data_type stringclasses 2 values | dog_whistle stringlengths 2 26 | dog_whistle_root stringlengths 2 98 ⌀ | ingroup stringclasses 17 values | content stringlengths 2 83.3k | date stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | speaker stringlengths 4 62 ⌀ | chamber stringclasses 2 values | reference stringlengths 24 31 ⌀ | community stringclasses 11 values | __index_level_0__ int64 0 35.6k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. Reed, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Tillis, Mr. King, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Warnock, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Ossoff, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Cotton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kelly, and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 745 Whereas the members of the airborne forces of the Armed Forces of the United States have a long and honorable history as bold and fierce warriors who, for the national security of the United States and the defense of freedom and peace, project the ground combat power of the United States by air transport to the far reaches of the battle area and to the far corners of the world; Whereas, on June 25, 1940, experiments with airborne operations by the United States began after the Army Parachute Test Platoon was first authorized by the Department of War; Whereas, in July 1940, 48 volunteers began training for the Army Parachute Test Platoon; Whereas the first official Army parachute jump took place on August 16, 1940, to test the innovative concept of inserting United States ground combat forces behind a battle line by means of a parachute; Whereas the success of the Army Parachute Test Platoon, before the entry of the United States into World War II, validated the airborne operational concept and led to the creation of a formidable force of airborne formations that included the 11th, 13th, 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne Divisions; Whereas included in those divisions, and among other separate formations, were many airborne combat, combat support, and combat service support units that served with distinction and achieved repeated success in armed hostilities during World War II; Whereas the achievements of the airborne units during World War II prompted the evolution of those units into a diversified force of parachute and air-assault units that, over the years, have fought in Korea, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf region, and Somalia, and have engaged in peacekeeping operations in Lebanon, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo; Whereas, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the members of the United States airborne forces, including members of the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) of the 25th Infantry Division, the 75th Ranger Regiment, special operations forces of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, and other units of the Armed Forces, have demonstrated bravery and honor in combat, stability, and training operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters in the Global War on Terrorism; Whereas the continued evolution of United States Army airborne units allowed for the reactivation of the 11th Airborne Division on June 6, 2022, to lead the Armed Forces of the United States in Arctic warfighting capabilities, support United States Indo-Pacific Command operations, and continue the storied legacy of the 11th Airborne Division that dates back to World War II; Whereas the modern airborne forces also include other elite forces composed of airborne trained and qualified special operations warriors, including Army Special Forces, Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions, Navy SEALs, and Air Force combat control and pararescue teams; Whereas, of the members and former members of the United States airborne forces, thousands have achieved the distinction of making combat jumps, dozens have earned the Medal of Honor, and hundreds have earned the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star, or other decorations and awards for displays of heroism, gallantry, intrepidity, and valor; Whereas the members and former members of the United States airborne forces are all members of a proud and honorable tradition that, together with the special skills and achievements of those members, distinguishes the members as intrepid combat parachutists, air assault forces, special operation forces, and, in the past, glider infantry; Whereas individuals from every State of the United States have served gallantly in the airborne forces, and each State is proud of the contributions of its paratrooper veterans during the many conflicts faced by the United States; Whereas the history and achievements of the members and former members of the United States airborne forces warrant special expressions of the gratitude of the people of the United States; and Whereas, since the airborne forces, past and present, celebrate August 16 as the anniversary of the first official jump by the Army Parachute Test Platoon, August 16 is an appropriate day to recognize as National Airborne Day: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates August 16, 2022, as ``National Airborne Day''; and (2) calls on the people of the United States to observe National Airborne Day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-04-pt1-PgS4047 | null | 4,900 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that, in light of the passing of the gentlewoman from Indiana, Mrs. Walorski, the whole number of the House is 430. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-08-05-pt1-PgH7550 | null | 4,901 |
formal | cutting taxes | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the United States has done some good, important, even historic work this week. On Tuesday, we passed the PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare to an estimated 3.5 million veterans. Their service to our Nation exposed them to potentially deadly toxic chemicals from Agent Orange in the Vietnam conflict to toxic burn pits, which were found to be ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan. It took too long: 12 years. Toxic exposed veterans and family members had to stand on the steps of the Capitol, literally camped out for 5 days and nights to remind us that the veterans suffering from toxic exposure deserve care as surely as veterans injured by bullets and bombs. But in the end, thank goodness, we did the right thing. The vote to pass the PACT Act was 86 to 11--86 votes in a 50-50 Democratic/Republican Chamber. It was a remarkable, bipartisan rollcall. And then we made history this week when the Senate voted to ratify the entry of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Vladimir Putin gambled that Russia could seize Ukraine in just a few days, could use his victory to shatter NATO's unity and to deepen divides around the world. Vladimir Putin, again, was dead wrong. NATO is more united, larger, and more powerful than ever, while Vladimir Putin has become an international pariah. Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, suffering heavy losses. And the Russian economy is staggering under the weight of global sanctions imposed by the freedom-loving nations of the world against Russia. The Senate vote in favor of enlarging NATO to include Sweden and Finland was 95 to 1--95 votes in favor of it in a body that is divided equally, 50-50. Two major achievements in just 2 days, both with huge bipartisan majorities. That is proof for the doubters that the Senate can work together when the need is urgent and the solutions are just. Now we are debating another historic plan that should have the support of both parties. I listen to the speeches each day on the floor of the Senate. And every day our Republican colleagues stand on the floor and say it is about time we did something about inflation. They know that is exactly the way the American families feel--and I feel, as well. And then, sadly, when given a chance, as they will be in just a few minutes, my Republican friends try to stop legislation that will lower the cost and give American families a break on their cost of living. All the speeches notwithstanding, they refuse to vote for a provision which will actually lower families' living costs. They oppose cutting taxes for families. They oppose banning price gouging by oil companies. They oppose cutting healthcare premiums. They oppose extending the Child Tax Credits. They oppose lowering prescription drug prices. But we are going to give them another chance to do the right thing. They are going to have a chance to actually lower some of those big ticket costs which they gave all their speeches about and--listen to this bonus--reduce the deficit at the same time. Yes, the Democrats have a proposal which will reduce our national debt by $300 billion. Our plan is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does exactly what it says and even more. The Inflation Reduction Act will cut energy costs, now and in the future, by deploying American-made clean energy and by making the biggest investment to battle the climate crisis in U.S. history. You can't miss on the news the terrible things that have happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the last week. Horrible things. Thirty-seven people--at least 37 people--have lost their lives with the flooding in that State. They go to these remote, rural villages. It just breaks your heart to look at the devastation. And the reporters go to families still, I guess, trying to get back on their feet, trying to imagine tomorrow and do these interviews. And many times, the people are clearly in pain and distraught over their personal losses. There was one man I remember yesterday, particularly. He did not appear to be the kind of person who spends a lot of time thinking about Congressional issues or even great political issues. He was a fellow, a hardworking fellow, who just lost his home. And you know what he said? He said: This is climate change; what you are looking at here is climate change. I have lived in this town for 40 years. And I have never seen anything like that. And I can't imagine if it comes again. For him to use the words ``climate change'' really was an eye opener for me, because it means that he is sensitized to the reality that we face in this world. Extreme weather has become the norm in our country, whether it is an extreme drought, an extreme flooding situation, more tornadoes than ever at different times of the year. The list goes on and on. Some people think it is just God being restless. I think there is more to it. I think we--those of us who inhabitthis planet Earth--bear some responsibility. The question is, will we give speeches, will we lament these extreme weather events, or will do something? That is why this bill that is coming up today, starting today, subject to amendment, is so important. We can't allow our energy and national security to be dictated by some foreign power or some foreign leader like Vladimir Putin or anyone else who doesn't share America's national interest. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is coming before us, invests in clean, new American energy sources so that our future can be determined by American ingenuity, not by some foreign cartel or some Kremlin kleptocrat. Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky came to the floor and talked about the EPA police checking on whether people are buying certain products or not buying other products. That isn't what this bill is about at all. Incentives are there. And I--just from a family point of view--am going to take a look at it. Is it time for my family to buy a heat pump? I will take a look and see. Tax credits, tax incentives could be an incentive for me to make that decision with my family and my wife. And that is all that we are offering--incentives for people to choose the right things, the environmentally smart things to deal with climate change. The more energy solutions we discover, the cheaper our energy bills will be. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act will enable the United States--listen to this--to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent by the year 2030. We have a lot of young pages here who come and work in the summer. We are glad to have them. They brighten up the place, and their energy is a sight to behold. They probably listen to this debate and wonder if these graying politicians, these Senators and Congressman, really do care about the planet that they are going to be living on, raising their own families, building their own futures. Well, this bill is an indication we do care. And to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only does the right thing for America, it sets an example for the world. Despite all the excuses, there is no excuse for ignoring climate change, as that poor fellow down in Kentucky made obvious. For anyone who still says global warming is a hoax--and I guess there are a handful of those folks left--or admits that it is real and says we just can't afford to fix it, know this: The costs of ignoring the climate crisis are far greater than dealing with it. A recent analysis by the Office of Management and Budget warns, if left unchecked, climate change could reduce our Nation's gross domestic product by 10 percent and cost Americans $2 trillion a year by the end of the century--$2 trillion in the production of goods and services. To put that in perspective, that is about a third of the entire U.S. budget this year. And in case you are dismissing these warnings because they happen to come from a Democrat or from the Biden administration, maybe you should listen to Deloitte--a well-known accounting firming in this country--their center for sustainable management. They released a report in May estimating that left unchecked, climate change will cost the global economy $178 trillion for the next 50 years. If rising sea levels don't swamp us, rising costs of ignoring climate disasters very well may. The Inflation Reduction Act will enable us to make reasonable changes now that will pay for themselves many times over. It will also cut families' healthcare costs in four important ways. First, we extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for 13 million Americans for 3 more years. I was so surprised to read recently that there are still 8 million Americans uninsured. There should be none. And our goal is none. But we made such dramatic progress cutting by a third to a half the number of people uninsured since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Have you ever had a young child in your family who was sick and you worried because you had no health insurance as to whether they would be seen by the right doctor, the right hospital? I went through it. It happened right after our first child was born. We didn't have health insurance. I never felt more vulnerable, and I never had an emptier feeling when it came to being a father caring for his child as to not have health insurance and worrying about that. I don't think any family should ever have to go through that. It is an experience I will never forget. Second, our plan allows Medicare to finally negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. I listened to the Republican leader on the floor this morning talking about what a terrible idea that is. Well, I just want to suggest to him, we have been doing that at the Veterans' Administration for years. They have been negotiating pharmaceutical prices so that our veterans get affordable drugs and taxpayers get a break and don't have to subsidize them. That, to me, is just common sense, and it is humane. The notion that we are going to extend that to Medicare recipients is not a radical idea. It involves something that we think is fundamental to the free market economy: competition. If these pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs to the Medicare recipients, we say to them, let's negotiate, on a certain number of those drugs, reasonable prices. Now, some people say that is too much government, government stepping in there and trying to establish the prices that will be paid for these pharmaceuticals. Well, I would say to the same pharmaceutical companies that are raising these objections: Look what you are doing today in Canada. You take exactly the same drug made here in the United States, sold to Americans at an inflated price, and sell it at a deep discount to people living in Canada. Why do you do it? Is it out of the kindness of your heart? No. The Canadian Government stood up and said you are not going to gouge Canadian families. Yes, we would like to have your pharmaceuticals and, yes, we will put them in our formulary, but you cannot dictate the prices to us. We are going to negotiate those prices. And the pharmaceutical companies sat down and did it--not just in Canada but in Europe. When you say the same thing in the United States, that they treat Americans and those under Medicare the way they treat Canadians, you have the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and calling it a college sophomore socialist answer. I don't think so. I think it is just common sense. These pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies in the United States year in and year out. They make money hand over fist. And I am glad they do, in many respects, because they can invest that money in the next generation of drugs. You say to yourself: Wait a minute. If you are going to give them less for the product, they will have less for research. Not necessarily because there is something that you ought to remember that I think is very important. I want to make sure I get these figures right. The big pharmaceutical companies today spend more on advertising than on research. Let me give you a couple of examples. Bayer, one of the makers of Xarelto--you have heard that one, haven't you, on TV--spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, $18 billion. How much did they spend on research for new drugs and new products? Eight billion. More than twice as much of the research budget went to be spent on marketing and television advertising. Incidentally, the United States is only one of two nations in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The other one is New Zealand, if you can imagine. They put all this money on television advertising drugs like Xarelto. Why? So that people say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is what I have needed all along. I have to write down that name. How do you spell ``Xarelto?'' They get it right, finally, because ads keep coming on hour after hour on television, and they go to the doctor and say: I need Xarelto. The doctor may have second thoughts about whether that is a good drug, but he doesn't have a lot of time for each patient. He is not going to debate his customers. He ends up writing a script for a high-priced drug like Xarelto, and Bayer makes more money. They are not the only ones. Johnson & Johnson--that is a pretty well-known company. They spent $22 billion on sales and marketing. How much, if they spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, did they spend on research? Twelve--twelve. Do you see a pattern here? To be fair, not all of pharma's big bucks go into TV ads. Over the past 5 years, the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their CEOs than on R&D. Remember what I just said. They took their profits, turned them into stock buybacks so that the wealthiest people in America got a better balance sheet. Money that could have gone into research for new drugs, they diverted into profit-taking. So this notion about saying that Medicare should be able to negotiate more competitive and fairly priced drugs is not unreasonable, and it isn't going to stop research. We know that. Can I add one other element to this? Each of these pharmaceutical companies has a benefactor, a major benefactor. Think of it. It is an Agency that generates research by the billions each year, and the product of that research--which is a suggestion for new drugs, for example--is literally given to the pharmaceutical industry to use and make a profit. What is that Agency? The National Institutes of Health. It does the basic research by the Federal Government, paid for by American taxpayers--billions of dollars--and makes it available to pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generations of drugs. That is as it should be. But this notion that the pharmaceutical companies are just making it on their own and their own skills goes way beyond the obvious. NIH is helping very much. We want to cut healthcare costs to make sure as well that seniors cap their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year, and $2,000 a year is still a sacrifice for many seniors, but it is a reasonable amount. We know what is happening now. Many seniors have drugs that they are supposed to be taking. They can't afford to fill the prescriptions or they take half the dose when they should be taking a full dosage. That is the reality of the prescription drug pricing in America. Is it a serious problem? Well, just ask Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago, and I have: What is the impact of these inflated prescription drug prices on healthcare premiums? Blue Cross Blue Shield said to me that it is the No. 1 driver of increased health insurance premium costs, the cost of prescription drugs. So when we start bringing down these costs, we are also going to create a situation where we have less incentive to increase premiums for health insurance. Fourth, we penalize drug companies if they try to increase the price of the drug more than the rate of inflation. That was another on the list of sophomore in college socialist ideas, according to the Republican leader on the floor this morning. Well, I think he is wrong. We know what happens to the price of these drugs year in and year out. They just don't go up with the cost of inflation, they go up by multiples that reach the point people can't afford to pay it. That has to come to an end. Five years ago, Republicans used this same process we are using called reconciliation to pass a nearly $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited big corporations and the wealthiest people in America, and they put the whole boondoggle on the credit card. It was unpaid for--tax cuts unpaid for. They claimed their tax cuts would pay for themselves. Dynamic scoring, they called it. Instead, they blew up the national debt. Our plan is paid for, and here is the bottom line: No one in America--no one earning less than $400,000 a year--is seeing any increase in their taxes. Now, the Republicans say: Well, if you raise taxes on the wealthiest people, it is going to hurt the poorest people. When it gets right down to it, many of these corporations are extremely profitable--a billion dollars a year in profits and pay no Federal taxes. What is wrong with this picture? The average American family is paying their taxes, as the law requires, and yet these corporations have found an escape hatch to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. If they pay any taxes, they are going to hurt the poor families. The poor families are doing their part to pay their taxes. It is time these wealthy individuals and corporations did the same. Instead of adding to the national debt, as our Republican colleagues did with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, our proposal that we will vote on today will reduce the deficit by $300 billion. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion we have already cut from the deficit this year. Cutting the deficit reduces inflation pressure in the long run. In the short term, we are fighting inflation by lowering the cost of energy and healthcare, two of the biggest ticket items in family budgets. And lastly, Senator McConnell and our Republican colleagues seem to have developed a great respect for the economic wisdom of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I can't tell you how many times Senator McConnell has mentioned Larry Summers' name as if he is the great leader of all the great thinkers in the economics field in America. Let me tell you what Mr. Summers happens to say about our plan that we are going to vote for today and that all the Republicans are going to oppose. He said: This bill is fighting inflation. He also said: This is an easy bill to get behind. I didn't hear that this morning when Senator McConnell came to the floor and talked about his view of this bill. Larry Summers was his expert previously. Now he is ignoring when Summers says we ought to vote for this bill to reduce inflation. Do our Republican friends really want to tame inflation and help families with energy and healthcare or just come to the floor and complain? That is the choice they have. If they want to help, we have a plan. It is fair; it is paid for; it fights inflation; and it lowers the deficit. Wouldn't it be great if they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass this at this moment in history? It is what America is waiting for and looking for. I hope that a number of Republicans will surprise us and join us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4055-3 | null | 4,902 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the United States has done some good, important, even historic work this week. On Tuesday, we passed the PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare to an estimated 3.5 million veterans. Their service to our Nation exposed them to potentially deadly toxic chemicals from Agent Orange in the Vietnam conflict to toxic burn pits, which were found to be ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan. It took too long: 12 years. Toxic exposed veterans and family members had to stand on the steps of the Capitol, literally camped out for 5 days and nights to remind us that the veterans suffering from toxic exposure deserve care as surely as veterans injured by bullets and bombs. But in the end, thank goodness, we did the right thing. The vote to pass the PACT Act was 86 to 11--86 votes in a 50-50 Democratic/Republican Chamber. It was a remarkable, bipartisan rollcall. And then we made history this week when the Senate voted to ratify the entry of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Vladimir Putin gambled that Russia could seize Ukraine in just a few days, could use his victory to shatter NATO's unity and to deepen divides around the world. Vladimir Putin, again, was dead wrong. NATO is more united, larger, and more powerful than ever, while Vladimir Putin has become an international pariah. Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, suffering heavy losses. And the Russian economy is staggering under the weight of global sanctions imposed by the freedom-loving nations of the world against Russia. The Senate vote in favor of enlarging NATO to include Sweden and Finland was 95 to 1--95 votes in favor of it in a body that is divided equally, 50-50. Two major achievements in just 2 days, both with huge bipartisan majorities. That is proof for the doubters that the Senate can work together when the need is urgent and the solutions are just. Now we are debating another historic plan that should have the support of both parties. I listen to the speeches each day on the floor of the Senate. And every day our Republican colleagues stand on the floor and say it is about time we did something about inflation. They know that is exactly the way the American families feel--and I feel, as well. And then, sadly, when given a chance, as they will be in just a few minutes, my Republican friends try to stop legislation that will lower the cost and give American families a break on their cost of living. All the speeches notwithstanding, they refuse to vote for a provision which will actually lower families' living costs. They oppose cutting taxes for families. They oppose banning price gouging by oil companies. They oppose cutting healthcare premiums. They oppose extending the Child Tax Credits. They oppose lowering prescription drug prices. But we are going to give them another chance to do the right thing. They are going to have a chance to actually lower some of those big ticket costs which they gave all their speeches about and--listen to this bonus--reduce the deficit at the same time. Yes, the Democrats have a proposal which will reduce our national debt by $300 billion. Our plan is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does exactly what it says and even more. The Inflation Reduction Act will cut energy costs, now and in the future, by deploying American-made clean energy and by making the biggest investment to battle the climate crisis in U.S. history. You can't miss on the news the terrible things that have happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the last week. Horrible things. Thirty-seven people--at least 37 people--have lost their lives with the flooding in that State. They go to these remote, rural villages. It just breaks your heart to look at the devastation. And the reporters go to families still, I guess, trying to get back on their feet, trying to imagine tomorrow and do these interviews. And many times, the people are clearly in pain and distraught over their personal losses. There was one man I remember yesterday, particularly. He did not appear to be the kind of person who spends a lot of time thinking about Congressional issues or even great political issues. He was a fellow, a hardworking fellow, who just lost his home. And you know what he said? He said: This is climate change; what you are looking at here is climate change. I have lived in this town for 40 years. And I have never seen anything like that. And I can't imagine if it comes again. For him to use the words ``climate change'' really was an eye opener for me, because it means that he is sensitized to the reality that we face in this world. Extreme weather has become the norm in our country, whether it is an extreme drought, an extreme flooding situation, more tornadoes than ever at different times of the year. The list goes on and on. Some people think it is just God being restless. I think there is more to it. I think we--those of us who inhabitthis planet Earth--bear some responsibility. The question is, will we give speeches, will we lament these extreme weather events, or will do something? That is why this bill that is coming up today, starting today, subject to amendment, is so important. We can't allow our energy and national security to be dictated by some foreign power or some foreign leader like Vladimir Putin or anyone else who doesn't share America's national interest. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is coming before us, invests in clean, new American energy sources so that our future can be determined by American ingenuity, not by some foreign cartel or some Kremlin kleptocrat. Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky came to the floor and talked about the EPA police checking on whether people are buying certain products or not buying other products. That isn't what this bill is about at all. Incentives are there. And I--just from a family point of view--am going to take a look at it. Is it time for my family to buy a heat pump? I will take a look and see. Tax credits, tax incentives could be an incentive for me to make that decision with my family and my wife. And that is all that we are offering--incentives for people to choose the right things, the environmentally smart things to deal with climate change. The more energy solutions we discover, the cheaper our energy bills will be. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act will enable the United States--listen to this--to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent by the year 2030. We have a lot of young pages here who come and work in the summer. We are glad to have them. They brighten up the place, and their energy is a sight to behold. They probably listen to this debate and wonder if these graying politicians, these Senators and Congressman, really do care about the planet that they are going to be living on, raising their own families, building their own futures. Well, this bill is an indication we do care. And to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only does the right thing for America, it sets an example for the world. Despite all the excuses, there is no excuse for ignoring climate change, as that poor fellow down in Kentucky made obvious. For anyone who still says global warming is a hoax--and I guess there are a handful of those folks left--or admits that it is real and says we just can't afford to fix it, know this: The costs of ignoring the climate crisis are far greater than dealing with it. A recent analysis by the Office of Management and Budget warns, if left unchecked, climate change could reduce our Nation's gross domestic product by 10 percent and cost Americans $2 trillion a year by the end of the century--$2 trillion in the production of goods and services. To put that in perspective, that is about a third of the entire U.S. budget this year. And in case you are dismissing these warnings because they happen to come from a Democrat or from the Biden administration, maybe you should listen to Deloitte--a well-known accounting firming in this country--their center for sustainable management. They released a report in May estimating that left unchecked, climate change will cost the global economy $178 trillion for the next 50 years. If rising sea levels don't swamp us, rising costs of ignoring climate disasters very well may. The Inflation Reduction Act will enable us to make reasonable changes now that will pay for themselves many times over. It will also cut families' healthcare costs in four important ways. First, we extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for 13 million Americans for 3 more years. I was so surprised to read recently that there are still 8 million Americans uninsured. There should be none. And our goal is none. But we made such dramatic progress cutting by a third to a half the number of people uninsured since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Have you ever had a young child in your family who was sick and you worried because you had no health insurance as to whether they would be seen by the right doctor, the right hospital? I went through it. It happened right after our first child was born. We didn't have health insurance. I never felt more vulnerable, and I never had an emptier feeling when it came to being a father caring for his child as to not have health insurance and worrying about that. I don't think any family should ever have to go through that. It is an experience I will never forget. Second, our plan allows Medicare to finally negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. I listened to the Republican leader on the floor this morning talking about what a terrible idea that is. Well, I just want to suggest to him, we have been doing that at the Veterans' Administration for years. They have been negotiating pharmaceutical prices so that our veterans get affordable drugs and taxpayers get a break and don't have to subsidize them. That, to me, is just common sense, and it is humane. The notion that we are going to extend that to Medicare recipients is not a radical idea. It involves something that we think is fundamental to the free market economy: competition. If these pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs to the Medicare recipients, we say to them, let's negotiate, on a certain number of those drugs, reasonable prices. Now, some people say that is too much government, government stepping in there and trying to establish the prices that will be paid for these pharmaceuticals. Well, I would say to the same pharmaceutical companies that are raising these objections: Look what you are doing today in Canada. You take exactly the same drug made here in the United States, sold to Americans at an inflated price, and sell it at a deep discount to people living in Canada. Why do you do it? Is it out of the kindness of your heart? No. The Canadian Government stood up and said you are not going to gouge Canadian families. Yes, we would like to have your pharmaceuticals and, yes, we will put them in our formulary, but you cannot dictate the prices to us. We are going to negotiate those prices. And the pharmaceutical companies sat down and did it--not just in Canada but in Europe. When you say the same thing in the United States, that they treat Americans and those under Medicare the way they treat Canadians, you have the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and calling it a college sophomore socialist answer. I don't think so. I think it is just common sense. These pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies in the United States year in and year out. They make money hand over fist. And I am glad they do, in many respects, because they can invest that money in the next generation of drugs. You say to yourself: Wait a minute. If you are going to give them less for the product, they will have less for research. Not necessarily because there is something that you ought to remember that I think is very important. I want to make sure I get these figures right. The big pharmaceutical companies today spend more on advertising than on research. Let me give you a couple of examples. Bayer, one of the makers of Xarelto--you have heard that one, haven't you, on TV--spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, $18 billion. How much did they spend on research for new drugs and new products? Eight billion. More than twice as much of the research budget went to be spent on marketing and television advertising. Incidentally, the United States is only one of two nations in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The other one is New Zealand, if you can imagine. They put all this money on television advertising drugs like Xarelto. Why? So that people say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is what I have needed all along. I have to write down that name. How do you spell ``Xarelto?'' They get it right, finally, because ads keep coming on hour after hour on television, and they go to the doctor and say: I need Xarelto. The doctor may have second thoughts about whether that is a good drug, but he doesn't have a lot of time for each patient. He is not going to debate his customers. He ends up writing a script for a high-priced drug like Xarelto, and Bayer makes more money. They are not the only ones. Johnson & Johnson--that is a pretty well-known company. They spent $22 billion on sales and marketing. How much, if they spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, did they spend on research? Twelve--twelve. Do you see a pattern here? To be fair, not all of pharma's big bucks go into TV ads. Over the past 5 years, the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their CEOs than on R&D. Remember what I just said. They took their profits, turned them into stock buybacks so that the wealthiest people in America got a better balance sheet. Money that could have gone into research for new drugs, they diverted into profit-taking. So this notion about saying that Medicare should be able to negotiate more competitive and fairly priced drugs is not unreasonable, and it isn't going to stop research. We know that. Can I add one other element to this? Each of these pharmaceutical companies has a benefactor, a major benefactor. Think of it. It is an Agency that generates research by the billions each year, and the product of that research--which is a suggestion for new drugs, for example--is literally given to the pharmaceutical industry to use and make a profit. What is that Agency? The National Institutes of Health. It does the basic research by the Federal Government, paid for by American taxpayers--billions of dollars--and makes it available to pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generations of drugs. That is as it should be. But this notion that the pharmaceutical companies are just making it on their own and their own skills goes way beyond the obvious. NIH is helping very much. We want to cut healthcare costs to make sure as well that seniors cap their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year, and $2,000 a year is still a sacrifice for many seniors, but it is a reasonable amount. We know what is happening now. Many seniors have drugs that they are supposed to be taking. They can't afford to fill the prescriptions or they take half the dose when they should be taking a full dosage. That is the reality of the prescription drug pricing in America. Is it a serious problem? Well, just ask Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago, and I have: What is the impact of these inflated prescription drug prices on healthcare premiums? Blue Cross Blue Shield said to me that it is the No. 1 driver of increased health insurance premium costs, the cost of prescription drugs. So when we start bringing down these costs, we are also going to create a situation where we have less incentive to increase premiums for health insurance. Fourth, we penalize drug companies if they try to increase the price of the drug more than the rate of inflation. That was another on the list of sophomore in college socialist ideas, according to the Republican leader on the floor this morning. Well, I think he is wrong. We know what happens to the price of these drugs year in and year out. They just don't go up with the cost of inflation, they go up by multiples that reach the point people can't afford to pay it. That has to come to an end. Five years ago, Republicans used this same process we are using called reconciliation to pass a nearly $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited big corporations and the wealthiest people in America, and they put the whole boondoggle on the credit card. It was unpaid for--tax cuts unpaid for. They claimed their tax cuts would pay for themselves. Dynamic scoring, they called it. Instead, they blew up the national debt. Our plan is paid for, and here is the bottom line: No one in America--no one earning less than $400,000 a year--is seeing any increase in their taxes. Now, the Republicans say: Well, if you raise taxes on the wealthiest people, it is going to hurt the poorest people. When it gets right down to it, many of these corporations are extremely profitable--a billion dollars a year in profits and pay no Federal taxes. What is wrong with this picture? The average American family is paying their taxes, as the law requires, and yet these corporations have found an escape hatch to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. If they pay any taxes, they are going to hurt the poor families. The poor families are doing their part to pay their taxes. It is time these wealthy individuals and corporations did the same. Instead of adding to the national debt, as our Republican colleagues did with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, our proposal that we will vote on today will reduce the deficit by $300 billion. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion we have already cut from the deficit this year. Cutting the deficit reduces inflation pressure in the long run. In the short term, we are fighting inflation by lowering the cost of energy and healthcare, two of the biggest ticket items in family budgets. And lastly, Senator McConnell and our Republican colleagues seem to have developed a great respect for the economic wisdom of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I can't tell you how many times Senator McConnell has mentioned Larry Summers' name as if he is the great leader of all the great thinkers in the economics field in America. Let me tell you what Mr. Summers happens to say about our plan that we are going to vote for today and that all the Republicans are going to oppose. He said: This bill is fighting inflation. He also said: This is an easy bill to get behind. I didn't hear that this morning when Senator McConnell came to the floor and talked about his view of this bill. Larry Summers was his expert previously. Now he is ignoring when Summers says we ought to vote for this bill to reduce inflation. Do our Republican friends really want to tame inflation and help families with energy and healthcare or just come to the floor and complain? That is the choice they have. If they want to help, we have a plan. It is fair; it is paid for; it fights inflation; and it lowers the deficit. Wouldn't it be great if they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass this at this moment in history? It is what America is waiting for and looking for. I hope that a number of Republicans will surprise us and join us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4055-3 | null | 4,903 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the United States has done some good, important, even historic work this week. On Tuesday, we passed the PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare to an estimated 3.5 million veterans. Their service to our Nation exposed them to potentially deadly toxic chemicals from Agent Orange in the Vietnam conflict to toxic burn pits, which were found to be ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan. It took too long: 12 years. Toxic exposed veterans and family members had to stand on the steps of the Capitol, literally camped out for 5 days and nights to remind us that the veterans suffering from toxic exposure deserve care as surely as veterans injured by bullets and bombs. But in the end, thank goodness, we did the right thing. The vote to pass the PACT Act was 86 to 11--86 votes in a 50-50 Democratic/Republican Chamber. It was a remarkable, bipartisan rollcall. And then we made history this week when the Senate voted to ratify the entry of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Vladimir Putin gambled that Russia could seize Ukraine in just a few days, could use his victory to shatter NATO's unity and to deepen divides around the world. Vladimir Putin, again, was dead wrong. NATO is more united, larger, and more powerful than ever, while Vladimir Putin has become an international pariah. Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, suffering heavy losses. And the Russian economy is staggering under the weight of global sanctions imposed by the freedom-loving nations of the world against Russia. The Senate vote in favor of enlarging NATO to include Sweden and Finland was 95 to 1--95 votes in favor of it in a body that is divided equally, 50-50. Two major achievements in just 2 days, both with huge bipartisan majorities. That is proof for the doubters that the Senate can work together when the need is urgent and the solutions are just. Now we are debating another historic plan that should have the support of both parties. I listen to the speeches each day on the floor of the Senate. And every day our Republican colleagues stand on the floor and say it is about time we did something about inflation. They know that is exactly the way the American families feel--and I feel, as well. And then, sadly, when given a chance, as they will be in just a few minutes, my Republican friends try to stop legislation that will lower the cost and give American families a break on their cost of living. All the speeches notwithstanding, they refuse to vote for a provision which will actually lower families' living costs. They oppose cutting taxes for families. They oppose banning price gouging by oil companies. They oppose cutting healthcare premiums. They oppose extending the Child Tax Credits. They oppose lowering prescription drug prices. But we are going to give them another chance to do the right thing. They are going to have a chance to actually lower some of those big ticket costs which they gave all their speeches about and--listen to this bonus--reduce the deficit at the same time. Yes, the Democrats have a proposal which will reduce our national debt by $300 billion. Our plan is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does exactly what it says and even more. The Inflation Reduction Act will cut energy costs, now and in the future, by deploying American-made clean energy and by making the biggest investment to battle the climate crisis in U.S. history. You can't miss on the news the terrible things that have happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the last week. Horrible things. Thirty-seven people--at least 37 people--have lost their lives with the flooding in that State. They go to these remote, rural villages. It just breaks your heart to look at the devastation. And the reporters go to families still, I guess, trying to get back on their feet, trying to imagine tomorrow and do these interviews. And many times, the people are clearly in pain and distraught over their personal losses. There was one man I remember yesterday, particularly. He did not appear to be the kind of person who spends a lot of time thinking about Congressional issues or even great political issues. He was a fellow, a hardworking fellow, who just lost his home. And you know what he said? He said: This is climate change; what you are looking at here is climate change. I have lived in this town for 40 years. And I have never seen anything like that. And I can't imagine if it comes again. For him to use the words ``climate change'' really was an eye opener for me, because it means that he is sensitized to the reality that we face in this world. Extreme weather has become the norm in our country, whether it is an extreme drought, an extreme flooding situation, more tornadoes than ever at different times of the year. The list goes on and on. Some people think it is just God being restless. I think there is more to it. I think we--those of us who inhabitthis planet Earth--bear some responsibility. The question is, will we give speeches, will we lament these extreme weather events, or will do something? That is why this bill that is coming up today, starting today, subject to amendment, is so important. We can't allow our energy and national security to be dictated by some foreign power or some foreign leader like Vladimir Putin or anyone else who doesn't share America's national interest. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is coming before us, invests in clean, new American energy sources so that our future can be determined by American ingenuity, not by some foreign cartel or some Kremlin kleptocrat. Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky came to the floor and talked about the EPA police checking on whether people are buying certain products or not buying other products. That isn't what this bill is about at all. Incentives are there. And I--just from a family point of view--am going to take a look at it. Is it time for my family to buy a heat pump? I will take a look and see. Tax credits, tax incentives could be an incentive for me to make that decision with my family and my wife. And that is all that we are offering--incentives for people to choose the right things, the environmentally smart things to deal with climate change. The more energy solutions we discover, the cheaper our energy bills will be. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act will enable the United States--listen to this--to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent by the year 2030. We have a lot of young pages here who come and work in the summer. We are glad to have them. They brighten up the place, and their energy is a sight to behold. They probably listen to this debate and wonder if these graying politicians, these Senators and Congressman, really do care about the planet that they are going to be living on, raising their own families, building their own futures. Well, this bill is an indication we do care. And to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only does the right thing for America, it sets an example for the world. Despite all the excuses, there is no excuse for ignoring climate change, as that poor fellow down in Kentucky made obvious. For anyone who still says global warming is a hoax--and I guess there are a handful of those folks left--or admits that it is real and says we just can't afford to fix it, know this: The costs of ignoring the climate crisis are far greater than dealing with it. A recent analysis by the Office of Management and Budget warns, if left unchecked, climate change could reduce our Nation's gross domestic product by 10 percent and cost Americans $2 trillion a year by the end of the century--$2 trillion in the production of goods and services. To put that in perspective, that is about a third of the entire U.S. budget this year. And in case you are dismissing these warnings because they happen to come from a Democrat or from the Biden administration, maybe you should listen to Deloitte--a well-known accounting firming in this country--their center for sustainable management. They released a report in May estimating that left unchecked, climate change will cost the global economy $178 trillion for the next 50 years. If rising sea levels don't swamp us, rising costs of ignoring climate disasters very well may. The Inflation Reduction Act will enable us to make reasonable changes now that will pay for themselves many times over. It will also cut families' healthcare costs in four important ways. First, we extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for 13 million Americans for 3 more years. I was so surprised to read recently that there are still 8 million Americans uninsured. There should be none. And our goal is none. But we made such dramatic progress cutting by a third to a half the number of people uninsured since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Have you ever had a young child in your family who was sick and you worried because you had no health insurance as to whether they would be seen by the right doctor, the right hospital? I went through it. It happened right after our first child was born. We didn't have health insurance. I never felt more vulnerable, and I never had an emptier feeling when it came to being a father caring for his child as to not have health insurance and worrying about that. I don't think any family should ever have to go through that. It is an experience I will never forget. Second, our plan allows Medicare to finally negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. I listened to the Republican leader on the floor this morning talking about what a terrible idea that is. Well, I just want to suggest to him, we have been doing that at the Veterans' Administration for years. They have been negotiating pharmaceutical prices so that our veterans get affordable drugs and taxpayers get a break and don't have to subsidize them. That, to me, is just common sense, and it is humane. The notion that we are going to extend that to Medicare recipients is not a radical idea. It involves something that we think is fundamental to the free market economy: competition. If these pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs to the Medicare recipients, we say to them, let's negotiate, on a certain number of those drugs, reasonable prices. Now, some people say that is too much government, government stepping in there and trying to establish the prices that will be paid for these pharmaceuticals. Well, I would say to the same pharmaceutical companies that are raising these objections: Look what you are doing today in Canada. You take exactly the same drug made here in the United States, sold to Americans at an inflated price, and sell it at a deep discount to people living in Canada. Why do you do it? Is it out of the kindness of your heart? No. The Canadian Government stood up and said you are not going to gouge Canadian families. Yes, we would like to have your pharmaceuticals and, yes, we will put them in our formulary, but you cannot dictate the prices to us. We are going to negotiate those prices. And the pharmaceutical companies sat down and did it--not just in Canada but in Europe. When you say the same thing in the United States, that they treat Americans and those under Medicare the way they treat Canadians, you have the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and calling it a college sophomore socialist answer. I don't think so. I think it is just common sense. These pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies in the United States year in and year out. They make money hand over fist. And I am glad they do, in many respects, because they can invest that money in the next generation of drugs. You say to yourself: Wait a minute. If you are going to give them less for the product, they will have less for research. Not necessarily because there is something that you ought to remember that I think is very important. I want to make sure I get these figures right. The big pharmaceutical companies today spend more on advertising than on research. Let me give you a couple of examples. Bayer, one of the makers of Xarelto--you have heard that one, haven't you, on TV--spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, $18 billion. How much did they spend on research for new drugs and new products? Eight billion. More than twice as much of the research budget went to be spent on marketing and television advertising. Incidentally, the United States is only one of two nations in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The other one is New Zealand, if you can imagine. They put all this money on television advertising drugs like Xarelto. Why? So that people say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is what I have needed all along. I have to write down that name. How do you spell ``Xarelto?'' They get it right, finally, because ads keep coming on hour after hour on television, and they go to the doctor and say: I need Xarelto. The doctor may have second thoughts about whether that is a good drug, but he doesn't have a lot of time for each patient. He is not going to debate his customers. He ends up writing a script for a high-priced drug like Xarelto, and Bayer makes more money. They are not the only ones. Johnson & Johnson--that is a pretty well-known company. They spent $22 billion on sales and marketing. How much, if they spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, did they spend on research? Twelve--twelve. Do you see a pattern here? To be fair, not all of pharma's big bucks go into TV ads. Over the past 5 years, the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their CEOs than on R&D. Remember what I just said. They took their profits, turned them into stock buybacks so that the wealthiest people in America got a better balance sheet. Money that could have gone into research for new drugs, they diverted into profit-taking. So this notion about saying that Medicare should be able to negotiate more competitive and fairly priced drugs is not unreasonable, and it isn't going to stop research. We know that. Can I add one other element to this? Each of these pharmaceutical companies has a benefactor, a major benefactor. Think of it. It is an Agency that generates research by the billions each year, and the product of that research--which is a suggestion for new drugs, for example--is literally given to the pharmaceutical industry to use and make a profit. What is that Agency? The National Institutes of Health. It does the basic research by the Federal Government, paid for by American taxpayers--billions of dollars--and makes it available to pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generations of drugs. That is as it should be. But this notion that the pharmaceutical companies are just making it on their own and their own skills goes way beyond the obvious. NIH is helping very much. We want to cut healthcare costs to make sure as well that seniors cap their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year, and $2,000 a year is still a sacrifice for many seniors, but it is a reasonable amount. We know what is happening now. Many seniors have drugs that they are supposed to be taking. They can't afford to fill the prescriptions or they take half the dose when they should be taking a full dosage. That is the reality of the prescription drug pricing in America. Is it a serious problem? Well, just ask Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago, and I have: What is the impact of these inflated prescription drug prices on healthcare premiums? Blue Cross Blue Shield said to me that it is the No. 1 driver of increased health insurance premium costs, the cost of prescription drugs. So when we start bringing down these costs, we are also going to create a situation where we have less incentive to increase premiums for health insurance. Fourth, we penalize drug companies if they try to increase the price of the drug more than the rate of inflation. That was another on the list of sophomore in college socialist ideas, according to the Republican leader on the floor this morning. Well, I think he is wrong. We know what happens to the price of these drugs year in and year out. They just don't go up with the cost of inflation, they go up by multiples that reach the point people can't afford to pay it. That has to come to an end. Five years ago, Republicans used this same process we are using called reconciliation to pass a nearly $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited big corporations and the wealthiest people in America, and they put the whole boondoggle on the credit card. It was unpaid for--tax cuts unpaid for. They claimed their tax cuts would pay for themselves. Dynamic scoring, they called it. Instead, they blew up the national debt. Our plan is paid for, and here is the bottom line: No one in America--no one earning less than $400,000 a year--is seeing any increase in their taxes. Now, the Republicans say: Well, if you raise taxes on the wealthiest people, it is going to hurt the poorest people. When it gets right down to it, many of these corporations are extremely profitable--a billion dollars a year in profits and pay no Federal taxes. What is wrong with this picture? The average American family is paying their taxes, as the law requires, and yet these corporations have found an escape hatch to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. If they pay any taxes, they are going to hurt the poor families. The poor families are doing their part to pay their taxes. It is time these wealthy individuals and corporations did the same. Instead of adding to the national debt, as our Republican colleagues did with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, our proposal that we will vote on today will reduce the deficit by $300 billion. