress of the United States call a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-198. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, relative to House Concurrent Memorial 2004, urging the United States Congress to oppose the reporting requirements in the Biden Administration's tax increase proposal for Fiscal Year 2022; to the Committee on Ways and Means. ML-199. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 178, denouncing Russia's actions causing a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and urging the United States Congress to take concrete action to support Ukrainian refugees and to increase the refugee limits for the United States and increase funding related to those efforts; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary. ML-200. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 185, denouncing Russia's actions causing a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and urging the United States Congress to take concrete action to support Ukrainian refugees and to increase the refugee limits for the United States and increase funding related to those efforts; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary. ML-201. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Colorado, relative to Senate Memorial 22-001, memorializing Congress to adopt comprehensive voting rights legislation to protection the integrity of American democracy and the sacred right vote; jointly to the Committees on House Administration and the Judiciary. ML-202. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution 22-005, concerning the designation of March 8, 2022 as ``Colorado Aerospace Day''; jointly to the Committees on Science, Space, and Technology and Armed Services. ML-203. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 201, urging the United States Congress and Hawaii's Congressional delegation to support legislation establishing Medicare For All; jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce. ML-204. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 763, urging the passage of the Stranded Act of 2021, currently in the United States Senate, which provides resources to communities that are challenged by stranded nuclear waste; jointly to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgH5974-3 | null | 4,673 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as follows: ML-185. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Senate of the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 223, memorializing the Congress of the United States and to urge and request the Federal Reserve Board, the office of the comptroller of the currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Credit Union Administration, and the office of financial institutions to refrain from enacting or adopting laws, rules, regulations, or guidance that restricts the ability of banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, trust companies, or payment processors to offer products or services to the fossil fuel industry.; to the Committee on Financial Services. ML-186. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Resolution No. 203, memorializing the Congress of the United States and to urge and request the Federal Reserve Board, the office of the comptroller of the currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Credit Union Administration, and the office of financial institutions to refrain from enacting or adopting laws, rules, regulations, or guidance that restricts the ability of banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, trust companies, or payment processors to offer products or services to the fossil fuel industry.; to the Committee on Financial Services. ML-187. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 20, urging the United States Congress to enact legislation to address the rise in illegal text messages; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-188. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 26, urging the United States Congress to enact legislation to address the rise in illegal text messages; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-189. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Michigan, relative to Senate Resolution No. 114, urging the adoption of policies that will help lead to energy independence and lower energy costs in the United States, including ending the state's efforts to shut down Line 5; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-190. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of West Virginia, relative to House Resolution 5, Regarding the urgent need to improve grid stability and benefit national security by ensuring available baseload generation through the deployment of dispatchable low carbon electric generation options; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. ML-191. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution 22-004, concerning support for Ukraine against Russian aggression; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-192. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 94, urging the state and each county to adopt The Global Pact For The Environment To Achieve The United Nations Paris Agreement and the 2030 Development Agenda, and to specifically adopt the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, numbers 13 through 17; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-193. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 95. affirming Hawai'i's ongoing commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Endorsement Of The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-194. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 108, affirming Hawai'i's ongoing commitment to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Endorsement Of The Fossil Fuel Non- Proliferation Treaty; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-195. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 28, condemning Russia's attack on Ukraine and supporting swift and severe economic sanctions imposed on Russia; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. ML-196. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire, relative to House Resolution 9, supporting the principles of federalism; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-197. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, relative to House Joint Resolution H. 3205, requesting the Congress of the United States call a convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary. ML-198. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, relative to House Concurrent Memorial 2004, urging the United States Congress to oppose the reporting requirements in the Biden Administration's tax increase proposal for Fiscal Year 2022; to the Committee on Ways and Means. ML-199. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 178, denouncing Russia's actions causing a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and urging the United States Congress to take concrete action to support Ukrainian refugees and to increase the refugee limits for the United States and increase funding related to those efforts; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary. ML-200. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 185, denouncing Russia's actions causing a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and urging the United States Congress to take concrete action to support Ukrainian refugees and to increase the refugee limits for the United States and increase funding related to those efforts; jointly to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary. ML-201. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Colorado, relative to Senate Memorial 22-001, memorializing Congress to adopt comprehensive voting rights legislation to protection the integrity of American democracy and the sacred right vote; jointly to the Committees on House Administration and the Judiciary. ML-202. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Colorado, relative to Senate Joint Resolution 22-005, concerning the designation of March 8, 2022 as ``Colorado Aerospace Day''; jointly to the Committees on Science, Space, and Technology and Armed Services. ML-203. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Hawaii, relative to Senate Resolution No. 201, urging the United States Congress and Hawaii's Congressional delegation to support legislation establishing Medicare For All; jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce. ML-204. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 763, urging the passage of the Stranded Act of 2021, currently in the United States Senate, which provides resources to communities that are challenged by stranded nuclear waste; jointly to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgH5974-3 | null | 4,674 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | U.S. Supreme Court Mr. President, now on a different matter, yesterday, I discussed the Supreme Court's historic, courageous, and correct decision in Dobbs, but that landmark case was only part of the most consequential Supreme Court term in almost 70 years, since Brown overturned Plessy in 1954. For example, in the space of 1 week, the Court took two huge leaps forward for religious liberty. Two big steps to restore and strengthen Americans' First Amendment right to pray and worship how they choose and raise their kids accordingly. Time and again, we have seen opponents of religious diversity argue that government ought to discriminate against faith-based undertakings and organizations. These efforts have spanned from the anti-Catholic Blaine amendments of the 1800s to today's efforts by the secular left to chase religion out of the public square. We have had Democratic politicians try to force nuns to pay for birth control against their will. Forty-nine of fifty Democrats just voted for a radical bill that would have forced faith-based hospitals--listen to this--forced faith-based hospitals to perform abortions against their principles. Last year, Washington Democrats tried to pass a sweeping toddler takeover that was written to squeeze out faith-based childcare providers and secularize early childhood care in this country. For goodness' sake--for goodness' sake--5 years ago, a Lutheran preschool in Missouri had to argue all the way to the Supreme Court that it deserved equal access to widely available funding for updating an outdoor playground. Textbook anti-religious discrimination. Fortunately, they won easily 7 to 2. This is indeed a new Supreme Court. Last month, the Court took another landmark step. The case of Carson v. Makin arose because the State of Maine had established a school voucher program that tried to uniquely discriminate against faith-based schools. In effect, the government was using taxpayer money to nudge families away from faith-based education and toward secular private schools instead. The Court rightly struck down that law. Chief Justice Roberts explained that Maine could not exclude accredited and otherwise eligible schools purely because they are religious. That is not the government's choice to make. It is up to the parents. A few days later, the Court issued another important and commonsense ruling. Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach from Washington State, was fired--listen to this--simply because he quickly and quietly offered a simple prayer on the field after the game. He got fired for that. The man was fired by government bureaucrats for praying in our country. The Court ruled for Coach Kennedy under both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Thank goodness. In the process, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues cleared away many years of phony, made-up legal tests that made our laws needlessly hostile to religion and turned back to what the Constitution actually says. So the Court's term was an exciting one for Americans of faith who simply want to be allowed to live out their faiths and raise their kids. But this was a win for the entire country. Americans of any faith and no faith at all can celebrate that we have a brilliant majority of originalist, textualist Justices who will defend all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and apply what the Bill of Rights actually says. In a better world, neither of these commonsense rulings would have been close calls or breaking news, but since they were, they were very good news indeed. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3218 | null | 4,675 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | U.S. Supreme Court Mr. President, now on a different matter, yesterday, I discussed the Supreme Court's historic, courageous, and correct decision in Dobbs, but that landmark case was only part of the most consequential Supreme Court term in almost 70 years, since Brown overturned Plessy in 1954. For example, in the space of 1 week, the Court took two huge leaps forward for religious liberty. Two big steps to restore and strengthen Americans' First Amendment right to pray and worship how they choose and raise their kids accordingly. Time and again, we have seen opponents of religious diversity argue that government ought to discriminate against faith-based undertakings and organizations. These efforts have spanned from the anti-Catholic Blaine amendments of the 1800s to today's efforts by the secular left to chase religion out of the public square. We have had Democratic politicians try to force nuns to pay for birth control against their will. Forty-nine of fifty Democrats just voted for a radical bill that would have forced faith-based hospitals--listen to this--forced faith-based hospitals to perform abortions against their principles. Last year, Washington Democrats tried to pass a sweeping toddler takeover that was written to squeeze out faith-based childcare providers and secularize early childhood care in this country. For goodness' sake--for goodness' sake--5 years ago, a Lutheran preschool in Missouri had to argue all the way to the Supreme Court that it deserved equal access to widely available funding for updating an outdoor playground. Textbook anti-religious discrimination. Fortunately, they won easily 7 to 2. This is indeed a new Supreme Court. Last month, the Court took another landmark step. The case of Carson v. Makin arose because the State of Maine had established a school voucher program that tried to uniquely discriminate against faith-based schools. In effect, the government was using taxpayer money to nudge families away from faith-based education and toward secular private schools instead. The Court rightly struck down that law. Chief Justice Roberts explained that Maine could not exclude accredited and otherwise eligible schools purely because they are religious. That is not the government's choice to make. It is up to the parents. A few days later, the Court issued another important and commonsense ruling. Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach from Washington State, was fired--listen to this--simply because he quickly and quietly offered a simple prayer on the field after the game. He got fired for that. The man was fired by government bureaucrats for praying in our country. The Court ruled for Coach Kennedy under both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. Thank goodness. In the process, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues cleared away many years of phony, made-up legal tests that made our laws needlessly hostile to religion and turned back to what the Constitution actually says. So the Court's term was an exciting one for Americans of faith who simply want to be allowed to live out their faiths and raise their kids. But this was a win for the entire country. Americans of any faith and no faith at all can celebrate that we have a brilliant majority of originalist, textualist Justices who will defend all of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and apply what the Bill of Rights actually says. In a better world, neither of these commonsense rulings would have been close calls or breaking news, but since they were, they were very good news indeed. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3218 | null | 4,676 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The bill clerk read the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3226 | null | 4,677 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The bill clerk read the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3226 | null | 4,678 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Energy Mr. President, now on the less pleasant subject which I wish I didn't have to talk about--deeply, profoundly stupid; deeply, profoundly stupid--that is the only way that I know how to describe one of the worst decisions by an administration that has become famous for bad decisions. I am talking about President Biden's assault on sustainable, affordable energy. The people of Louisiana know, and the people of America know that they are now paying $90 to fill up their cars and tanks with gas because the Biden administration killed the Keystone Pipeline, canceled our offshore oil leases, and forfeited America's energy independence. We were energy independent. The Biden administration forfeited it. What seems to be underappreciated, however, is how President Biden's agenda is driving up the price not just of oil but of all kinds of necessities that American and Louisiana families need every day. It is not just about oil and gas. It is about everything. Not only do most goods get to our homes after riding in trucks and planes and cars and ships powered by gas or diesel, but a lot of our plastics and other products, if you think about it, they are also made from petroleum. Actually, only 60 percent of oil in the world gets used as a fuel. Forty percent of the global oil supply ends up in other things, things other than cars and trucks--in products. That means that it doesn't just cost people more to get to and from the store. It means almost everything in the store costs more because of its connection to oil. Some medicines come from oil. Microfiber comes from oil. Mascara comes from oil. Synthetic leather comes from oil. Do you have a phone case or a handbag or a chair or a car made with plastic? That is oil. That is oil. Now, not everything is made from oil. Some goods that you buy are not made from that natural resource. But I bet they are packaged in plastic. And all of these items, all of these household necessities are casualties of President Biden's assault on sustainable energy. Here is a fat fact: Our economy can't run without fossil fuels. Now, I am not suggesting that fossil fuels should be our only source of energy. Certainly, we should take advantage of the efficiencies we can find in wind. I believe in wind and solar. I believe in solar--and nuclear and hydrogen and hydroelectric. But part of a sensible, sustainable, affordable energy plan has to include fossil fuels. Ours is the greatest economy in all of human history. It can't run without energy, and 80 percent of our energy today comes from fossil fuels. That is just a fat fact. The truth is that American ingenuity--and I am referring to fossil fuels--has made the most out of one of the most versatile resources that the world has ever known, but the Biden White House is determined to punish us for that innovation--just determined to punish us--by making every single part of the American dream more expensive. Even necessities that aren't directly made from petroleum depend on affordable fuel to reach American families. Record high inflation and gas prices have sent Americans to food pantries. Why? Because even fruits and eggs and milk are becoming unaffordable. The latest reports show that many Americans are paying 8.6-percent higher prices today than they were last year. But we know it is more than that. I know those are the official government numbers, but we know it is more than that. Eggs are up 32 percent. Milk is up 16 percent. Flour is up 14 percent. Baby food--when you can find it--is up 13 percent. These aren't luxury items. These are staples that Americans depend on every single day. I mean, why is a Louisiana man telling us ``[m]y food budget is insane''? My food budget is insane. ``[I]t's gone up $100-150 a week. So, it's becoming more and more difficult, to buy the same thing I bought a year or two years ago.'' That is not just a Louisianian talking. That is all across America. Why did a woman in Baton Rouge realize that fruits and vegetables--not sirloin steak, fruits, and vegetables--are breaking her bank? She is cooking more with rice and bread instead of fruits and vegetables. The high grocery prices for this lady are gutting her and her family like a fish. And that is just a fact--a very unhappy one, but it is a fact. Now, high oil prices are also waterboarding our farmers, which contributes to these high food prices. Did you know that we make industrial fertilizer from fossil fuels? And when natural gas costs more, so does fertilizing a field of wheat or corn or soybeans. Some of our herbicides right now are twice as expensive as they were, if farmers can find them. Tractors drink diesel. Duh. So do irrigation systems. A gallon of diesel--1 gallon--a year ago, you know what it was? It was $3.23. You know what it is today? It is $5.20. Now, what does this mean for Louisiana rice farmers and other growers? For every extra dime farmers spend on a gallon of diesel--every extra dime--a grower will spend about $4.50 more for an acre of rice, $2.30 more for an acre of cotton, and an extra $1.74 for an acre of corn. Corn growers--I mentioned corn growers--they also depend on nitrogen fertilizer, which we make with methane. And then corn--I mentioned corn--corn goes into cereal. It goes into sweetened drinks, peanut butter, baby food, ketchup, salad dressing. You know, I don't mean to be ugly, but this administration's energy policy is deeply, profoundly stupid. And it is dangerous. So my people are feeling President Biden's gas hike from the gas pump to the grocery store, to the doctor's office. A lot of the raw materials that make our medicines and healthcare products are made from--guess what--petroleum. Oil goes into our burn creams. Do you ever burn yourself, have to go to the local grocery store or the local pharmacy, buy something to put on your burn? That cream comes from oil. You have allergies? Those allergy pills are made, in part, with oil. Do you ever get a cold, take a little NyQuil, take some cold tablets? You need oil to make them. Our kids' gummy vitamins are made with oil. The bandaids in your medicine cabinet, they are made from oil. The President's assault on fossil fuels is hitting my people in Louisiana, and they are hitting the American people so hard they are coughing up bones. My people and the people of America are increasingly having to dip into their savings accounts just to afford everyday items, not to take a cruise, not to buy a new car, not to buy some new clothes to look good at church on Sunday--for household necessities. And on top of that, in addition to going into their savings account, my people and the people all across America are having to charge more and more and more to their credit cards, not for luxuries but for staples, for necessities. All of this inflation caused, in part, by the President's bone-deep, down-to-the-marrow stupid energy policy is costing the average American and Louisiana family $635 a month. Now, think about that--$635 a month. Let's call it $7 to $8,000 a year. If you are a mom making $40,000 a year and you are a dad making $40,000 a year and you have got two children and you have a home--nothing special, you know, $200,000 home; it has a mortgage--mom and dad have to go to work. So they have to have automobiles. They have car payments. They are using every penny of that $80,000 a year. And now, all of a sudden, here comes inflation, and they have got to come out of pocket with an extra $7 to $8,000 a year. Where is the money going to come from? And just about every middle-class American is experiencing that right now. Now, recently, the President sent a letter. He sent a letter to the top oil companies. In the letter--it was kind of a snippy letter, frankly--he demanded that the oil companies ramp up their refining operations to try to slow the rising energy prices and to shore up supply. Isn't that special? The same President--he ran on it. He did it. He ran on it. He said he would do it, and he has done it. The same President who promised to end fossil fuels is now blaming the energy industry for historical oil and gas prices. The truth is, this administration refuses to accept responsibility for bad policies. And I don't know why they pursued this policy, other than just to try to check off a promise made to satisfy the woke agenda. For the sake of Americans' economic futures and for the sake of our national security, we cannot continue to rely on foreign oil imports--we can't--while pretending to run this country using wind, solar, and wishful thinking because that is what the President's new policy is on energy. It is wind. It is solar. It is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking doesn't fill gas tanks or grocery carts. And the President this week will be in Saudi Arabia. He is not there as a tourist. He is in Saudi Arabia to beg the Saudis to produce more oil, after he has already forfeited America's energy independence, and he refuses to take his boot off the throat of the oil and gas industry to allow our oil and gas producers to produce our own oil. So think about it. This is the President's new energy policy. Let's don't produce our own oil and gas. Let's give up our energy independence. But we have to have oil and gas. So what do we do? The President's new policy is, let's give up our own oil and gas and let's buy oil from foreign countries that hate us so those foreign countries will have more money to buy weapons to try to kill us. It just makes no sense. And the people of Louisiana deserve better. And the people of America deserve better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3232 | null | 4,679 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-4418. A communication from the Chief of the Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Civil Rights Update to the Federal-State Agreement'' (RIN0584-AE56) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4419. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pyridate; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9298-02- OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4420. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9816-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4421. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``IN-11669: Cellulose, ethyl 2-hydroxyethyl ether; Tolerance Exemption'' (FRL No. 9858-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4422. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``5-decyne-4 ,7-diol, 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl- and 6- Dodecyne-5,8-diol, 2,5,8 ,11-tetramethyl-; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9875-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4423. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report to Congress on Distribution of Department of Defense Depot Maintenance Workloads for Fiscal Years 2020 through 2022''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4424. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency that was declared in Executive Order 13818 with respect to serious human rights abuse and corruption; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4425. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency that was declared in Executive Order 14059 with respect to foreign persons involved in the global illicit drug trade; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4426. A communication from the President and Chair of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Bank's Strategic Plan for 2022-2026; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4427. A communication from the President and Chair of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report of the Bank's Strategic Plan for 2022-2026; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4428. A communication from the President and Chair of the Export-Import Bank, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the Bank's Annual Performance Plan for fiscal year 2023, and the Annual Performance Report for fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4429. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing'' (RIN1904-AC11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-4430. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks'' (RIN1904-AD90) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-4431. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential and Commercial Clothes Washers'' (RIN1904-AD95) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-4432. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pyriofenone; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9819- 01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4433. A communication from the Chief of Domestic Listing, Fish and Wildlife Services, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Emergency Listing of the Dixie Valley Toad as Endangered'' (RIN1018-BG21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4434. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``MICHIGAN: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions'' (FRL No. 9917-03-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4435. 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; ID; Incorporation by Reference Updates'' (FRL No. 9395-02-R10) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4436. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Delegation of New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the States of Arizona and California'' (FRL No. 9400-03-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4437. 