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion we have already cut from the deficit this year. Cutting the deficit reduces inflation pressure in the long run. In the short term, we are fighting inflation by lowering the cost of energy and healthcare, two of the biggest ticket items in family budgets. And lastly, Senator McConnell and our Republican colleagues seem to have developed a great respect for the economic wisdom of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I can't tell you how many times Senator McConnell has mentioned Larry Summers' name as if he is the great leader of all the great thinkers in the economics field in America. Let me tell you what Mr. Summers happens to say about our plan that we are going to vote for today and that all the Republicans are going to oppose. He said: This bill is fighting inflation. He also said: This is an easy bill to get behind. I didn't hear that this morning when Senator McConnell came to the floor and talked about his view of this bill. Larry Summers was his expert previously. Now he is ignoring when Summers says we ought to vote for this bill to reduce inflation. Do our Republican friends really want to tame inflation and help families with energy and healthcare or just come to the floor and complain? That is the choice they have. If they want to help, we have a plan. It is fair; it is paid for; it fights inflation; and it lowers the deficit. Wouldn't it be great if they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass this at this moment in history? It is what America is waiting for and looking for. I hope that a number of Republicans will surprise us and join us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4055-3 | null | 4,904 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the United States has done some good, important, even historic work this week. On Tuesday, we passed the PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare to an estimated 3.5 million veterans. Their service to our Nation exposed them to potentially deadly toxic chemicals from Agent Orange in the Vietnam conflict to toxic burn pits, which were found to be ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan. It took too long: 12 years. Toxic exposed veterans and family members had to stand on the steps of the Capitol, literally camped out for 5 days and nights to remind us that the veterans suffering from toxic exposure deserve care as surely as veterans injured by bullets and bombs. But in the end, thank goodness, we did the right thing. The vote to pass the PACT Act was 86 to 11--86 votes in a 50-50 Democratic/Republican Chamber. It was a remarkable, bipartisan rollcall. And then we made history this week when the Senate voted to ratify the entry of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Vladimir Putin gambled that Russia could seize Ukraine in just a few days, could use his victory to shatter NATO's unity and to deepen divides around the world. Vladimir Putin, again, was dead wrong. NATO is more united, larger, and more powerful than ever, while Vladimir Putin has become an international pariah. Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, suffering heavy losses. And the Russian economy is staggering under the weight of global sanctions imposed by the freedom-loving nations of the world against Russia. The Senate vote in favor of enlarging NATO to include Sweden and Finland was 95 to 1--95 votes in favor of it in a body that is divided equally, 50-50. Two major achievements in just 2 days, both with huge bipartisan majorities. That is proof for the doubters that the Senate can work together when the need is urgent and the solutions are just. Now we are debating another historic plan that should have the support of both parties. I listen to the speeches each day on the floor of the Senate. And every day our Republican colleagues stand on the floor and say it is about time we did something about inflation. They know that is exactly the way the American families feel--and I feel, as well. And then, sadly, when given a chance, as they will be in just a few minutes, my Republican friends try to stop legislation that will lower the cost and give American families a break on their cost of living. All the speeches notwithstanding, they refuse to vote for a provision which will actually lower families' living costs. They oppose cutting taxes for families. They oppose banning price gouging by oil companies. They oppose cutting healthcare premiums. They oppose extending the Child Tax Credits. They oppose lowering prescription drug prices. But we are going to give them another chance to do the right thing. They are going to have a chance to actually lower some of those big ticket costs which they gave all their speeches about and--listen to this bonus--reduce the deficit at the same time. Yes, the Democrats have a proposal which will reduce our national debt by $300 billion. Our plan is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does exactly what it says and even more. The Inflation Reduction Act will cut energy costs, now and in the future, by deploying American-made clean energy and by making the biggest investment to battle the climate crisis in U.S. history. You can't miss on the news the terrible things that have happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the last week. Horrible things. Thirty-seven people--at least 37 people--have lost their lives with the flooding in that State. They go to these remote, rural villages. It just breaks your heart to look at the devastation. And the reporters go to families still, I guess, trying to get back on their feet, trying to imagine tomorrow and do these interviews. And many times, the people are clearly in pain and distraught over their personal losses. There was one man I remember yesterday, particularly. He did not appear to be the kind of person who spends a lot of time thinking about Congressional issues or even great political issues. He was a fellow, a hardworking fellow, who just lost his home. And you know what he said? He said: This is climate change; what you are looking at here is climate change. I have lived in this town for 40 years. And I have never seen anything like that. And I can't imagine if it comes again. For him to use the words ``climate change'' really was an eye opener for me, because it means that he is sensitized to the reality that we face in this world. Extreme weather has become the norm in our country, whether it is an extreme drought, an extreme flooding situation, more tornadoes than ever at different times of the year. The list goes on and on. Some people think it is just God being restless. I think there is more to it. I think we--those of us who inhabitthis planet Earth--bear some responsibility. The question is, will we give speeches, will we lament these extreme weather events, or will do something? That is why this bill that is coming up today, starting today, subject to amendment, is so important. We can't allow our energy and national security to be dictated by some foreign power or some foreign leader like Vladimir Putin or anyone else who doesn't share America's national interest. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is coming before us, invests in clean, new American energy sources so that our future can be determined by American ingenuity, not by some foreign cartel or some Kremlin kleptocrat. Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky came to the floor and talked about the EPA police checking on whether people are buying certain products or not buying other products. That isn't what this bill is about at all. Incentives are there. And I--just from a family point of view--am going to take a look at it. Is it time for my family to buy a heat pump? I will take a look and see. Tax credits, tax incentives could be an incentive for me to make that decision with my family and my wife. And that is all that we are offering--incentives for people to choose the right things, the environmentally smart things to deal with climate change. The more energy solutions we discover, the cheaper our energy bills will be. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act will enable the United States--listen to this--to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent by the year 2030. We have a lot of young pages here who come and work in the summer. We are glad to have them. They brighten up the place, and their energy is a sight to behold. They probably listen to this debate and wonder if these graying politicians, these Senators and Congressman, really do care about the planet that they are going to be living on, raising their own families, building their own futures. Well, this bill is an indication we do care. And to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only does the right thing for America, it sets an example for the world. Despite all the excuses, there is no excuse for ignoring climate change, as that poor fellow down in Kentucky made obvious. For anyone who still says global warming is a hoax--and I guess there are a handful of those folks left--or admits that it is real and says we just can't afford to fix it, know this: The costs of ignoring the climate crisis are far greater than dealing with it. A recent analysis by the Office of Management and Budget warns, if left unchecked, climate change could reduce our Nation's gross domestic product by 10 percent and cost Americans $2 trillion a year by the end of the century--$2 trillion in the production of goods and services. To put that in perspective, that is about a third of the entire U.S. budget this year. And in case you are dismissing these warnings because they happen to come from a Democrat or from the Biden administration, maybe you should listen to Deloitte--a well-known accounting firming in this country--their center for sustainable management. They released a report in May estimating that left unchecked, climate change will cost the global economy $178 trillion for the next 50 years. If rising sea levels don't swamp us, rising costs of ignoring climate disasters very well may. The Inflation Reduction Act will enable us to make reasonable changes now that will pay for themselves many times over. It will also cut families' healthcare costs in four important ways. First, we extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for 13 million Americans for 3 more years. I was so surprised to read recently that there are still 8 million Americans uninsured. There should be none. And our goal is none. But we made such dramatic progress cutting by a third to a half the number of people uninsured since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Have you ever had a young child in your family who was sick and you worried because you had no health insurance as to whether they would be seen by the right doctor, the right hospital? I went through it. It happened right after our first child was born. We didn't have health insurance. I never felt more vulnerable, and I never had an emptier feeling when it came to being a father caring for his child as to not have health insurance and worrying about that. I don't think any family should ever have to go through that. It is an experience I will never forget. Second, our plan allows Medicare to finally negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. I listened to the Republican leader on the floor this morning talking about what a terrible idea that is. Well, I just want to suggest to him, we have been doing that at the Veterans' Administration for years. They have been negotiating pharmaceutical prices so that our veterans get affordable drugs and taxpayers get a break and don't have to subsidize them. That, to me, is just common sense, and it is humane. The notion that we are going to extend that to Medicare recipients is not a radical idea. It involves something that we think is fundamental to the free market economy: competition. If these pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs to the Medicare recipients, we say to them, let's negotiate, on a certain number of those drugs, reasonable prices. Now, some people say that is too much government, government stepping in there and trying to establish the prices that will be paid for these pharmaceuticals. Well, I would say to the same pharmaceutical companies that are raising these objections: Look what you are doing today in Canada. You take exactly the same drug made here in the United States, sold to Americans at an inflated price, and sell it at a deep discount to people living in Canada. Why do you do it? Is it out of the kindness of your heart? No. The Canadian Government stood up and said you are not going to gouge Canadian families. Yes, we would like to have your pharmaceuticals and, yes, we will put them in our formulary, but you cannot dictate the prices to us. We are going to negotiate those prices. And the pharmaceutical companies sat down and did it--not just in Canada but in Europe. When you say the same thing in the United States, that they treat Americans and those under Medicare the way they treat Canadians, you have the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and calling it a college sophomore socialist answer. I don't think so. I think it is just common sense. These pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies in the United States year in and year out. They make money hand over fist. And I am glad they do, in many respects, because they can invest that money in the next generation of drugs. You say to yourself: Wait a minute. If you are going to give them less for the product, they will have less for research. Not necessarily because there is something that you ought to remember that I think is very important. I want to make sure I get these figures right. The big pharmaceutical companies today spend more on advertising than on research. Let me give you a couple of examples. Bayer, one of the makers of Xarelto--you have heard that one, haven't you, on TV--spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, $18 billion. How much did they spend on research for new drugs and new products? Eight billion. More than twice as much of the research budget went to be spent on marketing and television advertising. Incidentally, the United States is only one of two nations in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The other one is New Zealand, if you can imagine. They put all this money on television advertising drugs like Xarelto. Why? So that people say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is what I have needed all along. I have to write down that name. How do you spell ``Xarelto?'' They get it right, finally, because ads keep coming on hour after hour on television, and they go to the doctor and say: I need Xarelto. The doctor may have second thoughts about whether that is a good drug, but he doesn't have a lot of time for each patient. He is not going to debate his customers. He ends up writing a script for a high-priced drug like Xarelto, and Bayer makes more money. They are not the only ones. Johnson & Johnson--that is a pretty well-known company. They spent $22 billion on sales and marketing. How much, if they spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, did they spend on research? Twelve--twelve. Do you see a pattern here? To be fair, not all of pharma's big bucks go into TV ads. Over the past 5 years, the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their CEOs than on R&D. Remember what I just said. They took their profits, turned them into stock buybacks so that the wealthiest people in America got a better balance sheet. Money that could have gone into research for new drugs, they diverted into profit-taking. So this notion about saying that Medicare should be able to negotiate more competitive and fairly priced drugs is not unreasonable, and it isn't going to stop research. We know that. Can I add one other element to this? Each of these pharmaceutical companies has a benefactor, a major benefactor. Think of it. It is an Agency that generates research by the billions each year, and the product of that research--which is a suggestion for new drugs, for example--is literally given to the pharmaceutical industry to use and make a profit. What is that Agency? The National Institutes of Health. It does the basic research by the Federal Government, paid for by American taxpayers--billions of dollars--and makes it available to pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generations of drugs. That is as it should be. But this notion that the pharmaceutical companies are just making it on their own and their own skills goes way beyond the obvious. NIH is helping very much. We want to cut healthcare costs to make sure as well that seniors cap their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year, and $2,000 a year is still a sacrifice for many seniors, but it is a reasonable amount. We know what is happening now. Many seniors have drugs that they are supposed to be taking. They can't afford to fill the prescriptions or they take half the dose when they should be taking a full dosage. That is the reality of the prescription drug pricing in America. Is it a serious problem? Well, just ask Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago, and I have: What is the impact of these inflated prescription drug prices on healthcare premiums? Blue Cross Blue Shield said to me that it is the No. 1 driver of increased health insurance premium costs, the cost of prescription drugs. So when we start bringing down these costs, we are also going to create a situation where we have less incentive to increase premiums for health insurance. Fourth, we penalize drug companies if they try to increase the price of the drug more than the rate of inflation. That was another on the list of sophomore in college socialist ideas, according to the Republican leader on the floor this morning. Well, I think he is wrong. We know what happens to the price of these drugs year in and year out. They just don't go up with the cost of inflation, they go up by multiples that reach the point people can't afford to pay it. That has to come to an end. Five years ago, Republicans used this same process we are using called reconciliation to pass a nearly $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited big corporations and the wealthiest people in America, and they put the whole boondoggle on the credit card. It was unpaid for--tax cuts unpaid for. They claimed their tax cuts would pay for themselves. Dynamic scoring, they called it. Instead, they blew up the national debt. Our plan is paid for, and here is the bottom line: No one in America--no one earning less than $400,000 a year--is seeing any increase in their taxes. Now, the Republicans say: Well, if you raise taxes on the wealthiest people, it is going to hurt the poorest people. When it gets right down to it, many of these corporations are extremely profitable--a billion dollars a year in profits and pay no Federal taxes. What is wrong with this picture? The average American family is paying their taxes, as the law requires, and yet these corporations have found an escape hatch to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. If they pay any taxes, they are going to hurt the poor families. The poor families are doing their part to pay their taxes. It is time these wealthy individuals and corporations did the same. Instead of adding to the national debt, as our Republican colleagues did with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, our proposal that we will vote on today will reduce the deficit by $300 billion. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion we have already cut from the deficit this year. Cutting the deficit reduces inflation pressure in the long run. In the short term, we are fighting inflation by lowering the cost of energy and healthcare, two of the biggest ticket items in family budgets. And lastly, Senator McConnell and our Republican colleagues seem to have developed a great respect for the economic wisdom of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I can't tell you how many times Senator McConnell has mentioned Larry Summers' name as if he is the great leader of all the great thinkers in the economics field in America. Let me tell you what Mr. Summers happens to say about our plan that we are going to vote for today and that all the Republicans are going to oppose. He said: This bill is fighting inflation. He also said: This is an easy bill to get behind. I didn't hear that this morning when Senator McConnell came to the floor and talked about his view of this bill. Larry Summers was his expert previously. Now he is ignoring when Summers says we ought to vote for this bill to reduce inflation. Do our Republican friends really want to tame inflation and help families with energy and healthcare or just come to the floor and complain? That is the choice they have. If they want to help, we have a plan. It is fair; it is paid for; it fights inflation; and it lowers the deficit. Wouldn't it be great if they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass this at this moment in history? It is what America is waiting for and looking for. I hope that a number of Republicans will surprise us and join us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4055-3 | null | 4,905 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the United States has done some good, important, even historic work this week. On Tuesday, we passed the PACT Act, expanding VA healthcare to an estimated 3.5 million veterans. Their service to our Nation exposed them to potentially deadly toxic chemicals from Agent Orange in the Vietnam conflict to toxic burn pits, which were found to be ubiquitous in Iraq and Afghanistan. It took too long: 12 years. Toxic exposed veterans and family members had to stand on the steps of the Capitol, literally camped out for 5 days and nights to remind us that the veterans suffering from toxic exposure deserve care as surely as veterans injured by bullets and bombs. But in the end, thank goodness, we did the right thing. The vote to pass the PACT Act was 86 to 11--86 votes in a 50-50 Democratic/Republican Chamber. It was a remarkable, bipartisan rollcall. And then we made history this week when the Senate voted to ratify the entry of Finland and Sweden to NATO. Vladimir Putin gambled that Russia could seize Ukraine in just a few days, could use his victory to shatter NATO's unity and to deepen divides around the world. Vladimir Putin, again, was dead wrong. NATO is more united, larger, and more powerful than ever, while Vladimir Putin has become an international pariah. Russia's military is bogged down in Ukraine, suffering heavy losses. And the Russian economy is staggering under the weight of global sanctions imposed by the freedom-loving nations of the world against Russia. The Senate vote in favor of enlarging NATO to include Sweden and Finland was 95 to 1--95 votes in favor of it in a body that is divided equally, 50-50. Two major achievements in just 2 days, both with huge bipartisan majorities. That is proof for the doubters that the Senate can work together when the need is urgent and the solutions are just. Now we are debating another historic plan that should have the support of both parties. I listen to the speeches each day on the floor of the Senate. And every day our Republican colleagues stand on the floor and say it is about time we did something about inflation. They know that is exactly the way the American families feel--and I feel, as well. And then, sadly, when given a chance, as they will be in just a few minutes, my Republican friends try to stop legislation that will lower the cost and give American families a break on their cost of living. All the speeches notwithstanding, they refuse to vote for a provision which will actually lower families' living costs. They oppose cutting taxes for families. They oppose banning price gouging by oil companies. They oppose cutting healthcare premiums. They oppose extending the Child Tax Credits. They oppose lowering prescription drug prices. But we are going to give them another chance to do the right thing. They are going to have a chance to actually lower some of those big ticket costs which they gave all their speeches about and--listen to this bonus--reduce the deficit at the same time. Yes, the Democrats have a proposal which will reduce our national debt by $300 billion. Our plan is called the Inflation Reduction Act. It does exactly what it says and even more. The Inflation Reduction Act will cut energy costs, now and in the future, by deploying American-made clean energy and by making the biggest investment to battle the climate crisis in U.S. history. You can't miss on the news the terrible things that have happened in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the last week. Horrible things. Thirty-seven people--at least 37 people--have lost their lives with the flooding in that State. They go to these remote, rural villages. It just breaks your heart to look at the devastation. And the reporters go to families still, I guess, trying to get back on their feet, trying to imagine tomorrow and do these interviews. And many times, the people are clearly in pain and distraught over their personal losses. There was one man I remember yesterday, particularly. He did not appear to be the kind of person who spends a lot of time thinking about Congressional issues or even great political issues. He was a fellow, a hardworking fellow, who just lost his home. And you know what he said? He said: This is climate change; what you are looking at here is climate change. I have lived in this town for 40 years. And I have never seen anything like that. And I can't imagine if it comes again. For him to use the words ``climate change'' really was an eye opener for me, because it means that he is sensitized to the reality that we face in this world. Extreme weather has become the norm in our country, whether it is an extreme drought, an extreme flooding situation, more tornadoes than ever at different times of the year. The list goes on and on. Some people think it is just God being restless. I think there is more to it. I think we--those of us who inhabitthis planet Earth--bear some responsibility. The question is, will we give speeches, will we lament these extreme weather events, or will do something? That is why this bill that is coming up today, starting today, subject to amendment, is so important. We can't allow our energy and national security to be dictated by some foreign power or some foreign leader like Vladimir Putin or anyone else who doesn't share America's national interest. The Inflation Reduction Act, which is coming before us, invests in clean, new American energy sources so that our future can be determined by American ingenuity, not by some foreign cartel or some Kremlin kleptocrat. Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky came to the floor and talked about the EPA police checking on whether people are buying certain products or not buying other products. That isn't what this bill is about at all. Incentives are there. And I--just from a family point of view--am going to take a look at it. Is it time for my family to buy a heat pump? I will take a look and see. Tax credits, tax incentives could be an incentive for me to make that decision with my family and my wife. And that is all that we are offering--incentives for people to choose the right things, the environmentally smart things to deal with climate change. The more energy solutions we discover, the cheaper our energy bills will be. Importantly, the Inflation Reduction Act will enable the United States--listen to this--to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 40 percent by the year 2030. We have a lot of young pages here who come and work in the summer. We are glad to have them. They brighten up the place, and their energy is a sight to behold. They probably listen to this debate and wonder if these graying politicians, these Senators and Congressman, really do care about the planet that they are going to be living on, raising their own families, building their own futures. Well, this bill is an indication we do care. And to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only does the right thing for America, it sets an example for the world. Despite all the excuses, there is no excuse for ignoring climate change, as that poor fellow down in Kentucky made obvious. For anyone who still says global warming is a hoax--and I guess there are a handful of those folks left--or admits that it is real and says we just can't afford to fix it, know this: The costs of ignoring the climate crisis are far greater than dealing with it. A recent analysis by the Office of Management and Budget warns, if left unchecked, climate change could reduce our Nation's gross domestic product by 10 percent and cost Americans $2 trillion a year by the end of the century--$2 trillion in the production of goods and services. To put that in perspective, that is about a third of the entire U.S. budget this year. And in case you are dismissing these warnings because they happen to come from a Democrat or from the Biden administration, maybe you should listen to Deloitte--a well-known accounting firming in this country--their center for sustainable management. They released a report in May estimating that left unchecked, climate change will cost the global economy $178 trillion for the next 50 years. If rising sea levels don't swamp us, rising costs of ignoring climate disasters very well may. The Inflation Reduction Act will enable us to make reasonable changes now that will pay for themselves many times over. It will also cut families' healthcare costs in four important ways. First, we extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for 13 million Americans for 3 more years. I was so surprised to read recently that there are still 8 million Americans uninsured. There should be none. And our goal is none. But we made such dramatic progress cutting by a third to a half the number of people uninsured since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Have you ever had a young child in your family who was sick and you worried because you had no health insurance as to whether they would be seen by the right doctor, the right hospital? I went through it. It happened right after our first child was born. We didn't have health insurance. I never felt more vulnerable, and I never had an emptier feeling when it came to being a father caring for his child as to not have health insurance and worrying about that. I don't think any family should ever have to go through that. It is an experience I will never forget. Second, our plan allows Medicare to finally negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs. I listened to the Republican leader on the floor this morning talking about what a terrible idea that is. Well, I just want to suggest to him, we have been doing that at the Veterans' Administration for years. They have been negotiating pharmaceutical prices so that our veterans get affordable drugs and taxpayers get a break and don't have to subsidize them. That, to me, is just common sense, and it is humane. The notion that we are going to extend that to Medicare recipients is not a radical idea. It involves something that we think is fundamental to the free market economy: competition. If these pharmaceutical companies want to sell their drugs to the Medicare recipients, we say to them, let's negotiate, on a certain number of those drugs, reasonable prices. Now, some people say that is too much government, government stepping in there and trying to establish the prices that will be paid for these pharmaceuticals. Well, I would say to the same pharmaceutical companies that are raising these objections: Look what you are doing today in Canada. You take exactly the same drug made here in the United States, sold to Americans at an inflated price, and sell it at a deep discount to people living in Canada. Why do you do it? Is it out of the kindness of your heart? No. The Canadian Government stood up and said you are not going to gouge Canadian families. Yes, we would like to have your pharmaceuticals and, yes, we will put them in our formulary, but you cannot dictate the prices to us. We are going to negotiate those prices. And the pharmaceutical companies sat down and did it--not just in Canada but in Europe. When you say the same thing in the United States, that they treat Americans and those under Medicare the way they treat Canadians, you have the Senator from Kentucky coming to the floor and calling it a college sophomore socialist answer. I don't think so. I think it is just common sense. These pharmaceutical companies are some of the most profitable companies in the United States year in and year out. They make money hand over fist. And I am glad they do, in many respects, because they can invest that money in the next generation of drugs. You say to yourself: Wait a minute. If you are going to give them less for the product, they will have less for research. Not necessarily because there is something that you ought to remember that I think is very important. I want to make sure I get these figures right. The big pharmaceutical companies today spend more on advertising than on research. Let me give you a couple of examples. Bayer, one of the makers of Xarelto--you have heard that one, haven't you, on TV--spent $18 billion on sales and marketing, $18 billion. How much did they spend on research for new drugs and new products? Eight billion. More than twice as much of the research budget went to be spent on marketing and television advertising. Incidentally, the United States is only one of two nations in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug advertising. The other one is New Zealand, if you can imagine. They put all this money on television advertising drugs like Xarelto. Why? So that people say: Wait a minute. Maybe that is what I have needed all along. I have to write down that name. How do you spell ``Xarelto?'' They get it right, finally, because ads keep coming on hour after hour on television, and they go to the doctor and say: I need Xarelto. The doctor may have second thoughts about whether that is a good drug, but he doesn't have a lot of time for each patient. He is not going to debate his customers. He ends up writing a script for a high-priced drug like Xarelto, and Bayer makes more money. They are not the only ones. Johnson & Johnson--that is a pretty well-known company. They spent $22 billion on sales and marketing. How much, if they spent $22 billion on sales and marketing, did they spend on research? Twelve--twelve. Do you see a pattern here? To be fair, not all of pharma's big bucks go into TV ads. Over the past 5 years, the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their CEOs than on R&D. Remember what I just said. They took their profits, turned them into stock buybacks so that the wealthiest people in America got a better balance sheet. Money that could have gone into research for new drugs, they diverted into profit-taking. So this notion about saying that Medicare should be able to negotiate more competitive and fairly priced drugs is not unreasonable, and it isn't going to stop research. We know that. Can I add one other element to this? Each of these pharmaceutical companies has a benefactor, a major benefactor. Think of it. It is an Agency that generates research by the billions each year, and the product of that research--which is a suggestion for new drugs, for example--is literally given to the pharmaceutical industry to use and make a profit. What is that Agency? The National Institutes of Health. It does the basic research by the Federal Government, paid for by American taxpayers--billions of dollars--and makes it available to pharmaceutical companies to develop the next generations of drugs. That is as it should be. But this notion that the pharmaceutical companies are just making it on their own and their own skills goes way beyond the obvious. NIH is helping very much. We want to cut healthcare costs to make sure as well that seniors cap their out-of-pocket prescription drug costs at $2,000 a year, and $2,000 a year is still a sacrifice for many seniors, but it is a reasonable amount. We know what is happening now. Many seniors have drugs that they are supposed to be taking. They can't afford to fill the prescriptions or they take half the dose when they should be taking a full dosage. That is the reality of the prescription drug pricing in America. Is it a serious problem? Well, just ask Blue Cross Blue Shield in Chicago, and I have: What is the impact of these inflated prescription drug prices on healthcare premiums? Blue Cross Blue Shield said to me that it is the No. 1 driver of increased health insurance premium costs, the cost of prescription drugs. So when we start bringing down these costs, we are also going to create a situation where we have less incentive to increase premiums for health insurance. Fourth, we penalize drug companies if they try to increase the price of the drug more than the rate of inflation. That was another on the list of sophomore in college socialist ideas, according to the Republican leader on the floor this morning. Well, I think he is wrong. We know what happens to the price of these drugs year in and year out. They just don't go up with the cost of inflation, they go up by multiples that reach the point people can't afford to pay it. That has to come to an end. Five years ago, Republicans used this same process we are using called reconciliation to pass a nearly $2 trillion tax bill that overwhelmingly benefited big corporations and the wealthiest people in America, and they put the whole boondoggle on the credit card. It was unpaid for--tax cuts unpaid for. They claimed their tax cuts would pay for themselves. Dynamic scoring, they called it. Instead, they blew up the national debt. Our plan is paid for, and here is the bottom line: No one in America--no one earning less than $400,000 a year--is seeing any increase in their taxes. Now, the Republicans say: Well, if you raise taxes on the wealthiest people, it is going to hurt the poorest people. When it gets right down to it, many of these corporations are extremely profitable--a billion dollars a year in profits and pay no Federal taxes. What is wrong with this picture? The average American family is paying their taxes, as the law requires, and yet these corporations have found an escape hatch to avoid paying any taxes whatsoever. If they pay any taxes, they are going to hurt the poor families. The poor families are doing their part to pay their taxes. It is time these wealthy individuals and corporations did the same. Instead of adding to the national debt, as our Republican colleagues did with their tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, our proposal that we will vote on today will reduce the deficit by $300 billion. That is on top of the $1.7 trillion we have already cut from the deficit this year. Cutting the deficit reduces inflation pressure in the long run. In the short term, we are fighting inflation by lowering the cost of energy and healthcare, two of the biggest ticket items in family budgets. And lastly, Senator McConnell and our Republican colleagues seem to have developed a great respect for the economic wisdom of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. I can't tell you how many times Senator McConnell has mentioned Larry Summers' name as if he is the great leader of all the great thinkers in the economics field in America. Let me tell you what Mr. Summers happens to say about our plan that we are going to vote for today and that all the Republicans are going to oppose. He said: This bill is fighting inflation. He also said: This is an easy bill to get behind. I didn't hear that this morning when Senator McConnell came to the floor and talked about his view of this bill. Larry Summers was his expert previously. Now he is ignoring when Summers says we ought to vote for this bill to reduce inflation. Do our Republican friends really want to tame inflation and help families with energy and healthcare or just come to the floor and complain? That is the choice they have. If they want to help, we have a plan. It is fair; it is paid for; it fights inflation; and it lowers the deficit. Wouldn't it be great if they would join us in a bipartisan effort to pass this at this moment in history? It is what America is waiting for and looking for. I hope that a number of Republicans will surprise us and join us. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4055-3 | null | 4,906 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is good to be back in the Senate. Like a number of my colleagues, after dodging the virus for 2 years, it finally caught up with me last weekend. I spent a week in quarantine and, fortunately, experienced only mild symptoms. I think that is because I was fully vaccinated and boosted and I was glad to have the help of modern science on my side. There is never a good time to be away from our work here in the Senate, but we all have a responsibility to keep those around us safe as well, no matter how inconvenient. Unfortunately, there are reports that our friends across the aisle may be intentionally disregarding that responsibility. I am deeply concerned by published reports that our Democratic colleagues have adopted a ``don't test, don't tell'' policy to ensure full attendance today. Allegedly, they are more concerned about ramming through Senator Manchin's tax hike than following CDC guidelines to protect not only each other but the staff members, the Capitol Police, custodial staff, food service workers, and countless others who keep this institution running. These folks could have any number of other health conditions that could lead to more severe COVID experiences than, for example, I had or they could be caregivers for young children or elderly relatives who have a high risk of serious illness. I sincerely hope these reports are not true. I hope our Democratic colleagues are not selfish enough to put so many people at risk in order to pass this massive tax-and-spending spree. If any of our colleagues are experiencing COVID symptoms, they should do what I did. They should get tested, period. We know that as soon as this evening, the Senate is expected to vote on Senator Manchin's and Senator Schumer's massive tax hike on middle-class families. You can call it the Manchin-Schumer tax hike of 2022. It sprung to life, unbeknownst, I believe, to virtually all the Democratic Senators, except for Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer. And no one has seen what we will purportedly be voting on later today, even our Democratic colleagues. No one has seen the final product. Once the so-called Byrd bath hasbeen undertaken by the Parliamentarian, this will be a substitute bill that Senator Schumer will lay down, but nobody has seen it. When the senior Senator from West Virginia announced this bill last week--or this agreement--every Republican was shocked and, from my view, most Democrats were as well. My private conversations with many of my Democratic colleagues said: Boy, that does not look good to be working so closely together on a bipartisan bill only to spring this on everybody by surprise. It looks like they were trying to pull a fast one. After all, Senator Manchin did put the kibosh on the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill last year, and he doubled down on his opposition just a few weeks ago. Privately, his Democratic colleagues assured me this was not happening. But then the Senator from West Virginia has engaged in a gigantic Olympic-worthy flip-flop. Senator Manchin will tell you this bill is completely different from ``Build Back Broke,'' but it is not. We should take a look at some of the elements of this legislation. ``Build Back Broke'' was a roundup of expensive, unnecessary damaging policies, including job-killing tax hikes, which would leave hard-working American families without a way to earn a paycheck, Green New Deal climate policies that would hurt our energy security and drive energy costs through the roof, taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people buying expensive cars and SUVs. I was listening to the majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, talking about these businesses that are making too much money and so they need to pay more in taxes. That is what I have come to expect from our Democratic colleagues. They are kind of a ``Robin Hood'' party--take from the rich, give to the poor. Except here, this is a reverse Robin Hood. They are taking from middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric vehicles and giving a tax subsidy to wealthy people who can afford to buy them but are helped with the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy. So you might call that a reverse Robin Hood. Then they want to supersize the Internal Revenue Service with even more manpower and authority to track everyday American people and perform, I presume, many, many more audits, not just on the rich and famous but also on middle-class Americans. And then there are the special handouts to powerful friends of the Democratic Party. This isn't the type of legislation that will bring our economy roaring back to life or cool inflation. In fact, that is the first place that this bill is misrepresented. They are calling it the Inflation Reduction Act, but nobody believes that, in the near term, it is going to have a single impact, at all, on inflation. That is what Penn Wharton said. For the next 2 years, they said, it may actually make inflation worse, but it is a negligible amount. But the one thing we are sure of is that it sure won't go down. So it is not an ``inflation reduction act.'' It is really an insult to the intelligence of the American people to think that you can spend this money and you can tax individuals and businesses during a recession--something everybody from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, to Chuck Schumer, to Joe Manchin has said you don't do, which is raise taxes during a recession--but that is exactly what this bill does. Higher taxes, bigger government, more inflation, and fewer jobs--this is a bill whose time has not come. No wonder when this bill was originally proposed as Build Back Better, Senator Manchin opposed the bill. So let's see what he and Senator Schumer wrote in secret behind closed doors and then sprung on the American people. And, again, we haven't even seen the final product yet, and yet Senator Schumer said we are going to stay in session until it passes. Well, it is going to have to take all 50 votes of Democratic Senators and the vote of the Vice President to do that, because not one single Senator on this side of the aisle was consulted, was asked to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a product that could be supported across the aisle. This will be a purely partisan exercise, after I think we have had a pretty good run of bipartisan cooperation, and I have been proud to be a part of that. But this is a complete reversal of sort of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we have seen, frankly, all summer long, which has produced some pretty good legislation. Well, there are tax hikes that will leave hard-working Americans poorer. Not only will inflation be roughly 9 percent, which it is today--meaning that for every $100 you earn, you are only going to get $91 in purchasing power--in addition to that, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the impact of this bill will mean that individuals earning as little as $10,000 a year will see an increase in their tax burden, because you can't spend this much money, you can't tax this many people without it having some trickle-down effect on taxpayers, certainly those who earn less than $400,000, which was President Biden's pledge. And I heard the majority leader say that again and, I believe, the majority whip, too, but this is not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the entity here--nonpartisan entity--which provides the final word on those issues. So notwithstanding the denials of the majority leader and the majority whip and others, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that taxpayers earning as little as $10,000 will see their taxes go up--maybe not their income tax, but they will be poorer as a result of this bill. Again, part of that is because, in addition to inflation, in addition to additional tax burden, you are going to be asking them to pay taxes to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric vehicles or to subsidize people's health insurance, even though they make well above the 400 percent of poverty cap that was initially part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That cap has been lifted now as well. We will see what the final product looks like, but the earlier provision showed that people earning up to as much as 750 percent of poverty would then receive taxpayer subsidies for their health insurance. Well, Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer may have slapped a new name on Build Back Better or ``Build Back Broke,'' but all of the essential elements are still there: tax hikes on families, the Green New Deal, massive electric vehicle subsidies. Oh, and here is another thing. A lot of the American car manufacturers said we may not be able to access these tax credits because 70 percent of the components that go into electric vehicles are made in other countries, like China. That is how slapdash this bill was put together. If more time, more deliberation, more debate, more bipartisanship had occurred, maybe we could have come up with something that would make more sense. But this is what happens when you get in a big hurry. You make mistakes and do things that make zero sense, like provide this subsidy to a limited class of car manufacturers when 70 percent of the components of a typical electric vehicle, including the battery, come from overseas. As I said, this is a misleading-labeled bill. It is not going to do a thing to ease inflation in the near term. The budget experts at Penn Wharton analyzed Senator Manchin's tax hike and bill and completely decimated the argument that this legislation will reduce inflation. If this bill becomes law, inflation will not get any better anytime soon. In fact, I believe Americans can expect it to get worse. The people at Penn Wharton said the Manchin tax hike bill would increase inflation slightly in the short term and cause it to stick around for 2 more years before it would have any impact. That is what you are going to tell hard-working American families: You are being priced out of your favorite food and grocery products at the grocery store or you can't afford to fill up your car? Just wait 2 more years. Well, if the Democrats are successful in passing this bill with purely Democratic votes, there will be an accounting, and there will be a comparison by voters in November with, OK, they told us that if we pass this bill, it would reduce inflation, and let's see what inflation looks like in November of 2022. I am not wishing for higher inflation. I hope inflation will go down. But this is exactly the opposite of what you ought to do if you want to reduce inflation to restore people's purchasing power. Well, again, several years ago and more recently, our colleague from West Virginia said he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes during a recession. He and the majority leader have tried to convince anyone who will listen, who is gullible enough, to believe that this bill does not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, but, as I said, the Joint Committee on Taxation explodes that myth. Next year, more than 60 percent of taxpayers who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will be hit with a higher tax bill. That is what the Joint Committee on Taxation said. It is in the so-called distributional tables. It is a pretty complex calculation, but that is why we rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide this expert information and guidance to us, because, frankly, it is beyond the capability of most of us in Congress. They also said that more than 90 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year will pay more in taxes, and a whopping 97 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. I heard our colleague the majority whip talk about these big, rich companies--oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies--making too much money. But these aren't billion-dollar corporations that they are raising taxes on; these are middle-class families--and for what? To subsidize rich people driving around in fancy electric vehicles? It is a disgrace. Well, of course, working families aren't the only ones who are going to face a higher tax bill. The Manchin tax hike also hits businesses and is sure to have a devastating impact on--guess where--West Virginia. I am not making this up. Higher taxes require companies to cut costs everywhere. I think sometimes our Democratic colleagues have this idea that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will simply absorb it and they won't pass it along to their customers. That is a flight of fantasy. Higher taxes will require them either to pass those costs along or to cut costs elsewhere, like to cut off their employees, to not hire as many people as they would otherwise hire. I was flabbergasted, frankly, when I saw that, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry that will be hit hardest is the coal industry. Now, we know the coal industry has been the primary target of Democrats' green policies, and maybe that is what they have in mind--to put even more coal miners out of a job. Despite the adverse impact this legislation will have on families and communities across the country, it was written by two people: Senators Manchin and Schumer. They have been working hard since they announced their deal, arrived at in secret, behind closed doors. They have worked hard to try to get this bill to the floor, to see if it complies with the Senate rules. They continue to make last-minute changes--going on even as I speak, which is the reason none of us have seen the final product--but we are unlikely to see those final changes before Senator Schumer asks us to vote on the bill. But still Senator Schumer said he expects every Democrat to fall in line and to vote for this legislation within a matter of hours. They haven't seen the bill either. I have to imagine that Democrats in both the House and the Senate are pretty unhappy with this process. Experts have analyzed this bill and said it raises taxes on families, and it will have an adverse impact on jobs and keep inflation high--certainly not cut it--but the top Senate Democrat expects his colleagues to ignore these warning signs and to vote for it anyway. Like I said, all of us are held accountable by the voters at election time. And I guess ultimately that is what this exercise will be about--it will be about political accountability. On average, there have been about 40 amendments in a so-called vote-arama, which we are all familiar with, which we will experience presumably later on tonight. Our colleagues said: Well, there may be some amendments I would like to vote for, but I am going to vote against them because I want to make sure we get this bill across the floor, no matter how ugly the process, no matter what is in it. Well, Democrats have tried and failed to convince the American people that the biggest problems facing our country aren't really problems at all or certainly their problem. Despite all the obvious warnings, the Biden administration officials insisted that inflation was transitory, that it is temporary, won't last long. Now they even want to redefine what it means to be in a recession even though we have experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP--gross domestic product--growth, which is the textbook definition of a recession. People in my State and across the country know better than to believe this sort of sleight of hand. Despite what our colleagues are saying today, this bill will increase taxes on families earning less than $400,000 a year. It will stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation and prevent new lifesaving cures from being discovered. It will threaten our economy and our energy security at a vulnerable moment when we are in a recession. And it won't do a darn thing to ease the loss of purchasing power due to historically high inflation rates--the highest in 40 years--that consumers and all Americans are experiencing. It won't do a thing. No amount of spin or fast talking can conceal the damage this bill will inflict on the American people. Senator Manchin likes to say: ``If I can't go back home and explain it, I can't vote for it,'' but for the life of me, I don't know how our Democratic colleagues are going to explain this one in November. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4057 | null | 4,907 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is good to be back in the Senate. Like a number of my colleagues, after dodging the virus for 2 years, it finally caught up with me last weekend. I spent a week in quarantine and, fortunately, experienced only mild symptoms. I think that is because I was fully vaccinated and boosted and I was glad to have the help of modern science on my side. There is never a good time to be away from our work here in the Senate, but we all have a responsibility to keep those around us safe as well, no matter how inconvenient. Unfortunately, there are reports that our friends across the aisle may be intentionally disregarding that responsibility. I am deeply concerned by published reports that our Democratic colleagues have adopted a ``don't test, don't tell'' policy to ensure full attendance today. Allegedly, they are more concerned about ramming through Senator Manchin's tax hike than following CDC guidelines to protect not only each other but the staff members, the Capitol Police, custodial staff, food service workers, and countless others who keep this institution running. These folks could have any number of other health conditions that could lead to more severe COVID experiences than, for example, I had or they could be caregivers for young children or elderly relatives who have a high risk of serious illness. I sincerely hope these reports are not true. I hope our Democratic colleagues are not selfish enough to put so many people at risk in order to pass this massive tax-and-spending spree. If any of our colleagues are experiencing COVID symptoms, they should do what I did. They should get tested, period. We know that as soon as this evening, the Senate is expected to vote on Senator Manchin's and Senator Schumer's massive tax hike on middle-class families. You can call it the Manchin-Schumer tax hike of 2022. It sprung to life, unbeknownst, I believe, to virtually all the Democratic Senators, except for Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer. And no one has seen what we will purportedly be voting on later today, even our Democratic colleagues. No one has seen the final product. Once the so-called Byrd bath hasbeen undertaken by the Parliamentarian, this will be a substitute bill that Senator Schumer will lay down, but nobody has seen it. When the senior Senator from West Virginia announced this bill last week--or this agreement--every Republican was shocked and, from my view, most Democrats were as well. My private conversations with many of my Democratic colleagues said: Boy, that does not look good to be working so closely together on a bipartisan bill only to spring this on everybody by surprise. It looks like they were trying to pull a fast one. After all, Senator Manchin did put the kibosh on the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill last year, and he doubled down on his opposition just a few weeks ago. Privately, his Democratic colleagues assured me this was not happening. But then the Senator from West Virginia has engaged in a gigantic Olympic-worthy flip-flop. Senator Manchin will tell you this bill is completely different from ``Build Back Broke,'' but it is not. We should take a look at some of the elements of this legislation. ``Build Back Broke'' was a roundup of expensive, unnecessary damaging policies, including job-killing tax hikes, which would leave hard-working American families without a way to earn a paycheck, Green New Deal climate policies that would hurt our energy security and drive energy costs through the roof, taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people buying expensive cars and SUVs. I was listening to the majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, talking about these businesses that are making too much money and so they need to pay more in taxes. That is what I have come to expect from our Democratic colleagues. They are kind of a ``Robin Hood'' party--take from the rich, give to the poor. Except here, this is a reverse Robin Hood. They are taking from middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric vehicles and giving a tax subsidy to wealthy people who can afford to buy them but are helped with the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy. So you might call that a reverse Robin Hood. Then they want to supersize the Internal Revenue Service with even more manpower and authority to track everyday American people and perform, I presume, many, many more audits, not just on the rich and famous but also on middle-class Americans. And then there are the special handouts to powerful friends of the Democratic Party. This isn't the type of legislation that will bring our economy roaring back to life or cool inflation. In fact, that is the first place that this bill is misrepresented. They are calling it the Inflation Reduction Act, but nobody believes that, in the near term, it is going to have a single impact, at all, on inflation. That is what Penn Wharton said. For the next 2 years, they said, it may actually make inflation worse, but it is a negligible amount. But the one thing we are sure of is that it sure won't go down. So it is not an ``inflation reduction act.'' It is really an insult to the intelligence of the American people to think that you can spend this money and you can tax individuals and businesses during a recession--something everybody from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, to Chuck Schumer, to Joe Manchin has said you don't do, which is raise taxes during a recession--but that is exactly what this bill does. Higher taxes, bigger government, more inflation, and fewer jobs--this is a bill whose time has not come. No wonder when this bill was originally proposed as Build Back Better, Senator Manchin opposed the bill. So let's see what he and Senator Schumer wrote in secret behind closed doors and then sprung on the American people. And, again, we haven't even seen the final product yet, and yet Senator Schumer said we are going to stay in session until it passes. Well, it is going to have to take all 50 votes of Democratic Senators and the vote of the Vice President to do that, because not one single Senator on this side of the aisle was consulted, was asked to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a product that could be supported across the aisle. This will be a purely partisan exercise, after I think we have had a pretty good run of bipartisan cooperation, and I have been proud to be a part of that. But this is a complete reversal of sort of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we have seen, frankly, all summer long, which has produced some pretty good legislation. Well, there are tax hikes that will leave hard-working Americans poorer. Not only will inflation be roughly 9 percent, which it is today--meaning that for every $100 you earn, you are only going to get $91 in purchasing power--in addition to that, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the impact of this bill will mean that individuals earning as little as $10,000 a year will see an increase in their tax burden, because you can't spend this much money, you can't tax this many people without it having some trickle-down effect on taxpayers, certainly those who earn less than $400,000, which was President Biden's pledge. And I heard the majority leader say that again and, I believe, the majority whip, too, but this is not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the entity here--nonpartisan entity--which provides the final word on those issues. So notwithstanding the denials of the majority leader and the majority whip and others, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that taxpayers earning as little as $10,000 will see their taxes go up--maybe not their income tax, but they will be poorer as a result of this bill. Again, part of that is because, in addition to inflation, in addition to additional tax burden, you are going to be asking them to pay taxes to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric vehicles or to subsidize people's health insurance, even though they make well above the 400 percent of poverty cap that was initially part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That cap has been lifted now as well. We will see what the final product looks like, but the earlier provision showed that people earning up to as much as 750 percent of poverty would then receive taxpayer subsidies for their health insurance. Well, Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer may have slapped a new name on Build Back Better or ``Build Back Broke,'' but all of the essential elements are still there: tax hikes on families, the Green New Deal, massive electric vehicle subsidies. Oh, and here is another thing. A lot of the American car manufacturers said we may not be able to access these tax credits because 70 percent of the components that go into electric vehicles are made in other countries, like China. That is how slapdash this bill was put together. If more time, more deliberation, more debate, more bipartisanship had occurred, maybe we could have come up with something that would make more sense. But this is what happens when you get in a big hurry. You make mistakes and do things that make zero sense, like provide this subsidy to a limited class of car manufacturers when 70 percent of the components of a typical electric vehicle, including the battery, come from overseas. As I said, this is a misleading-labeled bill. It is not going to do a thing to ease inflation in the near term. The budget experts at Penn Wharton analyzed Senator Manchin's tax hike and bill and completely decimated the argument that this legislation will reduce inflation. If this bill becomes law, inflation will not get any better anytime soon. In fact, I believe Americans can expect it to get worse. The people at Penn Wharton said the Manchin tax hike bill would increase inflation slightly in the short term and cause it to stick around for 2 more years before it would have any impact. That is what you are going to tell hard-working American families: You are being priced out of your favorite food and grocery products at the grocery store or you can't afford to fill up your car? Just wait 2 more years. Well, if the Democrats are successful in passing this bill with purely Democratic votes, there will be an accounting, and there will be a comparison by voters in November with, OK, they told us that if we pass this bill, it would reduce inflation, and let's see what inflation looks like in November of 2022. I am not wishing for higher inflation. I hope inflation will go down. But this is exactly the opposite of what you ought to do if you want to reduce inflation to restore people's purchasing power. Well, again, several years ago and more recently, our colleague from West Virginia said he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes during a recession. He and the majority leader have tried to convince anyone who will listen, who is gullible enough, to believe that this bill does not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, but, as I said, the Joint Committee on Taxation explodes that myth. Next year, more than 60 percent of taxpayers who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will be hit with a higher tax bill. That is what the Joint Committee on Taxation said. It is in the so-called distributional tables. It is a pretty complex calculation, but that is why we rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide this expert information and guidance to us, because, frankly, it is beyond the capability of most of us in Congress. They also said that more than 90 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year will pay more in taxes, and a whopping 97 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. I heard our colleague the majority whip talk about these big, rich companies--oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies--making too much money. But these aren't billion-dollar corporations that they are raising taxes on; these are middle-class families--and for what? To subsidize rich people driving around in fancy electric vehicles? It is a disgrace. Well, of course, working families aren't the only ones who are going to face a higher tax bill. The Manchin tax hike also hits businesses and is sure to have a devastating impact on--guess where--West Virginia. I am not making this up. Higher taxes require companies to cut costs everywhere. I think sometimes our Democratic colleagues have this idea that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will simply absorb it and they won't pass it along to their customers. That is a flight of fantasy. Higher taxes will require them either to pass those costs along or to cut costs elsewhere, like to cut off their employees, to not hire as many people as they would otherwise hire. I was flabbergasted, frankly, when I saw that, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry that will be hit hardest is the coal industry. Now, we know the coal industry has been the primary target of Democrats' green policies, and maybe that is what they have in mind--to put even more coal miners out of a job. Despite the adverse impact this legislation will have on families and communities across the country, it was written by two people: Senators Manchin and Schumer. They have been working hard since they announced their deal, arrived at in secret, behind closed doors. They have worked hard to try to get this bill to the floor, to see if it complies with the Senate rules. They continue to make last-minute changes--going on even as I speak, which is the reason none of us have seen the final product--but we are unlikely to see those final changes before Senator Schumer asks us to vote on the bill. But still Senator Schumer said he expects every Democrat to fall in line and to vote for this legislation within a matter of hours. They haven't seen the bill either. I have to imagine that Democrats in both the House and the Senate are pretty unhappy with this process. Experts have analyzed this bill and said it raises taxes on families, and it will have an adverse impact on jobs and keep inflation high--certainly not cut it--but the top Senate Democrat expects his colleagues to ignore these warning signs and to vote for it anyway. Like I said, all of us are held accountable by the voters at election time. And I guess ultimately that is what this exercise will be about--it will be about political accountability. On average, there have been about 40 amendments in a so-called vote-arama, which we are all familiar with, which we will experience presumably later on tonight. Our colleagues said: Well, there may be some amendments I would like to vote for, but I am going to vote against them because I want to make sure we get this bill across the floor, no matter how ugly the process, no matter what is in it. Well, Democrats have tried and failed to convince the American people that the biggest problems facing our country aren't really problems at all or certainly their problem. Despite all the obvious warnings, the Biden administration officials insisted that inflation was transitory, that it is temporary, won't last long. Now they even want to redefine what it means to be in a recession even though we have experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP--gross domestic product--growth, which is the textbook definition of a recession. People in my State and across the country know better than to believe this sort of sleight of hand. Despite what our colleagues are saying today, this bill will increase taxes on families earning less than $400,000 a year. It will stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation and prevent new lifesaving cures from being discovered. It will threaten our economy and our energy security at a vulnerable moment when we are in a recession. And it won't do a darn thing to ease the loss of purchasing power due to historically high inflation rates--the highest in 40 years--that consumers and all Americans are experiencing. It won't do a thing. No amount of spin or fast talking can conceal the damage this bill will inflict on the American people. Senator Manchin likes to say: ``If I can't go back home and explain it, I can't vote for it,'' but for the life of me, I don't know how our Democratic colleagues are going to explain this one in November. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4057 | null | 4,908 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is good to be back in the Senate. Like a number of my colleagues, after dodging the virus for 2 years, it finally caught up with me last weekend. I spent a week in quarantine and, fortunately, experienced only mild symptoms. I think that is because I was fully vaccinated and boosted and I was glad to have the help of modern science on my side. There is never a good time to be away from our work here in the Senate, but we all have a responsibility to keep those around us safe as well, no matter how inconvenient. Unfortunately, there are reports that our friends across the aisle may be intentionally disregarding that responsibility. I am deeply concerned by published reports that our Democratic colleagues have adopted a ``don't test, don't tell'' policy to ensure full attendance today. Allegedly, they are more concerned about ramming through Senator Manchin's tax hike than following CDC guidelines to protect not only each other but the staff members, the Capitol Police, custodial staff, food service workers, and countless others who keep this institution running. These folks could have any number of other health conditions that could lead to more severe COVID experiences than, for example, I had or they could be caregivers for young children or elderly relatives who have a high risk of serious illness. I sincerely hope these reports are not true. I hope our Democratic colleagues are not selfish enough to put so many people at risk in order to pass this massive tax-and-spending spree. If any of our colleagues are experiencing COVID symptoms, they should do what I did. They should get tested, period. We know that as soon as this evening, the Senate is expected to vote on Senator Manchin's and Senator Schumer's massive tax hike on middle-class families. You can call it the Manchin-Schumer tax hike of 2022. It sprung to life, unbeknownst, I believe, to virtually all the Democratic Senators, except for Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer. And no one has seen what we will purportedly be voting on later today, even our Democratic colleagues. No one has seen the final product. Once the so-called Byrd bath hasbeen undertaken by the Parliamentarian, this will be a substitute bill that Senator Schumer will lay down, but nobody has seen it. When the senior Senator from West Virginia announced this bill last week--or this agreement--every Republican was shocked and, from my view, most Democrats were as well. My private conversations with many of my Democratic colleagues said: Boy, that does not look good to be working so closely together on a bipartisan bill only to spring this on everybody by surprise. It looks like they were trying to pull a fast one. After all, Senator Manchin did put the kibosh on the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill last year, and he doubled down on his opposition just a few weeks ago. Privately, his Democratic colleagues assured me this was not happening. But then the Senator from West Virginia has engaged in a gigantic Olympic-worthy flip-flop. Senator Manchin will tell you this bill is completely different from ``Build Back Broke,'' but it is not. We should take a look at some of the elements of this legislation. ``Build Back Broke'' was a roundup of expensive, unnecessary damaging policies, including job-killing tax hikes, which would leave hard-working American families without a way to earn a paycheck, Green New Deal climate policies that would hurt our energy security and drive energy costs through the roof, taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people buying expensive cars and SUVs. I was listening to the majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, talking about these businesses that are making too much money and so they need to pay more in taxes. That is what I have come to expect from our Democratic colleagues. They are kind of a ``Robin Hood'' party--take from the rich, give to the poor. Except here, this is a reverse Robin Hood. They are taking from middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric vehicles and giving a tax subsidy to wealthy people who can afford to buy them but are helped with the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy. So you might call that a reverse Robin Hood. Then they want to supersize the Internal Revenue Service with even more manpower and authority to track everyday American people and perform, I presume, many, many more audits, not just on the rich and famous but also on middle-class Americans. And then there are the special handouts to powerful friends of the Democratic Party. This isn't the type of legislation that will bring our economy roaring back to life or cool inflation. In fact, that is the first place that this bill is misrepresented. They are calling it the Inflation Reduction Act, but nobody believes that, in the near term, it is going to have a single impact, at all, on inflation. That is what Penn Wharton said. For the next 2 years, they said, it may actually make inflation worse, but it is a negligible amount. But the one thing we are sure of is that it sure won't go down. So it is not an ``inflation reduction act.'' It is really an insult to the intelligence of the American people to think that you can spend this money and you can tax individuals and businesses during a recession--something everybody from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, to Chuck Schumer, to Joe Manchin has said you don't do, which is raise taxes during a recession--but that is exactly what this bill does. Higher taxes, bigger government, more inflation, and fewer jobs--this is a bill whose time has not come. No wonder when this bill was originally proposed as Build Back Better, Senator Manchin opposed the bill. So let's see what he and Senator Schumer wrote in secret behind closed doors and then sprung on the American people. And, again, we haven't even seen the final product yet, and yet Senator Schumer said we are going to stay in session until it passes. Well, it is going to have to take all 50 votes of Democratic Senators and the vote of the Vice President to do that, because not one single Senator on this side of the aisle was consulted, was asked to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a product that could be supported across the aisle. This will be a purely partisan exercise, after I think we have had a pretty good run of bipartisan cooperation, and I have been proud to be a part of that. But this is a complete reversal of sort of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we have seen, frankly, all summer long, which has produced some pretty good legislation. Well, there are tax hikes that will leave hard-working Americans poorer. Not only will inflation be roughly 9 percent, which it is today--meaning that for every $100 you earn, you are only going to get $91 in purchasing power--in addition to that, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the impact of this bill will mean that individuals earning as little as $10,000 a year will see an increase in their tax burden, because you can't spend this much money, you can't tax this many people without it having some trickle-down effect on taxpayers, certainly those who earn less than $400,000, which was President Biden's pledge. And I heard the majority leader say that again and, I believe, the majority whip, too, but this is not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the entity here--nonpartisan entity--which provides the final word on those issues. So notwithstanding the denials of the majority leader and the majority whip and others, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that taxpayers earning as little as $10,000 will see their taxes go up--maybe not their income tax, but they will be poorer as a result of this bill. Again, part of that is because, in addition to inflation, in addition to additional tax burden, you are going to be asking them to pay taxes to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric vehicles or to subsidize people's health insurance, even though they make well above the 400 percent of poverty cap that was initially part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That cap has been lifted now as well. We will see what the final product looks like, but the earlier provision showed that people earning up to as much as 750 percent of poverty would then receive taxpayer subsidies for their health insurance. Well, Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer may have slapped a new name on Build Back Better or ``Build Back Broke,'' but all of the essential elements are still there: tax hikes on families, the Green New Deal, massive electric vehicle subsidies. Oh, and here is another thing. A lot of the American car manufacturers said we may not be able to access these tax credits because 70 percent of the components that go into electric vehicles are made in other countries, like China. That is how slapdash this bill was put together. If more time, more deliberation, more debate, more bipartisanship had occurred, maybe we could have come up with something that would make more sense. But this is what happens when you get in a big hurry. You make mistakes and do things that make zero sense, like provide this subsidy to a limited class of car manufacturers when 70 percent of the components of a typical electric vehicle, including the battery, come from overseas. As I said, this is a misleading-labeled bill. It is not going to do a thing to ease inflation in the near term. The budget experts at Penn Wharton analyzed Senator Manchin's tax hike and bill and completely decimated the argument that this legislation will reduce inflation. If this bill becomes law, inflation will not get any better anytime soon. In fact, I believe Americans can expect it to get worse. The people at Penn Wharton said the Manchin tax hike bill would increase inflation slightly in the short term and cause it to stick around for 2 more years before it would have any impact. That is what you are going to tell hard-working American families: You are being priced out of your favorite food and grocery products at the grocery store or you can't afford to fill up your car? Just wait 2 more years. Well, if the Democrats are successful in passing this bill with purely Democratic votes, there will be an accounting, and there will be a comparison by voters in November with, OK, they told us that if we pass this bill, it would reduce inflation, and let's see what inflation looks like in November of 2022. I am not wishing for higher inflation. I hope inflation will go down. But this is exactly the opposite of what you ought to do if you want to reduce inflation to restore people's purchasing power. Well, again, several years ago and more recently, our colleague from West Virginia said he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes during a recession. He and the majority leader have tried to convince anyone who will listen, who is gullible enough, to believe that this bill does not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, but, as I said, the Joint Committee on Taxation explodes that myth. Next year, more than 60 percent of taxpayers who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will be hit with a higher tax bill. That is what the Joint Committee on Taxation said. It is in the so-called distributional tables. It is a pretty complex calculation, but that is why we rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide this expert information and guidance to us, because, frankly, it is beyond the capability of most of us in Congress. They also said that more than 90 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year will pay more in taxes, and a whopping 97 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. I heard our colleague the majority whip talk about these big, rich companies--oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies--making too much money. But these aren't billion-dollar corporations that they are raising taxes on; these are middle-class families--and for what? To subsidize rich people driving around in fancy electric vehicles? It is a disgrace. Well, of course, working families aren't the only ones who are going to face a higher tax bill. The Manchin tax hike also hits businesses and is sure to have a devastating impact on--guess where--West Virginia. I am not making this up. Higher taxes require companies to cut costs everywhere. I think sometimes our Democratic colleagues have this idea that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will simply absorb it and they won't pass it along to their customers. That is a flight of fantasy. Higher taxes will require them either to pass those costs along or to cut costs elsewhere, like to cut off their employees, to not hire as many people as they would otherwise hire. I was flabbergasted, frankly, when I saw that, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry that will be hit hardest is the coal industry. Now, we know the coal industry has been the primary target of Democrats' green policies, and maybe that is what they have in mind--to put even more coal miners out of a job. Despite the adverse impact this legislation will have on families and communities across the country, it was written by two people: Senators Manchin and Schumer. They have been working hard since they announced their deal, arrived at in secret, behind closed doors. They have worked hard to try to get this bill to the floor, to see if it complies with the Senate rules. They continue to make last-minute changes--going on even as I speak, which is the reason none of us have seen the final product--but we are unlikely to see those final changes before Senator Schumer asks us to vote on the bill. But still Senator Schumer said he expects every Democrat to fall in line and to vote for this legislation within a matter of hours. They haven't seen the bill either. I have to imagine that Democrats in both the House and the Senate are pretty unhappy with this process. Experts have analyzed this bill and said it raises taxes on families, and it will have an adverse impact on jobs and keep inflation high--certainly not cut it--but the top Senate Democrat expects his colleagues to ignore these warning signs and to vote for it anyway. Like I said, all of us are held accountable by the voters at election time. And I guess ultimately that is what this exercise will be about--it will be about political accountability. On average, there have been about 40 amendments in a so-called vote-arama, which we are all familiar with, which we will experience presumably later on tonight. Our colleagues said: Well, there may be some amendments I would like to vote for, but I am going to vote against them because I want to make sure we get this bill across the floor, no matter how ugly the process, no matter what is in it. Well, Democrats have tried and failed to convince the American people that the biggest problems facing our country aren't really problems at all or certainly their problem. Despite all the obvious warnings, the Biden administration officials insisted that inflation was transitory, that it is temporary, won't last long. Now they even want to redefine what it means to be in a recession even though we have experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP--gross domestic product--growth, which is the textbook definition of a recession. People in my State and across the country know better than to believe this sort of sleight of hand. Despite what our colleagues are saying today, this bill will increase taxes on families earning less than $400,000 a year. It will stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation and prevent new lifesaving cures from being discovered. It will threaten our economy and our energy security at a vulnerable moment when we are in a recession. And it won't do a darn thing to ease the loss of purchasing power due to historically high inflation rates--the highest in 40 years--that consumers and all Americans are experiencing. It won't do a thing. No amount of spin or fast talking can conceal the damage this bill will inflict on the American people. Senator Manchin likes to say: ``If I can't go back home and explain it, I can't vote for it,'' but for the life of me, I don't know how our Democratic colleagues are going to explain this one in November. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4057 | null | 4,909 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is good to be back in the Senate. Like a number of my colleagues, after dodging the virus for 2 years, it finally caught up with me last weekend. I spent a week in quarantine and, fortunately, experienced only mild symptoms. I think that is because I was fully vaccinated and boosted and I was glad to have the help of modern science on my side. There is never a good time to be away from our work here in the Senate, but we all have a responsibility to keep those around us safe as well, no matter how inconvenient. Unfortunately, there are reports that our friends across the aisle may be intentionally disregarding that responsibility. I am deeply concerned by published reports that our Democratic colleagues have adopted a ``don't test, don't tell'' policy to ensure full attendance today. Allegedly, they are more concerned about ramming through Senator Manchin's tax hike than following CDC guidelines to protect not only each other but the staff members, the Capitol Police, custodial staff, food service workers, and countless others who keep this institution running. These folks could have any number of other health conditions that could lead to more severe COVID experiences than, for example, I had or they could be caregivers for young children or elderly relatives who have a high risk of serious illness. I sincerely hope these reports are not true. I hope our Democratic colleagues are not selfish enough to put so many people at risk in order to pass this massive tax-and-spending spree. If any of our colleagues are experiencing COVID symptoms, they should do what I did. They should get tested, period. We know that as soon as this evening, the Senate is expected to vote on Senator Manchin's and Senator Schumer's massive tax hike on middle-class families. You can call it the Manchin-Schumer tax hike of 2022. It sprung to life, unbeknownst, I believe, to virtually all the Democratic Senators, except for Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer. And no one has seen what we will purportedly be voting on later today, even our Democratic colleagues. No one has seen the final product. Once the so-called Byrd bath hasbeen undertaken by the Parliamentarian, this will be a substitute bill that Senator Schumer will lay down, but nobody has seen it. When the senior Senator from West Virginia announced this bill last week--or this agreement--every Republican was shocked and, from my view, most Democrats were as well. My private conversations with many of my Democratic colleagues said: Boy, that does not look good to be working so closely together on a bipartisan bill only to spring this on everybody by surprise. It looks like they were trying to pull a fast one. After all, Senator Manchin did put the kibosh on the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill last year, and he doubled down on his opposition just a few weeks ago. Privately, his Democratic colleagues assured me this was not happening. But then the Senator from West Virginia has engaged in a gigantic Olympic-worthy flip-flop. Senator Manchin will tell you this bill is completely different from ``Build Back Broke,'' but it is not. We should take a look at some of the elements of this legislation. ``Build Back Broke'' was a roundup of expensive, unnecessary damaging policies, including job-killing tax hikes, which would leave hard-working American families without a way to earn a paycheck, Green New Deal climate policies that would hurt our energy security and drive energy costs through the roof, taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people buying expensive cars and SUVs. I was listening to the majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, talking about these businesses that are making too much money and so they need to pay more in taxes. That is what I have come to expect from our Democratic colleagues. They are kind of a ``Robin Hood'' party--take from the rich, give to the poor. Except here, this is a reverse Robin Hood. They are taking from middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric vehicles and giving a tax subsidy to wealthy people who can afford to buy them but are helped with the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy. So you might call that a reverse Robin Hood. Then they want to supersize the Internal Revenue Service with even more manpower and authority to track everyday American people and perform, I presume, many, many more audits, not just on the rich and famous but also on middle-class Americans. And then there are the special handouts to powerful friends of the Democratic Party. This isn't the type of legislation that will bring our economy roaring back to life or cool inflation. In fact, that is the first place that this bill is misrepresented. They are calling it the Inflation Reduction Act, but nobody believes that, in the near term, it is going to have a single impact, at all, on inflation. That is what Penn Wharton said. For the next 2 years, they said, it may actually make inflation worse, but it is a negligible amount. But the one thing we are sure of is that it sure won't go down. So it is not an ``inflation reduction act.'' It is really an insult to the intelligence of the American people to think that you can spend this money and you can tax individuals and businesses during a recession--something everybody from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, to Chuck Schumer, to Joe Manchin has said you don't do, which is raise taxes during a recession--but that is exactly what this bill does. Higher taxes, bigger government, more inflation, and fewer jobs--this is a bill whose time has not come. No wonder when this bill was originally proposed as Build Back Better, Senator Manchin opposed the bill. So let's see what he and Senator Schumer wrote in secret behind closed doors and then sprung on the American people. And, again, we haven't even seen the final product yet, and yet Senator Schumer said we are going to stay in session until it passes. Well, it is going to have to take all 50 votes of Democratic Senators and the vote of the Vice President to do that, because not one single Senator on this side of the aisle was consulted, was asked to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a product that could be supported across the aisle. This will be a purely partisan exercise, after I think we have had a pretty good run of bipartisan cooperation, and I have been proud to be a part of that. But this is a complete reversal of sort of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we have seen, frankly, all summer long, which has produced some pretty good legislation. Well, there are tax hikes that will leave hard-working Americans poorer. Not only will inflation be roughly 9 percent, which it is today--meaning that for every $100 you earn, you are only going to get $91 in purchasing power--in addition to that, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the impact of this bill will mean that individuals earning as little as $10,000 a year will see an increase in their tax burden, because you can't spend this much money, you can't tax this many people without it having some trickle-down effect on taxpayers, certainly those who earn less than $400,000, which was President Biden's pledge. And I heard the majority leader say that again and, I believe, the majority whip, too, but this is not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the entity here--nonpartisan entity--which provides the final word on those issues. So notwithstanding the denials of the majority leader and the majority whip and others, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that taxpayers earning as little as $10,000 will see their taxes go up--maybe not their income tax, but they will be poorer as a result of this bill. Again, part of that is because, in addition to inflation, in addition to additional tax burden, you are going to be asking them to pay taxes to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric vehicles or to subsidize people's health insurance, even though they make well above the 400 percent of poverty cap that was initially part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That cap has been lifted now as well. We will see what the final product looks like, but the earlier provision showed that people earning up to as much as 750 percent of poverty would then receive taxpayer subsidies for their health insurance. Well, Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer may have slapped a new name on Build Back Better or ``Build Back Broke,'' but all of the essential elements are still there: tax hikes on families, the Green New Deal, massive electric vehicle subsidies. Oh, and here is another thing. A lot of the American car manufacturers said we may not be able to access these tax credits because 70 percent of the components that go into electric vehicles are made in other countries, like China. That is how slapdash this bill was put together. If more time, more deliberation, more debate, more bipartisanship had occurred, maybe we could have come up with something that would make more sense. But this is what happens when you get in a big hurry. You make mistakes and do things that make zero sense, like provide this subsidy to a limited class of car manufacturers when 70 percent of the components of a typical electric vehicle, including the battery, come from overseas. As I said, this is a misleading-labeled bill. It is not going to do a thing to ease inflation in the near term. The budget experts at Penn Wharton analyzed Senator Manchin's tax hike and bill and completely decimated the argument that this legislation will reduce inflation. If this bill becomes law, inflation will not get any better anytime soon. In fact, I believe Americans can expect it to get worse. The people at Penn Wharton said the Manchin tax hike bill would increase inflation slightly in the short term and cause it to stick around for 2 more years before it would have any impact. That is what you are going to tell hard-working American families: You are being priced out of your favorite food and grocery products at the grocery store or you can't afford to fill up your car? Just wait 2 more years. Well, if the Democrats are successful in passing this bill with purely Democratic votes, there will be an accounting, and there will be a comparison by voters in November with, OK, they told us that if we pass this bill, it would reduce inflation, and let's see what inflation looks like in November of 2022. I am not wishing for higher inflation. I hope inflation will go down. But this is exactly the opposite of what you ought to do if you want to reduce inflation to restore people's purchasing power. Well, again, several years ago and more recently, our colleague from West Virginia said he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes during a recession. He and the majority leader have tried to convince anyone who will listen, who is gullible enough, to believe that this bill does not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, but, as I said, the Joint Committee on Taxation explodes that myth. Next year, more than 60 percent of taxpayers who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will be hit with a higher tax bill. That is what the Joint Committee on Taxation said. It is in the so-called distributional tables. It is a pretty complex calculation, but that is why we rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide this expert information and guidance to us, because, frankly, it is beyond the capability of most of us in Congress. They also said that more than 90 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year will pay more in taxes, and a whopping 97 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. I heard our colleague the majority whip talk about these big, rich companies--oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies--making too much money. But these aren't billion-dollar corporations that they are raising taxes on; these are middle-class families--and for what? To subsidize rich people driving around in fancy electric vehicles? It is a disgrace. Well, of course, working families aren't the only ones who are going to face a higher tax bill. The Manchin tax hike also hits businesses and is sure to have a devastating impact on--guess where--West Virginia. I am not making this up. Higher taxes require companies to cut costs everywhere. I think sometimes our Democratic colleagues have this idea that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will simply absorb it and they won't pass it along to their customers. That is a flight of fantasy. Higher taxes will require them either to pass those costs along or to cut costs elsewhere, like to cut off their employees, to not hire as many people as they would otherwise hire. I was flabbergasted, frankly, when I saw that, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry that will be hit hardest is the coal industry. Now, we know the coal industry has been the primary target of Democrats' green policies, and maybe that is what they have in mind--to put even more coal miners out of a job. Despite the adverse impact this legislation will have on families and communities across the country, it was written by two people: Senators Manchin and Schumer. They have been working hard since they announced their deal, arrived at in secret, behind closed doors. They have worked hard to try to get this bill to the floor, to see if it complies with the Senate rules. They continue to make last-minute changes--going on even as I speak, which is the reason none of us have seen the final product--but we are unlikely to see those final changes before Senator Schumer asks us to vote on the bill. But still Senator Schumer said he expects every Democrat to fall in line and to vote for this legislation within a matter of hours. They haven't seen the bill either. I have to imagine that Democrats in both the House and the Senate are pretty unhappy with this process. Experts have analyzed this bill and said it raises taxes on families, and it will have an adverse impact on jobs and keep inflation high--certainly not cut it--but the top Senate Democrat expects his colleagues to ignore these warning signs and to vote for it anyway. Like I said, all of us are held accountable by the voters at election time. And I guess ultimately that is what this exercise will be about--it will be about political accountability. On average, there have been about 40 amendments in a so-called vote-arama, which we are all familiar with, which we will experience presumably later on tonight. Our colleagues said: Well, there may be some amendments I would like to vote for, but I am going to vote against them because I want to make sure we get this bill across the floor, no matter how ugly the process, no matter what is in it. Well, Democrats have tried and failed to convince the American people that the biggest problems facing our country aren't really problems at all or certainly their problem. Despite all the obvious warnings, the Biden administration officials insisted that inflation was transitory, that it is temporary, won't last long. Now they even want to redefine what it means to be in a recession even though we have experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP--gross domestic product--growth, which is the textbook definition of a recession. People in my State and across the country know better than to believe this sort of sleight of hand. Despite what our colleagues are saying today, this bill will increase taxes on families earning less than $400,000 a year. It will stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation and prevent new lifesaving cures from being discovered. It will threaten our economy and our energy security at a vulnerable moment when we are in a recession. And it won't do a darn thing to ease the loss of purchasing power due to historically high inflation rates--the highest in 40 years--that consumers and all Americans are experiencing. It won't do a thing. No amount of spin or fast talking can conceal the damage this bill will inflict on the American people. Senator Manchin likes to say: ``If I can't go back home and explain it, I can't vote for it,'' but for the life of me, I don't know how our Democratic colleagues are going to explain this one in November. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4057 | null | 4,910 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is good to be back in the Senate. Like a number of my colleagues, after dodging the virus for 2 years, it finally caught up with me last weekend. I spent a week in quarantine and, fortunately, experienced only mild symptoms. I think that is because I was fully vaccinated and boosted and I was glad to have the help of modern science on my side. There is never a good time to be away from our work here in the Senate, but we all have a responsibility to keep those around us safe as well, no matter how inconvenient. Unfortunately, there are reports that our friends across the aisle may be intentionally disregarding that responsibility. I am deeply concerned by published reports that our Democratic colleagues have adopted a ``don't test, don't tell'' policy to ensure full attendance today. Allegedly, they are more concerned about ramming through Senator Manchin's tax hike than following CDC guidelines to protect not only each other but the staff members, the Capitol Police, custodial staff, food service workers, and countless others who keep this institution running. These folks could have any number of other health conditions that could lead to more severe COVID experiences than, for example, I had or they could be caregivers for young children or elderly relatives who have a high risk of serious illness. I sincerely hope these reports are not true. I hope our Democratic colleagues are not selfish enough to put so many people at risk in order to pass this massive tax-and-spending spree. If any of our colleagues are experiencing COVID symptoms, they should do what I did. They should get tested, period. We know that as soon as this evening, the Senate is expected to vote on Senator Manchin's and Senator Schumer's massive tax hike on middle-class families. You can call it the Manchin-Schumer tax hike of 2022. It sprung to life, unbeknownst, I believe, to virtually all the Democratic Senators, except for Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer. And no one has seen what we will purportedly be voting on later today, even our Democratic colleagues. No one has seen the final product. Once the so-called Byrd bath hasbeen undertaken by the Parliamentarian, this will be a substitute bill that Senator Schumer will lay down, but nobody has seen it. When the senior Senator from West Virginia announced this bill last week--or this agreement--every Republican was shocked and, from my view, most Democrats were as well. My private conversations with many of my Democratic colleagues said: Boy, that does not look good to be working so closely together on a bipartisan bill only to spring this on everybody by surprise. It looks like they were trying to pull a fast one. After all, Senator Manchin did put the kibosh on the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill last year, and he doubled down on his opposition just a few weeks ago. Privately, his Democratic colleagues assured me this was not happening. But then the Senator from West Virginia has engaged in a gigantic Olympic-worthy flip-flop. Senator Manchin will tell you this bill is completely different from ``Build Back Broke,'' but it is not. We should take a look at some of the elements of this legislation. ``Build Back Broke'' was a roundup of expensive, unnecessary damaging policies, including job-killing tax hikes, which would leave hard-working American families without a way to earn a paycheck, Green New Deal climate policies that would hurt our energy security and drive energy costs through the roof, taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people buying expensive cars and SUVs. I was listening to the majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, talking about these businesses that are making too much money and so they need to pay more in taxes. That is what I have come to expect from our Democratic colleagues. They are kind of a ``Robin Hood'' party--take from the rich, give to the poor. Except here, this is a reverse Robin Hood. They are taking from middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric vehicles and giving a tax subsidy to wealthy people who can afford to buy them but are helped with the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy. So you might call that a reverse Robin Hood. Then they want to supersize the Internal Revenue Service with even more manpower and authority to track everyday American people and perform, I presume, many, many more audits, not just on the rich and famous but also on middle-class Americans. And then there are the special handouts to powerful friends of the Democratic Party. This isn't the type of legislation that will bring our economy roaring back to life or cool inflation. In fact, that is the first place that this bill is misrepresented. They are calling it the Inflation Reduction Act, but nobody believes that, in the near term, it is going to have a single impact, at all, on inflation. That is what Penn Wharton said. For the next 2 years, they said, it may actually make inflation worse, but it is a negligible amount. But the one thing we are sure of is that it sure won't go down. So it is not an ``inflation reduction act.'' It is really an insult to the intelligence of the American people to think that you can spend this money and you can tax individuals and businesses during a recession--something everybody from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, to Chuck Schumer, to Joe Manchin has said you don't do, which is raise taxes during a recession--but that is exactly what this bill does. Higher taxes, bigger government, more inflation, and fewer jobs--this is a bill whose time has not come. No wonder when this bill was originally proposed as Build Back Better, Senator Manchin opposed the bill. So let's see what he and Senator Schumer wrote in secret behind closed doors and then sprung on the American people. And, again, we haven't even seen the final product yet, and yet Senator Schumer said we are going to stay in session until it passes. Well, it is going to have to take all 50 votes of Democratic Senators and the vote of the Vice President to do that, because not one single Senator on this side of the aisle was consulted, was asked to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a product that could be supported across the aisle. This will be a purely partisan exercise, after I think we have had a pretty good run of bipartisan cooperation, and I have been proud to be a part of that. But this is a complete reversal of sort of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we have seen, frankly, all summer long, which has produced some pretty good legislation. Well, there are tax hikes that will leave hard-working Americans poorer. Not only will inflation be roughly 9 percent, which it is today--meaning that for every $100 you earn, you are only going to get $91 in purchasing power--in addition to that, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the impact of this bill will mean that individuals earning as little as $10,000 a year will see an increase in their tax burden, because you can't spend this much money, you can't tax this many people without it having some trickle-down effect on taxpayers, certainly those who earn less than $400,000, which was President Biden's pledge. And I heard the majority leader say that again and, I believe, the majority whip, too, but this is not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the entity here--nonpartisan entity--which provides the final word on those issues. So notwithstanding the denials of the majority leader and the majority whip and others, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that taxpayers earning as little as $10,000 will see their taxes go up--maybe not their income tax, but they will be poorer as a result of this bill. Again, part of that is because, in addition to inflation, in addition to additional tax burden, you are going to be asking them to pay taxes to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric vehicles or to subsidize people's health insurance, even though they make well above the 400 percent of poverty cap that was initially part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That cap has been lifted now as well. We will see what the final product looks like, but the earlier provision showed that people earning up to as much as 750 percent of poverty would then receive taxpayer subsidies for their health insurance. Well, Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer may have slapped a new name on Build Back Better or ``Build Back Broke,'' but all of the essential elements are still there: tax hikes on families, the Green New Deal, massive electric vehicle subsidies. Oh, and here is another thing. A lot of the American car manufacturers said we may not be able to access these tax credits because 70 percent of the components that go into electric vehicles are made in other countries, like China. That is how slapdash this bill was put together. If more time, more deliberation, more debate, more bipartisanship had occurred, maybe we could have come up with something that would make more sense. But this is what happens when you get in a big hurry. You make mistakes and do things that make zero sense, like provide this subsidy to a limited class of car manufacturers when 70 percent of the components of a typical electric vehicle, including the battery, come from overseas. As I said, this is a misleading-labeled bill. It is not going to do a thing to ease inflation in the near term. The budget experts at Penn Wharton analyzed Senator Manchin's tax hike and bill and completely decimated the argument that this legislation will reduce inflation. If this bill becomes law, inflation will not get any better anytime soon. In fact, I believe Americans can expect it to get worse. The people at Penn Wharton said the Manchin tax hike bill would increase inflation slightly in the short term and cause it to stick around for 2 more years before it would have any impact. That is what you are going to tell hard-working American families: You are being priced out of your favorite food and grocery products at the grocery store or you can't afford to fill up your car? Just wait 2 more years. Well, if the Democrats are successful in passing this bill with purely Democratic votes, there will be an accounting, and there will be a comparison by voters in November with, OK, they told us that if we pass this bill, it would reduce inflation, and let's see what inflation looks like in November of 2022. I am not wishing for higher inflation. I hope inflation will go down. But this is exactly the opposite of what you ought to do if you want to reduce inflation to restore people's purchasing power. Well, again, several years ago and more recently, our colleague from West Virginia said he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes during a recession. He and the majority leader have tried to convince anyone who will listen, who is gullible enough, to believe that this bill does not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, but, as I said, the Joint Committee on Taxation explodes that myth. Next year, more than 60 percent of taxpayers who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will be hit with a higher tax bill. That is what the Joint Committee on Taxation said. It is in the so-called distributional tables. It is a pretty complex calculation, but that is why we rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide this expert information and guidance to us, because, frankly, it is beyond the capability of most of us in Congress. They also said that more than 90 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year will pay more in taxes, and a whopping 97 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. I heard our colleague the majority whip talk about these big, rich companies--oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies--making too much money. But these aren't billion-dollar corporations that they are raising taxes on; these are middle-class families--and for what? To subsidize rich people driving around in fancy electric vehicles? It is a disgrace. Well, of course, working families aren't the only ones who are going to face a higher tax bill. The Manchin tax hike also hits businesses and is sure to have a devastating impact on--guess where--West Virginia. I am not making this up. Higher taxes require companies to cut costs everywhere. I think sometimes our Democratic colleagues have this idea that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will simply absorb it and they won't pass it along to their customers. That is a flight of fantasy. Higher taxes will require them either to pass those costs along or to cut costs elsewhere, like to cut off their employees, to not hire as many people as they would otherwise hire. I was flabbergasted, frankly, when I saw that, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry that will be hit hardest is the coal industry. Now, we know the coal industry has been the primary target of Democrats' green policies, and maybe that is what they have in mind--to put even more coal miners out of a job. Despite the adverse impact this legislation will have on families and communities across the country, it was written by two people: Senators Manchin and Schumer. They have been working hard since they announced their deal, arrived at in secret, behind closed doors. They have worked hard to try to get this bill to the floor, to see if it complies with the Senate rules. They continue to make last-minute changes--going on even as I speak, which is the reason none of us have seen the final product--but we are unlikely to see those final changes before Senator Schumer asks us to vote on the bill. But still Senator Schumer said he expects every Democrat to fall in line and to vote for this legislation within a matter of hours. They haven't seen the bill either. I have to imagine that Democrats in both the House and the Senate are pretty unhappy with this process. Experts have analyzed this bill and said it raises taxes on families, and it will have an adverse impact on jobs and keep inflation high--certainly not cut it--but the top Senate Democrat expects his colleagues to ignore these warning signs and to vote for it anyway. Like I said, all of us are held accountable by the voters at election time. And I guess ultimately that is what this exercise will be about--it will be about political accountability. On average, there have been about 40 amendments in a so-called vote-arama, which we are all familiar with, which we will experience presumably later on tonight. Our colleagues said: Well, there may be some amendments I would like to vote for, but I am going to vote against them because I want to make sure we get this bill across the floor, no matter how ugly the process, no matter what is in it. Well, Democrats have tried and failed to convince the American people that the biggest problems facing our country aren't really problems at all or certainly their problem. Despite all the obvious warnings, the Biden administration officials insisted that inflation was transitory, that it is temporary, won't last long. Now they even want to redefine what it means to be in a recession even though we have experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP--gross domestic product--growth, which is the textbook definition of a recession. People in my State and across the country know better than to believe this sort of sleight of hand. Despite what our colleagues are saying today, this bill will increase taxes on families earning less than $400,000 a year. It will stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation and prevent new lifesaving cures from being discovered. It will threaten our economy and our energy security at a vulnerable moment when we are in a recession. And it won't do a darn thing to ease the loss of purchasing power due to historically high inflation rates--the highest in 40 years--that consumers and all Americans are experiencing. It won't do a thing. No amount of spin or fast talking can conceal the damage this bill will inflict on the American people. Senator Manchin likes to say: ``If I can't go back home and explain it, I can't vote for it,'' but for the life of me, I don't know how our Democratic colleagues are going to explain this one in November. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4057 | null | 4,911 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is good to be back in the Senate. Like a number of my colleagues, after dodging the virus for 2 years, it finally caught up with me last weekend. I spent a week in quarantine and, fortunately, experienced only mild symptoms. I think that is because I was fully vaccinated and boosted and I was glad to have the help of modern science on my side. There is never a good time to be away from our work here in the Senate, but we all have a responsibility to keep those around us safe as well, no matter how inconvenient. Unfortunately, there are reports that our friends across the aisle may be intentionally disregarding that responsibility. I am deeply concerned by published reports that our Democratic colleagues have adopted a ``don't test, don't tell'' policy to ensure full attendance today. Allegedly, they are more concerned about ramming through Senator Manchin's tax hike than following CDC guidelines to protect not only each other but the staff members, the Capitol Police, custodial staff, food service workers, and countless others who keep this institution running. These folks could have any number of other health conditions that could lead to more severe COVID experiences than, for example, I had or they could be caregivers for young children or elderly relatives who have a high risk of serious illness. I sincerely hope these reports are not true. I hope our Democratic colleagues are not selfish enough to put so many people at risk in order to pass this massive tax-and-spending spree. If any of our colleagues are experiencing COVID symptoms, they should do what I did. They should get tested, period. We know that as soon as this evening, the Senate is expected to vote on Senator Manchin's and Senator Schumer's massive tax hike on middle-class families. You can call it the Manchin-Schumer tax hike of 2022. It sprung to life, unbeknownst, I believe, to virtually all the Democratic Senators, except for Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer. And no one has seen what we will purportedly be voting on later today, even our Democratic colleagues. No one has seen the final product. Once the so-called Byrd bath hasbeen undertaken by the Parliamentarian, this will be a substitute bill that Senator Schumer will lay down, but nobody has seen it. When the senior Senator from West Virginia announced this bill last week--or this agreement--every Republican was shocked and, from my view, most Democrats were as well. My private conversations with many of my Democratic colleagues said: Boy, that does not look good to be working so closely together on a bipartisan bill only to spring this on everybody by surprise. It looks like they were trying to pull a fast one. After all, Senator Manchin did put the kibosh on the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill last year, and he doubled down on his opposition just a few weeks ago. Privately, his Democratic colleagues assured me this was not happening. But then the Senator from West Virginia has engaged in a gigantic Olympic-worthy flip-flop. Senator Manchin will tell you this bill is completely different from ``Build Back Broke,'' but it is not. We should take a look at some of the elements of this legislation. ``Build Back Broke'' was a roundup of expensive, unnecessary damaging policies, including job-killing tax hikes, which would leave hard-working American families without a way to earn a paycheck, Green New Deal climate policies that would hurt our energy security and drive energy costs through the roof, taxpayer subsidies for wealthy people buying expensive cars and SUVs. I was listening to the majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, talking about these businesses that are making too much money and so they need to pay more in taxes. That is what I have come to expect from our Democratic colleagues. They are kind of a ``Robin Hood'' party--take from the rich, give to the poor. Except here, this is a reverse Robin Hood. They are taking from middle-class families who can't afford to buy expensive electric vehicles and giving a tax subsidy to wealthy people who can afford to buy them but are helped with the $7,500 taxpayer subsidy. So you might call that a reverse Robin Hood. Then they want to supersize the Internal Revenue Service with even more manpower and authority to track everyday American people and perform, I presume, many, many more audits, not just on the rich and famous but also on middle-class Americans. And then there are the special handouts to powerful friends of the Democratic Party. This isn't the type of legislation that will bring our economy roaring back to life or cool inflation. In fact, that is the first place that this bill is misrepresented. They are calling it the Inflation Reduction Act, but nobody believes that, in the near term, it is going to have a single impact, at all, on inflation. That is what Penn Wharton said. For the next 2 years, they said, it may actually make inflation worse, but it is a negligible amount. But the one thing we are sure of is that it sure won't go down. So it is not an ``inflation reduction act.'' It is really an insult to the intelligence of the American people to think that you can spend this money and you can tax individuals and businesses during a recession--something everybody from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, to Chuck Schumer, to Joe Manchin has said you don't do, which is raise taxes during a recession--but that is exactly what this bill does. Higher taxes, bigger government, more inflation, and fewer jobs--this is a bill whose time has not come. No wonder when this bill was originally proposed as Build Back Better, Senator Manchin opposed the bill. So let's see what he and Senator Schumer wrote in secret behind closed doors and then sprung on the American people. And, again, we haven't even seen the final product yet, and yet Senator Schumer said we are going to stay in session until it passes. Well, it is going to have to take all 50 votes of Democratic Senators and the vote of the Vice President to do that, because not one single Senator on this side of the aisle was consulted, was asked to work on a bipartisan basis to come up with a product that could be supported across the aisle. This will be a purely partisan exercise, after I think we have had a pretty good run of bipartisan cooperation, and I have been proud to be a part of that. But this is a complete reversal of sort of the spirit of bipartisan cooperation that we have seen, frankly, all summer long, which has produced some pretty good legislation. Well, there are tax hikes that will leave hard-working Americans poorer. Not only will inflation be roughly 9 percent, which it is today--meaning that for every $100 you earn, you are only going to get $91 in purchasing power--in addition to that, the Joint Committee on Taxation said the impact of this bill will mean that individuals earning as little as $10,000 a year will see an increase in their tax burden, because you can't spend this much money, you can't tax this many people without it having some trickle-down effect on taxpayers, certainly those who earn less than $400,000, which was President Biden's pledge. And I heard the majority leader say that again and, I believe, the majority whip, too, but this is not true. The Joint Committee on Taxation is the entity here--nonpartisan entity--which provides the final word on those issues. So notwithstanding the denials of the majority leader and the majority whip and others, the Joint Committee on Taxation said that taxpayers earning as little as $10,000 will see their taxes go up--maybe not their income tax, but they will be poorer as a result of this bill. Again, part of that is because, in addition to inflation, in addition to additional tax burden, you are going to be asking them to pay taxes to subsidize wealthy people to buy electric vehicles or to subsidize people's health insurance, even though they make well above the 400 percent of poverty cap that was initially part of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. That cap has been lifted now as well. We will see what the final product looks like, but the earlier provision showed that people earning up to as much as 750 percent of poverty would then receive taxpayer subsidies for their health insurance. Well, Senator Manchin and Senator Schumer may have slapped a new name on Build Back Better or ``Build Back Broke,'' but all of the essential elements are still there: tax hikes on families, the Green New Deal, massive electric vehicle subsidies. Oh, and here is another thing. A lot of the American car manufacturers said we may not be able to access these tax credits because 70 percent of the components that go into electric vehicles are made in other countries, like China. That is how slapdash this bill was put together. If more time, more deliberation, more debate, more bipartisanship had occurred, maybe we could have come up with something that would make more sense. But this is what happens when you get in a big hurry. You make mistakes and do things that make zero sense, like provide this subsidy to a limited class of car manufacturers when 70 percent of the components of a typical electric vehicle, including the battery, come from overseas. As I said, this is a misleading-labeled bill. It is not going to do a thing to ease inflation in the near term. The budget experts at Penn Wharton analyzed Senator Manchin's tax hike and bill and completely decimated the argument that this legislation will reduce inflation. If this bill becomes law, inflation will not get any better anytime soon. In fact, I believe Americans can expect it to get worse. The people at Penn Wharton said the Manchin tax hike bill would increase inflation slightly in the short term and cause it to stick around for 2 more years before it would have any impact. That is what you are going to tell hard-working American families: You are being priced out of your favorite food and grocery products at the grocery store or you can't afford to fill up your car? Just wait 2 more years. Well, if the Democrats are successful in passing this bill with purely Democratic votes, there will be an accounting, and there will be a comparison by voters in November with, OK, they told us that if we pass this bill, it would reduce inflation, and let's see what inflation looks like in November of 2022. I am not wishing for higher inflation. I hope inflation will go down. But this is exactly the opposite of what you ought to do if you want to reduce inflation to restore people's purchasing power. Well, again, several years ago and more recently, our colleague from West Virginia said he didn't think it was wise to raise taxes during a recession. He and the majority leader have tried to convince anyone who will listen, who is gullible enough, to believe that this bill does not raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year, but, as I said, the Joint Committee on Taxation explodes that myth. Next year, more than 60 percent of taxpayers who earn between $40,000 and $50,000 a year will be hit with a higher tax bill. That is what the Joint Committee on Taxation said. It is in the so-called distributional tables. It is a pretty complex calculation, but that is why we rely on the Joint Committee on Taxation to provide this expert information and guidance to us, because, frankly, it is beyond the capability of most of us in Congress. They also said that more than 90 percent of those earning between $75,000 and $100,000 a year will pay more in taxes, and a whopping 97 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 will see a tax increase. I heard our colleague the majority whip talk about these big, rich companies--oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical companies--making too much money. But these aren't billion-dollar corporations that they are raising taxes on; these are middle-class families--and for what? To subsidize rich people driving around in fancy electric vehicles? It is a disgrace. Well, of course, working families aren't the only ones who are going to face a higher tax bill. The Manchin tax hike also hits businesses and is sure to have a devastating impact on--guess where--West Virginia. I am not making this up. Higher taxes require companies to cut costs everywhere. I think sometimes our Democratic colleagues have this idea that if you raise taxes on businesses, they will simply absorb it and they won't pass it along to their customers. That is a flight of fantasy. Higher taxes will require them either to pass those costs along or to cut costs elsewhere, like to cut off their employees, to not hire as many people as they would otherwise hire. I was flabbergasted, frankly, when I saw that, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry that will be hit hardest is the coal industry. Now, we know the coal industry has been the primary target of Democrats' green policies, and maybe that is what they have in mind--to put even more coal miners out of a job. Despite the adverse impact this legislation will have on families and communities across the country, it was written by two people: Senators Manchin and Schumer. They have been working hard since they announced their deal, arrived at in secret, behind closed doors. They have worked hard to try to get this bill to the floor, to see if it complies with the Senate rules. They continue to make last-minute changes--going on even as I speak, which is the reason none of us have seen the final product--but we are unlikely to see those final changes before Senator Schumer asks us to vote on the bill. But still Senator Schumer said he expects every Democrat to fall in line and to vote for this legislation within a matter of hours. They haven't seen the bill either. I have to imagine that Democrats in both the House and the Senate are pretty unhappy with this process. Experts have analyzed this bill and said it raises taxes on families, and it will have an adverse impact on jobs and keep inflation high--certainly not cut it--but the top Senate Democrat expects his colleagues to ignore these warning signs and to vote for it anyway. Like I said, all of us are held accountable by the voters at election time. And I guess ultimately that is what this exercise will be about--it will be about political accountability. On average, there have been about 40 amendments in a so-called vote-arama, which we are all familiar with, which we will experience presumably later on tonight. Our colleagues said: Well, there may be some amendments I would like to vote for, but I am going to vote against them because I want to make sure we get this bill across the floor, no matter how ugly the process, no matter what is in it. Well, Democrats have tried and failed to convince the American people that the biggest problems facing our country aren't really problems at all or certainly their problem. Despite all the obvious warnings, the Biden administration officials insisted that inflation was transitory, that it is temporary, won't last long. Now they even want to redefine what it means to be in a recession even though we have experienced two consecutive quarters of negative GDP--gross domestic product--growth, which is the textbook definition of a recession. People in my State and across the country know better than to believe this sort of sleight of hand. Despite what our colleagues are saying today, this bill will increase taxes on families earning less than $400,000 a year. It will stifle medical and pharmaceutical innovation and prevent new lifesaving cures from being discovered. It will threaten our economy and our energy security at a vulnerable moment when we are in a recession. And it won't do a darn thing to ease the loss of purchasing power due to historically high inflation rates--the highest in 40 years--that consumers and all Americans are experiencing. It won't do a thing. No amount of spin or fast talking can conceal the damage this bill will inflict on the American people. Senator Manchin likes to say: ``If I can't go back home and explain it, I can't vote for it,'' but for the life of me, I don't know how our Democratic colleagues are going to explain this one in November. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4057 | null | 4,912 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I go back home to Washington State every week, and I talk to young people in Seattle who are urgently calling for bold climate action. I talk to families in Yakima County who are deeply concerned by a wildfire season that gets worse every year and parents in Vancouver who are trying to figure out how they can afford their kids' medication and make ends meet. This summer has broken records in Washington State and not in a good way. Energy prices and temperatures have both spiked. People from Seattle to Spokane are feeling the stress, and they are feeling the heat. Climate disasters have become an everyday reality in every community across the country. Washington State has seen droughts and wildfires and floods and heat waves that literally made our roads buckle. Families desperately need us to tackle rising costs and rising temperatures because we cannot build a stronger economy if we do not build a more sustainable economy, and that is why we need the Inflation Reduction Act. It will reduce costs for families, it will reduce emissions, and it will even reduce the debt and deficit. The climate investments in this bill are, in a word, historic. They won't just bring down carbon emissions by a whopping 40 percent; they will help us establish real energy independence from dirty fossil fuels and foreign adversaries. They will save lives by reducing air pollution and supporting conservation efforts happening in rural Washington State right now to prevent wildfires and protect families and address the climate crisis. This legislation will make historic, first-of-its-kind, economy-wide investment in clean energy that will create millions of good-paying clean energy jobs, including in Washington State, and it will bring down families' energy costs for people who are struggling to keep the AC on in the summer or the heat on in the winter or lights on year-round. It will help weatherize homes and install energy-efficient appliances and heat pumps and rooftop solar panels and more. This bill will offer huge cost savings for clean or electric vehicles, new orused, and give companies a good reason to build more of these cars in America. We aren't just cutting energy costs, though. No one should have to worry about whether they can afford the healthcare they need, but I have heard from countless patients who worked their whole life, who saved their money, but still had to work an extra job or move in with their family or even ration their prescription just to make ends meet. Lifesaving medicine doesn't do any good if people can't afford it. That is why this bill will finally give Medicare power to negotiate. We are going to force drug companies to the bargaining table, and patients everywhere are going to benefit. It will also cap seniors' annual drug costs and cap insulin at $35 a month and protect patients from companies that are jacking up prices on them with reckless abandon. It extends the healthcare coverage relief that helped millions of people save thousands of dollars on their healthcare this year. This isn't just saving people money; this is going to save lives--patients who are rationing their prescriptions, afraid to see their doctors not because they are scared of getting a diagnosis but because they are scared of the price tag. If that is not the goal when we come to work every day, then I don't know what is. But the Inflation Reduction Act won't just bring down families' everyday costs; it will bring down the deficit by more than $300 billion because every cent of this bill is paid for by closing loopholes used by enormous corporations. There is no reason a company making a billion-dollar profit should pay a smaller tax rate than a mom-and-pop shop in Washington State or a firefighter or a teacher in Walla Walla, WA, so Democrats won't let it fly any longer. Those big billion-dollar companies? They are going to pay no less than the same 15 percent in taxes that many of our small businesses already pay. Those stock buyback schemes that line the pockets of corporate executives and Wall Street investors but do nothing for working families? They are going to be taxed so companies pay their fair share. As for everyday Americans, they won't see their taxes go up one penny. Make no mistake, the Inflation Reduction Act represents historic progress. There is simply no reason anyone should be against these policies and many reasons to get this done now. This is not a bill for Democrats or Republicans; it is legislation that will help all Americans--lowering prescription drug costs, making healthcare more accessible and more affordable than ever, and pass the largest investment in climate action in our country's history--all paid for. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. MURRAY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4059-2 | null | 4,913 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, well, first, I want to thank my dear friend and our great leader and chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for her positive words on this bill and her reminder to all of us that our work is not done and particularly for her work on one of the most urgent issues facing American families: childcare. I don't know of a single Member of this Senate, Democrat or Republican, who has done more to push the issue of childcare and get it done than the senior Senator from the great State of Washington, and I thank her for that. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Blumenthal, who have also been such strong leaders on this issue. I am here to say that what they are saying--Senator Murray, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Kaine--is right. We need to do something in this country to lower childcare costs and increase its availability. I pledge to my colleagues and to the American people that I will keep working with Senator Murray until we get something done to increase access to high-quality childcare for working families. We all know that, today, families pay more for childcare than at any point in American history. Amazingly, sometimes families have to pay more for childcare than they would pay for a mortgage. It is out of reach. Some people forget how the world has changed. When I was a kid, my dad had this little junky exterminating business. My mom was what was then called a housewife. I got home from school every day at 3 o'clock, and there was Mom with milk and cookies, asking me what homework I had--oh, I don't have any homework, Mom--and telling me what time I had to come back home from going out and playing in the schoolyard for dinner. That doesn't happen anymore. The vast majority of families in America are either single parent or two parents,both working. The percentage that have two parents, only one working, is minimal. So childcare is now a necessity. It is a necessity for families. The anguish people go through to try to find childcare, and then when it is not available or something happens, what are they going to do? They are both working and scrambling. Who is going to watch the kids? It is agony. It is not this kind of agony that comes, you know, God forbid, once in a lifetime when you get a serious illness, but it is real agony and anxiety. We have to do something. There is another reason we have to do something: our economy. You read all of the economic experts. We are short of labor. We are short of labor. You go to any business--small, medium, big--they are short of labor. Probably the No. 1 or No. 2 reason in the whole country we are short of labor is we don't have adequate childcare. Moms or dads don't want to go to work because they don't know who is going to take care of the kids. Moms or dads stay home or retire or whatever. So our economy desperately needs this. When parents can't enter the workforce--particularly women--our country suffers as an economy, and productivity is greatly diminished. Of course, there are other issues to deal with in this economy as well that are related. Home- and community-based services. People need a roof over their heads. We need to support families through paid leave. We need to make sure that every child in this country has a chance to grow and reach their potential, not in poverty. All of these issues are important. Childcare is so important--so important. So I want to first thank again Senator Murray for her words. I want to thank my colleagues. Two of our leaders on this issue, Senators Kaine and Blumenthal, are here today. We want to pledge to the American people that we are going to keep working until we get something done in childcare, and we will keep fighting for all these issues to expand opportunity for all Americans. It is so, so vital to the future of our country and to the well-being of families across the Nation. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4060-2 | null | 4,914 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, well, first, I want to thank my dear friend and our great leader and chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for her positive words on this bill and her reminder to all of us that our work is not done and particularly for her work on one of the most urgent issues facing American families: childcare. I don't know of a single Member of this Senate, Democrat or Republican, who has done more to push the issue of childcare and get it done than the senior Senator from the great State of Washington, and I thank her for that. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Blumenthal, who have also been such strong leaders on this issue. I am here to say that what they are saying--Senator Murray, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Kaine--is right. We need to do something in this country to lower childcare costs and increase its availability. I pledge to my colleagues and to the American people that I will keep working with Senator Murray until we get something done to increase access to high-quality childcare for working families. We all know that, today, families pay more for childcare than at any point in American history. Amazingly, sometimes families have to pay more for childcare than they would pay for a mortgage. It is out of reach. Some people forget how the world has changed. When I was a kid, my dad had this little junky exterminating business. My mom was what was then called a housewife. I got home from school every day at 3 o'clock, and there was Mom with milk and cookies, asking me what homework I had--oh, I don't have any homework, Mom--and telling me what time I had to come back home from going out and playing in the schoolyard for dinner. That doesn't happen anymore. The vast majority of families in America are either single parent or two parents,both working. The percentage that have two parents, only one working, is minimal. So childcare is now a necessity. It is a necessity for families. The anguish people go through to try to find childcare, and then when it is not available or something happens, what are they going to do? They are both working and scrambling. Who is going to watch the kids? It is agony. It is not this kind of agony that comes, you know, God forbid, once in a lifetime when you get a serious illness, but it is real agony and anxiety. We have to do something. There is another reason we have to do something: our economy. You read all of the economic experts. We are short of labor. We are short of labor. You go to any business--small, medium, big--they are short of labor. Probably the No. 1 or No. 2 reason in the whole country we are short of labor is we don't have adequate childcare. Moms or dads don't want to go to work because they don't know who is going to take care of the kids. Moms or dads stay home or retire or whatever. So our economy desperately needs this. When parents can't enter the workforce--particularly women--our country suffers as an economy, and productivity is greatly diminished. Of course, there are other issues to deal with in this economy as well that are related. Home- and community-based services. People need a roof over their heads. We need to support families through paid leave. We need to make sure that every child in this country has a chance to grow and reach their potential, not in poverty. All of these issues are important. Childcare is so important--so important. So I want to first thank again Senator Murray for her words. I want to thank my colleagues. Two of our leaders on this issue, Senators Kaine and Blumenthal, are here today. We want to pledge to the American people that we are going to keep working until we get something done in childcare, and we will keep fighting for all these issues to expand opportunity for all Americans. It is so, so vital to the future of our country and to the well-being of families across the Nation. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4060-2 | null | 4,915 |
formal | single parent | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, well, first, I want to thank my dear friend and our great leader and chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for her positive words on this bill and her reminder to all of us that our work is not done and particularly for her work on one of the most urgent issues facing American families: childcare. I don't know of a single Member of this Senate, Democrat or Republican, who has done more to push the issue of childcare and get it done than the senior Senator from the great State of Washington, and I thank her for that. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Blumenthal, who have also been such strong leaders on this issue. I am here to say that what they are saying--Senator Murray, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Kaine--is right. We need to do something in this country to lower childcare costs and increase its availability. I pledge to my colleagues and to the American people that I will keep working with Senator Murray until we get something done to increase access to high-quality childcare for working families. We all know that, today, families pay more for childcare than at any point in American history. Amazingly, sometimes families have to pay more for childcare than they would pay for a mortgage. It is out of reach. Some people forget how the world has changed. When I was a kid, my dad had this little junky exterminating business. My mom was what was then called a housewife. I got home from school every day at 3 o'clock, and there was Mom with milk and cookies, asking me what homework I had--oh, I don't have any homework, Mom--and telling me what time I had to come back home from going out and playing in the schoolyard for dinner. That doesn't happen anymore. The vast majority of families in America are either single parent or two parents,both working. The percentage that have two parents, only one working, is minimal. So childcare is now a necessity. It is a necessity for families. The anguish people go through to try to find childcare, and then when it is not available or something happens, what are they going to do? They are both working and scrambling. Who is going to watch the kids? It is agony. It is not this kind of agony that comes, you know, God forbid, once in a lifetime when you get a serious illness, but it is real agony and anxiety. We have to do something. There is another reason we have to do something: our economy. You read all of the economic experts. We are short of labor. We are short of labor. You go to any business--small, medium, big--they are short of labor. Probably the No. 1 or No. 2 reason in the whole country we are short of labor is we don't have adequate childcare. Moms or dads don't want to go to work because they don't know who is going to take care of the kids. Moms or dads stay home or retire or whatever. So our economy desperately needs this. When parents can't enter the workforce--particularly women--our country suffers as an economy, and productivity is greatly diminished. Of course, there are other issues to deal with in this economy as well that are related. Home- and community-based services. People need a roof over their heads. We need to support families through paid leave. We need to make sure that every child in this country has a chance to grow and reach their potential, not in poverty. All of these issues are important. Childcare is so important--so important. So I want to first thank again Senator Murray for her words. I want to thank my colleagues. Two of our leaders on this issue, Senators Kaine and Blumenthal, are here today. We want to pledge to the American people that we are going to keep working until we get something done in childcare, and we will keep fighting for all these issues to expand opportunity for all Americans. It is so, so vital to the future of our country and to the well-being of families across the Nation. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4060-2 | null | 4,916 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, well, first, I want to thank my dear friend and our great leader and chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee for her positive words on this bill and her reminder to all of us that our work is not done and particularly for her work on one of the most urgent issues facing American families: childcare. I don't know of a single Member of this Senate, Democrat or Republican, who has done more to push the issue of childcare and get it done than the senior Senator from the great State of Washington, and I thank her for that. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Blumenthal, who have also been such strong leaders on this issue. I am here to say that what they are saying--Senator Murray, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Kaine--is right. We need to do something in this country to lower childcare costs and increase its availability. I pledge to my colleagues and to the American people that I will keep working with Senator Murray until we get something done to increase access to high-quality childcare for working families. We all know that, today, families pay more for childcare than at any point in American history. Amazingly, sometimes families have to pay more for childcare than they would pay for a mortgage. It is out of reach. Some people forget how the world has changed. When I was a kid, my dad had this little junky exterminating business. My mom was what was then called a housewife. I got home from school every day at 3 o'clock, and there was Mom with milk and cookies, asking me what homework I had--oh, I don't have any homework, Mom--and telling me what time I had to come back home from going out and playing in the schoolyard for dinner. That doesn't happen anymore. The vast majority of families in America are either single parent or two parents,both working. The percentage that have two parents, only one working, is minimal. So childcare is now a necessity. It is a necessity for families. The anguish people go through to try to find childcare, and then when it is not available or something happens, what are they going to do? They are both working and scrambling. Who is going to watch the kids? It is agony. It is not this kind of agony that comes, you know, God forbid, once in a lifetime when you get a serious illness, but it is real agony and anxiety. We have to do something. There is another reason we have to do something: our economy. You read all of the economic experts. We are short of labor. We are short of labor. You go to any business--small, medium, big--they are short of labor. Probably the No. 1 or No. 2 reason in the whole country we are short of labor is we don't have adequate childcare. Moms or dads don't want to go to work because they don't know who is going to take care of the kids. Moms or dads stay home or retire or whatever. So our economy desperately needs this. When parents can't enter the workforce--particularly women--our country suffers as an economy, and productivity is greatly diminished. Of course, there are other issues to deal with in this economy as well that are related. Home- and community-based services. People need a roof over their heads. We need to support families through paid leave. We need to make sure that every child in this country has a chance to grow and reach their potential, not in poverty. All of these issues are important. Childcare is so important--so important. So I want to first thank again Senator Murray for her words. I want to thank my colleagues. Two of our leaders on this issue, Senators Kaine and Blumenthal, are here today. We want to pledge to the American people that we are going to keep working until we get something done in childcare, and we will keep fighting for all these issues to expand opportunity for all Americans. It is so, so vital to the future of our country and to the well-being of families across the Nation. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4060-2 | null | 4,917 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, but for everything good this bill accomplishes, we have not yet addressed a critical issue families face today: access to high-quality childcare. There is a childcare crisis in this country, and the time to address it is now. There can be no more excuses. We cannot simply vote on this package and call it a day. Our childcare system isn't just stretched thin; it is broken. Talk to parents, talk to businesses, talk to anyone, and it is painfully obvious that our childcare system isn't working for families, providers, or our economy and hasn't been for some time. Right now, families from Seattle to Spokane are stressed. They are staying up late at night, trying to figure out how on Earth they are going to find a childcare opening or how they are going to afford it if they ever get off a wait list. When they can't find and afford childcare, as is all too often the case, parents--moms in particular--have to leave their job and stay out of the workforce, all while childcare workers are being paid poverty wages, struggling to make ends meet and provide for their own families, and they are leaving their jobs for better paying work at fast food chains and big box stores, which pay them more than their childcare position. We have to do better for kids, for moms, for workers, for our economy, for everyone, or this is just going to keep getting worse. I know all of my colleagues have heard me say this before--you have probably heard me say it 100 times--but I want to be clear: The childcare system is on the brink of collapse, and parents are telling us every single day this is an urgent crisis. The emergency support that we did provide in the American Rescue Plan was hugely helpful, but it is going to run out, and soon, and families who are already at their wits' end will feel the pressure. So we need to lower the cost for families as we fight inflation. We need to expand parents' options so they can go back to work and support the childcare workers caring for and educating our kids each and every day. Now, I have been putting forward proposal after proposal to do exactly this, and I am working with anyone I can to make progress here because this isn't a ``my way or the highway'' proposal. It never was. I hope my colleagues know that is not how I operate. What I am talking about here is delivering a lifeline to kids, to moms, to our childcare industry, not to mention the businesses and industries that desperately want to hire more workers. I am deeply disappointed that Congress has failed to meet this crucial moment for our families and our childcare providers, so let me just say this: I have been fighting for childcare my entire career, since before I ever got here to the U.S. Senate. In fact, for a very long time, I was the only person in the room fighting. So I am not going to stop anytime soon. And guess what. I am not the only one fighting today. There are parents and advocates across the country who are fighting for this, who know how critical this is for our families. There are small business owners who understand how critical this is to strengthening our economy--real people, not some army of invisible lobbyists. So I am here right now to be a voice for them, and I am asking everyone here in Congress to step up and speak for these families too. We have to get this done. We must make this a priority. We must address this urgent crisis before it is too late. So I want everyone to know I am going to stay in this fight for moms and for our kids, and you better believe, one day, we are going to win this. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. MURRAY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4060 | null | 4,918 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. THUNE. Madam President, we are somehow continuing to consider the Democrats' grab bag of bad ideas, otherwise known--I would say, misleadingly--as the Inflation Reduction Act. Let's start with the bill's title. It gets you feeling somewhat hopeful, doesn't it? The Inflation Reduction Act sounds like a bill that is going to address perhaps the No. 1 problem facing our Nation--inflation. Then you actually look at the bill's contents and discover that the bill will do nothing to reduce inflation--nothing. And you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model had to say about the bill's impact on inflation: ``The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero''--``statistically indistinguishable from zero.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office also found that the bill would do nothing to address our current inflation crisis. So did the Tax Foundation. So much for inflation reduction. So what about the deficit reduction the Democrats are touting? Well, unfortunately, there is a good chance there won't be much of that either. Democrats rely on some very shady accounting to reach their supposed deficit reduction number--most notably from the repeal of a rule that has never been implemented and, at this point, was never expected to be. No matter what this rule was predicted to cost, if it was never going to be implemented, its cost was effectively zero. So repealing this rule leaves you with exactly zero--zero dollars to spend, not $120 billion. Then there is the question of the bill's expanded ObamaCare subsidies. The Democrats' bill extends the expanded ObamaCare subsidies by 3 years. But it is common knowledge that the Democrats want to extend them permanently, as the President explicitly said in his State of the Union Address. And when you figure in the cost of extending them permanently, most of the purported cost savings in the bill, which the Democrats claim will go toward deficit reduction, dwindle away. So no deficit reduction, an extremely doubtful amount of deficit reduction--what else? Well, there are the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. Yes, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. Our economy has posted two consecutive quarters of negative growth. In fact, by any common definition, we are now in a recession. And Democrats think now is a good time to hike taxes on businesses--businesses that are already struggling with 40-year high inflation? The Democrats' book minimum tax, as proposed last week, would be a $313 billion tax hike, with roughly half of the increase falling on American manufacturers. I don't think I need to tell anyone what happens when you raise taxes on businesses, particularly when the economy is shrinking. You get less growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs. According to an analysis from the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023 alone, the version of the bill Democrats introduced last week would reduce real gross domestic product by more than $68 billion and result in more than 218,000 fewer workers in the overall economy. The Tax Foundation also found that the bill would, unsurprisingly, reduce economic growth, reduce wages, and reduce jobs. In short, a big part of the burden of the Democrats' tax hike on businesses would fall on American families and American workers. And the book minimum tax on American businesses is not the only tax hike Democrats are proposing on this bill. They just purportedly replaced a $14 billion tax hike on investment with a new $74 billion stock buyback tax designed to punish investors who choose to keep their own money invested in a business--a tax hike that will likely discourage new investment and have a negative impact on Americans' retirement savings. And, of course, they have included a number of taxes and fees on oil and gas production. I guess Democrats would like our current sky-high energy prices to continue long-term, because I am at a loss for any other reason why Democrats would choose to hike taxes on oil and gas production at a time when Americans are already struggling with high gas prices and high utility bills. The Democrats didn't always think raising taxes during a recession was a good idea. In fact, President Obama once said: [T]he last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. That was from President Obama. As the current Democratic leader once said: You don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking. Well, unfortunately, now that their Green New Deal fantasies are on the line, the Democrats have changed their tune. That is right. Democrats are hiking taxes during a recession not to address our border crisis or inflation or rising crime but so that they can implement their Green New Deal agenda. Their so-called Inflation Reduction Act is chock-full of Green New Deal spending, things like $1.5 billion--billion dollars--for a grant program to plant trees; $1 billion for electric, heavy-duty vehicles like garbage trucks, which is something that communities used to normally provide for; $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emissions delivery vehicles; and $1.9 billion for things like road equity and identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. Yes, the Democrats are apparently willing to send us into a longer term recession--or stagflation--in order to provide billions of dollars for things like road equity and identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. All told, the Democrats provide more than $60 billion in this bill for ``environmental justice''--$60 billion. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is more than the Federal Government spent on highways in 2019. The bill also contains at least $30 billion in climate slush funds, part of which is allocated for, among other things, climate-related political activity--yes, climate-related political activity--because, for sure, there is nothing more that families who are struggling with ballooning grocery bills and the high price of gas are eager to see their tax dollars going toward than Green New Deal activism. Apparently, it is a very high priority for Democrats, but I would say, in all likelihood, not for the American people and American families. I haven't even talked about the tax credits and rebates the Democrats' bill will provide for wealthy Americans who purchase new electric vehicles or who remodel their kitchens with Democrat-approved green appliances. Well, I could go on for a while here. It is difficult, really, honestly, to squeeze all of the bad ideas in the Democrats' bill into just one floor speech, and I haven't mentioned the socialist-style price controls that the Democrats' bill would pose on prescription drugs--price controls that would result in fewer new drugs and treatments--or the additional $80 billion--yes, $80 billion--that the Democrats' bill would give to the IRS, with the majority of it being used to boost IRS audits. Now, of that $80 billion, $45 billion of it would go to IRS enforcement--$45 billion, or 57 percent. Do you want to know how much of that $80 billion would go to taxpayer services? Four percent. Four percent--that for an Agency that only succeeded in answering about 1 out of every 50 taxpayers' phone calls during the 2021 tax season. There is $80 billion to the IRS for an additional 87,000 employees--87,000 new employees at an Agency that, I am told, only has about 53 percent of its workforce actually going back to the office--87,000 employees. You are going to have tax agents moving in with families around this country. The Democrats aren't focused on improving taxpayer services but on boosting the number of IRS audits. No one should be deceived into thinking these increased audits will fall solely on millionaires and billionaires. No matter what the Democrats and some officials at the IRS conveniently claim, the fact of the matter is that it is exceedingly unlikely the Democrats will be able to collect the revenue they want to collect from increased IRS enforcement without auditing small businesses and ordinary taxpayers. In fact, based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, somewhere between 78 to 90 percent of the revenue that is projected to be raised from underreported income would likely come from those making under $200,000 a year. So 87,000 new IRS agents are sent out with the purpose of collecting more revenue, allegedly, according to the Democrats, from high-income taxpayers and businesses that are escaping taxation; yet the Joint Committee on Taxation finds that 78 to 90 percent of the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income would likely come from those making under $200,000 a year. Almost 18 months ago now, the Democrats passed a massive, partisan $1.9 trillion spending spree, which fueled inflation--record inflation--that Americans are still struggling with in this country. By the way, that $1.9 trillion spending spree was all on the debt--all on the debt. They didn't attempt to pay for it; they just put it on the debt. So now, to talk about possibly reducing the deficit by what I think, when it is all said and done, in this bill will be under $100 billion, that will assume all kinds of things like actually they are going to raise revenue from these 87,000 new agents whom they are going to hire at the IRS to audit American taxpayers. It also assumes things like the ObamaCare premium subsidies are only going to be limited to a 3-year extension rather than a full 10 years, which we all know is ultimately going to happen. In the end, I believe there will be zero deficit reduction, but the fact of the matter is that that piece of legislation, in addition to fueling inflation and adding to the debt--and having learned from that experience, I would hope you would think that the Democrats here would not double down with yet another terrible economic idea, which is another tax-and-spending spree. Like the so-called American Rescue Plan before it, it will leave our economy and the American people worse off. For their sake, I hope the Democrats will think better of this bill before it is too late. We are going to have an opportunity to debate it here, probably in a few hours, and will have an opportunity to vote on lots of amendments, and we will see what that process yields. I can tell you one thing: The American people are tired of 40-year high inflation; they are tired of higher energy prices; they are tired of higher food prices; and they are concerned about an economy that is in recession. They are looking at a Democrat leadership in Washington, DC, that has as its No. 1 goal--out of all of the things you could do to attack inflation, attack high energy costs, to deal with a broken border, crime in our cities, and to deal with a wobbly economy, their prescription, as always, is the same thing no matter what the problem is; that is, to raise taxes, increase spending, and grow government--all at the expense of the American people. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4062 | null | 4,919 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Madam President, we are somehow continuing to consider the Democrats' grab bag of bad ideas, otherwise known--I would say, misleadingly--as the Inflation Reduction Act. Let's start with the bill's title. It gets you feeling somewhat hopeful, doesn't it? The Inflation Reduction Act sounds like a bill that is going to address perhaps the No. 1 problem facing our Nation--inflation. Then you actually look at the bill's contents and discover that the bill will do nothing to reduce inflation--nothing. And you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model had to say about the bill's impact on inflation: ``The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero''--``statistically indistinguishable from zero.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office also found that the bill would do nothing to address our current inflation crisis. So did the Tax Foundation. So much for inflation reduction. So what about the deficit reduction the Democrats are touting? Well, unfortunately, there is a good chance there won't be much of that either. Democrats rely on some very shady accounting to reach their supposed deficit reduction number--most notably from the repeal of a rule that has never been implemented and, at this point, was never expected to be. No matter what this rule was predicted to cost, if it was never going to be implemented, its cost was effectively zero. So repealing this rule leaves you with exactly zero--zero dollars to spend, not $120 billion. Then there is the question of the bill's expanded ObamaCare subsidies. The Democrats' bill extends the expanded ObamaCare subsidies by 3 years. But it is common knowledge that the Democrats want to extend them permanently, as the President explicitly said in his State of the Union Address. And when you figure in the cost of extending them permanently, most of the purported cost savings in the bill, which the Democrats claim will go toward deficit reduction, dwindle away. So no deficit reduction, an extremely doubtful amount of deficit reduction--what else? Well, there are the hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. Yes, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. Our economy has posted two consecutive quarters of negative growth. In fact, by any common definition, we are now in a recession. And Democrats think now is a good time to hike taxes on businesses--businesses that are already struggling with 40-year high inflation? The Democrats' book minimum tax, as proposed last week, would be a $313 billion tax hike, with roughly half of the increase falling on American manufacturers. I don't think I need to tell anyone what happens when you raise taxes on businesses, particularly when the economy is shrinking. You get less growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs. According to an analysis from the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023 alone, the version of the bill Democrats introduced last week would reduce real gross domestic product by more than $68 billion and result in more than 218,000 fewer workers in the overall economy. The Tax Foundation also found that the bill would, unsurprisingly, reduce economic growth, reduce wages, and reduce jobs. In short, a big part of the burden of the Democrats' tax hike on businesses would fall on American families and American workers. And the book minimum tax on American businesses is not the only tax hike Democrats are proposing on this bill. They just purportedly replaced a $14 billion tax hike on investment with a new $74 billion stock buyback tax designed to punish investors who choose to keep their own money invested in a business--a tax hike that will likely discourage new investment and have a negative impact on Americans' retirement savings. And, of course, they have included a number of taxes and fees on oil and gas production. I guess Democrats would like our current sky-high energy prices to continue long-term, because I am at a loss for any other reason why Democrats would choose to hike taxes on oil and gas production at a time when Americans are already struggling with high gas prices and high utility bills. The Democrats didn't always think raising taxes during a recession was a good idea. In fact, President Obama once said: [T]he last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. That was from President Obama. As the current Democratic leader once said: You don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking. Well, unfortunately, now that their Green New Deal fantasies are on the line, the Democrats have changed their tune. That is right. Democrats are hiking taxes during a recession not to address our border crisis or inflation or rising crime but so that they can implement their Green New Deal agenda. Their so-called Inflation Reduction Act is chock-full of Green New Deal spending, things like $1.5 billion--billion dollars--for a grant program to plant trees; $1 billion for electric, heavy-duty vehicles like garbage trucks, which is something that communities used to normally provide for; $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emissions delivery vehicles; and $1.9 billion for things like road equity and identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. Yes, the Democrats are apparently willing to send us into a longer term recession--or stagflation--in order to provide billions of dollars for things like road equity and identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. All told, the Democrats provide more than $60 billion in this bill for ``environmental justice''--$60 billion. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is more than the Federal Government spent on highways in 2019. The bill also contains at least $30 billion in climate slush funds, part of which is allocated for, among other things, climate-related political activity--yes, climate-related political activity--because, for sure, there is nothing more that families who are struggling with ballooning grocery bills and the high price of gas are eager to see their tax dollars going toward than Green New Deal activism. Apparently, it is a very high priority for Democrats, but I would say, in all likelihood, not for the American people and American families. I haven't even talked about the tax credits and rebates the Democrats' bill will provide for wealthy Americans who purchase new electric vehicles or who remodel their kitchens with Democrat-approved green appliances. Well, I could go on for a while here. It is difficult, really, honestly, to squeeze all of the bad ideas in the Democrats' bill into just one floor speech, and I haven't mentioned the socialist-style price controls that the Democrats' bill would pose on prescription drugs--price controls that would result in fewer new drugs and treatments--or the additional $80 billion--yes, $80 billion--that the Democrats' bill would give to the IRS, with the majority of it being used to boost IRS audits. Now, of that $80 billion, $45 billion of it would go to IRS enforcement--$45 billion, or 57 percent. Do you want to know how much of that $80 billion would go to taxpayer services? Four percent. Four percent--that for an Agency that only succeeded in answering about 1 out of every 50 taxpayers' phone calls during the 2021 tax season. There is $80 billion to the IRS for an additional 87,000 employees--87,000 new employees at an Agency that, I am told, only has about 53 percent of its workforce actually going back to the office--87,000 employees. You are going to have tax agents moving in with families around this country. The Democrats aren't focused on improving taxpayer services but on boosting the number of IRS audits. No one should be deceived into thinking these increased audits will fall solely on millionaires and billionaires. No matter what the Democrats and some officials at the IRS conveniently claim, the fact of the matter is that it is exceedingly unlikely the Democrats will be able to collect the revenue they want to collect from increased IRS enforcement without auditing small businesses and ordinary taxpayers. In fact, based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, somewhere between 78 to 90 percent of the revenue that is projected to be raised from underreported income would likely come from those making under $200,000 a year. So 87,000 new IRS agents are sent out with the purpose of collecting more revenue, allegedly, according to the Democrats, from high-income taxpayers and businesses that are escaping taxation; yet the Joint Committee on Taxation finds that 78 to 90 percent of the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income would likely come from those making under $200,000 a year. Almost 18 months ago now, the Democrats passed a massive, partisan $1.9 trillion spending spree, which fueled inflation--record inflation--that Americans are still struggling with in this country. By the way, that $1.9 trillion spending spree was all on the debt--all on the debt. They didn't attempt to pay for it; they just put it on the debt. So now, to talk about possibly reducing the deficit by what I think, when it is all said and done, in this bill will be under $100 billion, that will assume all kinds of things like actually they are going to raise revenue from these 87,000 new agents whom they are going to hire at the IRS to audit American taxpayers. It also assumes things like the ObamaCare premium subsidies are only going to be limited to a 3-year extension rather than a full 10 years, which we all know is ultimately going to happen. In the end, I believe there will be zero deficit reduction, but the fact of the matter is that that piece of legislation, in addition to fueling inflation and adding to the debt--and having learned from that experience, I would hope you would think that the Democrats here would not double down with yet another terrible economic idea, which is another tax-and-spending spree. Like the so-called American Rescue Plan before it, it will leave our economy and the American people worse off. For their sake, I hope the Democrats will think better of this bill before it is too late. We are going to have an opportunity to debate it here, probably in a few hours, and will have an opportunity to vote on lots of amendments, and we will see what that process yields. I can tell you one thing: The American people are tired of 40-year high inflation; they are tired of higher energy prices; they are tired of higher food prices; and they are concerned about an economy that is in recession. They are looking at a Democrat leadership in Washington, DC, that has as its No. 1 goal--out of all of the things you could do to attack inflation, attack high energy costs, to deal with a broken border, crime in our cities, and to deal with a wobbly economy, their prescription, as always, is the same thing no matter what the problem is; that is, to raise taxes, increase spending, and grow government--all at the expense of the American people. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4062 | null | 4,920 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the historic legislation we are considering today, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. A little over a week ago, when I heard the news that there was an agreement reached to move forward on this legislation, I could not help but feel an overwhelming sense of relief and of joy, and I am not alone in feeling that way. I felt relief in knowing that, after months of negotiations and years of hard work from volunteers, from activists, from policy experts, from leaders at all levels of government and industry, and from so many others, we had finally broken the logjam on major climate and clean energy legislation. I felt joy in knowing that we were one step closer to delivering a major victory for the American people, one that will help reduce inflation and create good-paying jobs at the same time. My belief is that this legislation is an answer to our prayers for a brighter future for our Nation and for our planet. I might say to all of these young people who are sitting up here--we have a bunch of our pages who are here from all over the country; they are, for the most part, rising juniors and seniors--that they remind me a lot of our grandchildren, frankly, in my family and, for folks, of a lot of their children. This is for you. This is for your generation. This is for our kids, our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews. This is for you. After enduring a deadly global pandemic for the last 2 years and the resulting political and economic turbulence flowing from it, the truth is that far too many Americans are struggling. They are hurting from the high cost of healthcare; they are hurting from rising living expenses and energy bills; and they are hurting from extreme weather that is costing us in terms of dollars and of lives. I know this because that is what I hear when I travel home to Delaware almost every night. I don't live here; I live in Delaware. I go back and forth on a train--a lot like a guy named Biden used to do when he was a mere Senator, along with Senator Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Congresswoman. Whether it is a senior on a fixed income who is struggling with the cost of lifesaving prescription drugs or a young person who is living in a community that is prone to flooding from rising sea levels, many Delawareans of all ages are anxious about their futures, and they are pleading with us to do something about it. Scientists are also pleading with us for action, too, before it is too late. For years, they have warned us that time is running out, that we must shift away from fossil fuels to avoid a future of unrelenting extreme weather. Now scientists are telling us it is code red for humanity and for our planet. We are already experiencing a climate crisis, and Americans from communities large and small are feeling its impact, most notably in the form of extreme heat, wildfires, and floods. As I speak here today, nearly 100 million Americans from Texas to Maine are under heat advisories--100 million. There are also more than 50 wildfires raging across the West, burning tens of thousands of acres in States like California and Montana and Idaho and Alaska. Just last week, catastrophic flash floods in Eastern Kentucky, not far from where my mom spent the last years of her life, have tragically claimed some 37 lives. We know that these deadly, extreme weather events will only get worse inthe years ahead without coordinated action--without coordinated action--and we know that the most vulnerable among us, including many communities of color, will suffer the most if we fail to act. The best science available tells us that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, we must achieve something that is referred to as ``net zero carbon emissions'' no later than the year 2050. Achieving this ambitious goal will not be easy, but it is achievable. As some of my colleagues will tell you, I am by nature an optimist. I always have been. Out of great adversity comes great opportunity. Those are the words of Albert Einstein. In adversity lies opportunity. There is huge adversity here but also great opportunity. I am proud to say that we are on the precipice of passing legislation that will channel American ingenuity to address this crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation. How will they do all of that? The Inflation Reduction Act includes nearly $370 billion in funding for climate and clean energy provisions. In other words, it will be the most ambitious climate legislation to ever emerge from this body. It does so by not raising taxes on people whose incomes are under $400,000, on families whose incomes are under $400,000, and it does so in a way that is not inflationary and that is fully paid for and offset. What will the impact be of this transformational climate legislation? Well, according to an analysis from Energy Innovation--some the smartest people here in this country who work on issues like this--according to their analysis, passing this legislation will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by a little bit over 40 percent by 2030. And as President Biden might say, that is a very big deal. He might say it differently but something along those lines. This legislation will, along with action from executive Agencies and State and local actors, will put us within reach of meeting our national target of cutting emissions in half by the end of this decade. In addition to slashing emissions from across our economy, this legislation will also unleash the potential of the American clean energy industry and create good-paying jobs throughout our country. In fact, it will create a ton of jobs. The analysis from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst projects that the Inflation Reduction Act--this legislation that we are debating--will help create 9 million jobs over the next decade--9 million over the next decade. And the benefits to this historic package aren't just limited to emission reductions and to job creation. As its name suggests, this legislation will fight inflation and lower costs for many Americans. Again, ask: How? For starters, the Inflation Reduction Act will help homeowners save up to $220 a year on electricity costs, according to an analysis by the Resources for the Future. This legislation also includes huge healthcare savings for families across our country. For example, on average, median-income families in Delaware with exchange-based care will save upward of $1,000 annually. That is $1,000 back in their pockets. This bill will also ensure that our seniors don't face financial ruin paying for lifesaving prescription drugs. It does so, in part, by capping patients' out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare Part D Program at $2,000 per year. And the Inflation Reduction Act will help strengthen our tax system to better ensure that everyone pays their fair share and also to ensure that we have got decent constituent services for our constituents in our States. I don't care whether it is Minnesota, I don't care whether it is Delaware, or some other place, the IRS just hasn't had the resources, the people, the technology, to actually provide good constituent services. We are still waiting for people to get their returns from last year and their refunds from last year. That is just totally unacceptable. And over the last probably 30, 40 years, we have reduced by roughly a quarter the amount of resources that are available to actually serve people through the IRS. At the end of the day, the programs in this bill will help create jobs, lower costs for many American families, and fight inflation, all while addressing the imminent threat of climate change and doing so in a way that leaves no community behind. It is proof that we can do well and do good at the same time. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am especially proud that our $41 billion title within the purview of our committee prioritizes climate action in low-income and disadvantaged communities. This is part of ensuring that all communities, especially those most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change, benefit from our funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution where they live--where they live. As part of that commitment, we provide $27 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to create a greenhouse gas reduction fund, known as the Green Bank. It will help leverage private investments in projects that combat climate change, with over 40 percent of these investments going to underserved communities. The climate impact of this program will be huge, removing the equivalent of some 15 million gasoline-powered vehicles from our roads over the next decade. We also provide $3 billion in competitive grants to States, Tribes, and municipalities--and to community-based nonprofit organizations--for financial and technical assistance to address clean air and to eliminate pollution in environmental justice communities. Our EPW title also provides some $3 billion to help reduce carbon emissions flowing from our Nation's ports. Doing so not only cleans up the air in nearby communities but also reduces our reliance on foreign fuels. And we provide $1 billion to replace dirty medium and heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emitting vehicles on our roads, reducing fuel consumption while allowing businesses that run those trucks to save significantly on their energy costs. While I wish I could discuss this afternoon every program in our title of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let me just close by sharing a few words on one program I am particularly proud of, our first-ever Methane Emission Reduction Program to rein in excess methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. Why did we create a program to reduce methane emissions? Why was this so important? Well, let me tell you this: Methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. I will say that again. Methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse. There was a guy who used to be a bank robber named Willie Sutton back in the Great Depression. My friend from Iowa probably remembers Willie Sutton, not personally. But Willie Sutton robbed a lot of banks back in those days. He finally got caught and was brought to trial. And standing before the judge, the judge said: Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks? Willie Sutton responded famously: That is where the money is, judge; that is where the money is. Well, there are huge emissions--huge emissions--that flow from methane. They ought to be captured; they can be captured, and the programs that we offer here, the funding we offer here, will help that to happen. We designed this commonsense program to provide $1\1/2\ billion to help businesses invest in existing technology to reduce potent methane emissions. It then ramps up a fee over time for emitters that fail to take advantage of this assistance. All told, we expect this program to raise about $6\1/2\ billion--that is billion with a ``b''--to offset the costs of other climate and environmental justice investments in the title of our committee's bill. Years from now--years from now--folks are going to gather here in this Chamber, and they will look back at what we had before us, what we were confronted with, and whether or not we made a difference. I hope they will judge us favorably. Let me just say, in closing, 2 weeks ago, they reported in London, England, a temperature of 105 degrees. For those of us who have been to England, you may know this: They don't even have air-conditioning in most places in England. The temperature there, 105 degrees. In the same week that the temperature was 105 degrees, folks were trying to run the bicycle event, the French bicycle event that is so famous, and they could not run parts of it because the pavement was melting. Theyhad to put tens of thousands of gallons of water on the roads just so they could run the French bicycle race. I will close with this: In Louisiana, they have problems, they have challenges from sea level rise. How serious are they? Well, every 100 minutes in Louisiana, they lose a piece of land to the ocean from sea level rise. Every 100 minutes they lose a piece of land the size of a football field. And today, this week, we are seeing incredible heat, incredible drought. From the west coast to the east coast, people are suffering, suffering, in some cases, injury and death. We have got to do something about it, and we are going to do that with this legislation and also make sure that a lot of folks who need jobs in the years to come will have a good-paying job. That is not a bad day's work. With that, I am pleased to take this piece of paper and read it to my colleagues, including the Senator from Iowa, who is waiting patiently for me to stop talking. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4063 | null | 4,921 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the historic legislation we are considering today, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. A little over a week ago, when I heard the news that there was an agreement reached to move forward on this legislation, I could not help but feel an overwhelming sense of relief and of joy, and I am not alone in feeling that way. I felt relief in knowing that, after months of negotiations and years of hard work from volunteers, from activists, from policy experts, from leaders at all levels of government and industry, and from so many others, we had finally broken the logjam on major climate and clean energy legislation. I felt joy in knowing that we were one step closer to delivering a major victory for the American people, one that will help reduce inflation and create good-paying jobs at the same time. My belief is that this legislation is an answer to our prayers for a brighter future for our Nation and for our planet. I might say to all of these young people who are sitting up here--we have a bunch of our pages who are here from all over the country; they are, for the most part, rising juniors and seniors--that they remind me a lot of our grandchildren, frankly, in my family and, for folks, of a lot of their children. This is for you. This is for your generation. This is for our kids, our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews. This is for you. After enduring a deadly global pandemic for the last 2 years and the resulting political and economic turbulence flowing from it, the truth is that far too many Americans are struggling. They are hurting from the high cost of healthcare; they are hurting from rising living expenses and energy bills; and they are hurting from extreme weather that is costing us in terms of dollars and of lives. I know this because that is what I hear when I travel home to Delaware almost every night. I don't live here; I live in Delaware. I go back and forth on a train--a lot like a guy named Biden used to do when he was a mere Senator, along with Senator Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester, a Congresswoman. Whether it is a senior on a fixed income who is struggling with the cost of lifesaving prescription drugs or a young person who is living in a community that is prone to flooding from rising sea levels, many Delawareans of all ages are anxious about their futures, and they are pleading with us to do something about it. Scientists are also pleading with us for action, too, before it is too late. For years, they have warned us that time is running out, that we must shift away from fossil fuels to avoid a future of unrelenting extreme weather. Now scientists are telling us it is code red for humanity and for our planet. We are already experiencing a climate crisis, and Americans from communities large and small are feeling its impact, most notably in the form of extreme heat, wildfires, and floods. As I speak here today, nearly 100 million Americans from Texas to Maine are under heat advisories--100 million. There are also more than 50 wildfires raging across the West, burning tens of thousands of acres in States like California and Montana and Idaho and Alaska. Just last week, catastrophic flash floods in Eastern Kentucky, not far from where my mom spent the last years of her life, have tragically claimed some 37 lives. We know that these deadly, extreme weather events will only get worse inthe years ahead without coordinated action--without coordinated action--and we know that the most vulnerable among us, including many communities of color, will suffer the most if we fail to act. The best science available tells us that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, we must achieve something that is referred to as ``net zero carbon emissions'' no later than the year 2050. Achieving this ambitious goal will not be easy, but it is achievable. As some of my colleagues will tell you, I am by nature an optimist. I always have been. Out of great adversity comes great opportunity. Those are the words of Albert Einstein. In adversity lies opportunity. There is huge adversity here but also great opportunity. I am proud to say that we are on the precipice of passing legislation that will channel American ingenuity to address this crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation. How will they do all of that? The Inflation Reduction Act includes nearly $370 billion in funding for climate and clean energy provisions. In other words, it will be the most ambitious climate legislation to ever emerge from this body. It does so by not raising taxes on people whose incomes are under $400,000, on families whose incomes are under $400,000, and it does so in a way that is not inflationary and that is fully paid for and offset. What will the impact be of this transformational climate legislation? Well, according to an analysis from Energy Innovation--some the smartest people here in this country who work on issues like this--according to their analysis, passing this legislation will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by a little bit over 40 percent by 2030. And as President Biden might say, that is a very big deal. He might say it differently but something along those lines. This legislation will, along with action from executive Agencies and State and local actors, will put us within reach of meeting our national target of cutting emissions in half by the end of this decade. In addition to slashing emissions from across our economy, this legislation will also unleash the potential of the American clean energy industry and create good-paying jobs throughout our country. In fact, it will create a ton of jobs. The analysis from the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst projects that the Inflation Reduction Act--this legislation that we are debating--will help create 9 million jobs over the next decade--9 million over the next decade. And the benefits to this historic package aren't just limited to emission reductions and to job creation. As its name suggests, this legislation will fight inflation and lower costs for many Americans. Again, ask: How? For starters, the Inflation Reduction Act will help homeowners save up to $220 a year on electricity costs, according to an analysis by the Resources for the Future. This legislation also includes huge healthcare savings for families across our country. For example, on average, median-income families in Delaware with exchange-based care will save upward of $1,000 annually. That is $1,000 back in their pockets. This bill will also ensure that our seniors don't face financial ruin paying for lifesaving prescription drugs. It does so, in part, by capping patients' out-of-pocket costs in the Medicare Part D Program at $2,000 per year. And the Inflation Reduction Act will help strengthen our tax system to better ensure that everyone pays their fair share and also to ensure that we have got decent constituent services for our constituents in our States. I don't care whether it is Minnesota, I don't care whether it is Delaware, or some other place, the IRS just hasn't had the resources, the people, the technology, to actually provide good constituent services. We are still waiting for people to get their returns from last year and their refunds from last year. That is just totally unacceptable. And over the last probably 30, 40 years, we have reduced by roughly a quarter the amount of resources that are available to actually serve people through the IRS. At the end of the day, the programs in this bill will help create jobs, lower costs for many American families, and fight inflation, all while addressing the imminent threat of climate change and doing so in a way that leaves no community behind. It is proof that we can do well and do good at the same time. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am especially proud that our $41 billion title within the purview of our committee prioritizes climate action in low-income and disadvantaged communities. This is part of ensuring that all communities, especially those most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change, benefit from our funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution where they live--where they live. As part of that commitment, we provide $27 billion for the Environmental Protection Agency to create a greenhouse gas reduction fund, known as the Green Bank. It will help leverage private investments in projects that combat climate change, with over 40 percent of these investments going to underserved communities. The climate impact of this program will be huge, removing the equivalent of some 15 million gasoline-powered vehicles from our roads over the next decade. We also provide $3 billion in competitive grants to States, Tribes, and municipalities--and to community-based nonprofit organizations--for financial and technical assistance to address clean air and to eliminate pollution in environmental justice communities. Our EPW title also provides some $3 billion to help reduce carbon emissions flowing from our Nation's ports. Doing so not only cleans up the air in nearby communities but also reduces our reliance on foreign fuels. And we provide $1 billion to replace dirty medium and heavy-duty vehicles with zero-emitting vehicles on our roads, reducing fuel consumption while allowing businesses that run those trucks to save significantly on their energy costs. While I wish I could discuss this afternoon every program in our title of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let me just close by sharing a few words on one program I am particularly proud of, our first-ever Methane Emission Reduction Program to rein in excess methane pollution from the oil and gas industry. Why did we create a program to reduce methane emissions? Why was this so important? Well, let me tell you this: Methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. I will say that again. Methane is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse. There was a guy who used to be a bank robber named Willie Sutton back in the Great Depression. My friend from Iowa probably remembers Willie Sutton, not personally. But Willie Sutton robbed a lot of banks back in those days. He finally got caught and was brought to trial. And standing before the judge, the judge said: Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks? Willie Sutton responded famously: That is where the money is, judge; that is where the money is. Well, there are huge emissions--huge emissions--that flow from methane. They ought to be captured; they can be captured, and the programs that we offer here, the funding we offer here, will help that to happen. We designed this commonsense program to provide $1\1/2\ billion to help businesses invest in existing technology to reduce potent methane emissions. It then ramps up a fee over time for emitters that fail to take advantage of this assistance. All told, we expect this program to raise about $6\1/2\ billion--that is billion with a ``b''--to offset the costs of other climate and environmental justice investments in the title of our committee's bill. Years from now--years from now--folks are going to gather here in this Chamber, and they will look back at what we had before us, what we were confronted with, and whether or not we made a difference. I hope they will judge us favorably. Let me just say, in closing, 2 weeks ago, they reported in London, England, a temperature of 105 degrees. For those of us who have been to England, you may know this: They don't even have air-conditioning in most places in England. The temperature there, 105 degrees. In the same week that the temperature was 105 degrees, folks were trying to run the bicycle event, the French bicycle event that is so famous, and they could not run parts of it because the pavement was melting. Theyhad to put tens of thousands of gallons of water on the roads just so they could run the French bicycle race. I will close with this: In Louisiana, they have problems, they have challenges from sea level rise. How serious are they? Well, every 100 minutes in Louisiana, they lose a piece of land to the ocean from sea level rise. Every 100 minutes they lose a piece of land the size of a football field. And today, this week, we are seeing incredible heat, incredible drought. From the west coast to the east coast, people are suffering, suffering, in some cases, injury and death. We have got to do something about it, and we are going to do that with this legislation and also make sure that a lot of folks who need jobs in the years to come will have a good-paying job. That is not a bad day's work. With that, I am pleased to take this piece of paper and read it to my colleagues, including the Senator from Iowa, who is waiting patiently for me to stop talking. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARPER | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4063 | null | 4,922 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this body has a long record of coming together to improve healthcare for Americans. In 2003, when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the Medicare Part D benefit. More recently, I have worked with my colleagues on the Finance Committee on oversight and investigations to hold EpiPen manufacturers accountable that were misusing taxpayer dollars and insulin manufacturers and PBMs accountable that were unfairly increasing the list price of insulin. We can work together and meaningfully improve healthcare. This Congress, I have worked with my Democratic colleagues to pass five of my bills out of committee in a bipartisan way. These bills will lower drug prices, create more competition, while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. Unfortunately, the leader hasn't brought any of these bills up for a vote, even though they would easily pass the U.S. Senate. But this hasn't stopped me from trying to find other ways to help bring down the cost of medications. In 2019, as Finance Committee chairman, I began a bipartisan committee process with the ranking member from Oregon to lower the costs of prescription drugs. That bill is entitled the ``Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.'' We held three committee hearings to learn from policymakers and advocates, while also holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We held a committee markup, where the bill passed 19 to 9 on a bipartisan basis. We continued to hold additional negotiations to make improvements in the bill, even after it got out of committee. It contained stuff that I like. It also contained stuff I didn't like, but that is the way we do bipartisan legislating. Today, it is still the only comprehensive prescription drug bill that can garner more than 60 votes on the Senate floor. I recently outlined on the floor the bill's details in case the majority party has forgotten. I won't restate every part of my July 20 speech, but here are some of the bill's key highlights: One, it lowers costs for seniors by $72 billion and saves the taxpayers $95 billion. Two, it establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the doughnut hole, and redesigns Medicare Part D. Three, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma by capping price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation. Four, it establishes accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. Five, and most important in this body, the bill is bipartisan. Now, believe it or not, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. Compare this to what the majority has offered us. Their partisan bill includes more reckless spending and tax increases. Their partisan bill reduces the number of new cures and treatments. Their partisan bill fails to enact any bipartisan accountability for Big Pharma and, in particular, for PBMs. Even while the majority party has decided to pursue a purely partisan bill in secret over the past 20 months, I have continued to meet with Democrats and Republicans to advance a bipartisan and negotiated bill. I would prefer a bipartisan bill to pass the U.S. Senate. We could still pass the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. My colleagues know it. Several of them have thanked me publicly on my bipartisan work to lower prescription drug prices. Sadly, the majority party has chosen a different route. They have chosen a bill that contains zero--zero--PBM accountability. It gives middlemen a pass. They have chosen a bill that contains none of the 25 accountability and transparency provisions that had bipartisan consensus in my bill. Finally, one last thing I would like to address about my colleagues' reckless tax and spending. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say this bill's prescription drug provision is what I have described today as Grassley-Wyden. This is untrue. This is a reckless tax-and-spending bill. It is not bipartisan, and no reporter should accept or repeat that notion. I oppose the partisan bill because it is a long list of reckless tax increases and spending. It is not the bipartisan prescription drug bill that passed out of the Finance Committee 19 to 9. I will file the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment today. We could strike and replace this reckless tax-and-spending spree with comprehensive drug pricing reform that could garner more than 60 votes and lower drug prices while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We could actually enact meaningful accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I will file that amendment as well. We could pursue PBM transparency and accountability, and I will file that amendment as well. I have said throughout this Congress that I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan-negotiated Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. To continue on the bill today, the Democrats' most recent reckless tax-and-spending spree suffers from some serious policy whiplash. Just last week, all but one Democrat voted to provide nearly $80 billion in subsidies to some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world. The goal then was to make America a more favorable business environment to attract investments from a critical industry. But mere hours later, they unveiled a huge tax hike on domestic manufacturing. Democrats tried to justify this 180-degree policy turn by claiming their tax hike is necessary to make corporations ``pay their fair share.'' However, this claim is laughable, given the so-called CHIPS+ bill nearly all Democrats enthusiastically supported last week. As I pointed out at that time, the CHIPS+ bill ensures many large, very profitable semiconductor manufacturers will pay zero tax or even receive payments from the IRS exceeding any tax liability. Yet Senator Sanders was the only Democrat to express any concern about these profitable companies paying nothing in taxes. Under the Democrats' so-called book minimum tax, large, profitable corporations favored by Democrats can still escape paying any Federal tax. While they claim their reckless tax-and-spending bill will ensure companies pay their fair share, they include carve-outs and expanded subsidies for their favorite industries. For example, business tax credits are carved out from Democrats' book minimum tax, including a myriad of souped-up green energy tax breaks.This is despite the fact that research by the liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy confirms these credits are a significant reason why seemingly profitable companies pay little or no tax. The Democrats' bill not only carves out certain tax credits, it doubles down with $270 billion in corporate tax subsidies in the name of their Green New Deal agenda. Along with a new provision that allows green energy developers to sell their credits to others, a host of businesses and industries will be able to use this new loophole to pay little or no tax. This could include financial institutions, private equity firms, tech firms, and wealthy private investors. Democrats' message to the business community is very clear: If you are a large, Democrat-aligned green industry, you have nothing to worry about; paying your ``fair share'' of taxes is optional. But if you are a domestic textile or electronics manufacturer, prepare to be taxed into submission. This mindset is especially concerning given our increasingly fragile economy. Late last week, we learned our economy contracted for the second straight quarter, indicating, as we know, we are in a recession. The last thing businesses and families need right now are tax hikes and a rash of poorly vetted policies creating even more confusion and uncertainty in the economy. Nonpartisan analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation and outside groups show this is exactly what Democrats are offering. During the election, Democrats promised not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000, but the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms their proposal does exactly the opposite. For 2023 alone, Democrats propose a $17 billion tax hike on families and individuals making less than $200,000. While Democrats' tax hikes hit Americans of all incomes, their proposed benefits are targeted at a privileged few, like helping wealthy Americans purchase $80,000 electric SUVs. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the original version of their bill had a whopping $155 billion tax hike on domestic manufacturing stemming from their so-called book minimum tax. The National Association of Manufacturers estimated that this tax hike would cost more than 200,000 jobs, reduce labor income by $17 billion, and reduce GDP by nearly $70 billion. Now, I understand Senator Sinema has since secured changes to the book minimum tax that may lessen the burden on domestic manufacturers. However, even if we assume all the relief secured by Senator Sinema accrues to manufacturers, the best-case scenario is manufacturers will still see a $100-billion-plus tax hit. Democrats' inflation act still throws blue-collar workers overboard for their Green New Deal. The Democrats' war on manufacturing is mind-boggling. Members of both parties have stressed a need to reshore manufacturing to address supply chain disruptions and delink from China for national security reasons. Saddling manufacturers with a giant tax bill will hurt, not help, our efforts. Targeting manufacturers for tax hikes makes even less sense in the face of our surging inflation. Democrat tax hikes will curtail investments necessary to increase the supply of goods needed to meet consumer demand. This mismatch between supply and demand is what is actually driving our inflation. The potential harm to our economy is underscored by Penn Wharton's analysis of the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree. They called out the novelty and uncertainty surrounding Democrats' book minimum tax saying more work is needed to understand its impact on capital market efficiency and the economy. Penn Wharton's analysis also shows Democrats' proposals will do nothing to bring down inflation and are more likely to make inflation worse in the near term. Essentially, Democrats are gambling on untested and unproven policies while our economy is in a recession, real wages are falling, and inflation is soaring. The truth is, Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree is bad for jobs, bad for the economy, and won't do anything to address what Iowans care about the most: the rising cost of inflation. I urge my Democrats to rethink your approach. Stop gambling with our Nation's economy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4065-2 | null | 4,923 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last year, Democrats in this body passed a party-line spending bill, and they spent us into record-high inflation. Ever since then, this has been nothing but bad news for the working families of this country. We have seen the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices have gone up faster than wages month after month after month. Fifteen months in a row now, prices are up faster than wages. Now, Democrats' inflation has caused a recession. As a result, working families are finding it much harder to get by. They can't keep up. The average family can afford less today than they could the day that Joe Biden took office--much less. The savings rate hasn't been this low since the great recession. People are having to spend their savings. Credit card debt is at an alltime high. But the worst gut punch is about to happen right now, making all the pain the Americans have suffered now extend for a longer period of time. If Democrats pass this bill that is on the floor today, this inflation crisis is going to get worse. For weeks, there have been rumors that Democrats were working hidden behind closed doors on another reckless tax-and-spending bill. The American people knew it would be bad, and the bill that we are looking at now is worse than expected. Of course, the Democrats wrote it in secret. They didn't want the American people to know what was inside it. Now, here we are, late on a Saturday afternoon, and the Democrats are trying to cram it through before people even get to read it. Members of my party were wanting to read it earlier today. It wasn't even available, likely because it wasn't even written yet. I understand it is over 700 pages long. An earlier version, I saw 725 pages, with a cost of over a billion dollars a page. Democrats call it their bill that they intend to try to use to reduce inflation. But the more likelihood is that it will lead to double-digit inflation. Haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter was in the White House. The Wharton School of Business does a budget model. It says that this bill, from everything that they have read so far, will actually increase inflation for the next 2 years. It is bad enough for the American people today. They can't put up with it for another 2 years. Now, I am told that the Wharton analysis is usually the economic analysis that the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, uses. Well, I hope that Senator Manchin and every Member of this body pays attention to that Wharton study. A chorus of economists is saying the exact same thing as the experts are telling us from Wharton. There is a nonpartisan group called the Tax Foundation, and it says ``this bill may actually worsen inflation''--worsen inflation. That is why I say we are looking at the possibility of double-digit inflation. It is 9.1 percent now. Democrats' favorite economist, Mark Zandi, says that the bill would almost have no effect on inflation. How is it going to lower inflation if it has no effect on inflation? And that is from a favorite of the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation. Clearly, there is broad agreement among experts that the bill will not lower inflation. Democrats were warned the last time, March of 2021. Democrats are being warned again this time. And theyare ignoring the warnings. But it doesn't take an economist to tell you that this bill would be a disaster for working families. The bill is going to mean more taxes, more spending, higher prices--right in the middle of the combination of an inflation time and a time of recession. The cost, the burdens, of this bill are going to be borne by the working families of this country. Now, this bill is going to hit working families from all sides. First, let's take a look at the taxes. Tax revenues were already at record highs in this country--not enough for the Democrats but record alltime highs of tax revenue. Democrats want more--a lot more. The Democrats' inflation bill would increase taxes by nearly half a trillion dollars. Now, this includes a blatant violation of Joe Biden's campaign promise when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families. The Joint Tax Committee says that this bill will raise taxes on the very people that Joe Biden said he wasn't going to come after. The Joint Tax Committee actually said the bill will raise taxes on people at nearly every level of income. It will affect you, every one of you, all across this country. Now, Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes on American energy. It has been their claim since day one when Joe Biden basically put the target on the back of American energy and pulled the trigger. And, amazingly, they want to do it in the middle of an energy crisis. Remember, this is the energy crisis that the Democrats have created. When Joe Biden declared war on American energy, American families started paying the price and have been paying the price ever since then. The bill does nothing to open up exploration for energy and American oil on American properties on Federal lands. No. It includes a new tax on American oil and gas production. This tax alone will raise the cost of energy for half of the households in America. Now, this is at a time when one-third of the inflation in this country is driven by the cost of energy. When you take a look at the cost of food, energy is a component of that. Growing food, getting food to market--all of those things are related to energy. That tax alone is going to shrink the economy and cost jobs. There is also a new tax on imported oil. And Joe Biden's energy policy has been, basically: Please send us some oil. It was his policy last year when he went to Glasgow. And he actually asked Vladimir Putin to send us more oil from Russia as Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. He is trying to cut a deal with Iran to get Iranian oil. Venezuela--he sent emissaries to Venezuela asking for oil. And he went hat in hand last month to Saudi Arabia saying: Please send us more oil. And then the Democrats put in their bill an excise tax on that oil that the President is begging to have sent to America. And then to add insult to injury, they indexed the tax to inflation--high inflation begetting more inflation. It means the more inflation the Democrats cause, the higher the prices go up. More taxes, more inflation. This is a vicious cycle of Democrat taxes and Democrat inflation. As a result, the pain at the pump is going to get worse. Yet the worst punishment of all is for American coal production. Now, I am proud to say Wyoming has been America's No. 1 producer of coal for decades. Coal is still the most affordable, reliable energy known to man. It is used all over the world. Yet in this bill, the Democrats want to raise taxes on coal companies by up to 16 percent of their income. Well, I am from a coal State. Senator Manchin is from a coal State. He and I worked together on the Energy Committee. He is the chair; I am the ranking member. Here is what the West Virginia Coal Association has said about what is in this bill that we are going to be voting on starting tonight. Joe Manchin's home State coal association said: Why support anything Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry want for coal? They go on to say: It is incomprehensible why any miner [coal miner] would support the Manchin-Schumer legislation. This is going to punish West Virginia directly, and it is going to punish the hard-working people of Wyoming. It is also going to punish their customers who rely on affordable energy. These taxes are clearly going to get passed on to the consumer--in other words, higher prices, more inflation. Economics 101. The Democrats also want to raise taxes on savings and investment at a time when seniors are hurting. Seniors are already watching their savings go down and their taxes go up. Inflation is so bad that there are reports that seniors are moving in together because they can't afford to pay the rent. Yet Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden want to raid their 401(k)s. This bill also contains a hidden tax increase. That is because the bill would nearly double the size of the IRS. Now, Democrats think that giving the IRS 80 billion additional dollars to hire additional auditors--tens of thousands, over 80,000 more auditors at the IRS, an army of auditors--that they are going to be able to squeeze another $200 billion out of American taxpayers. They are not talking about a couple of rich people here. Eighty-six thousand auditors aren't needed to go after a couple of billionaires. They are going after mainstream America. They are going after families, farmers, after small businesses. The IRS is already one of the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the Federal Government. But the Democrats say: Not enough. We want to put you on steroids so you can squeeze more money out of the families of this country. The Joint Tax Committee says almost all of the money raised by supersizing the IRS would come from those making less than $200,000 a year. That is the Joint Tax Committee. So the billionaires in San Francisco and Manhattan who run the Democrat Party, they are going to be just fine. It is working families who always foot the bill for liberal policies. So what are Democrats going to do with half a trillion in new taxes? Well, they want to do what they do best: give taxpayer dollars to their closest friends and their biggest political contributors. That includes hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for the big fans of the Green New Deal. The bill puts American taxpayers on the hook for more than $315 billion in green energy loan guarantees. This will be billions and billions for projects like Solyndra that went bankrupt when President Obama was in the office and Joe Biden was Vice President. You would have thought Joe Biden had learned those lessons from the horror stories of the money being lost, the taxpayer dollars wasted in projects that went bankrupt one after another after another. The bill would give billions and billions for rich people to buy electric vehicles. Unlike other vehicles, electric vehicles, they pay no gas tax, which is how, of course, in this country that we pay for the roads and the bridges and the highways. Democrats want to cut them a big check as well. This is welfare for the wealthy. The bill also includes supersized ObamaCare subsidies for people making well over $100,000 a year. It is also welfare for the wealthy--supersized subsidies on steroids. Now, the subsidies were put in place at the beginning of the pandemic. They were supposed to be temporary. Yet Democrats seem to want them to continue forever. If Democrats extend these subsidies permanently, this bill would not actually help at all with the deficit. It would clearly add to the national debt. In other words, Democrats are using the same sleight-of-hand accounting gimmicks that they tried last year. Nine months ago, when Democrats tried things like this in their Build Back Better Plan that failed, even Senator Manchin admitted that it was ``smoke and mirrors,'' a shell game, and budget gimmicks. The Democrats are back to their old tricks right now. Here we are, 9 months later. The difference is, inflation is a lot, lot higher. The pain people have gone through is felt more deeply. Not a single Republican is going to vote for this monstrosity. No Democrat should either. Joe Biden's economy is already the worst economy that most Americans have ever experienced in their lifetime. If Democrats pass this bill, it is going to get worse. And so I urge my colleagues, don't inflict this kind of painon the American people in the middle of a recession. The American people are hurting enough. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4066-2 | null | 4,924 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last year, Democrats in this body passed a party-line spending bill, and they spent us into record-high inflation. Ever since then, this has been nothing but bad news for the working families of this country. We have seen the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices have gone up faster than wages month after month after month. Fifteen months in a row now, prices are up faster than wages. Now, Democrats' inflation has caused a recession. As a result, working families are finding it much harder to get by. They can't keep up. The average family can afford less today than they could the day that Joe Biden took office--much less. The savings rate hasn't been this low since the great recession. People are having to spend their savings. Credit card debt is at an alltime high. But the worst gut punch is about to happen right now, making all the pain the Americans have suffered now extend for a longer period of time. If Democrats pass this bill that is on the floor today, this inflation crisis is going to get worse. For weeks, there have been rumors that Democrats were working hidden behind closed doors on another reckless tax-and-spending bill. The American people knew it would be bad, and the bill that we are looking at now is worse than expected. Of course, the Democrats wrote it in secret. They didn't want the American people to know what was inside it. Now, here we are, late on a Saturday afternoon, and the Democrats are trying to cram it through before people even get to read it. Members of my party were wanting to read it earlier today. It wasn't even available, likely because it wasn't even written yet. I understand it is over 700 pages long. An earlier version, I saw 725 pages, with a cost of over a billion dollars a page. Democrats call it their bill that they intend to try to use to reduce inflation. But the more likelihood is that it will lead to double-digit inflation. Haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter was in the White House. The Wharton School of Business does a budget model. It says that this bill, from everything that they have read so far, will actually increase inflation for the next 2 years. It is bad enough for the American people today. They can't put up with it for another 2 years. Now, I am told that the Wharton analysis is usually the economic analysis that the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, uses. Well, I hope that Senator Manchin and every Member of this body pays attention to that Wharton study. A chorus of economists is saying the exact same thing as the experts are telling us from Wharton. There is a nonpartisan group called the Tax Foundation, and it says ``this bill may actually worsen inflation''--worsen inflation. That is why I say we are looking at the possibility of double-digit inflation. It is 9.1 percent now. Democrats' favorite economist, Mark Zandi, says that the bill would almost have no effect on inflation. How is it going to lower inflation if it has no effect on inflation? And that is from a favorite of the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation. Clearly, there is broad agreement among experts that the bill will not lower inflation. Democrats were warned the last time, March of 2021. Democrats are being warned again this time. And theyare ignoring the warnings. But it doesn't take an economist to tell you that this bill would be a disaster for working families. The bill is going to mean more taxes, more spending, higher prices--right in the middle of the combination of an inflation time and a time of recession. The cost, the burdens, of this bill are going to be borne by the working families of this country. Now, this bill is going to hit working families from all sides. First, let's take a look at the taxes. Tax revenues were already at record highs in this country--not enough for the Democrats but record alltime highs of tax revenue. Democrats want more--a lot more. The Democrats' inflation bill would increase taxes by nearly half a trillion dollars. Now, this includes a blatant violation of Joe Biden's campaign promise when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families. The Joint Tax Committee says that this bill will raise taxes on the very people that Joe Biden said he wasn't going to come after. The Joint Tax Committee actually said the bill will raise taxes on people at nearly every level of income. It will affect you, every one of you, all across this country. Now, Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes on American energy. It has been their claim since day one when Joe Biden basically put the target on the back of American energy and pulled the trigger. And, amazingly, they want to do it in the middle of an energy crisis. Remember, this is the energy crisis that the Democrats have created. When Joe Biden declared war on American energy, American families started paying the price and have been paying the price ever since then. The bill does nothing to open up exploration for energy and American oil on American properties on Federal lands. No. It includes a new tax on American oil and gas production. This tax alone will raise the cost of energy for half of the households in America. Now, this is at a time when one-third of the inflation in this country is driven by the cost of energy. When you take a look at the cost of food, energy is a component of that. Growing food, getting food to market--all of those things are related to energy. That tax alone is going to shrink the economy and cost jobs. There is also a new tax on imported oil. And Joe Biden's energy policy has been, basically: Please send us some oil. It was his policy last year when he went to Glasgow. And he actually asked Vladimir Putin to send us more oil from Russia as Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. He is trying to cut a deal with Iran to get Iranian oil. Venezuela--he sent emissaries to Venezuela asking for oil. And he went hat in hand last month to Saudi Arabia saying: Please send us more oil. And then the Democrats put in their bill an excise tax on that oil that the President is begging to have sent to America. And then to add insult to injury, they indexed the tax to inflation--high inflation begetting more inflation. It means the more inflation the Democrats cause, the higher the prices go up. More taxes, more inflation. This is a vicious cycle of Democrat taxes and Democrat inflation. As a result, the pain at the pump is going to get worse. Yet the worst punishment of all is for American coal production. Now, I am proud to say Wyoming has been America's No. 1 producer of coal for decades. Coal is still the most affordable, reliable energy known to man. It is used all over the world. Yet in this bill, the Democrats want to raise taxes on coal companies by up to 16 percent of their income. Well, I am from a coal State. Senator Manchin is from a coal State. He and I worked together on the Energy Committee. He is the chair; I am the ranking member. Here is what the West Virginia Coal Association has said about what is in this bill that we are going to be voting on starting tonight. Joe Manchin's home State coal association said: Why support anything Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry want for coal? They go on to say: It is incomprehensible why any miner [coal miner] would support the Manchin-Schumer legislation. This is going to punish West Virginia directly, and it is going to punish the hard-working people of Wyoming. It is also going to punish their customers who rely on affordable energy. These taxes are clearly going to get passed on to the consumer--in other words, higher prices, more inflation. Economics 101. The Democrats also want to raise taxes on savings and investment at a time when seniors are hurting. Seniors are already watching their savings go down and their taxes go up. Inflation is so bad that there are reports that seniors are moving in together because they can't afford to pay the rent. Yet Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden want to raid their 401(k)s. This bill also contains a hidden tax increase. That is because the bill would nearly double the size of the IRS. Now, Democrats think that giving the IRS 80 billion additional dollars to hire additional auditors--tens of thousands, over 80,000 more auditors at the IRS, an army of auditors--that they are going to be able to squeeze another $200 billion out of American taxpayers. They are not talking about a couple of rich people here. Eighty-six thousand auditors aren't needed to go after a couple of billionaires. They are going after mainstream America. They are going after families, farmers, after small businesses. The IRS is already one of the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the Federal Government. But the Democrats say: Not enough. We want to put you on steroids so you can squeeze more money out of the families of this country. The Joint Tax Committee says almost all of the money raised by supersizing the IRS would come from those making less than $200,000 a year. That is the Joint Tax Committee. So the billionaires in San Francisco and Manhattan who run the Democrat Party, they are going to be just fine. It is working families who always foot the bill for liberal policies. So what are Democrats going to do with half a trillion in new taxes? Well, they want to do what they do best: give taxpayer dollars to their closest friends and their biggest political contributors. That includes hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for the big fans of the Green New Deal. The bill puts American taxpayers on the hook for more than $315 billion in green energy loan guarantees. This will be billions and billions for projects like Solyndra that went bankrupt when President Obama was in the office and Joe Biden was Vice President. You would have thought Joe Biden had learned those lessons from the horror stories of the money being lost, the taxpayer dollars wasted in projects that went bankrupt one after another after another. The bill would give billions and billions for rich people to buy electric vehicles. Unlike other vehicles, electric vehicles, they pay no gas tax, which is how, of course, in this country that we pay for the roads and the bridges and the highways. Democrats want to cut them a big check as well. This is welfare for the wealthy. The bill also includes supersized ObamaCare subsidies for people making well over $100,000 a year. It is also welfare for the wealthy--supersized subsidies on steroids. Now, the subsidies were put in place at the beginning of the pandemic. They were supposed to be temporary. Yet Democrats seem to want them to continue forever. If Democrats extend these subsidies permanently, this bill would not actually help at all with the deficit. It would clearly add to the national debt. In other words, Democrats are using the same sleight-of-hand accounting gimmicks that they tried last year. Nine months ago, when Democrats tried things like this in their Build Back Better Plan that failed, even Senator Manchin admitted that it was ``smoke and mirrors,'' a shell game, and budget gimmicks. The Democrats are back to their old tricks right now. Here we are, 9 months later. The difference is, inflation is a lot, lot higher. The pain people have gone through is felt more deeply. Not a single Republican is going to vote for this monstrosity. No Democrat should either. Joe Biden's economy is already the worst economy that most Americans have ever experienced in their lifetime. If Democrats pass this bill, it is going to get worse. And so I urge my colleagues, don't inflict this kind of painon the American people in the middle of a recession. The American people are hurting enough. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4066-2 | null | 4,925 |
formal | steroids | null | transphobic | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last year, Democrats in this body passed a party-line spending bill, and they spent us into record-high inflation. Ever since then, this has been nothing but bad news for the working families of this country. We have seen the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices have gone up faster than wages month after month after month. Fifteen months in a row now, prices are up faster than wages. Now, Democrats' inflation has caused a recession. As a result, working families are finding it much harder to get by. They can't keep up. The average family can afford less today than they could the day that Joe Biden took office--much less. The savings rate hasn't been this low since the great recession. People are having to spend their savings. Credit card debt is at an alltime high. But the worst gut punch is about to happen right now, making all the pain the Americans have suffered now extend for a longer period of time. If Democrats pass this bill that is on the floor today, this inflation crisis is going to get worse. For weeks, there have been rumors that Democrats were working hidden behind closed doors on another reckless tax-and-spending bill. The American people knew it would be bad, and the bill that we are looking at now is worse than expected. Of course, the Democrats wrote it in secret. They didn't want the American people to know what was inside it. Now, here we are, late on a Saturday afternoon, and the Democrats are trying to cram it through before people even get to read it. Members of my party were wanting to read it earlier today. It wasn't even available, likely because it wasn't even written yet. I understand it is over 700 pages long. An earlier version, I saw 725 pages, with a cost of over a billion dollars a page. Democrats call it their bill that they intend to try to use to reduce inflation. But the more likelihood is that it will lead to double-digit inflation. Haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter was in the White House. The Wharton School of Business does a budget model. It says that this bill, from everything that they have read so far, will actually increase inflation for the next 2 years. It is bad enough for the American people today. They can't put up with it for another 2 years. Now, I am told that the Wharton analysis is usually the economic analysis that the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, uses. Well, I hope that Senator Manchin and every Member of this body pays attention to that Wharton study. A chorus of economists is saying the exact same thing as the experts are telling us from Wharton. There is a nonpartisan group called the Tax Foundation, and it says ``this bill may actually worsen inflation''--worsen inflation. That is why I say we are looking at the possibility of double-digit inflation. It is 9.1 percent now. Democrats' favorite economist, Mark Zandi, says that the bill would almost have no effect on inflation. How is it going to lower inflation if it has no effect on inflation? And that is from a favorite of the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation. Clearly, there is broad agreement among experts that the bill will not lower inflation. Democrats were warned the last time, March of 2021. Democrats are being warned again this time. And theyare ignoring the warnings. But it doesn't take an economist to tell you that this bill would be a disaster for working families. The bill is going to mean more taxes, more spending, higher prices--right in the middle of the combination of an inflation time and a time of recession. The cost, the burdens, of this bill are going to be borne by the working families of this country. Now, this bill is going to hit working families from all sides. First, let's take a look at the taxes. Tax revenues were already at record highs in this country--not enough for the Democrats but record alltime highs of tax revenue. Democrats want more--a lot more. The Democrats' inflation bill would increase taxes by nearly half a trillion dollars. Now, this includes a blatant violation of Joe Biden's campaign promise when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families. The Joint Tax Committee says that this bill will raise taxes on the very people that Joe Biden said he wasn't going to come after. The Joint Tax Committee actually said the bill will raise taxes on people at nearly every level of income. It will affect you, every one of you, all across this country. Now, Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes on American energy. It has been their claim since day one when Joe Biden basically put the target on the back of American energy and pulled the trigger. And, amazingly, they want to do it in the middle of an energy crisis. Remember, this is the energy crisis that the Democrats have created. When Joe Biden declared war on American energy, American families started paying the price and have been paying the price ever since then. The bill does nothing to open up exploration for energy and American oil on American properties on Federal lands. No. It includes a new tax on American oil and gas production. This tax alone will raise the cost of energy for half of the households in America. Now, this is at a time when one-third of the inflation in this country is driven by the cost of energy. When you take a look at the cost of food, energy is a component of that. Growing food, getting food to market--all of those things are related to energy. That tax alone is going to shrink the economy and cost jobs. There is also a new tax on imported oil. And Joe Biden's energy policy has been, basically: Please send us some oil. It was his policy last year when he went to Glasgow. And he actually asked Vladimir Putin to send us more oil from Russia as Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. He is trying to cut a deal with Iran to get Iranian oil. Venezuela--he sent emissaries to Venezuela asking for oil. And he went hat in hand last month to Saudi Arabia saying: Please send us more oil. And then the Democrats put in their bill an excise tax on that oil that the President is begging to have sent to America. And then to add insult to injury, they indexed the tax to inflation--high inflation begetting more inflation. It means the more inflation the Democrats cause, the higher the prices go up. More taxes, more inflation. This is a vicious cycle of Democrat taxes and Democrat inflation. As a result, the pain at the pump is going to get worse. Yet the worst punishment of all is for American coal production. Now, I am proud to say Wyoming has been America's No. 1 producer of coal for decades. Coal is still the most affordable, reliable energy known to man. It is used all over the world. Yet in this bill, the Democrats want to raise taxes on coal companies by up to 16 percent of their income. Well, I am from a coal State. Senator Manchin is from a coal State. He and I worked together on the Energy Committee. He is the chair; I am the ranking member. Here is what the West Virginia Coal Association has said about what is in this bill that we are going to be voting on starting tonight. Joe Manchin's home State coal association said: Why support anything Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry want for coal? They go on to say: It is incomprehensible why any miner [coal miner] would support the Manchin-Schumer legislation. This is going to punish West Virginia directly, and it is going to punish the hard-working people of Wyoming. It is also going to punish their customers who rely on affordable energy. These taxes are clearly going to get passed on to the consumer--in other words, higher prices, more inflation. Economics 101. The Democrats also want to raise taxes on savings and investment at a time when seniors are hurting. Seniors are already watching their savings go down and their taxes go up. Inflation is so bad that there are reports that seniors are moving in together because they can't afford to pay the rent. Yet Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden want to raid their 401(k)s. This bill also contains a hidden tax increase. That is because the bill would nearly double the size of the IRS. Now, Democrats think that giving the IRS 80 billion additional dollars to hire additional auditors--tens of thousands, over 80,000 more auditors at the IRS, an army of auditors--that they are going to be able to squeeze another $200 billion out of American taxpayers. They are not talking about a couple of rich people here. Eighty-six thousand auditors aren't needed to go after a couple of billionaires. They are going after mainstream America. They are going after families, farmers, after small businesses. The IRS is already one of the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the Federal Government. But the Democrats say: Not enough. We want to put you on steroids so you can squeeze more money out of the families of this country. The Joint Tax Committee says almost all of the money raised by supersizing the IRS would come from those making less than $200,000 a year. That is the Joint Tax Committee. So the billionaires in San Francisco and Manhattan who run the Democrat Party, they are going to be just fine. It is working families who always foot the bill for liberal policies. So what are Democrats going to do with half a trillion in new taxes? Well, they want to do what they do best: give taxpayer dollars to their closest friends and their biggest political contributors. That includes hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for the big fans of the Green New Deal. The bill puts American taxpayers on the hook for more than $315 billion in green energy loan guarantees. This will be billions and billions for projects like Solyndra that went bankrupt when President Obama was in the office and Joe Biden was Vice President. You would have thought Joe Biden had learned those lessons from the horror stories of the money being lost, the taxpayer dollars wasted in projects that went bankrupt one after another after another. The bill would give billions and billions for rich people to buy electric vehicles. Unlike other vehicles, electric vehicles, they pay no gas tax, which is how, of course, in this country that we pay for the roads and the bridges and the highways. Democrats want to cut them a big check as well. This is welfare for the wealthy. The bill also includes supersized ObamaCare subsidies for people making well over $100,000 a year. It is also welfare for the wealthy--supersized subsidies on steroids. Now, the subsidies were put in place at the beginning of the pandemic. They were supposed to be temporary. Yet Democrats seem to want them to continue forever. If Democrats extend these subsidies permanently, this bill would not actually help at all with the deficit. It would clearly add to the national debt. In other words, Democrats are using the same sleight-of-hand accounting gimmicks that they tried last year. Nine months ago, when Democrats tried things like this in their Build Back Better Plan that failed, even Senator Manchin admitted that it was ``smoke and mirrors,'' a shell game, and budget gimmicks. The Democrats are back to their old tricks right now. Here we are, 9 months later. The difference is, inflation is a lot, lot higher. The pain people have gone through is felt more deeply. Not a single Republican is going to vote for this monstrosity. No Democrat should either. Joe Biden's economy is already the worst economy that most Americans have ever experienced in their lifetime. If Democrats pass this bill, it is going to get worse. And so I urge my colleagues, don't inflict this kind of painon the American people in the middle of a recession. The American people are hurting enough. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4066-2 | null | 4,926 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last year, Democrats in this body passed a party-line spending bill, and they spent us into record-high inflation. Ever since then, this has been nothing but bad news for the working families of this country. We have seen the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices have gone up faster than wages month after month after month. Fifteen months in a row now, prices are up faster than wages. Now, Democrats' inflation has caused a recession. As a result, working families are finding it much harder to get by. They can't keep up. The average family can afford less today than they could the day that Joe Biden took office--much less. The savings rate hasn't been this low since the great recession. People are having to spend their savings. Credit card debt is at an alltime high. But the worst gut punch is about to happen right now, making all the pain the Americans have suffered now extend for a longer period of time. If Democrats pass this bill that is on the floor today, this inflation crisis is going to get worse. For weeks, there have been rumors that Democrats were working hidden behind closed doors on another reckless tax-and-spending bill. The American people knew it would be bad, and the bill that we are looking at now is worse than expected. Of course, the Democrats wrote it in secret. They didn't want the American people to know what was inside it. Now, here we are, late on a Saturday afternoon, and the Democrats are trying to cram it through before people even get to read it. Members of my party were wanting to read it earlier today. It wasn't even available, likely because it wasn't even written yet. I understand it is over 700 pages long. An earlier version, I saw 725 pages, with a cost of over a billion dollars a page. Democrats call it their bill that they intend to try to use to reduce inflation. But the more likelihood is that it will lead to double-digit inflation. Haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter was in the White House. The Wharton School of Business does a budget model. It says that this bill, from everything that they have read so far, will actually increase inflation for the next 2 years. It is bad enough for the American people today. They can't put up with it for another 2 years. Now, I am told that the Wharton analysis is usually the economic analysis that the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, uses. Well, I hope that Senator Manchin and every Member of this body pays attention to that Wharton study. A chorus of economists is saying the exact same thing as the experts are telling us from Wharton. There is a nonpartisan group called the Tax Foundation, and it says ``this bill may actually worsen inflation''--worsen inflation. That is why I say we are looking at the possibility of double-digit inflation. It is 9.1 percent now. Democrats' favorite economist, Mark Zandi, says that the bill would almost have no effect on inflation. How is it going to lower inflation if it has no effect on inflation? And that is from a favorite of the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation. Clearly, there is broad agreement among experts that the bill will not lower inflation. Democrats were warned the last time, March of 2021. Democrats are being warned again this time. And theyare ignoring the warnings. But it doesn't take an economist to tell you that this bill would be a disaster for working families. The bill is going to mean more taxes, more spending, higher prices--right in the middle of the combination of an inflation time and a time of recession. The cost, the burdens, of this bill are going to be borne by the working families of this country. Now, this bill is going to hit working families from all sides. First, let's take a look at the taxes. Tax revenues were already at record highs in this country--not enough for the Democrats but record alltime highs of tax revenue. Democrats want more--a lot more. The Democrats' inflation bill would increase taxes by nearly half a trillion dollars. Now, this includes a blatant violation of Joe Biden's campaign promise when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families. The Joint Tax Committee says that this bill will raise taxes on the very people that Joe Biden said he wasn't going to come after. The Joint Tax Committee actually said the bill will raise taxes on people at nearly every level of income. It will affect you, every one of you, all across this country. Now, Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes on American energy. It has been their claim since day one when Joe Biden basically put the target on the back of American energy and pulled the trigger. And, amazingly, they want to do it in the middle of an energy crisis. Remember, this is the energy crisis that the Democrats have created. When Joe Biden declared war on American energy, American families started paying the price and have been paying the price ever since then. The bill does nothing to open up exploration for energy and American oil on American properties on Federal lands. No. It includes a new tax on American oil and gas production. This tax alone will raise the cost of energy for half of the households in America. Now, this is at a time when one-third of the inflation in this country is driven by the cost of energy. When you take a look at the cost of food, energy is a component of that. Growing food, getting food to market--all of those things are related to energy. That tax alone is going to shrink the economy and cost jobs. There is also a new tax on imported oil. And Joe Biden's energy policy has been, basically: Please send us some oil. It was his policy last year when he went to Glasgow. And he actually asked Vladimir Putin to send us more oil from Russia as Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. He is trying to cut a deal with Iran to get Iranian oil. Venezuela--he sent emissaries to Venezuela asking for oil. And he went hat in hand last month to Saudi Arabia saying: Please send us more oil. And then the Democrats put in their bill an excise tax on that oil that the President is begging to have sent to America. And then to add insult to injury, they indexed the tax to inflation--high inflation begetting more inflation. It means the more inflation the Democrats cause, the higher the prices go up. More taxes, more inflation. This is a vicious cycle of Democrat taxes and Democrat inflation. As a result, the pain at the pump is going to get worse. Yet the worst punishment of all is for American coal production. Now, I am proud to say Wyoming has been America's No. 1 producer of coal for decades. Coal is still the most affordable, reliable energy known to man. It is used all over the world. Yet in this bill, the Democrats want to raise taxes on coal companies by up to 16 percent of their income. Well, I am from a coal State. Senator Manchin is from a coal State. He and I worked together on the Energy Committee. He is the chair; I am the ranking member. Here is what the West Virginia Coal Association has said about what is in this bill that we are going to be voting on starting tonight. Joe Manchin's home State coal association said: Why support anything Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry want for coal? They go on to say: It is incomprehensible why any miner [coal miner] would support the Manchin-Schumer legislation. This is going to punish West Virginia directly, and it is going to punish the hard-working people of Wyoming. It is also going to punish their customers who rely on affordable energy. These taxes are clearly going to get passed on to the consumer--in other words, higher prices, more inflation. Economics 101. The Democrats also want to raise taxes on savings and investment at a time when seniors are hurting. Seniors are already watching their savings go down and their taxes go up. Inflation is so bad that there are reports that seniors are moving in together because they can't afford to pay the rent. Yet Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden want to raid their 401(k)s. This bill also contains a hidden tax increase. That is because the bill would nearly double the size of the IRS. Now, Democrats think that giving the IRS 80 billion additional dollars to hire additional auditors--tens of thousands, over 80,000 more auditors at the IRS, an army of auditors--that they are going to be able to squeeze another $200 billion out of American taxpayers. They are not talking about a couple of rich people here. Eighty-six thousand auditors aren't needed to go after a couple of billionaires. They are going after mainstream America. They are going after families, farmers, after small businesses. The IRS is already one of the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the Federal Government. But the Democrats say: Not enough. We want to put you on steroids so you can squeeze more money out of the families of this country. The Joint Tax Committee says almost all of the money raised by supersizing the IRS would come from those making less than $200,000 a year. That is the Joint Tax Committee. So the billionaires in San Francisco and Manhattan who run the Democrat Party, they are going to be just fine. It is working families who always foot the bill for liberal policies. So what are Democrats going to do with half a trillion in new taxes? Well, they want to do what they do best: give taxpayer dollars to their closest friends and their biggest political contributors. That includes hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for the big fans of the Green New Deal. The bill puts American taxpayers on the hook for more than $315 billion in green energy loan guarantees. This will be billions and billions for projects like Solyndra that went bankrupt when President Obama was in the office and Joe Biden was Vice President. You would have thought Joe Biden had learned those lessons from the horror stories of the money being lost, the taxpayer dollars wasted in projects that went bankrupt one after another after another. The bill would give billions and billions for rich people to buy electric vehicles. Unlike other vehicles, electric vehicles, they pay no gas tax, which is how, of course, in this country that we pay for the roads and the bridges and the highways. Democrats want to cut them a big check as well. This is welfare for the wealthy. The bill also includes supersized ObamaCare subsidies for people making well over $100,000 a year. It is also welfare for the wealthy--supersized subsidies on steroids. Now, the subsidies were put in place at the beginning of the pandemic. They were supposed to be temporary. Yet Democrats seem to want them to continue forever. If Democrats extend these subsidies permanently, this bill would not actually help at all with the deficit. It would clearly add to the national debt. In other words, Democrats are using the same sleight-of-hand accounting gimmicks that they tried last year. Nine months ago, when Democrats tried things like this in their Build Back Better Plan that failed, even Senator Manchin admitted that it was ``smoke and mirrors,'' a shell game, and budget gimmicks. The Democrats are back to their old tricks right now. Here we are, 9 months later. The difference is, inflation is a lot, lot higher. The pain people have gone through is felt more deeply. Not a single Republican is going to vote for this monstrosity. No Democrat should either. Joe Biden's economy is already the worst economy that most Americans have ever experienced in their lifetime. If Democrats pass this bill, it is going to get worse. And so I urge my colleagues, don't inflict this kind of painon the American people in the middle of a recession. The American people are hurting enough. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4066-2 | null | 4,927 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, last year, Democrats in this body passed a party-line spending bill, and they spent us into record-high inflation. Ever since then, this has been nothing but bad news for the working families of this country. We have seen the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices have gone up faster than wages month after month after month. Fifteen months in a row now, prices are up faster than wages. Now, Democrats' inflation has caused a recession. As a result, working families are finding it much harder to get by. They can't keep up. The average family can afford less today than they could the day that Joe Biden took office--much less. The savings rate hasn't been this low since the great recession. People are having to spend their savings. Credit card debt is at an alltime high. But the worst gut punch is about to happen right now, making all the pain the Americans have suffered now extend for a longer period of time. If Democrats pass this bill that is on the floor today, this inflation crisis is going to get worse. For weeks, there have been rumors that Democrats were working hidden behind closed doors on another reckless tax-and-spending bill. The American people knew it would be bad, and the bill that we are looking at now is worse than expected. Of course, the Democrats wrote it in secret. They didn't want the American people to know what was inside it. Now, here we are, late on a Saturday afternoon, and the Democrats are trying to cram it through before people even get to read it. Members of my party were wanting to read it earlier today. It wasn't even available, likely because it wasn't even written yet. I understand it is over 700 pages long. An earlier version, I saw 725 pages, with a cost of over a billion dollars a page. Democrats call it their bill that they intend to try to use to reduce inflation. But the more likelihood is that it will lead to double-digit inflation. Haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter was in the White House. The Wharton School of Business does a budget model. It says that this bill, from everything that they have read so far, will actually increase inflation for the next 2 years. It is bad enough for the American people today. They can't put up with it for another 2 years. Now, I am told that the Wharton analysis is usually the economic analysis that the Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, uses. Well, I hope that Senator Manchin and every Member of this body pays attention to that Wharton study. A chorus of economists is saying the exact same thing as the experts are telling us from Wharton. There is a nonpartisan group called the Tax Foundation, and it says ``this bill may actually worsen inflation''--worsen inflation. That is why I say we are looking at the possibility of double-digit inflation. It is 9.1 percent now. Democrats' favorite economist, Mark Zandi, says that the bill would almost have no effect on inflation. How is it going to lower inflation if it has no effect on inflation? And that is from a favorite of the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation. Clearly, there is broad agreement among experts that the bill will not lower inflation. Democrats were warned the last time, March of 2021. Democrats are being warned again this time. And theyare ignoring the warnings. But it doesn't take an economist to tell you that this bill would be a disaster for working families. The bill is going to mean more taxes, more spending, higher prices--right in the middle of the combination of an inflation time and a time of recession. The cost, the burdens, of this bill are going to be borne by the working families of this country. Now, this bill is going to hit working families from all sides. First, let's take a look at the taxes. Tax revenues were already at record highs in this country--not enough for the Democrats but record alltime highs of tax revenue. Democrats want more--a lot more. The Democrats' inflation bill would increase taxes by nearly half a trillion dollars. Now, this includes a blatant violation of Joe Biden's campaign promise when he said he wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families. The Joint Tax Committee says that this bill will raise taxes on the very people that Joe Biden said he wasn't going to come after. The Joint Tax Committee actually said the bill will raise taxes on people at nearly every level of income. It will affect you, every one of you, all across this country. Now, Democrats, of course, want to raise taxes on American energy. It has been their claim since day one when Joe Biden basically put the target on the back of American energy and pulled the trigger. And, amazingly, they want to do it in the middle of an energy crisis. Remember, this is the energy crisis that the Democrats have created. When Joe Biden declared war on American energy, American families started paying the price and have been paying the price ever since then. The bill does nothing to open up exploration for energy and American oil on American properties on Federal lands. No. It includes a new tax on American oil and gas production. This tax alone will raise the cost of energy for half of the households in America. Now, this is at a time when one-third of the inflation in this country is driven by the cost of energy. When you take a look at the cost of food, energy is a component of that. Growing food, getting food to market--all of those things are related to energy. That tax alone is going to shrink the economy and cost jobs. There is also a new tax on imported oil. And Joe Biden's energy policy has been, basically: Please send us some oil. It was his policy last year when he went to Glasgow. And he actually asked Vladimir Putin to send us more oil from Russia as Russia was planning to invade Ukraine. He is trying to cut a deal with Iran to get Iranian oil. Venezuela--he sent emissaries to Venezuela asking for oil. And he went hat in hand last month to Saudi Arabia saying: Please send us more oil. And then the Democrats put in their bill an excise tax on that oil that the President is begging to have sent to America. And then to add insult to injury, they indexed the tax to inflation--high inflation begetting more inflation. It means the more inflation the Democrats cause, the higher the prices go up. More taxes, more inflation. This is a vicious cycle of Democrat taxes and Democrat inflation. As a result, the pain at the pump is going to get worse. Yet the worst punishment of all is for American coal production. Now, I am proud to say Wyoming has been America's No. 1 producer of coal for decades. Coal is still the most affordable, reliable energy known to man. It is used all over the world. Yet in this bill, the Democrats want to raise taxes on coal companies by up to 16 percent of their income. Well, I am from a coal State. Senator Manchin is from a coal State. He and I worked together on the Energy Committee. He is the chair; I am the ranking member. Here is what the West Virginia Coal Association has said about what is in this bill that we are going to be voting on starting tonight. Joe Manchin's home State coal association said: Why support anything Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry want for coal? They go on to say: It is incomprehensible why any miner [coal miner] would support the Manchin-Schumer legislation. This is going to punish West Virginia directly, and it is going to punish the hard-working people of Wyoming. It is also going to punish their customers who rely on affordable energy. These taxes are clearly going to get passed on to the consumer--in other words, higher prices, more inflation. Economics 101. The Democrats also want to raise taxes on savings and investment at a time when seniors are hurting. Seniors are already watching their savings go down and their taxes go up. Inflation is so bad that there are reports that seniors are moving in together because they can't afford to pay the rent. Yet Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden want to raid their 401(k)s. This bill also contains a hidden tax increase. That is because the bill would nearly double the size of the IRS. Now, Democrats think that giving the IRS 80 billion additional dollars to hire additional auditors--tens of thousands, over 80,000 more auditors at the IRS, an army of auditors--that they are going to be able to squeeze another $200 billion out of American taxpayers. They are not talking about a couple of rich people here. Eighty-six thousand auditors aren't needed to go after a couple of billionaires. They are going after mainstream America. They are going after families, farmers, after small businesses. The IRS is already one of the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the Federal Government. But the Democrats say: Not enough. We want to put you on steroids so you can squeeze more money out of the families of this country. The Joint Tax Committee says almost all of the money raised by supersizing the IRS would come from those making less than $200,000 a year. That is the Joint Tax Committee. So the billionaires in San Francisco and Manhattan who run the Democrat Party, they are going to be just fine. It is working families who always foot the bill for liberal policies. So what are Democrats going to do with half a trillion in new taxes? Well, they want to do what they do best: give taxpayer dollars to their closest friends and their biggest political contributors. That includes hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for the big fans of the Green New Deal. The bill puts American taxpayers on the hook for more than $315 billion in green energy loan guarantees. This will be billions and billions for projects like Solyndra that went bankrupt when President Obama was in the office and Joe Biden was Vice President. You would have thought Joe Biden had learned those lessons from the horror stories of the money being lost, the taxpayer dollars wasted in projects that went bankrupt one after another after another. The bill would give billions and billions for rich people to buy electric vehicles. Unlike other vehicles, electric vehicles, they pay no gas tax, which is how, of course, in this country that we pay for the roads and the bridges and the highways. Democrats want to cut them a big check as well. This is welfare for the wealthy. The bill also includes supersized ObamaCare subsidies for people making well over $100,000 a year. It is also welfare for the wealthy--supersized subsidies on steroids. Now, the subsidies were put in place at the beginning of the pandemic. They were supposed to be temporary. Yet Democrats seem to want them to continue forever. If Democrats extend these subsidies permanently, this bill would not actually help at all with the deficit. It would clearly add to the national debt. In other words, Democrats are using the same sleight-of-hand accounting gimmicks that they tried last year. Nine months ago, when Democrats tried things like this in their Build Back Better Plan that failed, even Senator Manchin admitted that it was ``smoke and mirrors,'' a shell game, and budget gimmicks. The Democrats are back to their old tricks right now. Here we are, 9 months later. The difference is, inflation is a lot, lot higher. The pain people have gone through is felt more deeply. Not a single Republican is going to vote for this monstrosity. No Democrat should either. Joe Biden's economy is already the worst economy that most Americans have ever experienced in their lifetime. If Democrats pass this bill, it is going to get worse. And so I urge my colleagues, don't inflict this kind of painon the American people in the middle of a recession. The American people are hurting enough. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4066-2 | null | 4,928 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, public service is about making people's lives better, and here is what is on offer this afternoon to make people's lives better in our country: Reduced healthcare costs for seniors, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, and reduced cheating by wealthy tax cheats. That is just a part of what is on offer this afternoon. Let me just briefly touch on each of them. We all know that medicines are way too expensive in our country. People always come back from trips, and they say: Why is it so much cheaper overseas? It is because these big pharmaceutical companies are under absolutely no restraints to hold down the prices, and that is what we are beginning to change today. What we are beginning to change today is to say that for those seniors who count on Medicare, for the first time, the program that they love, Medicare, is going to have the power to negotiate lower drug prices for them. The fact is, the Senate is lifting a curse with this legislation. That is how seniors feel when they hear that Medicare can't even go to bat for them. And, of course, Big Pharma has protected this ban on Medicare negotiating like it was the Holy Grail. Even today, they are warning that when we pass this, they are going to try to tie it up with the courts and the State legislatures and the Agencies. But we are not going to let that happen. The prediction from some independent authorities on medicine has said that because of the compounding benefits of our bill--with more drugs being negotiated on a regular basis--we are looking at the possibility of a trillion dollars in savings before too long. If a drug company refuses to negotiate, they are going to face a steep excise tax on the sale of their products until they come to the table. If they are price gouging, if they are raising their prices above the rate of inflation, say, for an older drug, they are going to pay a penalty. And then we have new significant relief for seniors who, when they get mugged at the pharmacy counter, come home and say they just can't pay all the bills. Our legislation puts a new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare Part D so that seniors are no longer forced to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food. Those are all important benefits. The fact is, that penalty for price gouging is going into in effect in a couple of months, in November, so seniors are going to be able to say: We are seeing real relief from this legislation. There are other steps that we would have liked to take. I understand that. I pushed for them. The President of the Senate has pushed for them. But let's understand the bottom line here. Every one of the policies I have outlined, on their own, is going to be life-changing for millions of senior citizens, and it is going to lay the groundwork for doing more. I would also like to move briefly from healthcare to climate because the Inflation Reduction Act includes the biggest effort in history to save our climate and invest in clean energy and jobs. And because we all worked together, those are going to be jobs here in America. They are going to be clean energy jobs in our country because of the black letter text that we wrote into the bill. The old system was a joke. It picked winners and losers, and anybody who was powerful could probably figure out how to get a tax break. And there were permanent breaks for oil and gas but only temporary incentives for clean energy. The system was broken. It was out of date a long time ago. We put that old system into the dustbin of history, and we put in place emissions-based credits to turbocharge investment in clean energy, clean transportation, and energy conservation. Our new plan is going to reduce the typical American household's energy cost by $500 per year, and it is going to create 600,000 new jobs from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. As the President of the Senate knows, we pay for this bill with a few important changes in our tax law. For example, we just showed a couple of days ago that of 100 companies--these are companies with billions of dollars in profits--they are paying--many of them, more than 100--an effective tax rate of 1.1 percent. Let me say that again: More than 100 hugely profitable companies that are going to pay under this legislation, and the President of the Senate did very important work on this, they are paying, on average, 1.1 percent in taxes. Now, it is no surprise that those companies that are paying 1.1 percent think that somehow making them pay a minimum rate--a minimum rate, by the way, which is far less than the rate that a firefighter and a nurse pay--that, oh, my goodness, we won't have jobs, we won't have businesses if they do. And we make it clear that we are not raising taxes on anybody. Anybody making less than $400,000 is not going to pay any additional taxes under this bill. I know there are some of our colleagues on the other side who have always subscribed to this trickle-down theory of economics and say that, well, if those at the very top--say, those corporations paying 1.1 percent--actually pay some taxes, that means that nurses and firefighters are going to pay more taxes, and nurses and firefighters don't buy that for a second. We also paid for the legislation in an important way that was proposed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, that I was proud to join him on, and that is a 1-percent tax on stock buybacks. Corporations have spent trillions of dollars on stock buybacks in recent years, a huge windfall for corporate executives and wealthy shareholder. It set a record in 2018, broke it again in 2021 right in the middle of a global pandemic, and I just noticed the profits of some of the biggest oil companies here in the last few weeks, again, they are kind of leading the league in stock buybacks. Stock buybacks make a lot of wealthy people even wealthier on paper, but they do very little to strengthen the economy, drive innovation, or improve the well-being of American workers. Our 1 percent tax is not only going to help pay to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it is also going to encourage big corporations to invest in their workers and research and development instead of more handouts to the top. Finally, I just want to emphasize this question of tougher IRS tax enforcement. We have heard some of our colleagues on the other side say that somehow this is going to target the working person. I see our good friend from Delaware, another member of the committee. That is just not going to happen. And the reason it is not, as my colleagues on the Finance Committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. They pay taxes with every single paycheck. It is right there on their paycheck. Everybody knows what taxes they pay, and should they be engaging in any questionable activities, it would end up showing up on these forms. They are not the problem. But as we have been told again and again by independent experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. Big, wealthy tax cheats don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses. And after a decade of Republican budget cuts, we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the American people for billions of dollars every year. The current Commissioner who joins many Democratic Commissioners and Republican Commissioners in the past--the current one is a Republican appointee--estimated the number oftaxes owed that are not collected could be as much as a trillion dollars per year. We believe that the Agency ought to have the resources it needs to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking tax cheats at the top. And I know that my colleagues on the Finance Committee join me in saying: We are going to watchdog the Agency very carefully and make sure the focus is on these wealthy tax cheats and not the typical working person, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about. So there you have it, folks. Here is what is on offer: What is on offer are lower costs for seniors, reduced climate emissions, help for working families, cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. That is what this is all about today. That is why this legislation, I believe, is going to give public service a good name. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4069 | null | 4,929 |
formal | big pharma | null | anti-vax | Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, public service is about making people's lives better, and here is what is on offer this afternoon to make people's lives better in our country: Reduced healthcare costs for seniors, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, and reduced cheating by wealthy tax cheats. That is just a part of what is on offer this afternoon. Let me just briefly touch on each of them. We all know that medicines are way too expensive in our country. People always come back from trips, and they say: Why is it so much cheaper overseas? It is because these big pharmaceutical companies are under absolutely no restraints to hold down the prices, and that is what we are beginning to change today. What we are beginning to change today is to say that for those seniors who count on Medicare, for the first time, the program that they love, Medicare, is going to have the power to negotiate lower drug prices for them. The fact is, the Senate is lifting a curse with this legislation. That is how seniors feel when they hear that Medicare can't even go to bat for them. And, of course, Big Pharma has protected this ban on Medicare negotiating like it was the Holy Grail. Even today, they are warning that when we pass this, they are going to try to tie it up with the courts and the State legislatures and the Agencies. But we are not going to let that happen. The prediction from some independent authorities on medicine has said that because of the compounding benefits of our bill--with more drugs being negotiated on a regular basis--we are looking at the possibility of a trillion dollars in savings before too long. If a drug company refuses to negotiate, they are going to face a steep excise tax on the sale of their products until they come to the table. If they are price gouging, if they are raising their prices above the rate of inflation, say, for an older drug, they are going to pay a penalty. And then we have new significant relief for seniors who, when they get mugged at the pharmacy counter, come home and say they just can't pay all the bills. Our legislation puts a new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare Part D so that seniors are no longer forced to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food. Those are all important benefits. The fact is, that penalty for price gouging is going into in effect in a couple of months, in November, so seniors are going to be able to say: We are seeing real relief from this legislation. There are other steps that we would have liked to take. I understand that. I pushed for them. The President of the Senate has pushed for them. But let's understand the bottom line here. Every one of the policies I have outlined, on their own, is going to be life-changing for millions of senior citizens, and it is going to lay the groundwork for doing more. I would also like to move briefly from healthcare to climate because the Inflation Reduction Act includes the biggest effort in history to save our climate and invest in clean energy and jobs. And because we all worked together, those are going to be jobs here in America. They are going to be clean energy jobs in our country because of the black letter text that we wrote into the bill. The old system was a joke. It picked winners and losers, and anybody who was powerful could probably figure out how to get a tax break. And there were permanent breaks for oil and gas but only temporary incentives for clean energy. The system was broken. It was out of date a long time ago. We put that old system into the dustbin of history, and we put in place emissions-based credits to turbocharge investment in clean energy, clean transportation, and energy conservation. Our new plan is going to reduce the typical American household's energy cost by $500 per year, and it is going to create 600,000 new jobs from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. As the President of the Senate knows, we pay for this bill with a few important changes in our tax law. For example, we just showed a couple of days ago that of 100 companies--these are companies with billions of dollars in profits--they are paying--many of them, more than 100--an effective tax rate of 1.1 percent. Let me say that again: More than 100 hugely profitable companies that are going to pay under this legislation, and the President of the Senate did very important work on this, they are paying, on average, 1.1 percent in taxes. Now, it is no surprise that those companies that are paying 1.1 percent think that somehow making them pay a minimum rate--a minimum rate, by the way, which is far less than the rate that a firefighter and a nurse pay--that, oh, my goodness, we won't have jobs, we won't have businesses if they do. And we make it clear that we are not raising taxes on anybody. Anybody making less than $400,000 is not going to pay any additional taxes under this bill. I know there are some of our colleagues on the other side who have always subscribed to this trickle-down theory of economics and say that, well, if those at the very top--say, those corporations paying 1.1 percent--actually pay some taxes, that means that nurses and firefighters are going to pay more taxes, and nurses and firefighters don't buy that for a second. We also paid for the legislation in an important way that was proposed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, that I was proud to join him on, and that is a 1-percent tax on stock buybacks. Corporations have spent trillions of dollars on stock buybacks in recent years, a huge windfall for corporate executives and wealthy shareholder. It set a record in 2018, broke it again in 2021 right in the middle of a global pandemic, and I just noticed the profits of some of the biggest oil companies here in the last few weeks, again, they are kind of leading the league in stock buybacks. Stock buybacks make a lot of wealthy people even wealthier on paper, but they do very little to strengthen the economy, drive innovation, or improve the well-being of American workers. Our 1 percent tax is not only going to help pay to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it is also going to encourage big corporations to invest in their workers and research and development instead of more handouts to the top. Finally, I just want to emphasize this question of tougher IRS tax enforcement. We have heard some of our colleagues on the other side say that somehow this is going to target the working person. I see our good friend from Delaware, another member of the committee. That is just not going to happen. And the reason it is not, as my colleagues on the Finance Committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. They pay taxes with every single paycheck. It is right there on their paycheck. Everybody knows what taxes they pay, and should they be engaging in any questionable activities, it would end up showing up on these forms. They are not the problem. But as we have been told again and again by independent experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. Big, wealthy tax cheats don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses. And after a decade of Republican budget cuts, we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the American people for billions of dollars every year. The current Commissioner who joins many Democratic Commissioners and Republican Commissioners in the past--the current one is a Republican appointee--estimated the number oftaxes owed that are not collected could be as much as a trillion dollars per year. We believe that the Agency ought to have the resources it needs to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking tax cheats at the top. And I know that my colleagues on the Finance Committee join me in saying: We are going to watchdog the Agency very carefully and make sure the focus is on these wealthy tax cheats and not the typical working person, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about. So there you have it, folks. Here is what is on offer: What is on offer are lower costs for seniors, reduced climate emissions, help for working families, cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. That is what this is all about today. That is why this legislation, I believe, is going to give public service a good name. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4069 | null | 4,930 |
formal | handouts | null | racist | Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, public service is about making people's lives better, and here is what is on offer this afternoon to make people's lives better in our country: Reduced healthcare costs for seniors, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, and reduced cheating by wealthy tax cheats. That is just a part of what is on offer this afternoon. Let me just briefly touch on each of them. We all know that medicines are way too expensive in our country. People always come back from trips, and they say: Why is it so much cheaper overseas? It is because these big pharmaceutical companies are under absolutely no restraints to hold down the prices, and that is what we are beginning to change today. What we are beginning to change today is to say that for those seniors who count on Medicare, for the first time, the program that they love, Medicare, is going to have the power to negotiate lower drug prices for them. The fact is, the Senate is lifting a curse with this legislation. That is how seniors feel when they hear that Medicare can't even go to bat for them. And, of course, Big Pharma has protected this ban on Medicare negotiating like it was the Holy Grail. Even today, they are warning that when we pass this, they are going to try to tie it up with the courts and the State legislatures and the Agencies. But we are not going to let that happen. The prediction from some independent authorities on medicine has said that because of the compounding benefits of our bill--with more drugs being negotiated on a regular basis--we are looking at the possibility of a trillion dollars in savings before too long. If a drug company refuses to negotiate, they are going to face a steep excise tax on the sale of their products until they come to the table. If they are price gouging, if they are raising their prices above the rate of inflation, say, for an older drug, they are going to pay a penalty. And then we have new significant relief for seniors who, when they get mugged at the pharmacy counter, come home and say they just can't pay all the bills. Our legislation puts a new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare Part D so that seniors are no longer forced to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food. Those are all important benefits. The fact is, that penalty for price gouging is going into in effect in a couple of months, in November, so seniors are going to be able to say: We are seeing real relief from this legislation. There are other steps that we would have liked to take. I understand that. I pushed for them. The President of the Senate has pushed for them. But let's understand the bottom line here. Every one of the policies I have outlined, on their own, is going to be life-changing for millions of senior citizens, and it is going to lay the groundwork for doing more. I would also like to move briefly from healthcare to climate because the Inflation Reduction Act includes the biggest effort in history to save our climate and invest in clean energy and jobs. And because we all worked together, those are going to be jobs here in America. They are going to be clean energy jobs in our country because of the black letter text that we wrote into the bill. The old system was a joke. It picked winners and losers, and anybody who was powerful could probably figure out how to get a tax break. And there were permanent breaks for oil and gas but only temporary incentives for clean energy. The system was broken. It was out of date a long time ago. We put that old system into the dustbin of history, and we put in place emissions-based credits to turbocharge investment in clean energy, clean transportation, and energy conservation. Our new plan is going to reduce the typical American household's energy cost by $500 per year, and it is going to create 600,000 new jobs from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. As the President of the Senate knows, we pay for this bill with a few important changes in our tax law. For example, we just showed a couple of days ago that of 100 companies--these are companies with billions of dollars in profits--they are paying--many of them, more than 100--an effective tax rate of 1.1 percent. Let me say that again: More than 100 hugely profitable companies that are going to pay under this legislation, and the President of the Senate did very important work on this, they are paying, on average, 1.1 percent in taxes. Now, it is no surprise that those companies that are paying 1.1 percent think that somehow making them pay a minimum rate--a minimum rate, by the way, which is far less than the rate that a firefighter and a nurse pay--that, oh, my goodness, we won't have jobs, we won't have businesses if they do. And we make it clear that we are not raising taxes on anybody. Anybody making less than $400,000 is not going to pay any additional taxes under this bill. I know there are some of our colleagues on the other side who have always subscribed to this trickle-down theory of economics and say that, well, if those at the very top--say, those corporations paying 1.1 percent--actually pay some taxes, that means that nurses and firefighters are going to pay more taxes, and nurses and firefighters don't buy that for a second. We also paid for the legislation in an important way that was proposed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, that I was proud to join him on, and that is a 1-percent tax on stock buybacks. Corporations have spent trillions of dollars on stock buybacks in recent years, a huge windfall for corporate executives and wealthy shareholder. It set a record in 2018, broke it again in 2021 right in the middle of a global pandemic, and I just noticed the profits of some of the biggest oil companies here in the last few weeks, again, they are kind of leading the league in stock buybacks. Stock buybacks make a lot of wealthy people even wealthier on paper, but they do very little to strengthen the economy, drive innovation, or improve the well-being of American workers. Our 1 percent tax is not only going to help pay to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it is also going to encourage big corporations to invest in their workers and research and development instead of more handouts to the top. Finally, I just want to emphasize this question of tougher IRS tax enforcement. We have heard some of our colleagues on the other side say that somehow this is going to target the working person. I see our good friend from Delaware, another member of the committee. That is just not going to happen. And the reason it is not, as my colleagues on the Finance Committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. They pay taxes with every single paycheck. It is right there on their paycheck. Everybody knows what taxes they pay, and should they be engaging in any questionable activities, it would end up showing up on these forms. They are not the problem. But as we have been told again and again by independent experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. Big, wealthy tax cheats don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses. And after a decade of Republican budget cuts, we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the American people for billions of dollars every year. The current Commissioner who joins many Democratic Commissioners and Republican Commissioners in the past--the current one is a Republican appointee--estimated the number oftaxes owed that are not collected could be as much as a trillion dollars per year. We believe that the Agency ought to have the resources it needs to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking tax cheats at the top. And I know that my colleagues on the Finance Committee join me in saying: We are going to watchdog the Agency very carefully and make sure the focus is on these wealthy tax cheats and not the typical working person, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about. So there you have it, folks. Here is what is on offer: What is on offer are lower costs for seniors, reduced climate emissions, help for working families, cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. That is what this is all about today. That is why this legislation, I believe, is going to give public service a good name. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4069 | null | 4,931 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, public service is about making people's lives better, and here is what is on offer this afternoon to make people's lives better in our country: Reduced healthcare costs for seniors, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, and reduced cheating by wealthy tax cheats. That is just a part of what is on offer this afternoon. Let me just briefly touch on each of them. We all know that medicines are way too expensive in our country. People always come back from trips, and they say: Why is it so much cheaper overseas? It is because these big pharmaceutical companies are under absolutely no restraints to hold down the prices, and that is what we are beginning to change today. What we are beginning to change today is to say that for those seniors who count on Medicare, for the first time, the program that they love, Medicare, is going to have the power to negotiate lower drug prices for them. The fact is, the Senate is lifting a curse with this legislation. That is how seniors feel when they hear that Medicare can't even go to bat for them. And, of course, Big Pharma has protected this ban on Medicare negotiating like it was the Holy Grail. Even today, they are warning that when we pass this, they are going to try to tie it up with the courts and the State legislatures and the Agencies. But we are not going to let that happen. The prediction from some independent authorities on medicine has said that because of the compounding benefits of our bill--with more drugs being negotiated on a regular basis--we are looking at the possibility of a trillion dollars in savings before too long. If a drug company refuses to negotiate, they are going to face a steep excise tax on the sale of their products until they come to the table. If they are price gouging, if they are raising their prices above the rate of inflation, say, for an older drug, they are going to pay a penalty. And then we have new significant relief for seniors who, when they get mugged at the pharmacy counter, come home and say they just can't pay all the bills. Our legislation puts a new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare Part D so that seniors are no longer forced to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food. Those are all important benefits. The fact is, that penalty for price gouging is going into in effect in a couple of months, in November, so seniors are going to be able to say: We are seeing real relief from this legislation. There are other steps that we would have liked to take. I understand that. I pushed for them. The President of the Senate has pushed for them. But let's understand the bottom line here. Every one of the policies I have outlined, on their own, is going to be life-changing for millions of senior citizens, and it is going to lay the groundwork for doing more. I would also like to move briefly from healthcare to climate because the Inflation Reduction Act includes the biggest effort in history to save our climate and invest in clean energy and jobs. And because we all worked together, those are going to be jobs here in America. They are going to be clean energy jobs in our country because of the black letter text that we wrote into the bill. The old system was a joke. It picked winners and losers, and anybody who was powerful could probably figure out how to get a tax break. And there were permanent breaks for oil and gas but only temporary incentives for clean energy. The system was broken. It was out of date a long time ago. We put that old system into the dustbin of history, and we put in place emissions-based credits to turbocharge investment in clean energy, clean transportation, and energy conservation. Our new plan is going to reduce the typical American household's energy cost by $500 per year, and it is going to create 600,000 new jobs from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. As the President of the Senate knows, we pay for this bill with a few important changes in our tax law. For example, we just showed a couple of days ago that of 100 companies--these are companies with billions of dollars in profits--they are paying--many of them, more than 100--an effective tax rate of 1.1 percent. Let me say that again: More than 100 hugely profitable companies that are going to pay under this legislation, and the President of the Senate did very important work on this, they are paying, on average, 1.1 percent in taxes. Now, it is no surprise that those companies that are paying 1.1 percent think that somehow making them pay a minimum rate--a minimum rate, by the way, which is far less than the rate that a firefighter and a nurse pay--that, oh, my goodness, we won't have jobs, we won't have businesses if they do. And we make it clear that we are not raising taxes on anybody. Anybody making less than $400,000 is not going to pay any additional taxes under this bill. I know there are some of our colleagues on the other side who have always subscribed to this trickle-down theory of economics and say that, well, if those at the very top--say, those corporations paying 1.1 percent--actually pay some taxes, that means that nurses and firefighters are going to pay more taxes, and nurses and firefighters don't buy that for a second. We also paid for the legislation in an important way that was proposed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, that I was proud to join him on, and that is a 1-percent tax on stock buybacks. Corporations have spent trillions of dollars on stock buybacks in recent years, a huge windfall for corporate executives and wealthy shareholder. It set a record in 2018, broke it again in 2021 right in the middle of a global pandemic, and I just noticed the profits of some of the biggest oil companies here in the last few weeks, again, they are kind of leading the league in stock buybacks. Stock buybacks make a lot of wealthy people even wealthier on paper, but they do very little to strengthen the economy, drive innovation, or improve the well-being of American workers. Our 1 percent tax is not only going to help pay to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it is also going to encourage big corporations to invest in their workers and research and development instead of more handouts to the top. Finally, I just want to emphasize this question of tougher IRS tax enforcement. We have heard some of our colleagues on the other side say that somehow this is going to target the working person. I see our good friend from Delaware, another member of the committee. That is just not going to happen. And the reason it is not, as my colleagues on the Finance Committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. They pay taxes with every single paycheck. It is right there on their paycheck. Everybody knows what taxes they pay, and should they be engaging in any questionable activities, it would end up showing up on these forms. They are not the problem. But as we have been told again and again by independent experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. Big, wealthy tax cheats don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses. And after a decade of Republican budget cuts, we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the American people for billions of dollars every year. The current Commissioner who joins many Democratic Commissioners and Republican Commissioners in the past--the current one is a Republican appointee--estimated the number oftaxes owed that are not collected could be as much as a trillion dollars per year. We believe that the Agency ought to have the resources it needs to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking tax cheats at the top. And I know that my colleagues on the Finance Committee join me in saying: We are going to watchdog the Agency very carefully and make sure the focus is on these wealthy tax cheats and not the typical working person, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about. So there you have it, folks. Here is what is on offer: What is on offer are lower costs for seniors, reduced climate emissions, help for working families, cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. That is what this is all about today. That is why this legislation, I believe, is going to give public service a good name. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4069 | null | 4,932 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, public service is about making people's lives better, and here is what is on offer this afternoon to make people's lives better in our country: Reduced healthcare costs for seniors, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, and reduced cheating by wealthy tax cheats. That is just a part of what is on offer this afternoon. Let me just briefly touch on each of them. We all know that medicines are way too expensive in our country. People always come back from trips, and they say: Why is it so much cheaper overseas? It is because these big pharmaceutical companies are under absolutely no restraints to hold down the prices, and that is what we are beginning to change today. What we are beginning to change today is to say that for those seniors who count on Medicare, for the first time, the program that they love, Medicare, is going to have the power to negotiate lower drug prices for them. The fact is, the Senate is lifting a curse with this legislation. That is how seniors feel when they hear that Medicare can't even go to bat for them. And, of course, Big Pharma has protected this ban on Medicare negotiating like it was the Holy Grail. Even today, they are warning that when we pass this, they are going to try to tie it up with the courts and the State legislatures and the Agencies. But we are not going to let that happen. The prediction from some independent authorities on medicine has said that because of the compounding benefits of our bill--with more drugs being negotiated on a regular basis--we are looking at the possibility of a trillion dollars in savings before too long. If a drug company refuses to negotiate, they are going to face a steep excise tax on the sale of their products until they come to the table. If they are price gouging, if they are raising their prices above the rate of inflation, say, for an older drug, they are going to pay a penalty. And then we have new significant relief for seniors who, when they get mugged at the pharmacy counter, come home and say they just can't pay all the bills. Our legislation puts a new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare Part D so that seniors are no longer forced to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food. Those are all important benefits. The fact is, that penalty for price gouging is going into in effect in a couple of months, in November, so seniors are going to be able to say: We are seeing real relief from this legislation. There are other steps that we would have liked to take. I understand that. I pushed for them. The President of the Senate has pushed for them. But let's understand the bottom line here. Every one of the policies I have outlined, on their own, is going to be life-changing for millions of senior citizens, and it is going to lay the groundwork for doing more. I would also like to move briefly from healthcare to climate because the Inflation Reduction Act includes the biggest effort in history to save our climate and invest in clean energy and jobs. And because we all worked together, those are going to be jobs here in America. They are going to be clean energy jobs in our country because of the black letter text that we wrote into the bill. The old system was a joke. It picked winners and losers, and anybody who was powerful could probably figure out how to get a tax break. And there were permanent breaks for oil and gas but only temporary incentives for clean energy. The system was broken. It was out of date a long time ago. We put that old system into the dustbin of history, and we put in place emissions-based credits to turbocharge investment in clean energy, clean transportation, and energy conservation. Our new plan is going to reduce the typical American household's energy cost by $500 per year, and it is going to create 600,000 new jobs from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. As the President of the Senate knows, we pay for this bill with a few important changes in our tax law. For example, we just showed a couple of days ago that of 100 companies--these are companies with billions of dollars in profits--they are paying--many of them, more than 100--an effective tax rate of 1.1 percent. Let me say that again: More than 100 hugely profitable companies that are going to pay under this legislation, and the President of the Senate did very important work on this, they are paying, on average, 1.1 percent in taxes. Now, it is no surprise that those companies that are paying 1.1 percent think that somehow making them pay a minimum rate--a minimum rate, by the way, which is far less than the rate that a firefighter and a nurse pay--that, oh, my goodness, we won't have jobs, we won't have businesses if they do. And we make it clear that we are not raising taxes on anybody. Anybody making less than $400,000 is not going to pay any additional taxes under this bill. I know there are some of our colleagues on the other side who have always subscribed to this trickle-down theory of economics and say that, well, if those at the very top--say, those corporations paying 1.1 percent--actually pay some taxes, that means that nurses and firefighters are going to pay more taxes, and nurses and firefighters don't buy that for a second. We also paid for the legislation in an important way that was proposed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, that I was proud to join him on, and that is a 1-percent tax on stock buybacks. Corporations have spent trillions of dollars on stock buybacks in recent years, a huge windfall for corporate executives and wealthy shareholder. It set a record in 2018, broke it again in 2021 right in the middle of a global pandemic, and I just noticed the profits of some of the biggest oil companies here in the last few weeks, again, they are kind of leading the league in stock buybacks. Stock buybacks make a lot of wealthy people even wealthier on paper, but they do very little to strengthen the economy, drive innovation, or improve the well-being of American workers. Our 1 percent tax is not only going to help pay to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it is also going to encourage big corporations to invest in their workers and research and development instead of more handouts to the top. Finally, I just want to emphasize this question of tougher IRS tax enforcement. We have heard some of our colleagues on the other side say that somehow this is going to target the working person. I see our good friend from Delaware, another member of the committee. That is just not going to happen. And the reason it is not, as my colleagues on the Finance Committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. They pay taxes with every single paycheck. It is right there on their paycheck. Everybody knows what taxes they pay, and should they be engaging in any questionable activities, it would end up showing up on these forms. They are not the problem. But as we have been told again and again by independent experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. Big, wealthy tax cheats don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses. And after a decade of Republican budget cuts, we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the American people for billions of dollars every year. The current Commissioner who joins many Democratic Commissioners and Republican Commissioners in the past--the current one is a Republican appointee--estimated the number oftaxes owed that are not collected could be as much as a trillion dollars per year. We believe that the Agency ought to have the resources it needs to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking tax cheats at the top. And I know that my colleagues on the Finance Committee join me in saying: We are going to watchdog the Agency very carefully and make sure the focus is on these wealthy tax cheats and not the typical working person, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about. So there you have it, folks. Here is what is on offer: What is on offer are lower costs for seniors, reduced climate emissions, help for working families, cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. That is what this is all about today. That is why this legislation, I believe, is going to give public service a good name. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WYDEN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4069 | null | 4,933 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. YOUNG. I yield myself 10 minutes from the bill time. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives of four Hoosiers who were lost tragically in a car accident this week, Edith Schmucker, Zachary Potts, Emma Thomson, and Representative Jackie Walorski. We grieve them all, and we pray for their families and friends. This is, of course, a profoundly difficult time for those of us who knew one or more of these Hoosiers. It is such a difficult time for their families and their friends, and all of us, I know, we commit to do whatever it is in our power to comfort their loved ones in the difficult days ahead. Like everyone here and back home in Indiana, I am absolutely heartbroken. I think one thing that hit everyone particularly hard was the loss of two young congressional staff members. Whether you knew Zach or Emma personally or not, you certainly know their type if you are watching these proceedings on Capitol Hill. You know the type of hard-working, smart, committed, young person that comes to work on a congressional staff. They dedicate so much of their time and their talents. Other opportunities are given up in order to serve their country and to work toward the betterment of their Nation. We should celebrate their accomplishments while we grieve their loss. It is a reminder, I think, for all of us to thank the many congressional staff members who do much more than the public will ever know. I want to take a few minutes today to pay tribute to our colleague right here in the Halls of Congress, Jackie Walorski. Jackie and I came to Congress at roughly the same time--she, 2 years after me--and I will never forget when she arrived here at the U.S. Capitol. Jackie didn't need time to get her ``sea legs.'' No, Jackie knew that she belonged here. Jackie understood that this was her calling. She didn't need people to tell her that she belonged. She got right to work because she had some things to accomplish. I have to say that her confidence was infectious. Everyone saw it. Everyone was impressed by it. People loved being around her, including me. Jackie had so many other amazing qualities, and I would like to highlight a number of those today. She was always so full of energy. It was a positive energy. She was a lightning bolt. She could light up a room like no other. In fact, in my observation, she only had two speeds, it was full-bore on and off. She was high-spirited and full of fire. Jackie also had a really big heart. In fact, her heart was as big as it was good. She wore it on her sleeve every day, every moment of the day. She didn't hide her convictions. In fact, she made sure that they were expressed in the boldest, most colorful fashion. Her convictions were deeply held. She was proud of them. It is what made Jackie ``Jackie.'' She was of deep convictions, clearly, not just with her politics. No, it came from a deeper place. She had deep convictions with respect to her religious faith. I have to say that for all the many speeches I saw her deliver and for all the people I saw her energize, it was often after she delivered a prayer--and I saw her deliver a number of those--that audiences gave their most heartfelt ovations. Jackie was a larger than life figure, but Jackie was never fake. She was never contrived. She was beloved, in fact, because she inspired and motivated people with a passion that was so authentic, so human. And Jackie cared about the people she connected with. She was genuinely concerned. She was what you might call the genuine article. Jackie was also very smart, not just energetic. She was very smart. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, you could see that on a regular basis. But even in a casual conversation, Jackie had a habit of cutting right to the issue. But, more importantly, Jackie was smart about the people she represented. She knew their hearts. She knew their concerns. She knew their challenges. She knew their aspirations. She studied them. She lived it. She stayed in touch with them. She never forgot whom she worked with. She never forgot whom she worked for, and she never forgot who sent her to Washington. Jackie also had courage. She was a fearless leader. You see this in your best leaders. She didn't flinch in the face of tough votes. No, Jackie was smart enough to know the consequences, but she wasn't afraid. She did what she thought was right. She did it for the right reasons, and she had enough self-confidence to go explain her votes to her constituents. It was, at once, a confidence in herself, but it was also a confidence in those she represented. She was a leader, confident in her own abilities and confident in the abilities of those around her. If there is a single memory of Jackie's time in this building, the U.S. Capitol and, I would say, her time in the Indiana statehouse, it was that she is indeed a leader. Since Jackie's passing, I have had the opportunity to discuss her service, her life with a number of people, and this keeps coming up. She was a real leader. This is what they are talking about. For all of these amazing qualities, I have to say personally that there is something else that I keep coming back to. It is the first thing I come back to when I think of Jackie, and, frankly, it is very personal to me. I am going to miss Jackie's laughter. She had a beautiful, bellowing laugh, uninhibited, so authentic, not contrived. It came from a place where she appreciated humor. She appreciated, at times, the absurdity of life. She always had a joke at hand or funny observation to make, or maybe she had read something recently she wanted to share with me. But we had so many great laughs together, and she could make my side hurt in fairly short order. I am going to miss that. And it is really hard to believe that our paths won't ever cross again. They crossed so frequently, sometimes in this building but, typically, it was in Indiana's Second Congressional District, back home. It was rare, I would say, that I didn't go into that region and encounter her or, at least, follow in her tracks. She was so active, so engaged. I am going to miss those encounters. Just a few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit with Jackie in person. We shared some laughs, of course. It was at a dinner in Elkhart County. We were scheduled to be together this coming week to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony. She was constantly on the road serving, doing her job. It is not too much to say that that was her calling. It is also not too much to say that Jackie's last breath was spent in service, in service to her constituents, to her God, to the great State of Indiana, to her country, to her calling. Jackie loved and she was ever faithful to all of those things to the great benefit of Indiana and America, and for that I am grateful, for that we loved her back, and we will miss her dearly. Let that be her legacy. I yield to my colleague from Indiana. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. YOUNG | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4153 | null | 4,934 |