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; Missouri; Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions From Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry'' (FRL No. 9605-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4438. 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; Missouri; Restriction of Emissions Credit for Reduced Pollutant Concentrations from the Use of Dispersion Techniques'' (FRL No. 9645-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4439. 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; Repeal of Delegation Authority'' (FRL No. 9646-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4440. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS'' (FRL No. 9876-01-R1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4441. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances; Updates to the Hazard Communication Program and Regulatory Framework; Minor Amendments to Reporting Requirements for Premanufacture Notices'' ((RIN2070-AJ94) (FRL No. 5605-02-OCSPP)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4442. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances (19-4.F)'' ((RIN2070-AB27) (FRL No. 7584-01- OCSPP)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4443. 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; California; San Diego County; Reasonably Available Control Technology'' (FRL No. 9611-02- R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4444. 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; NC; NC BART Rule Revisions'' (FRL No. 9081-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4445. 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; Missouri; Start-Up, Shutdown and Malfunction Conditions'' (FRL No. 9699-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4446. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Finding of Failure To Submit a Clean Air Act Section 110 State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (FRL No. 9895-01-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 21, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4447. 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; State Implementation Plan Revisions Required by the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards'' (FRL No. 9656-02-R1) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 28, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4448. A communication from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``FY 2021 Superfund Five-Year Review''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4449. 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; Washington; Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency, General Air Quality Regulations'' (FRL No. 9211-02-R10) received during adjournment during adjournment of the Senate of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4450. 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; Emissions Statement Program and Base Year Emissions Inventory'' (FRL No. 9629-02- R5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4451. 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; Indiana; Redesignation of the Indiana portion of the Louisville, Indiana-Kentucky Area to Attainment of the 2015 Ozone Standards'' (FRL No. 9686-02-R5) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4452. 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; OR; Vehicle Inspection Program and Medford-Ashland PM10 Maintenance Plan Technical Correction'' (FRL No. 9756-02-R10) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4453. A communication from the Manager of the Branch of Listing Policy and Support, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior , transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat'' (RIN1018-BE69) received on July 11, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4454. A communication from the Chief of Domestic Listing, Fish and Wildlife Services, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Marron Bacora and Designation of Critical Habitat'' (RIN1018-BE15) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 11, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4455. A communication from the Chief of Domestic Listing, Fish and Wildlife Services, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Arizona Eryngo and Designation of Critical Habitat'' (RIN1018-BF21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 11, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4456. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (CAS Reg. No. 577- 11-7); Tolerance Exemption'' (FRL No. 9932-01-OCSPP) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 28, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4457. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting the report of an officer authorized to wear the insignia of the grade of brigadier general in accordance with title 10, United States Code, section 777; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4458. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting the report of sixteen (16) officers authorized to wear the insignia of the grade of brigadier general in accordance with title 10, United States Code, section 777; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4459. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency that was declared in Executive Order 13441 with respect to Lebanon; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4460. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency that was declared in Executive Order 13882 with respect to Mali; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4461. A communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic report on the national emergency that was declared in Executive Order 13581 with respect to significant transnational criminal organizations; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4462. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations'' (31 CFR Part 594) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 6, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4463. A communication from the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Electronic Submission of Applications for Orders under the Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act, Confidential Treatment Requests for Filings on Form 13F, Form 13F, and Form ADV-NR; Amendments to Form 13F'' (RIN3235-AM97) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 6, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4464. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel for Operations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 6, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4465. A communication from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the publication of the Draft Proposed Program; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3237-3 | null | 4,680 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Tillis, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Kelly, Mrs. Capito, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tuberville, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Hoeven) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 703 Whereas the brave men and women of the Armed Forces, who proudly serve the United States-- (1) risk their lives to protect the freedom, health, and welfare of the people of the United States; and (2) deserve the investment of every possible resource to ensure their lasting physical, mental, and emotional well- being; Whereas, since the events of September 11, 2001, nearly 2,800,000 members of the Armed Forces have deployed overseas and served in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq; Whereas the current generation of men and women in the Armed Forces has sustained a high rate of operational deployments, with many members of the Armed Forces serving overseas multiple times, placing those members at high risk of enduring traumatic combat stress; Whereas, when left untreated, exposure to traumatic combat stress can lead to severe and chronic post-traumatic stress responses, which are commonly referred to as post-traumatic stress disorder (referred to in this preamble as ``PTSD'') or post-traumatic stress injury; Whereas many men and women of the Armed Forces and veterans who served before September 11, 2001, live with mental health needs from post-traumatic stress and remain at risk for responses to that stress; Whereas many post-traumatic stress responses remain unreported, undiagnosed, and untreated due to a lack of awareness about post-traumatic stress and the persistent stigma associated with mental health conditions; Whereas post-traumatic stress significantly increases the risk of post-traumatic stress responses, including anxiety, depression, homelessness, substance abuse, and suicide, especially if left untreated; Whereas the Secretary of Veterans Affairs reports that-- (1) between 11 and 20 percent of veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom have post-traumatic stress in a given year; (2) approximately 12 percent of veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War have post-traumatic stress in a given year; and (3) approximately 30 percent of veterans who served in the Vietnam era have had post-traumatic stress in their lifetimes; Whereas public perceptions of post-traumatic stress as a mental health disorder create unique challenges for veterans seeking employment; Whereas the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans service organizations, and the private and public medical community have made significant advances in the identification, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of post-traumatic stress and the symptoms of post- traumatic stress, but many challenges remain; Whereas increased understanding of post-traumatic stress can help eliminate stigma attached to the mental health issues of post-traumatic stress; Whereas additional efforts are needed to find further ways to eliminate the stigma associated with post-traumatic stress, including-- (1) an examination of how post-traumatic stress is discussed in the United States; and (2) a recognition that post-traumatic stress is a common injury that is treatable; Whereas timely and appropriate treatment of post-traumatic stress responses can diminish complications and avert suicides; Whereas post-traumatic stress-- (1) can result from any number of stressors other than combat, including rape, sexual assault, battery, torture, confinement, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, natural disasters, or global pandemics; and (2) affects approximately 12,000,000 adults in the United States annually; Whereas the diagnosis of PTSD was first defined by the American Psychiatric Association in 1980 to commonly and more accurately understand and treat survivors of physical and psychological trauma, including veterans who had endured severe traumatic combat stress; Whereas the word ``disorder'' can perpetuate the stigma associated with combat stress, so the more general term ``post-traumatic stress'' is often preferred; and Whereas the designation of a National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Month and a National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Day raises public awareness about issues relating to post-traumatic stress, reduces the stigma associated with post-traumatic stress, and helps ensure that individuals suffering from the invisible wounds of war receive proper treatment: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates-- (A) June 2022 as ``National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Month''; and (B) June 27, 2022, as ``National Post-Traumatic Stress Awareness Day''; (2) supports the efforts of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and the entire medical community to educate members of the Armed Forces, veterans, the families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and the public about the causes, symptoms, and treatment of post- traumatic stress; (3) supports efforts by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense to foster-- (A) cultural change around the issue of post-traumatic stress; and (B) understanding that personal interactions can save lives and advance treatment; (4) welcomes the efforts of the National Center for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder of the Department of Veterans Affairs and local Vet Centers (as defined in section 1712A(h) of title 38, United States Code) to provide assistance to veterans who are suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress; (5) encourages the leadership of the Armed Forces to support appropriate treatment of men and women of the Armed Forces who suffer from post-traumatic stress; (6) recognizes the impact of post-traumatic stress on the spouses and families of members of the Armed Forces and veterans; and (7) respectfully requests that the Secretary of the Senate transmit a copy of this resolution to-- (A) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and (B) the Secretary of Defense. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-12-pt1-PgS3242 | null | 4,681 |
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. 7174) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to reauthorize the National Computer Forensics Institute of the United States Secret Service, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgH6286-2 | null | 4,682 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 6538) to create an Active Shooter Alert Communications Network, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgH6287-2 | null | 4,683 |