formal | right to work | null | anti-GMO | Mr. YOUNG. I yield myself 10 minutes from the bill time. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives of four Hoosiers who were lost tragically in a car accident this week, Edith Schmucker, Zachary Potts, Emma Thomson, and Representative Jackie Walorski. We grieve them all, and we pray for their families and friends. This is, of course, a profoundly difficult time for those of us who knew one or more of these Hoosiers. It is such a difficult time for their families and their friends, and all of us, I know, we commit to do whatever it is in our power to comfort their loved ones in the difficult days ahead. Like everyone here and back home in Indiana, I am absolutely heartbroken. I think one thing that hit everyone particularly hard was the loss of two young congressional staff members. Whether you knew Zach or Emma personally or not, you certainly know their type if you are watching these proceedings on Capitol Hill. You know the type of hard-working, smart, committed, young person that comes to work on a congressional staff. They dedicate so much of their time and their talents. Other opportunities are given up in order to serve their country and to work toward the betterment of their Nation. We should celebrate their accomplishments while we grieve their loss. It is a reminder, I think, for all of us to thank the many congressional staff members who do much more than the public will ever know. I want to take a few minutes today to pay tribute to our colleague right here in the Halls of Congress, Jackie Walorski. Jackie and I came to Congress at roughly the same time--she, 2 years after me--and I will never forget when she arrived here at the U.S. Capitol. Jackie didn't need time to get her ``sea legs.'' No, Jackie knew that she belonged here. Jackie understood that this was her calling. She didn't need people to tell her that she belonged. She got right to work because she had some things to accomplish. I have to say that her confidence was infectious. Everyone saw it. Everyone was impressed by it. People loved being around her, including me. Jackie had so many other amazing qualities, and I would like to highlight a number of those today. She was always so full of energy. It was a positive energy. She was a lightning bolt. She could light up a room like no other. In fact, in my observation, she only had two speeds, it was full-bore on and off. She was high-spirited and full of fire. Jackie also had a really big heart. In fact, her heart was as big as it was good. She wore it on her sleeve every day, every moment of the day. She didn't hide her convictions. In fact, she made sure that they were expressed in the boldest, most colorful fashion. Her convictions were deeply held. She was proud of them. It is what made Jackie ``Jackie.'' She was of deep convictions, clearly, not just with her politics. No, it came from a deeper place. She had deep convictions with respect to her religious faith. I have to say that for all the many speeches I saw her deliver and for all the people I saw her energize, it was often after she delivered a prayer--and I saw her deliver a number of those--that audiences gave their most heartfelt ovations. Jackie was a larger than life figure, but Jackie was never fake. She was never contrived. She was beloved, in fact, because she inspired and motivated people with a passion that was so authentic, so human. And Jackie cared about the people she connected with. She was genuinely concerned. She was what you might call the genuine article. Jackie was also very smart, not just energetic. She was very smart. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, you could see that on a regular basis. But even in a casual conversation, Jackie had a habit of cutting right to the issue. But, more importantly, Jackie was smart about the people she represented. She knew their hearts. She knew their concerns. She knew their challenges. She knew their aspirations. She studied them. She lived it. She stayed in touch with them. She never forgot whom she worked with. She never forgot whom she worked for, and she never forgot who sent her to Washington. Jackie also had courage. She was a fearless leader. You see this in your best leaders. She didn't flinch in the face of tough votes. No, Jackie was smart enough to know the consequences, but she wasn't afraid. She did what she thought was right. She did it for the right reasons, and she had enough self-confidence to go explain her votes to her constituents. It was, at once, a confidence in herself, but it was also a confidence in those she represented. She was a leader, confident in her own abilities and confident in the abilities of those around her. If there is a single memory of Jackie's time in this building, the U.S. Capitol and, I would say, her time in the Indiana statehouse, it was that she is indeed a leader. Since Jackie's passing, I have had the opportunity to discuss her service, her life with a number of people, and this keeps coming up. She was a real leader. This is what they are talking about. For all of these amazing qualities, I have to say personally that there is something else that I keep coming back to. It is the first thing I come back to when I think of Jackie, and, frankly, it is very personal to me. I am going to miss Jackie's laughter. She had a beautiful, bellowing laugh, uninhibited, so authentic, not contrived. It came from a place where she appreciated humor. She appreciated, at times, the absurdity of life. She always had a joke at hand or funny observation to make, or maybe she had read something recently she wanted to share with me. But we had so many great laughs together, and she could make my side hurt in fairly short order. I am going to miss that. And it is really hard to believe that our paths won't ever cross again. They crossed so frequently, sometimes in this building but, typically, it was in Indiana's Second Congressional District, back home. It was rare, I would say, that I didn't go into that region and encounter her or, at least, follow in her tracks. She was so active, so engaged. I am going to miss those encounters. Just a few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit with Jackie in person. We shared some laughs, of course. It was at a dinner in Elkhart County. We were scheduled to be together this coming week to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony. She was constantly on the road serving, doing her job. It is not too much to say that that was her calling. It is also not too much to say that Jackie's last breath was spent in service, in service to her constituents, to her God, to the great State of Indiana, to her country, to her calling. Jackie loved and she was ever faithful to all of those things to the great benefit of Indiana and America, and for that I am grateful, for that we loved her back, and we will miss her dearly. Let that be her legacy. I yield to my colleague from Indiana. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. YOUNG | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4153 | null | 4,935 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on August 7, Colombia's newly elected President Gustavo Petro and Vice President Francia Marquez will begin their 4-year term. Their election represents a sharp break from the past. The new government is inheriting every imaginable problem. Regrettably, the country has made minimal progress since the signing of the 2016 Peace Accord that ended five decades of armed conflict with the FARC, and in some parts of the country, narcotics-related violence is worse. The previous government failed to make a dent in the number of assassinations of social leaders or to hold members of the armed forces and police accountable for past atrocities. Compounded by the public health and economic shocks caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and a flood of Venezuelan refugees, Colombia remains a highly polarized society, divided between urban elites and the impoverished countryside. It will take many years to reverse decades of deeply rooted neglect, discrimination, poverty, and lawlessness. Since 2020, the United States has invested more than $11 billion in acounter-drug strategy in Colombia that was never sustainable and has largely failed, as it has failed in Mexico and Central America. As long as the demand for illegal drugs in this country remains high, the only solution in source countries like Colombia is a strategy based on sustainable social and economic development, a professional, accountable police force, and a judiciary that is independent, accessible, and that the people trust. Colombia has the advantage of being a democracy with exceptionally talented people and extraordinary geographic and biological diversity. But if the underlying causes of conflict and poverty are not addressed, the country's future stability is far from assured. I urge the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department against pursuing the same old failed strategies. With a new government in Bogota, there is the chance to avoid repeating past mistakes and to measure progress not in the short term by the amount of money spent or the number of hectares of coca destroyed, but by long-term investments in institutions and local communities. The people of rural Colombia need our support, but not in the form of myopic approaches that have consistently failed to get at the root of the injustice, impunity, and inequality they have been struggling with for generations. The U.S. Congress will do its part to support a strategy designed by the Colombians that is not just more of the same, that is consistent with the peace accord, that has the support of civil society, and, most importantly, that has the support of rural Colombians who have paid the highest price of past policies that have failed them. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4204-10 | null | 4,936 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, on August 7, Colombia's newly elected President Gustavo Petro and Vice President Francia Marquez will begin their 4-year term. Their election represents a sharp break from the past. The new government is inheriting every imaginable problem. Regrettably, the country has made minimal progress since the signing of the 2016 Peace Accord that ended five decades of armed conflict with the FARC, and in some parts of the country, narcotics-related violence is worse. The previous government failed to make a dent in the number of assassinations of social leaders or to hold members of the armed forces and police accountable for past atrocities. Compounded by the public health and economic shocks caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and a flood of Venezuelan refugees, Colombia remains a highly polarized society, divided between urban elites and the impoverished countryside. It will take many years to reverse decades of deeply rooted neglect, discrimination, poverty, and lawlessness. Since 2020, the United States has invested more than $11 billion in acounter-drug strategy in Colombia that was never sustainable and has largely failed, as it has failed in Mexico and Central America. As long as the demand for illegal drugs in this country remains high, the only solution in source countries like Colombia is a strategy based on sustainable social and economic development, a professional, accountable police force, and a judiciary that is independent, accessible, and that the people trust. Colombia has the advantage of being a democracy with exceptionally talented people and extraordinary geographic and biological diversity. But if the underlying causes of conflict and poverty are not addressed, the country's future stability is far from assured. I urge the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department against pursuing the same old failed strategies. With a new government in Bogota, there is the chance to avoid repeating past mistakes and to measure progress not in the short term by the amount of money spent or the number of hectares of coca destroyed, but by long-term investments in institutions and local communities. The people of rural Colombia need our support, but not in the form of myopic approaches that have consistently failed to get at the root of the injustice, impunity, and inequality they have been struggling with for generations. The U.S. Congress will do its part to support a strategy designed by the Colombians that is not just more of the same, that is consistent with the peace accord, that has the support of civil society, and, most importantly, that has the support of rural Colombians who have paid the highest price of past policies that have failed them. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4204-10 | null | 4,937 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have spoken twice this year about the despair and insecurity that are a daily reality for the people of South Sudan, despite independence 11 years ago that held so much promise and hope for that country. On January 6 and 31, I noted that the country's independence was a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement--CPA--which took years of negotiations facilitated in part by the United States, Norway, and the United Kingdom. It provided a roadmap for political stability, economic development, respect for human rights, and justice. I further noted that since then, two former warlords, President Kiir and First Vice President Machar--who were never elected--have dominated the political landscape. It is they, throughout these formative years, who have had the executive power and the responsibility to turn the aspirations of independence into meaningful improvements in the lives of their people. Eleven years later, the country is in a state of political paralysis, and its people are coping with a widening humanitarian crisis, brought on by violence instigated by government security forces, severe flooding, skyrocketing fuel costs, and acute food shortages compounded by the war in Ukraine which was a major source of grain imports for South Sudan. Millions of people have been displaced from their homes by the fighting, flooding, and hunger. I will not take time today to recount the litany of failures of the Kiir-Machar government which I enumerated in January and which have only worsened since then. Rather, I want to call the Senate's attention to a Vatican mission of peace, unity, and reconciliation to South Sudan in early July. The visit by Cardinal Pietro Parolin came at a time when the country's leaders are apparently, though not surprisingly, seeking to evade elections and extend their stay in office illegitimately, even though the peace agreement mandated that elections be held this December. Kiir and Machar have now proposed extending their unpopular authoritarian rule for 3 years without the consent of the people of South Sudan. The parliamentary faction of President Kiir has passed a political parties bill in which they have changed political parties' registration requirements in order to limit those who could pose a serious challenge to their continued hold on power. The text of the bill that was negotiated and agreed to by the parties was changed by Kiir's parliamentary caucus and rammed through the Parliament despite boycott and serious objections from the other parties. All these actions provide sufficient evidence to suggest that President Kiir and Machar are determined to cling to power by any means necessary. It is no secret that President Kiir and his Deputy Machar have made the conditions for holding free and fair elections impossible, for all the reasons noted earlier. The country's leaders have done nothing to prepare for elections, preferring instead to retain power by default. By fomenting civil unrest and violence and threatening and arresting their critics, they have transformed the peace agreement into a meaningless document. Rather than peace and prosperity, it has brought dictatorship, corruption, violence, and misery. As I said on January 31: The sad reality is that while the South Sudanese people won their independence from Sudan, they remain captives of the same ruthless and corrupt warlords who created so much ethnic conflict, bloodshed, and misery during the civil war and who have not been held accountable. They simply reinvented themselves as political leaders, with a stamp of legitimacy from the international community, while continuing to act like the warlords they are and always were. They have shown no interest in implementing the R-ARCSS or any other peace agreement. They have shown no interest in the welfare of their people. They have shown no interest in anything except holding onto power, avoiding justice, and enriching themselves. Real peace requires justice, and it requires respect for fundamental rights regardless of ethnicity, race, or religion. It requires free and fair elections and equitable economic development. Cardinal Pietro Parolin conveyed a clear message to President Kiir and Vice President Machar. Their churches played an indispensable role in the international effort that culminated in the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement, and they, too, have a stake in its success. Above all, President Kiir and Vice President Machar should know that the world is watching. The ethnic and political violence, displacements, and destruction of villages and food stocks perpetrated against South Sudanese civilians in different parts of the country, including by forces loyal to them, must stop. The arbitrary arrests, sexual assaults and rape, forced disappearance, and killings of religious, civil society, and political leaders must stop and justice done for the victims. Those currently detained arbitrarily must be released, including Kuel Aguer Kuel, the former governor of Northern Bahr El-Ghazal, and Pastor Abraham Chol Maketh. The daily corruption in South Sudan, including illegal loans and growing debt burden that has impoverished the current and future generations, must end, and South Sudan must begin to feed and care for its own people from its existing resources, which are sufficient if used prudently. President Kiir and Riek Machar are responsible for the chronic hunger, insecurity, economic, and political crises in the country, and they have the power to bring peace and stability to South Sudan, which is a matter of urgent priority. But the country is certain to disintegrate further if Kiir and Machar continue to hold it hostage to their individual interests at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of the South Sudanese people. They must prepare to step down and allow the country to recover and rebuild from the ruins of their policies. I commend South Sudanese civil society and pro-democracy movements, such as the People's Coalition for Civic Action--PCCA--for their efforts in creating awareness about the plight of the people of South Sudan and for their nonviolent campaign for freedom and democracy. They have our support. Finally, I want to again urge the Biden administration to listen to the people of South Sudan. I commend recent steps by the State Department to recognize the fallacy of continuing to support a failed peace agreement that South Sudan's own leaders do not support, and I urge the European Union and Intergovernmental Authority for Development--IGAD--countries to take similar action. There is no point in admonishing two failed leaders toimplement a peace agreement they have no intention of implementing. That is not a policy. It is a dead end. Instead, the administration should join with other key governments and stakeholders in exploring the possibility of recreating a new political forum for South Sudan to address the challenge of the looming end of the transitional government and the reality of the impracticality of conducting democratic elections in the current environment. Given the failure of the leaders of the current transitional government, it is unacceptable to extend its mandate. It should be brought to an end. I also urge the IGAD governments, particularly President Museveni of Uganda and President Uhuru Kenya of Kenya, and the other regional leaders, to face the fact that the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan--R-ARCSS--they helped mediate has been sabotaged by South Sudan's leaders. The time has come to do what is needed to help the South Sudanese people get back on a path to achieve their democratic aspirations and freedoms. South Sudan needs a new broad-based political dialogue that is inclusive of all political forces and civil society. This political dialogue, which many political parties and organizations have endorsed, should focus on peace and stability in South Sudan beyond the confines of power sharing, taking into account key provisions of the R-ARCSS, combined with the outcomes of the South Sudan national dialogue. Such a broad-based political dialogue should aim at reaffirming a shared vision for South Sudan and building consensus on political and constitutional matters, ending violence, saving lives, uniting the nation, and preparing for elections. The dialogue process should culminate in the establishment of an interim administration led by persons of consensus, technocrats, and individuals not politically aligned with the warring parties and not entangled in corruption and political violence. Such an administration should have a limited mandate to further political dialogue, rebuild public trust in government, strengthen the unified forces, deliver the constitution, return the IDPs and refugees, conduct a census, and culminate in free and fair elections. The Biden administration should articulate a new policy that reinvigorates U.S. engagement and supports peace, stability, and democracy in South Sudan. No one should be under any illusion that this can achieved quickly or easily. But without a competent or credible government to engage with, we must shift our focus to providing strong support to pro-democracy, nonviolent organizations to create the grassroots pressure necessary for a genuine political dialogue to take place and build the foundation for a better future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4205 | null | 4,938 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have spoken twice this year about the despair and insecurity that are a daily reality for the people of South Sudan, despite independence 11 years ago that held so much promise and hope for that country. On January 6 and 31, I noted that the country's independence was a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement--CPA--which took years of negotiations facilitated in part by the United States, Norway, and the United Kingdom. It provided a roadmap for political stability, economic development, respect for human rights, and justice. I further noted that since then, two former warlords, President Kiir and First Vice President Machar--who were never elected--have dominated the political landscape. It is they, throughout these formative years, who have had the executive power and the responsibility to turn the aspirations of independence into meaningful improvements in the lives of their people. Eleven years later, the country is in a state of political paralysis, and its people are coping with a widening humanitarian crisis, brought on by violence instigated by government security forces, severe flooding, skyrocketing fuel costs, and acute food shortages compounded by the war in Ukraine which was a major source of grain imports for South Sudan. Millions of people have been displaced from their homes by the fighting, flooding, and hunger. I will not take time today to recount the litany of failures of the Kiir-Machar government which I enumerated in January and which have only worsened since then. Rather, I want to call the Senate's attention to a Vatican mission of peace, unity, and reconciliation to South Sudan in early July. The visit by Cardinal Pietro Parolin came at a time when the country's leaders are apparently, though not surprisingly, seeking to evade elections and extend their stay in office illegitimately, even though the peace agreement mandated that elections be held this December. Kiir and Machar have now proposed extending their unpopular authoritarian rule for 3 years without the consent of the people of South Sudan. The parliamentary faction of President Kiir has passed a political parties bill in which they have changed political parties' registration requirements in order to limit those who could pose a serious challenge to their continued hold on power. The text of the bill that was negotiated and agreed to by the parties was changed by Kiir's parliamentary caucus and rammed through the Parliament despite boycott and serious objections from the other parties. All these actions provide sufficient evidence to suggest that President Kiir and Machar are determined to cling to power by any means necessary. It is no secret that President Kiir and his Deputy Machar have made the conditions for holding free and fair elections impossible, for all the reasons noted earlier. The country's leaders have done nothing to prepare for elections, preferring instead to retain power by default. By fomenting civil unrest and violence and threatening and arresting their critics, they have transformed the peace agreement into a meaningless document. Rather than peace and prosperity, it has brought dictatorship, corruption, violence, and misery. As I said on January 31: The sad reality is that while the South Sudanese people won their independence from Sudan, they remain captives of the same ruthless and corrupt warlords who created so much ethnic conflict, bloodshed, and misery during the civil war and who have not been held accountable. They simply reinvented themselves as political leaders, with a stamp of legitimacy from the international community, while continuing to act like the warlords they are and always were. They have shown no interest in implementing the R-ARCSS or any other peace agreement. They have shown no interest in the welfare of their people. They have shown no interest in anything except holding onto power, avoiding justice, and enriching themselves. Real peace requires justice, and it requires respect for fundamental rights regardless of ethnicity, race, or religion. It requires free and fair elections and equitable economic development. Cardinal Pietro Parolin conveyed a clear message to President Kiir and Vice President Machar. Their churches played an indispensable role in the international effort that culminated in the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement, and they, too, have a stake in its success. Above all, President Kiir and Vice President Machar should know that the world is watching. The ethnic and political violence, displacements, and destruction of villages and food stocks perpetrated against South Sudanese civilians in different parts of the country, including by forces loyal to them, must stop. The arbitrary arrests, sexual assaults and rape, forced disappearance, and killings of religious, civil society, and political leaders must stop and justice done for the victims. Those currently detained arbitrarily must be released, including Kuel Aguer Kuel, the former governor of Northern Bahr El-Ghazal, and Pastor Abraham Chol Maketh. The daily corruption in South Sudan, including illegal loans and growing debt burden that has impoverished the current and future generations, must end, and South Sudan must begin to feed and care for its own people from its existing resources, which are sufficient if used prudently. President Kiir and Riek Machar are responsible for the chronic hunger, insecurity, economic, and political crises in the country, and they have the power to bring peace and stability to South Sudan, which is a matter of urgent priority. But the country is certain to disintegrate further if Kiir and Machar continue to hold it hostage to their individual interests at the expense of the lives and livelihoods of the South Sudanese people. They must prepare to step down and allow the country to recover and rebuild from the ruins of their policies. I commend South Sudanese civil society and pro-democracy movements, such as the People's Coalition for Civic Action--PCCA--for their efforts in creating awareness about the plight of the people of South Sudan and for their nonviolent campaign for freedom and democracy. They have our support. Finally, I want to again urge the Biden administration to listen to the people of South Sudan. I commend recent steps by the State Department to recognize the fallacy of continuing to support a failed peace agreement that South Sudan's own leaders do not support, and I urge the European Union and Intergovernmental Authority for Development--IGAD--countries to take similar action. There is no point in admonishing two failed leaders toimplement a peace agreement they have no intention of implementing. That is not a policy. It is a dead end. Instead, the administration should join with other key governments and stakeholders in exploring the possibility of recreating a new political forum for South Sudan to address the challenge of the looming end of the transitional government and the reality of the impracticality of conducting democratic elections in the current environment. Given the failure of the leaders of the current transitional government, it is unacceptable to extend its mandate. It should be brought to an end. I also urge the IGAD governments, particularly President Museveni of Uganda and President Uhuru Kenya of Kenya, and the other regional leaders, to face the fact that the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan--R-ARCSS--they helped mediate has been sabotaged by South Sudan's leaders. The time has come to do what is needed to help the South Sudanese people get back on a path to achieve their democratic aspirations and freedoms. South Sudan needs a new broad-based political dialogue that is inclusive of all political forces and civil society. This political dialogue, which many political parties and organizations have endorsed, should focus on peace and stability in South Sudan beyond the confines of power sharing, taking into account key provisions of the R-ARCSS, combined with the outcomes of the South Sudan national dialogue. Such a broad-based political dialogue should aim at reaffirming a shared vision for South Sudan and building consensus on political and constitutional matters, ending violence, saving lives, uniting the nation, and preparing for elections. The dialogue process should culminate in the establishment of an interim administration led by persons of consensus, technocrats, and individuals not politically aligned with the warring parties and not entangled in corruption and political violence. Such an administration should have a limited mandate to further political dialogue, rebuild public trust in government, strengthen the unified forces, deliver the constitution, return the IDPs and refugees, conduct a census, and culminate in free and fair elections. The Biden administration should articulate a new policy that reinvigorates U.S. engagement and supports peace, stability, and democracy in South Sudan. No one should be under any illusion that this can achieved quickly or easily. But without a competent or credible government to engage with, we must shift our focus to providing strong support to pro-democracy, nonviolent organizations to create the grassroots pressure necessary for a genuine political dialogue to take place and build the foundation for a better future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4205 | null | 4,939 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have long fought to protect victims of violent crime. Victims of sexual assault, especially children who are victimized by sexual predators, must be safeguarded. I have worked to ensure the Violence Against Women Act is funded. I steered through the Senate and into law the Survivor's Bill of Rights in the States Act. And I have introduced the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to support victims of human trafficking. I have fought and will continue to fight for victims of violent crime. When I was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing on protecting young athletes from sexual abuse. I conducted aggressive oversight into the U.S. Olympic Committee's response following the scandal involving disgraced Olympic physician Larry Nassar. And I worked to ensure that the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act became law, which requires instructors, coaches, and others who work with young athletes to report cases of child sexual abuse to the authorities. But more needs to be done. I continue to press the Department of Justice for more answers on the FBI's handling of the Nassar case and why Nassar wasn't federally charged for his heinous physical abuse against our Olympic gymnasts. My oversight in this area has brought to the surface more information about how our legal system fails victims of abuse, especially children. Our outdated laws aren't keeping pace with how predators develop new tricks and use new technology. Children are a gift, but they are vulnerable. They must be protected--not taken advantage of. As a father and a grandfather, the safety and welfare of the next generation is a deeply personal issue to me. Today, I am pleased to announce that I, along with Senator Ossoff, am introducing the Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Act. We are confident this bill will make children--both at home and around the world--safer from the predators who want to sexually abuse them. I have worked extensively with the Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to get their feedback and hear about what legislative tools they need to protect children. I look forward to continuing this partnership with them as we improve this legislation. Victims and advocacy groups focused on this issue endorse this bill, including: U.S. Olympic medalist Tasha Schwikert, the Army of Survivors, the National and International Centers for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Stop Child Predators, Rights4Girls, the Keep Kids Safe Movement, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and the Iowa County Attorneys Association. I appreciate their contributions and suggestions in improving this bill and their tireless efforts to keep children safe from the scourge of this kind of abuse. This bill gives prosecutors more tools in their toolbox to get child abusers away from children. One of the sections in my bill will now make it possible for Federal prosecutors to charge the likes of Larry Nassar with a Federal crime for his abuse of our gymnasts. Another section ensures that Americans who travel abroad under the guise of business or charitable work to abuse children will be held accountable. The final section of this bill modernizes our understanding of child sexual abuse in the digital age. I wish legislation like this wasn't necessary, but it is. We have to crack down on violent crime against children, and we shouldn't wait another minute to act. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to pass this legislation quickly and keep our children safe from predators. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4207 | null | 4,940 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senate Democrats have stepped up and passed legislation that will make it easier for American families to afford health insurance coverage and prescription drugs and lower energy costs and boost domestic job creation in the growing clean energy sector. We have done so while reducing the deficit and without raising taxes on families and small businesses. The Inflation Reduction Act--IRA--tackles climate change, makes the Tax Code fairer, and invests in long-overdue environmental justice programs. This is an historic bill, and polling indicates that large majorities of Americans support its major provisions. While a simple majority of Senators can pass a budget reconciliation bill, there was nothing to prevent our Republican colleagues from joining us in supporting this measure to lower essential costs for American families and enhance our economic and national security. These are policies that all Senators and all Members of Congress should embrace, and this legislation contains many bipartisan policies. Reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. Just in the past year, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--IIJA--the CHIPS + Science semiconductor manufacturing bill, the Honoring Our PACT Act, and Treaty Document No. 117-3, which contains Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, with strong bipartisan majorities. I regret that our Republican colleagues did not join us today in passing the IRA. As for me, if asked to choose between the status quo or lowering health coverage costs for Maryland families and having large companies pay a minimum, fair share of taxes, there is no contest. I will choose Maryland families every day. I find it incomprehensible that anyone--other than perhaps some billionaires--thinks it is acceptable that teachers, nurses, and mechanics and most small businesses often pay a greater percentage of their income in Federal taxes than the ultrawealthy or a company that makes billions of dollars in profits. The bill we passed today changes that calculation and holds the richest Americans and companies that make over a billion dollars accountable for paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else in this country. This past Wednesday, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers issued the following statement: As former Treasury Secretaries of both Democratic and Republican Administrations, we support the Inflation Reduction Act, which is financed by prudent tax policy that will collect more from top-earners and large corporations. Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000/year. And the extra taxes levied on corporations do not reflect increases in the corporate tax rate, but rather the reclaiming of revenue lost to tax avoidance and provisions benefitting the most affluent. The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices, and from more affordable energy. This legislation will help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation--and should be passed immediately by Congress. The original top-line estimates from the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation--JCT--were that the bill would raise $725 billion in revenue, invest $433 billion, and apply the balance--nearly $300 billion--to deficit reduction. These numbers will change some with the final score, but they illustrate the magnitude of what this bill will accomplish. The IRA will help to build a better America for all Americans. Let's start with health care. The bill we passed today will lower prescription drug prices and make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to negotiate lower drug prices for the Medicare Program, benefitting both millions of seniors on fixed incomes and taxpayers. In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. Medicare negotiation will ensure that patients with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs, saving Medicare approximately $100 billion. The IRA will further lower drug costs for seniors by capping out-of-pocket costs for part D prescriptions at $2,000 each year, requiring drug manufacturers to pay penalties if they raise their prices faster than inflation, and delaying of the Trump administration's drug rebate rule. Although these provisions alone will lower beneficiary costs, the IRA also lowers costs through a redesign of the Medicare Part D formula, expansion of the low-income subsidy--LIS--in part D, and Federal coverage for vaccines. The IRA also invests $64 billion to extend ACA healthcare premium subsidies through 2025. These subsidies, first provided through the American Rescue Plan, have guaranteed millions of Americans access to affordable health insurance. Access to affordable health insurance saves lives and reduces costs because people get the care they need and they get it sooner. As Benjamin Franklin said, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The IRA will save Maryland families with median income about $2,200 annually. The IRA raises several hundred billion dollars by making the Tax Code fairer through three major provisions. The first provides up to $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--to modernize its computer systems, some of which are 60 years old, and rebuild its workforce to ensure greater tax compliance. CBO estimates that investing $80 billion in tax enforcement and compliance will generate $203 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years. Since 2010, the IRS budget has been cut by roughly 20 percent, and the budget earmarked for enforcement has dropped by 24 percent. Audit rates for the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy have fallen dramatically, by 54 and 71 percent, respectively. We now have the perverse situation where the poorest American families are audited at about the same rate as the top 1 percent richest taxpayers, even though that 1 percent is responsible for 28 percent the ``tax gap,'' the difference between taxes owed and collected. According to recent polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the IRS should conduct more tax audits of large corporations and millionaires. The IRA provides 10-year funding for the IRS as follows: $3.2 billion for taxpayer services; $45.6 billion for enforcement; $25.3 billion for operations support; and $4.8 billion for business systems modernization. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031, and no use of the funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. The bill also makes it easier for the IRS to establish a free, direct e-file tax return system. The IRS currently outsources its free e-file program to private, for-profit tax preparers. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent of taxpayers--of 70 percent eligible--use the existing free e-file option. The second major provision establishes a minimum corporate income tax of 15 percent of book income on fewer than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations that currently pay less than the statutory corporate tax rate, which is 21 percent. The corporate alternative minimum tax--CAMT--proposal would impose the 15 percent minimum tax on adjusted financial statement--``book''--income for corporations with profits in excess of $1 billion. Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extentthe regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15 percent of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income. In 2020, 50 of the biggest corporations paid $0 in Federal corporate income tax, despite recording substantial profits. Some of these companies effectively had a negative Federal income tax because they received more in credits and rebates than they paid in taxes. The AMT makes the existing corporate tax structure fairer, especially for smaller businesses that often pay their taxes at higher rates than the largest corporations. Consider that many small businesses pay taxes through the individual tax code, where the highest tax rate is as much as 37 percent. Setting a baseline of taxes to be paid by the largest corporations gives small businesses a better chance to compete and succeed. The third provision is a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. Corporations can choose to distribute profits either by issuing dividends or buying back shares of stock, which inflates stock prices. Stock buybacks are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and create profit gaming opportunities for companies, which have been abused over time. By levying a small 1 percent tax on these buyback transactions, it improves tax efficiency and raises revenue that will significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The IRA's tax provisions will increase compliance and close the tax gap, which costs the U.S. $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes, according to the IRS. That is important for the revenue they raise. It is also important that millions of hard-working Americans who play by the rules and pay their taxes believe that the system is fair and that the ultrawealthy and large corporations aren't dodging their financial responsibilities. We need to address climate change by rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA does that. It will cut our emissions by 40 percent or more by 2030 and put us on track to meet 70 percent of our Paris agreement obligations. It contains a Methane Emissions Reduction Program to reduce leaks from the production and distribution of oil and natural gas. The IRA contains roughly $370 billion in clean energy, energy security, and climate change investments that will lower Americans' electricity bills and prices at the pump and create as many as 9 million good-paying jobs here in America in the clean energy sector over the next decade. I am pleased the IRA includes a provision I have championed, a production tax credit for our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. They are an essential source of baseload power and provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and over 50 percent of our carbon-free electricity. According to the non-partisan Resources for the Future, all told, the IRA will drive down retail costs of electricity by 5.2-6.7 percent over the next decade, saving electricity consumers $209-$278 billion. The average household will experience approximately $170-$220 in annual savings from smaller electricity bills and reductions in the costs of goods and services over the next decade. The clean energy investments will help to insulate ratepayers from volatility in natural gas prices, with electricity rates projected to decrease even under a high natural gas price scenario. More importantly, the IRA will bolster our economic and national security by strengthening our grid and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. The legislation also includes a historic expansion of a tax program I have led, the section 179D energy efficient commercial buildings deduction, which provides a tax deduction for energy efficient building investments. Energy efficiency is good business and good policy. This legislation will expand section 179D, which was made permanent in 2020 under my leadership, to increase the deduction amount, improve its administration, allow more nonprofits to use the deduction, and expand its use to building retrofits. In addition to the important steps the IRA takes to advance clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill delivers major Federal investments to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient in the face of increasing impacts of climate change. It provides Federal assistance for monitoring environmental quality, mitigating the harmful impacts of air pollution and excessive heat, and enhancing walkability in our neighborhoods. It does this through $3 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. By targeting resources to disadvantaged or underserved communities, the bill advances equity in our infrastructure planning and investments. Climate change is happening now. We need to address its impacts on the ground. The IRA invests $2.6 billion for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, as well as $250 million to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and State wildlife management areas. The bill supports America's farmers and rural communities, with around $20 billion in funds for climate-smart agricultural practices through existing farm bill conservation programs, including the regional conservation partnership program--RCPP--and $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. Many sustainable practices such as expanding cover crops and riparian buffers that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change also cost-effectively reduce pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. The IRA makes investments to accelerate clean energy deployment, help achieve our climate goals, and create millions of jobs over the next decade. These investments include an expanded tax credit to support domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries; and tax credits that will make battery and fuel cell electric vehicles--EVs--more affordable for millions of families. The bill provides over $9 billion for Federal procurement of American-made clean technologies, including $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emission vehicles, helping to create a stable market for clean, Made in America products. Researchers Robert Pollin, Chirag Lala, and Shouvik Chakraborty at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute estimate that the IRA's more than 100 climate, environmental, and energy provisions will generate an average of about 912,000 jobs each year over the next decade through combined annual public and private investments of $98 billion. The IRA tax credits and other provisions won't just help create jobs; they will help create jobs that pay prevailing wages. The middle class has experienced wage stagnation for half a century. Income inequality has grown. The IRA will help to rebuild the middle class. Unions from the Communication Workers of America and the United Auto Workers to the National Treasury Employees Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers all support the IRA because it promotes union jobs and apprenticeships and because it will lower healthcare costs. In May, the Treasury Department estimated that the budget deficit this year will decline by $1.5 trillion. As President Biden noted at the time, ``The bottom line is that the deficit went up every year under my predecessor before the pandemic and during the pandemic. And it's gone down both years since I've been here. Period.'' The IRA is fiscally responsible and will help reduce our budget deficits. Deficits remain too high, of course, but one of the best ways to address them is by getting unemployed Americans back to work. The July jobs report released on Friday put the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent, matching the lowest it has been in 50 years. The U.S. economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than twice the number economists anticipated. As Myles Udland, Senior Markets Editor of Yahoo! Finance, stated, This staggering increase in employment completes a milestone for the U.S. economy: Pre-pandemic employment is now fully restored. In February 2020, the last month before the COVID-19 pandemic tipped the U.S. economy into recession, there were 152.504 million people employed in the U.S. As of July 2022, 152.536 million people in the U.S. were working. And despite the labor market contraction during the pandemic being the sharpest in modern history, the bounce back marks the second-fastest job market recovery since 1981. In a little over two years, we've seen job losses that topped 20 million at one point be fully erased. This recovery stands in stark contrast to the malaise we saw in the labor market following the financial crisis, when it took the better part of a decade for pre-crisis employment levels to be restored. Inflation is also too high, but its root causes are COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. The IRA tackles these disruptions by promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chains and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. On August 2, 2022, over 120 prominent economists wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership stating that the IRA ``addresses some of the country's biggest challenges at a significant scale. And because it is deficit-reducing, it does so while putting downward pressure on inflation.'' There is much to celebrate in this bill, but there are many priorities that we were not able to add. This ``to do'' list includes reinstating the expanded child tax credit and making child care accessible and affordable. My priority list includes legislation I have long championed to expand dental coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as to Medicaid beneficiaries, along with expansions to home and community-based and maternal health services. Congress also needs to address housing supply and economic development priorities, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the Historic Tax Credit. While the IRA will help create good-paying union jobs, we need to do more to protect and enhance workers' rights to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining. And I will continue working to fund water infrastructure programs the IIJA created to address urgent affordability and resilience issues. While that seems like a long list, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the IRA is so much better than good. It is transformational legislation, and I am proud to support it. I want to commend Majority Leader Schumer and so many of my colleagues who have worked diligently both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to bring us to this point. I also want to acknowledge committee and personal staff; CBO and JCT staff; Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and her crew; leadership, floor, and cloakroom staff; the Senate legislative counsels; and others. You toil anonymously, but I hope you know how important you are. The Senate could not function without you. You are among our Nation's finest public servants, and you are making a critical difference in the lives of all Americans. The American essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, ``Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it''--a quote commonly misattributed to his friend Mark Twain. Passing a reconciliation bill is like that. We all complain about the process, especially the so-called vote-a-rama, which is grueling and grinding and befuddling to just about everyone, but we don't fix it. In fact, it seems to get worse each time, not better. I know I would prefer not to go through the process again, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan before it have been worth it. Dahlia Rockowitz, Washington director of Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, noted that the Senate consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act began on the Shabbat and Tisha B'Av, a Jewish day of collective mourning for historic destructions. But as she pointed out, `` . . . according to Jewish tradition, this day of despair is also the day that new hope and the potential of a rebuilt, reimagined, redeemed world is born. These investments in clean energy and transportation can help us emerge from climate-fueled disasters to a more hopeful, clean energy future for generations to come.