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 commit on the bill (S. 3373) to improve the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of Fallen Heroes Grant, offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgH6288 | null | 4,684 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this morning, this all-Democratic government produced yet another absolutely terrible, terrible inflation report. Inflation during the month of June shattered the experts' predictions. We are now--listen to this--at 9.1 percent annual inflation; yet another fresh 40-year high, the most out-of-control inflation that American families have seen since the early 1980s. Food costs are up more than 10 percent. Energy costs are up more than 40 percent. The costs of the fuel that drives us to work, delivers our goods, and drives our economy are all up over 60 percent. These are staggeringly--staggeringly--bad numbers. And they were fueled directly by the reckless spending spree that the Democrats rammed through on party lines just last year. Remember, right before the $2 trillion spending spree, President Biden said: The biggest risk is not going too big . . . it's if we go too small. The Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near-term, are very real. These were gigantic--gigantic--unforced errors. One leading economist recently said the so-called American Rescue Plan was ``arguably the biggest fiscal policy mistake in several decades.'' Our core inflation rate here in America is more than 2 percentage points higher than in Europe. Inflation is uniquely bad here because our all-Democratic government has made uniquely bad choices. And now American families are dealing with the fallout every single day. It is no secret how much the American people disapprove of the course Washington Democrats have put us on. They say so in poll after poll after poll. So you might think by now that our colleagues would be ready to try a different approach. Well, guess again. President Biden and his party, fresh off of spending America into inflation, now want to tax-hike us into recession. They are behind closed doors playing around with what may amount to the single largest tax increase in American history. Tucked inside are exactly the sort of radical ideas that working families can least afford right now. They want a giant tax hike on passthrough small businesses, a category--listen to this--that encompasses 95 percent of all businesses in the country--95 percent of them. Take it from a constituent of mine in Mount Sterling, KY, who put it this way: Small business is already in a struggle to survive with all the taxes and regulations we have to deal with. Adding another tax is only making things worse. Democrats also want a so-called ``methane fee'' that amounts to a big new tax hike on domestic natural gas, while their inflation has pushed American families' natural gas prices and electricity costs up through the roof already. If following reckless spending and runaway inflation with a gigantic, painful tax hike sounds like a bad idea to you, believe me, you are not alone. Even some House Democrats are lighting their hair on fire over what a terrible idea these discussions are. One House Democrat from New Jersey is telling reporters that she is ``notfor any type of legislation that raises taxes . . . especially right now, as my constituents are facing inflation, cost of living [increases] . . . [and] housing prices.'' Well, let me put it this way. When House Democrats from the Northeast start trying to sound more like Ronald Reagan running against Jimmy Carter, you know they have gotten themselves into a fix. Too bad every single House Democrat except one and every single Senate Democrat voted for the $2 trillion mistake that brought us to where we are. The Democrats complaining about inflation today voted in lockstep for the bill that brought us here. And now their answer to picking families' pockets once is to now pick the families' pockets yet a second time. The same Democrats that spent us into inflation now want to tax us into recession. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3245-6 | null | 4,685 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this morning, this all-Democratic government produced yet another absolutely terrible, terrible inflation report. Inflation during the month of June shattered the experts' predictions. We are now--listen to this--at 9.1 percent annual inflation; yet another fresh 40-year high, the most out-of-control inflation that American families have seen since the early 1980s. Food costs are up more than 10 percent. Energy costs are up more than 40 percent. The costs of the fuel that drives us to work, delivers our goods, and drives our economy are all up over 60 percent. These are staggeringly--staggeringly--bad numbers. And they were fueled directly by the reckless spending spree that the Democrats rammed through on party lines just last year. Remember, right before the $2 trillion spending spree, President Biden said: The biggest risk is not going too big . . . it's if we go too small. The Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near-term, are very real. These were gigantic--gigantic--unforced errors. One leading economist recently said the so-called American Rescue Plan was ``arguably the biggest fiscal policy mistake in several decades.'' Our core inflation rate here in America is more than 2 percentage points higher than in Europe. Inflation is uniquely bad here because our all-Democratic government has made uniquely bad choices. And now American families are dealing with the fallout every single day. It is no secret how much the American people disapprove of the course Washington Democrats have put us on. They say so in poll after poll after poll. So you might think by now that our colleagues would be ready to try a different approach. Well, guess again. President Biden and his party, fresh off of spending America into inflation, now want to tax-hike us into recession. They are behind closed doors playing around with what may amount to the single largest tax increase in American history. Tucked inside are exactly the sort of radical ideas that working families can least afford right now. They want a giant tax hike on passthrough small businesses, a category--listen to this--that encompasses 95 percent of all businesses in the country--95 percent of them. Take it from a constituent of mine in Mount Sterling, KY, who put it this way: Small business is already in a struggle to survive with all the taxes and regulations we have to deal with. Adding another tax is only making things worse. Democrats also want a so-called ``methane fee'' that amounts to a big new tax hike on domestic natural gas, while their inflation has pushed American families' natural gas prices and electricity costs up through the roof already. If following reckless spending and runaway inflation with a gigantic, painful tax hike sounds like a bad idea to you, believe me, you are not alone. Even some House Democrats are lighting their hair on fire over what a terrible idea these discussions are. One House Democrat from New Jersey is telling reporters that she is ``notfor any type of legislation that raises taxes . . . especially right now, as my constituents are facing inflation, cost of living [increases] . . . [and] housing prices.'' Well, let me put it this way. When House Democrats from the Northeast start trying to sound more like Ronald Reagan running against Jimmy Carter, you know they have gotten themselves into a fix. Too bad every single House Democrat except one and every single Senate Democrat voted for the $2 trillion mistake that brought us to where we are. The Democrats complaining about inflation today voted in lockstep for the bill that brought us here. And now their answer to picking families' pockets once is to now pick the families' pockets yet a second time. The same Democrats that spent us into inflation now want to tax us into recession. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3245-6 | null | 4,686 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this morning, this all-Democratic government produced yet another absolutely terrible, terrible inflation report. Inflation during the month of June shattered the experts' predictions. We are now--listen to this--at 9.1 percent annual inflation; yet another fresh 40-year high, the most out-of-control inflation that American families have seen since the early 1980s. Food costs are up more than 10 percent. Energy costs are up more than 40 percent. The costs of the fuel that drives us to work, delivers our goods, and drives our economy are all up over 60 percent. These are staggeringly--staggeringly--bad numbers. And they were fueled directly by the reckless spending spree that the Democrats rammed through on party lines just last year. Remember, right before the $2 trillion spending spree, President Biden said: The biggest risk is not going too big . . . it's if we go too small. The Senate Democratic leader said: I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the near-term, are very real. These were gigantic--gigantic--unforced errors. One leading economist recently said the so-called American Rescue Plan was ``arguably the biggest fiscal policy mistake in several decades.'' Our core inflation rate here in America is more than 2 percentage points higher than in Europe. Inflation is uniquely bad here because our all-Democratic government has made uniquely bad choices. And now American families are dealing with the fallout every single day. It is no secret how much the American people disapprove of the course Washington Democrats have put us on. They say so in poll after poll after poll. So you might think by now that our colleagues would be ready to try a different approach. Well, guess again. President Biden and his party, fresh off of spending America into inflation, now want to tax-hike us into recession. They are behind closed doors playing around with what may amount to the single largest tax increase in American history. Tucked inside are exactly the sort of radical ideas that working families can least afford right now. They want a giant tax hike on passthrough small businesses, a category--listen to this--that encompasses 95 percent of all businesses in the country--95 percent of them. Take it from a constituent of mine in Mount Sterling, KY, who put it this way: Small business is already in a struggle to survive with all the taxes and regulations we have to deal with. Adding another tax is only making things worse. Democrats also want a so-called ``methane fee'' that amounts to a big new tax hike on domestic natural gas, while their inflation has pushed American families' natural gas prices and electricity costs up through the roof already. If following reckless spending and runaway inflation with a gigantic, painful tax hike sounds like a bad idea to you, believe me, you are not alone. Even some House Democrats are lighting their hair on fire over what a terrible idea these discussions are. One House Democrat from New Jersey is telling reporters that she is ``notfor any type of legislation that raises taxes . . . especially right now, as my constituents are facing inflation, cost of living [increases] . . . [and] housing prices.'' Well, let me put it this way. When House Democrats from the Northeast start trying to sound more like Ronald Reagan running against Jimmy Carter, you know they have gotten themselves into a fix. Too bad every single House Democrat except one and every single Senate Democrat voted for the $2 trillion mistake that brought us to where we are. The Democrats complaining about inflation today voted in lockstep for the bill that brought us here. And now their answer to picking families' pockets once is to now pick the families' pockets yet a second time. The same Democrats that spent us into inflation now want to tax us into recession. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3245-6 | null | 4,687 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. | 2020-01-06 | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3246-4 | null | 4,688 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3251-2 | null | 4,689 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination. The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. | 2020-01-06 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3251-2 | null | 4,690 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Highland Park Shooting Mr. President, earlier this week, I introduced the Senate and those who follow our proceedings to an 8-year-old boy who lives in Highland Park, IL. His name is Cooper Roberts. He is a twin. His twin brother's name is Luke. Cooper and Luke and Mom and Dad decided a few days ago--last weekend, as a matter of fact--to attend the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park. It was a natural choice: beautiful day, salute to our country, a parade passing by, American flags, in one of the nicest communities in the State of Illinois. We all know what happened that day: A shooter took an assault-style weapon to the roof of a downtown business and, in a matter of a minute or two, discharged 90 rounds into the crowd. As a result of that gunfire, Cooper Roberts, this 8-year-old boy, was left paralyzed after being shot in the Highland Park Fourth of July parade mass shooting. He has undergone a series of surgeries since. I tell this story on the floor of the Senate for two reasons: The family has spoken to the press and been open about Cooper's struggle, and I am glad they have because he has a cheering section now that has reached far beyond Illinois and is around the Nation, and secondly, because this poor little boy's situation is a reflection on what assault rifles can do to the human body. I am not an expert on firearms. I don't pretend to be. But I watch programs and have read a lot on the subject, and I know that the assault rifles--the AR-15 and those in that same class--are not your ordinary firearms. They discharge their bullets and ammunition at two to three times the velocity of an ordinary firearm, and when that ammunition hits the body of a person, it starts tumbling and tearing apart the body as it goes through. Cooper, this 8-year-old boy, had his spinal cord severed by a bullet, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. Sadly, the family reported yesterday that he is back in critical condition at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital. He showed some improvement last Friday, but things are not going well--at least they weren't yesterday, according to his family. The bullet which entered this little boy's abdomen injured his liver, his abdominal aorta, and his esophagus near his stomach. A hole in the esophagus was sewn shut by surgery, the family has said. Well, they reported yesterday that Cooper's esophagus has reopened,in a written update. As a result, he is facing an urgent, complex, and lengthy surgery today to again attempt to repair his torn esophagus. This will be his seventh surgery since last Fourth of July, and it is particularly high risk given his age and his current condition. By Tuesday evening, the family provided additional updates, saying the doctors were able to find and close the leak in his esophagus. ``This is a good outcome--Cooper is still fighting,'' the family said. The next few days will be critical. One of Cooper's lungs is partially collapsed, according to the family. His heart rate is elevated, and he is spiking a fever due to a new infection and complications he must face. Cooper was one of dozens of people shot at the parade. Seven have died. An individual is being held on murder charges in the mass shooting. Cooper and others in Highland Park were shot with a military-style Smith & Wesson M&P 15 semiautomatic rifle. For those who weren't aware, ``M&P'' in the name of this rifle suggests it is for military and police use. But it was purchased by the individual charged with these murders, who was neither a member of the military nor police. In an interview with WGN-TV in Chicago, Dr. Ana Velez-Rosborough, a trauma surgeon who is treating Cooper at Highland Park Hospital, said the injuries were ``devastating,'' in her words. ``They create very large wounds,'' Velez-Rosborough told the station. ``They basically destroy organs. They destroy soft tissue. They destroy bone.'' Cooper received what we call a massive transfusion--enormous amount of blood--in order to keep him alive during the operation. The boy's aorta injury was so severe that a portion of it was removed and replaced with a synthetic graft, according to the family. The family is praying for a miracle that this little boy survives. We should join them in that prayer, but we need to go beyond that. Yesterday, Senator Duckworth and I had a meeting with residents from Highland Park who, on their own, spontaneously came to Washington to plead with Congress to do something about these military-style weapons that are being sold in the United States and did such devastating damage to this beautiful little boy. Joining those from Highland Park was a group from Uvalde, TX. They certainly know this story individually and personally. They lost 19 kids at their grade school. They came in with pictures of prayer cards from the funeral parlors. The point they were making to us and to everyone is that this is madness. To allow individuals to have this type of weapon who are not members of the military, not policemen, and to use these weapons on other Americans is unthinkable. What in the world is America thinking to believe this has something to do with a constitutional right? A constitutional right? What were Cooper's constitutional rights to go to a parade on the Fourth of July in Highland Park and come home safely? Where was the respect for them? And, of course, when you are discharging 90 rounds into a crowd, it is a wonder even more people weren't injured. I bring this to the attention of the Senate because--I raised it earlier in the week--I think it is time for us to focus on the reality of mass shooting in America. While this was going on in Highland Park, that same weekend, dozens were being shot and some killed in the city of Chicago and cities across America. It is impossible for me to believe that we can do nothing to deal with this. The families from Highland Park and Uvalde, TX, were shaking their heads as I explained to them the problems with the filibuster rules in the Senate. Do you think a filibuster rule makes any difference to the family of this wonderful little boy? They couldn't care less about the rules of the Senate and wonder why the Congress can't respond to this clear and present danger in our streets that has resulted in over 300 mass shootings this year so far--sadly, more to come. I said before when I came to the floor, when I left for the Fourth of July recess, I had no idea that I was going to personally join this fraternity of grief--Senators and Congressmen from cities and towns all across America--who have endured these mass shootings, who then have to sit down with families in tears and explain to them why their Congressman and their Senator can do nothing. Well, I refuse to accept that. I believe that we can do something. We came to our senses to pass a gun safety bill after Uvalde. I voted for it. It didn't touch the issue of these military weapons per se, although it did call for deeper background checks for those under the age of 21. I support that, but let's go further and be honest about this. There is no need for anyone to own this military-style weapon, and for it to be sold to the average individual, who has no training whatsoever on the weapon to prove that he is eligible to own it and who can use this weapon under these circumstances which cannot be controlled, is unacceptable. What would our argument be if someone said: I want to buy a grenade launcher. I think I have Second Amendment rights to own one. We would say to him: That is ridiculous. Grenades are for war. Well, these military weapons are for war as well, and I don't believe they should be sold in this country. I believe the military assault weapon ban that I voted for in 1994 was the right thing to do. It was a 10-year ban. We should have extended it. During the period of that ban on assault weapons, there was a lot of controversy, but there were far fewer deaths from mass shootings. It is an indication of the truth of this issue. I hope that we continue to tell the story of the victims and their families so that our colleagues in the Senate of both political parties will come to understand it is time for us to step up, accept our responsibilities of office, and protect children like Cooper Roberts. (Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.) | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3251-5 | null | 4,691 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and food companies are making recordbreaking profits. The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families fall further and further behind. The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the poor are living in abysmal conditions. And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share. The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know what is going on. So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry. No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, to the highly profitable microchip industry. And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon. For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is makingit harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? My answer to that question, and I think the American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no. Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad. And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your respect for American workers. Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout. The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in profits. Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs taxpayer money to survive? Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is a company that the American people should be bailing out, really? Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, that company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries. Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in Federal grants under this bill. It might be interesting to note who the largest shareholder of TSMC is. Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan, you would be correct, which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy. Let us be clear. When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea, is also in line to receive Federal funding under this bill. In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other nations. And on and on it goes. Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy. Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of campaign contributions. The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful? In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today. We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; that is crony capitalism. Some of my colleagues make a point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. In my view, we must prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. That is what a real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands. Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy. I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the U.S. taxpayers. This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of corporate welfare to people who don't need it. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3253 | null | 4,692 |
formal | handout | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and food companies are making recordbreaking profits. The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families fall further and further behind. The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the poor are living in abysmal conditions. And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share. The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know what is going on. So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry. No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, to the highly profitable microchip industry. And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon. For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is makingit harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? My answer to that question, and I think the American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no. Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad. And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your respect for American workers. Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout. The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in profits. Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs taxpayer money to survive? Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is a company that the American people should be bailing out, really? Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, that company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries. Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in Federal grants under this bill. It might be interesting to note who the largest shareholder of TSMC is. Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan, you would be correct, which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy. Let us be clear. When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea, is also in line to receive Federal funding under this bill. In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other nations. And on and on it goes. Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy. Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of campaign contributions. The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful? In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today. We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; that is crony capitalism. Some of my colleagues make a point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. In my view, we must prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. That is what a real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands. Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy. I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the U.S. taxpayers. This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of corporate welfare to people who don't need it. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3253 | null | 4,693 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and food companies are making recordbreaking profits. The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families fall further and further behind. The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the poor are living in abysmal conditions. And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share. The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know what is going on. So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry. No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, to the highly profitable microchip industry. And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon. For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is makingit harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? My answer to that question, and I think the American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no. Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad. And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your respect for American workers. Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout. The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in profits. Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs taxpayer money to survive? Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is a company that the American people should be bailing out, really? Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, that company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries. Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in Federal grants under this bill. It might be interesting to note who the largest shareholder of TSMC is. Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan, you would be correct, which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy. Let us be clear. When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea, is also in line to receive Federal funding under this bill. In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other nations. And on and on it goes. Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy. Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of campaign contributions. The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful? In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today. We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; that is crony capitalism. Some of my colleagues make a point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. In my view, we must prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. That is what a real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands. Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy. I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the U.S. taxpayers. This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of corporate welfare to people who don't need it. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3253 | null | 4,694 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and food companies are making recordbreaking profits. The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families fall further and further behind. The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the poor are living in abysmal conditions. And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share. The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know what is going on. So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry. No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, to the highly profitable microchip industry. And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon. For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is makingit harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? My answer to that question, and I think the American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no. Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad. And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your respect for American workers. Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout. The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in profits. Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs taxpayer money to survive? Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is a company that the American people should be bailing out, really? Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, that company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries. Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in Federal grants under this bill. It might be interesting to note who the largest shareholder of TSMC is. Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan, you would be correct, which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy. Let us be clear. When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea, is also in line to receive Federal funding under this bill. In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other nations. And on and on it goes. Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy. Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of campaign contributions. The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful? In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today. We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; that is crony capitalism. Some of my colleagues make a point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. In my view, we must prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. That is what a real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands. Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy. I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the U.S. taxpayers. This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of corporate welfare to people who don't need it. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3253 | null | 4,695 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and food companies are making recordbreaking profits. The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families fall further and further behind. The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the poor are living in abysmal conditions. And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share. The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know what is going on. So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry. No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, to the highly profitable microchip industry. And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon. For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is makingit harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? My answer to that question, and I think the American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no. Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad. And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your respect for American workers. Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout. The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in profits. Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs taxpayer money to survive? Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is a company that the American people should be bailing out, really? Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, that company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries. Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in Federal grants under this bill. It might be interesting to note who the largest shareholder of TSMC is. Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan, you would be correct, which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy. Let us be clear. When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea, is also in line to receive Federal funding under this bill. In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other nations. And on and on it goes. Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy. Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of campaign contributions. The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful? In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today. We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; that is crony capitalism. Some of my colleagues make a point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. In my view, we must prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. That is what a real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands. Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy. I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the U.S. taxpayers. This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of corporate welfare to people who don't need it. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3253 | null | 4,696 |
formal | working class | null | racist | Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented level of corporate greed that we are seeing right now. The American people are sick and tired of paying outrageously high prices at the gas pump and at the grocery store while at the same time oil companies and food companies are making recordbreaking profits. The American people are sick and tired of struggling to pay for the basic necessities of life while at the same time 700 billionaires in this country became $2 trillion richer during the pandemic. And income and wealth inequality today is worse than it has been for 100 years--people on top doing phenomenally well, middle class working families fall further and further behind. The American people are sick and tired of seeing multibillionaires, like Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Branson, taking joyrides to outer space in their spaceships, buying $500 million superyachts, and living in mansions all over the world while some 600,000 people in our country are homeless. In other words, we are looking at two worlds. People on top never did better, middle class is continuing to decline, and the poor are living in abysmal conditions. And in the midst of all of this, the American people want Congress, want their elected officials, to address corporate greed, to address income and wealth inequality, and end a tax system in which some of the wealthiest people in this country in a given year do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes, where large, profitable corporations do not pay a nickel in Federal taxes. And they want a tax system which is fair, where the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share. The last poll that I saw had Congress--the U.S. Congress--with a 16-percent approval rating--16 percent. And to me, this was shocking, really quite shocking, because I suspect that the 16 percent who believe that Congress was doing something meaningful really don't know what is going on. So what is Congress doing right now at a time in which we face so many massive problems, not to mention climate change, not to mention a massive housing crisis where 18 million families are paying half of their income in housing, not to mention the student debt that 45 million Americans are carrying? What is Congress about? What are we working on right this minute? And the answer is that for 2 months, a 107-member conference committee has been meeting behind closed doors to provide over $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, to the highly profitable microchip industry. No, we are not talking about healthcare for all. No, we are not talking about making higher education affordable. No, we are not talking about making sure that young people can earn decent salaries when they become teachers. No, we are not talking about leading the world in combating climate change. We are talking about giving $50 billion in corporate welfare, with no strings attached, a blank check, to the highly profitable microchip industry. And, yes, if you can believe it--and I am talking to the 16 percent of Americans who have a favorable opinion of Congress--if you can believe it, this legislation may also provide a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America, so that his company Blue Origin can launch a rocket ship to the Moon. For all of my colleagues who tell us how deeply, deeply concerned they are about the deficit--oh, my goodness, we cannot help working families with a child tax credit; we cannot expand Medicare to cover dental and hearing aids and eyeglasses; we can't build the affordable housing; Bernie, we don't have the money to do that; we have a big deficit--well, what about the deficit when it comes to giving $52 billion in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations in America? I guess, when you are giving corporate welfare to big and powerful interests, the deficit no longer matters. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a global shortage in microchips and semiconductors, which is makingit harder for manufacturers to produce the automobiles and cell phones and the electronic equipment that we need. This shortage is costing American workers good jobs and raising prices for families. I don't think there is a debate about that reality, which is why I--and I think many other others here in the Senate--fully support efforts to expand U.S. microchip production. But the question that we should be asking is this. Should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $50 billion at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? My answer to that question, and I think the American people's answer to that question, is a resounding no. Let's review some recent history about the microchip industry, which I do not hear discussed very often here on the floor. Over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down--has shut down--over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States. It shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs while moving most of their production overseas after receiving some $91.5 billion in government subsidies and loans. Got that? They have shut down over 780 plants, thrown 150,000 American workers out on the street as they have gone abroad. In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies took government money and used that money to ship good-paying jobs abroad. And what are we doing about that? You shut down plants in America; you jeopardize the production of microchips here in America; you throw 150,000 workers out on the street; and what is our response? Hey, here is $52 billion. Thank you very much for your patriotism and your respect for American workers. Now, that approach may make sense to some people, maybe people who got a lot of money from the microchip industry in campaign contributions. I don't know. But it sure as hell does not make sense to me. In total, it has been estimated that five major semiconductor companies will receive the lion's share of this taxpayer handout. Those companies are Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, GlobalFoundries, and Samsung. These five companies, my friends, made $70 billion in profits last year. So if you are a worker in America trying to get by on $12, $13 an hour, nothing we can do for you. If you can't afford the outrageous cost of healthcare in America, can't do anything for you. Can't buy the prescription drugs that your doctor prescribes because they are too expensive? Can't do anything for you. But if you are an industry where the top five companies made $70 billion in profits last year, well, we have some good news for you. Keep the campaign contributions coming. We are there for you, and we are going to give you a $52 billion handout. The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them the best. But let's be clear. Intel is not a poor, struggling company. It is not a company which is going broke. In 2021, last year, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits. That is not a bad year, $20 billion in profits. During the pandemic, Intel had enough money to spend $16.6 billion not on research and development, not on starting new plants in America but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders. That is what Intel did with its $20 billion in profits. Last year, Intel could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $179 million compensation package--$179 million compensation package. Does that sound like a company that needs a corporate bailout, that needs taxpayer money to survive? Over the past 20 years, Intel has spent over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions--that is the definition of the corrupt political system under which we live--while at the same time shipping thousands of jobs to China and other low-income countries. And that is a company that the American people should be bailing out, really? Another company that would receive taxpayer assistance under this legislation is Texas Instruments. Last year, Texas Instruments made $7.8 billion in profits. In 2020, that company spent $2.5 billion buying back its own stock while it also, like Intel, has outsourced thousands of good-paying American jobs to low-wage countries. Who else is in line to receive corporate welfare under this bill? Well, how about the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC? It is in line to potentially receive billions of dollars in Federal grants under this bill. It might be interesting to note who the largest shareholder of TSMC is. Well, if you guessed the Government of Taiwan, you would be correct, which should come as no surprise to anybody who studies how other countries throughout the world conduct industrial policy. Let us be clear. When we provide TSMC money, we are giving that taxpayer money directly to the Government of Taiwan. Samsung, another very large corporate entity from South Korea, is also in line to receive Federal funding under this bill. In other words, not only would this bill be providing corporate welfare to profitable American corporations, but we would literally be handing over U.S. taxpayer dollars to corporations that are owned or controlled by other nations. And on and on it goes. Let me be very clear. I believe in industrial policy. I do. I believe that it makes sense, on certain occasions, for the Federal Government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America, to sit down and say: OK. You want to make some money. We have national needs that have to be addressed. How do we work well together so that you as a corporation do OK and so that taxpayers of this country do OK? That is called sensible industrial policy. Industrial policy means cooperation between the government and private sector--cooperation. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return. That is not industrial policy. That is just giving the money to large, profitable corporations that make a lot of campaign contributions. The question is, Will the U.S. Government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our people or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful? In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said: The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor. I am afraid that what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today. We hear a lot of talk in the Halls of Congress about the need to create public-private partnerships, and that all sounds very nice. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits, that is not a partnership; that is crony capitalism. Some of my colleagues make a point that the microchip industry is enormously important for our economy and that we must become less dependent on foreign nations for microchips. I agree. There is no argument about that. But we can and must accomplish that goal without simply throwing money at these companies while the taxpayer gets nothing in return. In my view, we must prevent microchip companies from receiving taxpayer assistance unless they agree to issue warrants or equity stakes to the Federal Government. If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders. That is what a real partnership--private-public partnership--is about. In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these Federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment. Further, if microchip companies receive taxpayer assistance, they must agree that they will not buy back their own stock, outsource American jobs, repeal existing collective bargaining agreements, and must remain neutral in any union organizing effort. This is not a radical idea. In fact, all of these conditions were imposed on companies that received taxpayer assistance during the pandemic and passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0. These are not radical demands. Moreover, I know this may be a radical idea in the Halls of Congress, but, no, I do not believe that this legislation should approve a $10 billion bailout for Jeff Bezos to fly to the Moon. I know that is a very radical idea, but maybe, just maybe, a middle class which is struggling, which is falling behind, should not see their taxpayer dollars go to the second wealthiest person in America. Radical idea, I know, but that is my view. Mr. Bezos is worth some $138 billion. He became $33 billion richer during the pandemic, and in a given year, Mr. Bezos has paid nothing in Federal income taxes because he and his friends write a tax system that benefits the wealthy. I say to Mr. Bezos, if he wants to go to the Moon, let him go to the Moon. That is OK. But he should do it on his own dime, not that of the U.S. taxpayers. This is where we are. This country faces enormous issues. We are not dealing with those issues. Instead, we are talking about a massive bailout for profitable corporations and a $10 billion check for the second wealthiest guy in this country. I would hope that Members of Congress listen to the American people, stand up for the working class and the middle class of this country and not give a massive amount of corporate welfare to people who don't need it. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SANDERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3253 | null | 4,697 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | U.S. Supreme Court Madam President, I rise today now for the 16th time to call out the darkmoney scheme to capture and control our Supreme Court. The last time I rose to shine a light on this scheme, I sounded a warning about a case then pending at the Supreme Court called West Virginia v. EPA. I discussed how the Court the dark money built was primed to smash through precedent and weaponize fringe legal theories to deliver for the scheme's big donors. I am sorry but not surprised to report that the Supreme Court's Federalist Society Six did exactly what the polluters asked. Not only did the Court deliver for polluters, it delivered big. Before we dive into that, let's recap what we knew going into this case. First, the case never should have made it this far in the first place. A handful of States, with fossil fuel-funded attorneys general and an armada of rightwing front groups that were propped up by dark money from the fossil fuel industry, asked the Supreme Court to strike down an EPA rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants. The problem was that the rule no longer existed. So there wasn't actually an operating EPA rule to challenge, meaning there was no constitutional case or controversy and no reason for a legitimate Court to entertain the industry's invitation. But this is the Court that dark money built, and it wasn't going to let this constitutional guardrail stand in its way of pleasing the big donors who packed the Court. Supreme Court precedent had repeatedly rejected the polluters' arguments outright. The polluters argued that Congress, not the EPA and the so-called administrative state, needed to do the regulating here. It is a matter of common sense that Congress delegates authorities to the EPA. It is also well known that polluters want to knock questions away from expert regulators and over to Congress, where their dark money political power--also a creature of the Court that dark money built--can be brought to bear to buy delay and obstruction. The power of Congress to legislate broadly and let Agency experts fill in the gaps has been upheld for decades against persistent attacks from regulated industries. Well, no more. No matters of law or fact had changed since the last time similar questions were answered by the Court. The thing that changed is who is on the Court: a majority, selected by polluters, using hundreds of millions in dark money, which brings us to the decision itself. There is good news, and there is very, very bad news. The good news is that the Court's ruling is actually very narrow as to the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases in the power sector. It is limited to deliberate generation shifting. So there is lots left to work with, and the EPA needs to pull up its socks and get to work on regulating carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution. So far, in 18 months of the Biden administration, the EPA has managed to produce one carbon emissions regulation and not a very strong one at that. The EPA needs to move now as fast as possible. There is not a second to waste. That is the good news. The bad news, however, is grim. The Federalist Society's Justices loaded up their opinions with polluter talking points and hothouse-grown polluter legal doctrines, paving the way for polluters to block or delay regulations for years to come. Start with the polluter talking points, rife throughout Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, which spends 20 pages decrying the dangers of government regulation. He calls regulators a ``ruling class of largely unaccountable `ministers.' '' This is not even remotely true. If there is an unaccountable ruling class in America right now, it is the Court that dark money built and the dark money forces behind it. Compare that to the EPA. The EPA's leadership is selected by the President, approved by the Senate, and can be fired at will should they deviate from the elected President's priorities. They are all directly accountable, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget reviews every EPA regulation to make sure it is consistent with the elected President's priorities. Congress retains complete control over the EPA's funding and has entire committees dedicated to oversight. It is Congress that provided the EPA with its instructions through laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Acts. Congress also created the Administrative Procedure Act to assure that Agencies like the EPA carry out their duties fairly, according to the facts, under proper procedure, and under rigorous judicial supervision, and we passed the Congressional Review Act so Congress is able to swiftly undo any rules that it doesn't like. In actuality, in the real world, there is direct accountability and oversight over the EPA by all three branches--by all three branches--over the supposedly unaccountable ruling class. By comparison, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues wield their unaccountable power without even the bare minimum of an enforceable ethics code. This argument by Justice Gorsuch may not be founded in fact, but it has a foundation. The idea that the biggest threat to freedom is an administrative state full of unaccountable bureaucrats is a longstanding talking point of the fossil fuel industry constantly trotted out by Republican politicians and fossil fuel front groups. Here is just a taste of what I mean. Here is the Heritage Foundation--a key fossil fuel front group: [T]he administrative state's functionaries are powerful. . . . They are unelected, unknown, and, for all practical purposes often unaccountable. Sound familiar? Here is the minority leader himself responding to a speech by a Republican Senator who is decrying unelected bureaucrats. The minority leader called this the ``single biggest problem confronting our country . . . the single biggest thing holding this country back from reaching its potential.'' And in the wake of this very decision, he went back to their go-to talking point: ``unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.'' It just is not true. The foundation of Gorsuch's screed is not fact; it is political fossil fuel talking points, and we should not be surprised that those talking points made their way into an opinion by a Supreme Court Justice. That is exactly what the Court that dark money built was built for. Aside from the talking points are legal doctrines hatched in polluter-funded hothouse doctrine factories, a web of phony think tanks, scheme-friendly scholars, and conservative conferences designed to cultivate and legitimize fringe legal theories--reverse engineered to produce the results the polluters want. One of these is the so-called major questions doctrine, which--guess what--makes its maiden appearance in West Virginia v. EPA. Let's look at how the major questions doctrine traveled from the doctrine factory into a Supreme Court decision. The Trump administration, fully in tow to the fossil fuel industry, took this rare specimen of legal theory and pumped it up into a powerful weapon against the functioning of the Federal Government. From day one, Trump's top adviser, Steve Bannon, vowed that the Trump administration would carry out the ``deconstruction of the administrative state.'' Trump's White House Counsel Don McGahn--the same Don McGahn who oversaw the confirmation of the scheme's hand-picked Justices--admitted that the ``judicial selection and the deregulation effort are really the flip side of the same coin.'' Think about that. In his own words, the Trump White House had a ``larger plan'' to wipe out government regulations by using judges. For 4 years, the Trump lawyers argued in court for this major questions doctrine that had been previously unmentioned in any Supreme Court decision. The Trump team urged courts to deploy the doctrine to strike down Agency laws, including in this case, West Virginia v. EPA. Now, while the Court had never mentioned the doctrine, it had been mentioned. Brett Kavanaugh, on the DC Circuit, did while he was auditioning himself for a seat on the Supreme Court, to catch the eye of the scheme donors and to telegraph to them how eager he was to do their bidding. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case about net neutrality--a case with many of the scheme's dark money front groups--Cato, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation--present as amici. They were the right audience for Kavanaugh's ``major questions'' audition tape, and he aimed to please. Payday for scheme donors came in West Virginia v. EPA. At least 14 polluter front group amici showed up to push in chorus for their major questions doctrine--the usual suspects--funded by fossil fuel dark money, like Cato, the Koch flagship Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Justice Gorsuch's concurrence is rife with citations legitimizing doctrine factory ``scholarship.'' He cites articles written by the founder and president of the Free State Foundation, a member of the dark money State Policy Network; by a member of the dark money Federalist Society's Administrative Law Group executive committee; and by the former president of the Koch-funded American Enterprise Institute. The scheme is all about boosting corporate power and rolling back government regulations. It is not just about building a dark money Court; it is about front groups by the dozen which operate in coordinated flotillas; it is about faux scholarship--reverse-engineered in a parallel universe of faux academia--to give polluters power over government; and it is about more than a half a billion dollars in dark money spent to set up and run the whole sham enterprise. The attack on regulation began with an effort to revive the so-called nondelegation doctrine discarded by the Supreme Court almost 100 years ago. Like the major questions doctrine, the nondelegation doctrine allowed courts to strike down Agency rules when Congress wasn't explicit enough in delegating power. Polluters loved it. Scheme front groups like the Cato Institute--propped up by the dark money from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch family and from companies like ExxonMobil--sponsored research that argued for reviving the nondelegation doctrine. They organized conferences and seminars, lobbied legislators, and funded law groups designed to spread the idea far and wide. But ``major questions'' had one advantage. Years ago, on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Breyer had used those two words once, in passing, in a lengthy law review article. They could seize that camouflage. And guess what. ``Major questions'' is just ``nondelegation'' in disguise. If you don't believe me, let's go back to Justice Gorsuch in a concurrence from another case earlier this year: [T]he major questions doctrine is closely related to what is sometimes called the nondelegation doctrine. Indeed, for decades, courts have cited the nondelegation doctrine as a reason to apply the major questions doctrine. . . . Whichever the doctrine, the point is the same. Indeed. The point is that a Court captured by polluter interests will find any way it can to import polluter doctrine--cooked up in polluter-funded doctrine factories--into the law of the land, and that is just what they just did in West Virginia v. EPA. For the polluters, mission accomplished. The Court that dark money built had already wreaked havoc in our law. Even before they got to six, they had run up 80 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests--80 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests. Now with six Justices, they have set about destroying precedent left and right, taking away the constitutional right of women to control their own reproductive decisions, blocking efforts to reduce gun violence, and now adopting new theories to empower polluters against public health regulation. The FedSoc Six's hatred for regulation isn't shared much outside the polluter-funded parallel universe. Most Americans appreciate regulations. They appreciate regulations that help make sure food and water are safe, that their air is clean to breathe, that medicines actually work, that markets operate honestly, that investors have real information, and that car seats protect you in a car wreck. The American people are right to sense that something is deeply amiss at the U.S. Supreme Court. A captured Court presents an unprecedented challenge to the other branches of government, but we aren't helpless. First, we need to start telling the truth about what is going on. The pattern is unmistakable, and people across the country need to understand this is not right; this is not normal. We can also pass laws like my DISCLOSE Act, which I hope will be coming up for a vote shortly, to shine light on the dark money donors who captured our Court in a long scheme. We can require real ethics requirements for Supreme Court Justices, just like all other Federal judges already have. Remember the ongoing ethics investigations against Judge Kavanaugh? They were dropped, not because they were resolved, not because they ended, not because he was found not culpable; they were dropped against Judge Kavanaugh because he escaped to the Supreme Court, where ethics investigations don't exist, so they had to shut down the ongoing investigations. That is a terrible signal. We can also require Justices to report gifts and hospitality, as all other judges do and all senior government officials do in the executive and legislative branches. There are many ways to push back against the new ``ruling class'' of ``unaccountable ministers'' occupying the captured Court and to assure the American people that fairness and justice, and not the Court's deep-pocketed special interest friends, are what drives Court decisions. There is a lot to be done, and we need to begin. To be continued. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3263 | null | 4,698 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | U.S. Supreme Court Madam President, I rise today now for the 16th time to call out the darkmoney scheme to capture and control our Supreme Court. The last time I rose to shine a light on this scheme, I sounded a warning about a case then pending at the Supreme Court called West Virginia v. EPA. I discussed how the Court the dark money built was primed to smash through precedent and weaponize fringe legal theories to deliver for the scheme's big donors. I am sorry but not surprised to report that the Supreme Court's Federalist Society Six did exactly what the polluters asked. Not only did the Court deliver for polluters, it delivered big. Before we dive into that, let's recap what we knew going into this case. First, the case never should have made it this far in the first place. A handful of States, with fossil fuel-funded attorneys general and an armada of rightwing front groups that were propped up by dark money from the fossil fuel industry, asked the Supreme Court to strike down an EPA rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants. The problem was that the rule no longer existed. So there wasn't actually an operating EPA rule to challenge, meaning there was no constitutional case or controversy and no reason for a legitimate Court to entertain the industry's invitation. But this is the Court that dark money built, and it wasn't going to let this constitutional guardrail stand in its way of pleasing the big donors who packed the Court. Supreme Court precedent had repeatedly rejected the polluters' arguments outright. The polluters argued that Congress, not the EPA and the so-called administrative state, needed to do the regulating here. It is a matter of common sense that Congress delegates authorities to the EPA. It is also well known that polluters want to knock questions away from expert regulators and over to Congress, where their dark money political power--also a creature of the Court that dark money built--can be brought to bear to buy delay and obstruction. The power of Congress to legislate broadly and let Agency experts fill in the gaps has been upheld for decades against persistent attacks from regulated industries. Well, no more. No matters of law or fact had changed since the last time similar questions were answered by the Court. The thing that changed is who is on the Court: a majority, selected by polluters, using hundreds of millions in dark money, which brings us to the decision itself. There is good news, and there is very, very bad news. The good news is that the Court's ruling is actually very narrow as to the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases in the power sector. It is limited to deliberate generation shifting. So there is lots left to work with, and the EPA needs to pull up its socks and get to work on regulating carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution. So far, in 18 months of the Biden administration, the EPA has managed to produce one carbon emissions regulation and not a very strong one at that. The EPA needs to move now as fast as possible. There is not a second to waste. That is the good news. The bad news, however, is grim. The Federalist Society's Justices loaded up their opinions with polluter talking points and hothouse-grown polluter legal doctrines, paving the way for polluters to block or delay regulations for years to come. Start with the polluter talking points, rife throughout Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, which spends 20 pages decrying the dangers of government regulation. He calls regulators a ``ruling class of largely unaccountable `ministers.' '' This is not even remotely true. If there is an unaccountable ruling class in America right now, it is the Court that dark money built and the dark money forces behind it. Compare that to the EPA. The EPA's leadership is selected by the President, approved by the Senate, and can be fired at will should they deviate from the elected President's priorities. They are all directly accountable, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget reviews every EPA regulation to make sure it is consistent with the elected President's priorities. Congress retains complete control over the EPA's funding and has entire committees dedicated to oversight. It is Congress that provided the EPA with its instructions through laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Acts. Congress also created the Administrative Procedure Act to assure that Agencies like the EPA carry out their duties fairly, according to the facts, under proper procedure, and under rigorous judicial supervision, and we passed the Congressional Review Act so Congress is able to swiftly undo any rules that it doesn't like. In actuality, in the real world, there is direct accountability and oversight over the EPA by all three branches--by all three branches--over the supposedly unaccountable ruling class. By comparison, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues wield their unaccountable power without even the bare minimum of an enforceable ethics code. This argument by Justice Gorsuch may not be founded in fact, but it has a foundation. The idea that the biggest threat to freedom is an administrative state full of unaccountable bureaucrats is a longstanding talking point of the fossil fuel industry constantly trotted out by Republican politicians and fossil fuel front groups. Here is just a taste of what I mean. Here is the Heritage Foundation--a key fossil fuel front group: [T]he administrative state's functionaries are powerful. . . . They are unelected, unknown, and, for all practical purposes often unaccountable. Sound familiar? Here is the minority leader himself responding to a speech by a Republican Senator who is decrying unelected bureaucrats. The minority leader called this the ``single biggest problem confronting our country . . . the single biggest thing holding this country back from reaching its potential.'' And in the wake of this very decision, he went back to their go-to talking point: ``unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.'' It just is not true. The foundation of Gorsuch's screed is not fact; it is political fossil fuel talking points, and we should not be surprised that those talking points made their way into an opinion by a Supreme Court Justice. That is exactly what the Court that dark money built was built for. Aside from the talking points are legal doctrines hatched in polluter-funded hothouse doctrine factories, a web of phony think tanks, scheme-friendly scholars, and conservative conferences designed to cultivate and legitimize fringe legal theories--reverse engineered to produce the results the polluters want. One of these is the so-called major questions doctrine, which--guess what--makes its maiden appearance in West Virginia v. EPA. Let's look at how the major questions doctrine traveled from the doctrine factory into a Supreme Court decision. The Trump administration, fully in tow to the fossil fuel industry, took this rare specimen of legal theory and pumped it up into a powerful weapon against the functioning of the Federal Government. From day one, Trump's top adviser, Steve Bannon, vowed that the Trump administration would carry out the ``deconstruction of the administrative state.'' Trump's White House Counsel Don McGahn--the same Don McGahn who oversaw the confirmation of the scheme's hand-picked Justices--admitted that the ``judicial selection and the deregulation effort are really the flip side of the same coin.'' Think about that. In his own words, the Trump White House had a ``larger plan'' to wipe out government regulations by using judges. For 4 years, the Trump lawyers argued in court for this major questions doctrine that had been previously unmentioned in any Supreme Court decision. The Trump team urged courts to deploy the doctrine to strike down Agency laws, including in this case, West Virginia v. EPA. Now, while the Court had never mentioned the doctrine, it had been mentioned. Brett Kavanaugh, on the DC Circuit, did while he was auditioning himself for a seat on the Supreme Court, to catch the eye of the scheme donors and to telegraph to them how eager he was to do their bidding. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case about net neutrality--a case with many of the scheme's dark money front groups--Cato, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation--present as amici. They were the right audience for Kavanaugh's ``major questions'' audition tape, and he aimed to please. Payday for scheme donors came in West Virginia v. EPA. At least 14 polluter front group amici showed up to push in chorus for their major questions doctrine--the usual suspects--funded by fossil fuel dark money, like Cato, the Koch flagship Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Justice Gorsuch's concurrence is rife with citations legitimizing doctrine factory ``scholarship.'' He cites articles written by the founder and president of the Free State Foundation, a member of the dark money State Policy Network; by a member of the dark money Federalist Society's Administrative Law Group executive committee; and by the former president of the Koch-funded American Enterprise Institute. The scheme is all about boosting corporate power and rolling back government regulations. It is not just about building a dark money Court; it is about front groups by the dozen which operate in coordinated flotillas; it is about faux scholarship--reverse-engineered in a parallel universe of faux academia--to give polluters power over government; and it is about more than a half a billion dollars in dark money spent to set up and run the whole sham enterprise. The attack on regulation began with an effort to revive the so-called nondelegation doctrine discarded by the Supreme Court almost 100 years ago. Like the major questions doctrine, the nondelegation doctrine allowed courts to strike down Agency rules when Congress wasn't explicit enough in delegating power. Polluters loved it. Scheme front groups like the Cato Institute--propped up by the dark money from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch family and from companies like ExxonMobil--sponsored research that argued for reviving the nondelegation doctrine. They organized conferences and seminars, lobbied legislators, and funded law groups designed to spread the idea far and wide. But ``major questions'' had one advantage. Years ago, on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Breyer had used those two words once, in passing, in a lengthy law review article. They could seize that camouflage. And guess what. ``Major questions'' is just ``nondelegation'' in disguise. If you don't believe me, let's go back to Justice Gorsuch in a concurrence from another case earlier this year: [T]he major questions doctrine is closely related to what is sometimes called the nondelegation doctrine. Indeed, for decades, courts have cited the nondelegation doctrine as a reason to apply the major questions doctrine. . . . Whichever the doctrine, the point is the same. Indeed. The point is that a Court captured by polluter interests will find any way it can to import polluter doctrine--cooked up in polluter-funded doctrine factories--into the law of the land, and that is just what they just did in West Virginia v. EPA. For the polluters, mission accomplished. The Court that dark money built had already wreaked havoc in our law. Even before they got to six, they had run up 80 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests--80 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests. Now with six Justices, they have set about destroying precedent left and right, taking away the constitutional right of women to control their own reproductive decisions, blocking efforts to reduce gun violence, and now adopting new theories to empower polluters against public health regulation. The FedSoc Six's hatred for regulation isn't shared much outside the polluter-funded parallel universe. Most Americans appreciate regulations. They appreciate regulations that help make sure food and water are safe, that their air is clean to breathe, that medicines actually work, that markets operate honestly, that investors have real information, and that car seats protect you in a car wreck. The American people are right to sense that something is deeply amiss at the U.S. Supreme Court. A captured Court presents an unprecedented challenge to the other branches of government, but we aren't helpless. First, we need to start telling the truth about what is going on. The pattern is unmistakable, and people across the country need to understand this is not right; this is not normal. We can also pass laws like my DISCLOSE Act, which I hope will be coming up for a vote shortly, to shine light on the dark money donors who captured our Court in a long scheme. We can require real ethics requirements for Supreme Court Justices, just like all other Federal judges already have. Remember the ongoing ethics investigations against Judge Kavanaugh? They were dropped, not because they were resolved, not because they ended, not because he was found not culpable; they were dropped against Judge Kavanaugh because he escaped to the Supreme Court, where ethics investigations don't exist, so they had to shut down the ongoing investigations. That is a terrible signal. We can also require Justices to report gifts and hospitality, as all other judges do and all senior government officials do in the executive and legislative branches. There are many ways to push back against the new ``ruling class'' of ``unaccountable ministers'' occupying the captured Court and to assure the American people that fairness and justice, and not the Court's deep-pocketed special interest friends, are what drives Court decisions. There is a lot to be done, and we need to begin. To be continued. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3263 | null | 4,699 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.