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4210 | null | 4,941 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senate Democrats have stepped up and passed legislation that will make it easier for American families to afford health insurance coverage and prescription drugs and lower energy costs and boost domestic job creation in the growing clean energy sector. We have done so while reducing the deficit and without raising taxes on families and small businesses. The Inflation Reduction Act--IRA--tackles climate change, makes the Tax Code fairer, and invests in long-overdue environmental justice programs. This is an historic bill, and polling indicates that large majorities of Americans support its major provisions. While a simple majority of Senators can pass a budget reconciliation bill, there was nothing to prevent our Republican colleagues from joining us in supporting this measure to lower essential costs for American families and enhance our economic and national security. These are policies that all Senators and all Members of Congress should embrace, and this legislation contains many bipartisan policies. Reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. Just in the past year, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--IIJA--the CHIPS + Science semiconductor manufacturing bill, the Honoring Our PACT Act, and Treaty Document No. 117-3, which contains Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, with strong bipartisan majorities. I regret that our Republican colleagues did not join us today in passing the IRA. As for me, if asked to choose between the status quo or lowering health coverage costs for Maryland families and having large companies pay a minimum, fair share of taxes, there is no contest. I will choose Maryland families every day. I find it incomprehensible that anyone--other than perhaps some billionaires--thinks it is acceptable that teachers, nurses, and mechanics and most small businesses often pay a greater percentage of their income in Federal taxes than the ultrawealthy or a company that makes billions of dollars in profits. The bill we passed today changes that calculation and holds the richest Americans and companies that make over a billion dollars accountable for paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else in this country. This past Wednesday, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers issued the following statement: As former Treasury Secretaries of both Democratic and Republican Administrations, we support the Inflation Reduction Act, which is financed by prudent tax policy that will collect more from top-earners and large corporations. Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000/year. And the extra taxes levied on corporations do not reflect increases in the corporate tax rate, but rather the reclaiming of revenue lost to tax avoidance and provisions benefitting the most affluent. The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices, and from more affordable energy. This legislation will help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation--and should be passed immediately by Congress. The original top-line estimates from the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation--JCT--were that the bill would raise $725 billion in revenue, invest $433 billion, and apply the balance--nearly $300 billion--to deficit reduction. These numbers will change some with the final score, but they illustrate the magnitude of what this bill will accomplish. The IRA will help to build a better America for all Americans. Let's start with health care. The bill we passed today will lower prescription drug prices and make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to negotiate lower drug prices for the Medicare Program, benefitting both millions of seniors on fixed incomes and taxpayers. In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. Medicare negotiation will ensure that patients with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs, saving Medicare approximately $100 billion. The IRA will further lower drug costs for seniors by capping out-of-pocket costs for part D prescriptions at $2,000 each year, requiring drug manufacturers to pay penalties if they raise their prices faster than inflation, and delaying of the Trump administration's drug rebate rule. Although these provisions alone will lower beneficiary costs, the IRA also lowers costs through a redesign of the Medicare Part D formula, expansion of the low-income subsidy--LIS--in part D, and Federal coverage for vaccines. The IRA also invests $64 billion to extend ACA healthcare premium subsidies through 2025. These subsidies, first provided through the American Rescue Plan, have guaranteed millions of Americans access to affordable health insurance. Access to affordable health insurance saves lives and reduces costs because people get the care they need and they get it sooner. As Benjamin Franklin said, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The IRA will save Maryland families with median income about $2,200 annually. The IRA raises several hundred billion dollars by making the Tax Code fairer through three major provisions. The first provides up to $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--to modernize its computer systems, some of which are 60 years old, and rebuild its workforce to ensure greater tax compliance. CBO estimates that investing $80 billion in tax enforcement and compliance will generate $203 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years. Since 2010, the IRS budget has been cut by roughly 20 percent, and the budget earmarked for enforcement has dropped by 24 percent. Audit rates for the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy have fallen dramatically, by 54 and 71 percent, respectively. We now have the perverse situation where the poorest American families are audited at about the same rate as the top 1 percent richest taxpayers, even though that 1 percent is responsible for 28 percent the ``tax gap,'' the difference between taxes owed and collected. According to recent polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the IRS should conduct more tax audits of large corporations and millionaires. The IRA provides 10-year funding for the IRS as follows: $3.2 billion for taxpayer services; $45.6 billion for enforcement; $25.3 billion for operations support; and $4.8 billion for business systems modernization. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031, and no use of the funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. The bill also makes it easier for the IRS to establish a free, direct e-file tax return system. The IRS currently outsources its free e-file program to private, for-profit tax preparers. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent of taxpayers--of 70 percent eligible--use the existing free e-file option. The second major provision establishes a minimum corporate income tax of 15 percent of book income on fewer than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations that currently pay less than the statutory corporate tax rate, which is 21 percent. The corporate alternative minimum tax--CAMT--proposal would impose the 15 percent minimum tax on adjusted financial statement--``book''--income for corporations with profits in excess of $1 billion. Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extentthe regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15 percent of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income. In 2020, 50 of the biggest corporations paid $0 in Federal corporate income tax, despite recording substantial profits. Some of these companies effectively had a negative Federal income tax because they received more in credits and rebates than they paid in taxes. The AMT makes the existing corporate tax structure fairer, especially for smaller businesses that often pay their taxes at higher rates than the largest corporations. Consider that many small businesses pay taxes through the individual tax code, where the highest tax rate is as much as 37 percent. Setting a baseline of taxes to be paid by the largest corporations gives small businesses a better chance to compete and succeed. The third provision is a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. Corporations can choose to distribute profits either by issuing dividends or buying back shares of stock, which inflates stock prices. Stock buybacks are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and create profit gaming opportunities for companies, which have been abused over time. By levying a small 1 percent tax on these buyback transactions, it improves tax efficiency and raises revenue that will significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The IRA's tax provisions will increase compliance and close the tax gap, which costs the U.S. $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes, according to the IRS. That is important for the revenue they raise. It is also important that millions of hard-working Americans who play by the rules and pay their taxes believe that the system is fair and that the ultrawealthy and large corporations aren't dodging their financial responsibilities. We need to address climate change by rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA does that. It will cut our emissions by 40 percent or more by 2030 and put us on track to meet 70 percent of our Paris agreement obligations. It contains a Methane Emissions Reduction Program to reduce leaks from the production and distribution of oil and natural gas. The IRA contains roughly $370 billion in clean energy, energy security, and climate change investments that will lower Americans' electricity bills and prices at the pump and create as many as 9 million good-paying jobs here in America in the clean energy sector over the next decade. I am pleased the IRA includes a provision I have championed, a production tax credit for our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. They are an essential source of baseload power and provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and over 50 percent of our carbon-free electricity. According to the non-partisan Resources for the Future, all told, the IRA will drive down retail costs of electricity by 5.2-6.7 percent over the next decade, saving electricity consumers $209-$278 billion. The average household will experience approximately $170-$220 in annual savings from smaller electricity bills and reductions in the costs of goods and services over the next decade. The clean energy investments will help to insulate ratepayers from volatility in natural gas prices, with electricity rates projected to decrease even under a high natural gas price scenario. More importantly, the IRA will bolster our economic and national security by strengthening our grid and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. The legislation also includes a historic expansion of a tax program I have led, the section 179D energy efficient commercial buildings deduction, which provides a tax deduction for energy efficient building investments. Energy efficiency is good business and good policy. This legislation will expand section 179D, which was made permanent in 2020 under my leadership, to increase the deduction amount, improve its administration, allow more nonprofits to use the deduction, and expand its use to building retrofits. In addition to the important steps the IRA takes to advance clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill delivers major Federal investments to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient in the face of increasing impacts of climate change. It provides Federal assistance for monitoring environmental quality, mitigating the harmful impacts of air pollution and excessive heat, and enhancing walkability in our neighborhoods. It does this through $3 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. By targeting resources to disadvantaged or underserved communities, the bill advances equity in our infrastructure planning and investments. Climate change is happening now. We need to address its impacts on the ground. The IRA invests $2.6 billion for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, as well as $250 million to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and State wildlife management areas. The bill supports America's farmers and rural communities, with around $20 billion in funds for climate-smart agricultural practices through existing farm bill conservation programs, including the regional conservation partnership program--RCPP--and $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. Many sustainable practices such as expanding cover crops and riparian buffers that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change also cost-effectively reduce pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. The IRA makes investments to accelerate clean energy deployment, help achieve our climate goals, and create millions of jobs over the next decade. These investments include an expanded tax credit to support domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries; and tax credits that will make battery and fuel cell electric vehicles--EVs--more affordable for millions of families. The bill provides over $9 billion for Federal procurement of American-made clean technologies, including $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emission vehicles, helping to create a stable market for clean, Made in America products. Researchers Robert Pollin, Chirag Lala, and Shouvik Chakraborty at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute estimate that the IRA's more than 100 climate, environmental, and energy provisions will generate an average of about 912,000 jobs each year over the next decade through combined annual public and private investments of $98 billion. The IRA tax credits and other provisions won't just help create jobs; they will help create jobs that pay prevailing wages. The middle class has experienced wage stagnation for half a century. Income inequality has grown. The IRA will help to rebuild the middle class. Unions from the Communication Workers of America and the United Auto Workers to the National Treasury Employees Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers all support the IRA because it promotes union jobs and apprenticeships and because it will lower healthcare costs. In May, the Treasury Department estimated that the budget deficit this year will decline by $1.5 trillion. As President Biden noted at the time, ``The bottom line is that the deficit went up every year under my predecessor before the pandemic and during the pandemic. And it's gone down both years since I've been here. Period.'' The IRA is fiscally responsible and will help reduce our budget deficits. Deficits remain too high, of course, but one of the best ways to address them is by getting unemployed Americans back to work. The July jobs report released on Friday put the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent, matching the lowest it has been in 50 years. The U.S. economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than twice the number economists anticipated. As Myles Udland, Senior Markets Editor of Yahoo! Finance, stated, This staggering increase in employment completes a milestone for the U.S. economy: Pre-pandemic employment is now fully restored. In February 2020, the last month before the COVID-19 pandemic tipped the U.S. economy into recession, there were 152.504 million people employed in the U.S. As of July 2022, 152.536 million people in the U.S. were working. And despite the labor market contraction during the pandemic being the sharpest in modern history, the bounce back marks the second-fastest job market recovery since 1981. In a little over two years, we've seen job losses that topped 20 million at one point be fully erased. This recovery stands in stark contrast to the malaise we saw in the labor market following the financial crisis, when it took the better part of a decade for pre-crisis employment levels to be restored. Inflation is also too high, but its root causes are COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. The IRA tackles these disruptions by promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chains and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. On August 2, 2022, over 120 prominent economists wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership stating that the IRA ``addresses some of the country's biggest challenges at a significant scale. And because it is deficit-reducing, it does so while putting downward pressure on inflation.'' There is much to celebrate in this bill, but there are many priorities that we were not able to add. This ``to do'' list includes reinstating the expanded child tax credit and making child care accessible and affordable. My priority list includes legislation I have long championed to expand dental coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as to Medicaid beneficiaries, along with expansions to home and community-based and maternal health services. Congress also needs to address housing supply and economic development priorities, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the Historic Tax Credit. While the IRA will help create good-paying union jobs, we need to do more to protect and enhance workers' rights to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining. And I will continue working to fund water infrastructure programs the IIJA created to address urgent affordability and resilience issues. While that seems like a long list, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the IRA is so much better than good. It is transformational legislation, and I am proud to support it. I want to commend Majority Leader Schumer and so many of my colleagues who have worked diligently both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to bring us to this point. I also want to acknowledge committee and personal staff; CBO and JCT staff; Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and her crew; leadership, floor, and cloakroom staff; the Senate legislative counsels; and others. You toil anonymously, but I hope you know how important you are. The Senate could not function without you. You are among our Nation's finest public servants, and you are making a critical difference in the lives of all Americans. The American essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, ``Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it''--a quote commonly misattributed to his friend Mark Twain. Passing a reconciliation bill is like that. We all complain about the process, especially the so-called vote-a-rama, which is grueling and grinding and befuddling to just about everyone, but we don't fix it. In fact, it seems to get worse each time, not better. I know I would prefer not to go through the process again, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan before it have been worth it. Dahlia Rockowitz, Washington director of Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, noted that the Senate consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act began on the Shabbat and Tisha B'Av, a Jewish day of collective mourning for historic destructions. But as she pointed out, `` . . . according to Jewish tradition, this day of despair is also the day that new hope and the potential of a rebuilt, reimagined, redeemed world is born. These investments in clean energy and transportation can help us emerge from climate-fueled disasters to a more hopeful, clean energy future for generations to come.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4210 | null | 4,942 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senate Democrats have stepped up and passed legislation that will make it easier for American families to afford health insurance coverage and prescription drugs and lower energy costs and boost domestic job creation in the growing clean energy sector. We have done so while reducing the deficit and without raising taxes on families and small businesses. The Inflation Reduction Act--IRA--tackles climate change, makes the Tax Code fairer, and invests in long-overdue environmental justice programs. This is an historic bill, and polling indicates that large majorities of Americans support its major provisions. While a simple majority of Senators can pass a budget reconciliation bill, there was nothing to prevent our Republican colleagues from joining us in supporting this measure to lower essential costs for American families and enhance our economic and national security. These are policies that all Senators and all Members of Congress should embrace, and this legislation contains many bipartisan policies. Reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. Just in the past year, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--IIJA--the CHIPS + Science semiconductor manufacturing bill, the Honoring Our PACT Act, and Treaty Document No. 117-3, which contains Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, with strong bipartisan majorities. I regret that our Republican colleagues did not join us today in passing the IRA. As for me, if asked to choose between the status quo or lowering health coverage costs for Maryland families and having large companies pay a minimum, fair share of taxes, there is no contest. I will choose Maryland families every day. I find it incomprehensible that anyone--other than perhaps some billionaires--thinks it is acceptable that teachers, nurses, and mechanics and most small businesses often pay a greater percentage of their income in Federal taxes than the ultrawealthy or a company that makes billions of dollars in profits. The bill we passed today changes that calculation and holds the richest Americans and companies that make over a billion dollars accountable for paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else in this country. This past Wednesday, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers issued the following statement: As former Treasury Secretaries of both Democratic and Republican Administrations, we support the Inflation Reduction Act, which is financed by prudent tax policy that will collect more from top-earners and large corporations. Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000/year. And the extra taxes levied on corporations do not reflect increases in the corporate tax rate, but rather the reclaiming of revenue lost to tax avoidance and provisions benefitting the most affluent. The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices, and from more affordable energy. This legislation will help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation--and should be passed immediately by Congress. The original top-line estimates from the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation--JCT--were that the bill would raise $725 billion in revenue, invest $433 billion, and apply the balance--nearly $300 billion--to deficit reduction. These numbers will change some with the final score, but they illustrate the magnitude of what this bill will accomplish. The IRA will help to build a better America for all Americans. Let's start with health care. The bill we passed today will lower prescription drug prices and make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to negotiate lower drug prices for the Medicare Program, benefitting both millions of seniors on fixed incomes and taxpayers. In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. Medicare negotiation will ensure that patients with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs, saving Medicare approximately $100 billion. The IRA will further lower drug costs for seniors by capping out-of-pocket costs for part D prescriptions at $2,000 each year, requiring drug manufacturers to pay penalties if they raise their prices faster than inflation, and delaying of the Trump administration's drug rebate rule. Although these provisions alone will lower beneficiary costs, the IRA also lowers costs through a redesign of the Medicare Part D formula, expansion of the low-income subsidy--LIS--in part D, and Federal coverage for vaccines. The IRA also invests $64 billion to extend ACA healthcare premium subsidies through 2025. These subsidies, first provided through the American Rescue Plan, have guaranteed millions of Americans access to affordable health insurance. Access to affordable health insurance saves lives and reduces costs because people get the care they need and they get it sooner. As Benjamin Franklin said, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The IRA will save Maryland families with median income about $2,200 annually. The IRA raises several hundred billion dollars by making the Tax Code fairer through three major provisions. The first provides up to $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--to modernize its computer systems, some of which are 60 years old, and rebuild its workforce to ensure greater tax compliance. CBO estimates that investing $80 billion in tax enforcement and compliance will generate $203 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years. Since 2010, the IRS budget has been cut by roughly 20 percent, and the budget earmarked for enforcement has dropped by 24 percent. Audit rates for the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy have fallen dramatically, by 54 and 71 percent, respectively. We now have the perverse situation where the poorest American families are audited at about the same rate as the top 1 percent richest taxpayers, even though that 1 percent is responsible for 28 percent the ``tax gap,'' the difference between taxes owed and collected. According to recent polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the IRS should conduct more tax audits of large corporations and millionaires. The IRA provides 10-year funding for the IRS as follows: $3.2 billion for taxpayer services; $45.6 billion for enforcement; $25.3 billion for operations support; and $4.8 billion for business systems modernization. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031, and no use of the funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. The bill also makes it easier for the IRS to establish a free, direct e-file tax return system. The IRS currently outsources its free e-file program to private, for-profit tax preparers. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent of taxpayers--of 70 percent eligible--use the existing free e-file option. The second major provision establishes a minimum corporate income tax of 15 percent of book income on fewer than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations that currently pay less than the statutory corporate tax rate, which is 21 percent. The corporate alternative minimum tax--CAMT--proposal would impose the 15 percent minimum tax on adjusted financial statement--``book''--income for corporations with profits in excess of $1 billion. Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extentthe regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15 percent of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income. In 2020, 50 of the biggest corporations paid $0 in Federal corporate income tax, despite recording substantial profits. Some of these companies effectively had a negative Federal income tax because they received more in credits and rebates than they paid in taxes. The AMT makes the existing corporate tax structure fairer, especially for smaller businesses that often pay their taxes at higher rates than the largest corporations. Consider that many small businesses pay taxes through the individual tax code, where the highest tax rate is as much as 37 percent. Setting a baseline of taxes to be paid by the largest corporations gives small businesses a better chance to compete and succeed. The third provision is a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. Corporations can choose to distribute profits either by issuing dividends or buying back shares of stock, which inflates stock prices. Stock buybacks are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and create profit gaming opportunities for companies, which have been abused over time. By levying a small 1 percent tax on these buyback transactions, it improves tax efficiency and raises revenue that will significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The IRA's tax provisions will increase compliance and close the tax gap, which costs the U.S. $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes, according to the IRS. That is important for the revenue they raise. It is also important that millions of hard-working Americans who play by the rules and pay their taxes believe that the system is fair and that the ultrawealthy and large corporations aren't dodging their financial responsibilities. We need to address climate change by rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA does that. It will cut our emissions by 40 percent or more by 2030 and put us on track to meet 70 percent of our Paris agreement obligations. It contains a Methane Emissions Reduction Program to reduce leaks from the production and distribution of oil and natural gas. The IRA contains roughly $370 billion in clean energy, energy security, and climate change investments that will lower Americans' electricity bills and prices at the pump and create as many as 9 million good-paying jobs here in America in the clean energy sector over the next decade. I am pleased the IRA includes a provision I have championed, a production tax credit for our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. They are an essential source of baseload power and provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and over 50 percent of our carbon-free electricity. According to the non-partisan Resources for the Future, all told, the IRA will drive down retail costs of electricity by 5.2-6.7 percent over the next decade, saving electricity consumers $209-$278 billion. The average household will experience approximately $170-$220 in annual savings from smaller electricity bills and reductions in the costs of goods and services over the next decade. The clean energy investments will help to insulate ratepayers from volatility in natural gas prices, with electricity rates projected to decrease even under a high natural gas price scenario. More importantly, the IRA will bolster our economic and national security by strengthening our grid and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. The legislation also includes a historic expansion of a tax program I have led, the section 179D energy efficient commercial buildings deduction, which provides a tax deduction for energy efficient building investments. Energy efficiency is good business and good policy. This legislation will expand section 179D, which was made permanent in 2020 under my leadership, to increase the deduction amount, improve its administration, allow more nonprofits to use the deduction, and expand its use to building retrofits. In addition to the important steps the IRA takes to advance clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill delivers major Federal investments to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient in the face of increasing impacts of climate change. It provides Federal assistance for monitoring environmental quality, mitigating the harmful impacts of air pollution and excessive heat, and enhancing walkability in our neighborhoods. It does this through $3 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. By targeting resources to disadvantaged or underserved communities, the bill advances equity in our infrastructure planning and investments. Climate change is happening now. We need to address its impacts on the ground. The IRA invests $2.6 billion for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, as well as $250 million to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and State wildlife management areas. The bill supports America's farmers and rural communities, with around $20 billion in funds for climate-smart agricultural practices through existing farm bill conservation programs, including the regional conservation partnership program--RCPP--and $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. Many sustainable practices such as expanding cover crops and riparian buffers that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change also cost-effectively reduce pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. The IRA makes investments to accelerate clean energy deployment, help achieve our climate goals, and create millions of jobs over the next decade. These investments include an expanded tax credit to support domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries; and tax credits that will make battery and fuel cell electric vehicles--EVs--more affordable for millions of families. The bill provides over $9 billion for Federal procurement of American-made clean technologies, including $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emission vehicles, helping to create a stable market for clean, Made in America products. Researchers Robert Pollin, Chirag Lala, and Shouvik Chakraborty at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute estimate that the IRA's more than 100 climate, environmental, and energy provisions will generate an average of about 912,000 jobs each year over the next decade through combined annual public and private investments of $98 billion. The IRA tax credits and other provisions won't just help create jobs; they will help create jobs that pay prevailing wages. The middle class has experienced wage stagnation for half a century. Income inequality has grown. The IRA will help to rebuild the middle class. Unions from the Communication Workers of America and the United Auto Workers to the National Treasury Employees Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers all support the IRA because it promotes union jobs and apprenticeships and because it will lower healthcare costs. In May, the Treasury Department estimated that the budget deficit this year will decline by $1.5 trillion. As President Biden noted at the time, ``The bottom line is that the deficit went up every year under my predecessor before the pandemic and during the pandemic. And it's gone down both years since I've been here. Period.'' The IRA is fiscally responsible and will help reduce our budget deficits. Deficits remain too high, of course, but one of the best ways to address them is by getting unemployed Americans back to work. The July jobs report released on Friday put the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent, matching the lowest it has been in 50 years. The U.S. economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than twice the number economists anticipated. As Myles Udland, Senior Markets Editor of Yahoo! Finance, stated, This staggering increase in employment completes a milestone for the U.S. economy: Pre-pandemic employment is now fully restored. In February 2020, the last month before the COVID-19 pandemic tipped the U.S. economy into recession, there were 152.504 million people employed in the U.S. As of July 2022, 152.536 million people in the U.S. were working. And despite the labor market contraction during the pandemic being the sharpest in modern history, the bounce back marks the second-fastest job market recovery since 1981. In a little over two years, we've seen job losses that topped 20 million at one point be fully erased. This recovery stands in stark contrast to the malaise we saw in the labor market following the financial crisis, when it took the better part of a decade for pre-crisis employment levels to be restored. Inflation is also too high, but its root causes are COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. The IRA tackles these disruptions by promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chains and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. On August 2, 2022, over 120 prominent economists wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership stating that the IRA ``addresses some of the country's biggest challenges at a significant scale. And because it is deficit-reducing, it does so while putting downward pressure on inflation.'' There is much to celebrate in this bill, but there are many priorities that we were not able to add. This ``to do'' list includes reinstating the expanded child tax credit and making child care accessible and affordable. My priority list includes legislation I have long championed to expand dental coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as to Medicaid beneficiaries, along with expansions to home and community-based and maternal health services. Congress also needs to address housing supply and economic development priorities, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the Historic Tax Credit. While the IRA will help create good-paying union jobs, we need to do more to protect and enhance workers' rights to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining. And I will continue working to fund water infrastructure programs the IIJA created to address urgent affordability and resilience issues. While that seems like a long list, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the IRA is so much better than good. It is transformational legislation, and I am proud to support it. I want to commend Majority Leader Schumer and so many of my colleagues who have worked diligently both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to bring us to this point. I also want to acknowledge committee and personal staff; CBO and JCT staff; Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and her crew; leadership, floor, and cloakroom staff; the Senate legislative counsels; and others. You toil anonymously, but I hope you know how important you are. The Senate could not function without you. You are among our Nation's finest public servants, and you are making a critical difference in the lives of all Americans. The American essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, ``Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it''--a quote commonly misattributed to his friend Mark Twain. Passing a reconciliation bill is like that. We all complain about the process, especially the so-called vote-a-rama, which is grueling and grinding and befuddling to just about everyone, but we don't fix it. In fact, it seems to get worse each time, not better. I know I would prefer not to go through the process again, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan before it have been worth it. Dahlia Rockowitz, Washington director of Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, noted that the Senate consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act began on the Shabbat and Tisha B'Av, a Jewish day of collective mourning for historic destructions. But as she pointed out, `` . . . according to Jewish tradition, this day of despair is also the day that new hope and the potential of a rebuilt, reimagined, redeemed world is born. These investments in clean energy and transportation can help us emerge from climate-fueled disasters to a more hopeful, clean energy future for generations to come.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4210 | null | 4,943 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senate Democrats have stepped up and passed legislation that will make it easier for American families to afford health insurance coverage and prescription drugs and lower energy costs and boost domestic job creation in the growing clean energy sector. We have done so while reducing the deficit and without raising taxes on families and small businesses. The Inflation Reduction Act--IRA--tackles climate change, makes the Tax Code fairer, and invests in long-overdue environmental justice programs. This is an historic bill, and polling indicates that large majorities of Americans support its major provisions. While a simple majority of Senators can pass a budget reconciliation bill, there was nothing to prevent our Republican colleagues from joining us in supporting this measure to lower essential costs for American families and enhance our economic and national security. These are policies that all Senators and all Members of Congress should embrace, and this legislation contains many bipartisan policies. Reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. Just in the past year, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--IIJA--the CHIPS + Science semiconductor manufacturing bill, the Honoring Our PACT Act, and Treaty Document No. 117-3, which contains Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, with strong bipartisan majorities. I regret that our Republican colleagues did not join us today in passing the IRA. As for me, if asked to choose between the status quo or lowering health coverage costs for Maryland families and having large companies pay a minimum, fair share of taxes, there is no contest. I will choose Maryland families every day. I find it incomprehensible that anyone--other than perhaps some billionaires--thinks it is acceptable that teachers, nurses, and mechanics and most small businesses often pay a greater percentage of their income in Federal taxes than the ultrawealthy or a company that makes billions of dollars in profits. The bill we passed today changes that calculation and holds the richest Americans and companies that make over a billion dollars accountable for paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else in this country. This past Wednesday, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers issued the following statement: As former Treasury Secretaries of both Democratic and Republican Administrations, we support the Inflation Reduction Act, which is financed by prudent tax policy that will collect more from top-earners and large corporations. Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000/year. And the extra taxes levied on corporations do not reflect increases in the corporate tax rate, but rather the reclaiming of revenue lost to tax avoidance and provisions benefitting the most affluent. The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices, and from more affordable energy. This legislation will help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation--and should be passed immediately by Congress. The original top-line estimates from the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation--JCT--were that the bill would raise $725 billion in revenue, invest $433 billion, and apply the balance--nearly $300 billion--to deficit reduction. These numbers will change some with the final score, but they illustrate the magnitude of what this bill will accomplish. The IRA will help to build a better America for all Americans. Let's start with health care. The bill we passed today will lower prescription drug prices and make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to negotiate lower drug prices for the Medicare Program, benefitting both millions of seniors on fixed incomes and taxpayers. In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. Medicare negotiation will ensure that patients with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs, saving Medicare approximately $100 billion. The IRA will further lower drug costs for seniors by capping out-of-pocket costs for part D prescriptions at $2,000 each year, requiring drug manufacturers to pay penalties if they raise their prices faster than inflation, and delaying of the Trump administration's drug rebate rule. Although these provisions alone will lower beneficiary costs, the IRA also lowers costs through a redesign of the Medicare Part D formula, expansion of the low-income subsidy--LIS--in part D, and Federal coverage for vaccines. The IRA also invests $64 billion to extend ACA healthcare premium subsidies through 2025. These subsidies, first provided through the American Rescue Plan, have guaranteed millions of Americans access to affordable health insurance. Access to affordable health insurance saves lives and reduces costs because people get the care they need and they get it sooner. As Benjamin Franklin said, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The IRA will save Maryland families with median income about $2,200 annually. The IRA raises several hundred billion dollars by making the Tax Code fairer through three major provisions. The first provides up to $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--to modernize its computer systems, some of which are 60 years old, and rebuild its workforce to ensure greater tax compliance. CBO estimates that investing $80 billion in tax enforcement and compliance will generate $203 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years. Since 2010, the IRS budget has been cut by roughly 20 percent, and the budget earmarked for enforcement has dropped by 24 percent. Audit rates for the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy have fallen dramatically, by 54 and 71 percent, respectively. We now have the perverse situation where the poorest American families are audited at about the same rate as the top 1 percent richest taxpayers, even though that 1 percent is responsible for 28 percent the ``tax gap,'' the difference between taxes owed and collected. According to recent polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the IRS should conduct more tax audits of large corporations and millionaires. The IRA provides 10-year funding for the IRS as follows: $3.2 billion for taxpayer services; $45.6 billion for enforcement; $25.3 billion for operations support; and $4.8 billion for business systems modernization. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031, and no use of the funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. The bill also makes it easier for the IRS to establish a free, direct e-file tax return system. The IRS currently outsources its free e-file program to private, for-profit tax preparers. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent of taxpayers--of 70 percent eligible--use the existing free e-file option. The second major provision establishes a minimum corporate income tax of 15 percent of book income on fewer than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations that currently pay less than the statutory corporate tax rate, which is 21 percent. The corporate alternative minimum tax--CAMT--proposal would impose the 15 percent minimum tax on adjusted financial statement--``book''--income for corporations with profits in excess of $1 billion. Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extentthe regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15 percent of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income. In 2020, 50 of the biggest corporations paid $0 in Federal corporate income tax, despite recording substantial profits. Some of these companies effectively had a negative Federal income tax because they received more in credits and rebates than they paid in taxes. The AMT makes the existing corporate tax structure fairer, especially for smaller businesses that often pay their taxes at higher rates than the largest corporations. Consider that many small businesses pay taxes through the individual tax code, where the highest tax rate is as much as 37 percent. Setting a baseline of taxes to be paid by the largest corporations gives small businesses a better chance to compete and succeed. The third provision is a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. Corporations can choose to distribute profits either by issuing dividends or buying back shares of stock, which inflates stock prices. Stock buybacks are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and create profit gaming opportunities for companies, which have been abused over time. By levying a small 1 percent tax on these buyback transactions, it improves tax efficiency and raises revenue that will significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The IRA's tax provisions will increase compliance and close the tax gap, which costs the U.S. $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes, according to the IRS. That is important for the revenue they raise. It is also important that millions of hard-working Americans who play by the rules and pay their taxes believe that the system is fair and that the ultrawealthy and large corporations aren't dodging their financial responsibilities. We need to address climate change by rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA does that. It will cut our emissions by 40 percent or more by 2030 and put us on track to meet 70 percent of our Paris agreement obligations. It contains a Methane Emissions Reduction Program to reduce leaks from the production and distribution of oil and natural gas. The IRA contains roughly $370 billion in clean energy, energy security, and climate change investments that will lower Americans' electricity bills and prices at the pump and create as many as 9 million good-paying jobs here in America in the clean energy sector over the next decade. I am pleased the IRA includes a provision I have championed, a production tax credit for our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. They are an essential source of baseload power and provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and over 50 percent of our carbon-free electricity. According to the non-partisan Resources for the Future, all told, the IRA will drive down retail costs of electricity by 5.2-6.7 percent over the next decade, saving electricity consumers $209-$278 billion. The average household will experience approximately $170-$220 in annual savings from smaller electricity bills and reductions in the costs of goods and services over the next decade. The clean energy investments will help to insulate ratepayers from volatility in natural gas prices, with electricity rates projected to decrease even under a high natural gas price scenario. More importantly, the IRA will bolster our economic and national security by strengthening our grid and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. The legislation also includes a historic expansion of a tax program I have led, the section 179D energy efficient commercial buildings deduction, which provides a tax deduction for energy efficient building investments. Energy efficiency is good business and good policy. This legislation will expand section 179D, which was made permanent in 2020 under my leadership, to increase the deduction amount, improve its administration, allow more nonprofits to use the deduction, and expand its use to building retrofits. In addition to the important steps the IRA takes to advance clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill delivers major Federal investments to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient in the face of increasing impacts of climate change. It provides Federal assistance for monitoring environmental quality, mitigating the harmful impacts of air pollution and excessive heat, and enhancing walkability in our neighborhoods. It does this through $3 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. By targeting resources to disadvantaged or underserved communities, the bill advances equity in our infrastructure planning and investments. Climate change is happening now. We need to address its impacts on the ground. The IRA invests $2.6 billion for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, as well as $250 million to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and State wildlife management areas. The bill supports America's farmers and rural communities, with around $20 billion in funds for climate-smart agricultural practices through existing farm bill conservation programs, including the regional conservation partnership program--RCPP--and $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. Many sustainable practices such as expanding cover crops and riparian buffers that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change also cost-effectively reduce pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. The IRA makes investments to accelerate clean energy deployment, help achieve our climate goals, and create millions of jobs over the next decade. These investments include an expanded tax credit to support domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries; and tax credits that will make battery and fuel cell electric vehicles--EVs--more affordable for millions of families. The bill provides over $9 billion for Federal procurement of American-made clean technologies, including $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emission vehicles, helping to create a stable market for clean, Made in America products. Researchers Robert Pollin, Chirag Lala, and Shouvik Chakraborty at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute estimate that the IRA's more than 100 climate, environmental, and energy provisions will generate an average of about 912,000 jobs each year over the next decade through combined annual public and private investments of $98 billion. The IRA tax credits and other provisions won't just help create jobs; they will help create jobs that pay prevailing wages. The middle class has experienced wage stagnation for half a century. Income inequality has grown. The IRA will help to rebuild the middle class. Unions from the Communication Workers of America and the United Auto Workers to the National Treasury Employees Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers all support the IRA because it promotes union jobs and apprenticeships and because it will lower healthcare costs. In May, the Treasury Department estimated that the budget deficit this year will decline by $1.5 trillion. As President Biden noted at the time, ``The bottom line is that the deficit went up every year under my predecessor before the pandemic and during the pandemic. And it's gone down both years since I've been here. Period.'' The IRA is fiscally responsible and will help reduce our budget deficits. Deficits remain too high, of course, but one of the best ways to address them is by getting unemployed Americans back to work. The July jobs report released on Friday put the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent, matching the lowest it has been in 50 years. The U.S. economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than twice the number economists anticipated. As Myles Udland, Senior Markets Editor of Yahoo! Finance, stated, This staggering increase in employment completes a milestone for the U.S. economy: Pre-pandemic employment is now fully restored. In February 2020, the last month before the COVID-19 pandemic tipped the U.S. economy into recession, there were 152.504 million people employed in the U.S. As of July 2022, 152.536 million people in the U.S. were working. And despite the labor market contraction during the pandemic being the sharpest in modern history, the bounce back marks the second-fastest job market recovery since 1981. In a little over two years, we've seen job losses that topped 20 million at one point be fully erased. This recovery stands in stark contrast to the malaise we saw in the labor market following the financial crisis, when it took the better part of a decade for pre-crisis employment levels to be restored. Inflation is also too high, but its root causes are COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. The IRA tackles these disruptions by promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chains and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. On August 2, 2022, over 120 prominent economists wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership stating that the IRA ``addresses some of the country's biggest challenges at a significant scale. And because it is deficit-reducing, it does so while putting downward pressure on inflation.'' There is much to celebrate in this bill, but there are many priorities that we were not able to add. This ``to do'' list includes reinstating the expanded child tax credit and making child care accessible and affordable. My priority list includes legislation I have long championed to expand dental coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as to Medicaid beneficiaries, along with expansions to home and community-based and maternal health services. Congress also needs to address housing supply and economic development priorities, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the Historic Tax Credit. While the IRA will help create good-paying union jobs, we need to do more to protect and enhance workers' rights to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining. And I will continue working to fund water infrastructure programs the IIJA created to address urgent affordability and resilience issues. While that seems like a long list, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the IRA is so much better than good. It is transformational legislation, and I am proud to support it. I want to commend Majority Leader Schumer and so many of my colleagues who have worked diligently both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to bring us to this point. I also want to acknowledge committee and personal staff; CBO and JCT staff; Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and her crew; leadership, floor, and cloakroom staff; the Senate legislative counsels; and others. You toil anonymously, but I hope you know how important you are. The Senate could not function without you. You are among our Nation's finest public servants, and you are making a critical difference in the lives of all Americans. The American essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, ``Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it''--a quote commonly misattributed to his friend Mark Twain. Passing a reconciliation bill is like that. We all complain about the process, especially the so-called vote-a-rama, which is grueling and grinding and befuddling to just about everyone, but we don't fix it. In fact, it seems to get worse each time, not better. I know I would prefer not to go through the process again, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan before it have been worth it. Dahlia Rockowitz, Washington director of Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, noted that the Senate consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act began on the Shabbat and Tisha B'Av, a Jewish day of collective mourning for historic destructions. But as she pointed out, `` . . . according to Jewish tradition, this day of despair is also the day that new hope and the potential of a rebuilt, reimagined, redeemed world is born. These investments in clean energy and transportation can help us emerge from climate-fueled disasters to a more hopeful, clean energy future for generations to come.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4210 | null | 4,944 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senate Democrats have stepped up and passed legislation that will make it easier for American families to afford health insurance coverage and prescription drugs and lower energy costs and boost domestic job creation in the growing clean energy sector. We have done so while reducing the deficit and without raising taxes on families and small businesses. The Inflation Reduction Act--IRA--tackles climate change, makes the Tax Code fairer, and invests in long-overdue environmental justice programs. This is an historic bill, and polling indicates that large majorities of Americans support its major provisions. While a simple majority of Senators can pass a budget reconciliation bill, there was nothing to prevent our Republican colleagues from joining us in supporting this measure to lower essential costs for American families and enhance our economic and national security. These are policies that all Senators and all Members of Congress should embrace, and this legislation contains many bipartisan policies. Reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. Just in the past year, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--IIJA--the CHIPS + Science semiconductor manufacturing bill, the Honoring Our PACT Act, and Treaty Document No. 117-3, which contains Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, with strong bipartisan majorities. I regret that our Republican colleagues did not join us today in passing the IRA. As for me, if asked to choose between the status quo or lowering health coverage costs for Maryland families and having large companies pay a minimum, fair share of taxes, there is no contest. I will choose Maryland families every day. I find it incomprehensible that anyone--other than perhaps some billionaires--thinks it is acceptable that teachers, nurses, and mechanics and most small businesses often pay a greater percentage of their income in Federal taxes than the ultrawealthy or a company that makes billions of dollars in profits. The bill we passed today changes that calculation and holds the richest Americans and companies that make over a billion dollars accountable for paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else in this country. This past Wednesday, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers issued the following statement: As former Treasury Secretaries of both Democratic and Republican Administrations, we support the Inflation Reduction Act, which is financed by prudent tax policy that will collect more from top-earners and large corporations. Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000/year. And the extra taxes levied on corporations do not reflect increases in the corporate tax rate, but rather the reclaiming of revenue lost to tax avoidance and provisions benefitting the most affluent. The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices, and from more affordable energy. This legislation will help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation--and should be passed immediately by Congress. The original top-line estimates from the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation--JCT--were that the bill would raise $725 billion in revenue, invest $433 billion, and apply the balance--nearly $300 billion--to deficit reduction. These numbers will change some with the final score, but they illustrate the magnitude of what this bill will accomplish. The IRA will help to build a better America for all Americans. Let's start with health care. The bill we passed today will lower prescription drug prices and make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to negotiate lower drug prices for the Medicare Program, benefitting both millions of seniors on fixed incomes and taxpayers. In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. Medicare negotiation will ensure that patients with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs, saving Medicare approximately $100 billion. The IRA will further lower drug costs for seniors by capping out-of-pocket costs for part D prescriptions at $2,000 each year, requiring drug manufacturers to pay penalties if they raise their prices faster than inflation, and delaying of the Trump administration's drug rebate rule. Although these provisions alone will lower beneficiary costs, the IRA also lowers costs through a redesign of the Medicare Part D formula, expansion of the low-income subsidy--LIS--in part D, and Federal coverage for vaccines. The IRA also invests $64 billion to extend ACA healthcare premium subsidies through 2025. These subsidies, first provided through the American Rescue Plan, have guaranteed millions of Americans access to affordable health insurance. Access to affordable health insurance saves lives and reduces costs because people get the care they need and they get it sooner. As Benjamin Franklin said, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The IRA will save Maryland families with median income about $2,200 annually. The IRA raises several hundred billion dollars by making the Tax Code fairer through three major provisions. The first provides up to $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--to modernize its computer systems, some of which are 60 years old, and rebuild its workforce to ensure greater tax compliance. CBO estimates that investing $80 billion in tax enforcement and compliance will generate $203 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years. Since 2010, the IRS budget has been cut by roughly 20 percent, and the budget earmarked for enforcement has dropped by 24 percent. Audit rates for the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy have fallen dramatically, by 54 and 71 percent, respectively. We now have the perverse situation where the poorest American families are audited at about the same rate as the top 1 percent richest taxpayers, even though that 1 percent is responsible for 28 percent the ``tax gap,'' the difference between taxes owed and collected. According to recent polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the IRS should conduct more tax audits of large corporations and millionaires. The IRA provides 10-year funding for the IRS as follows: $3.2 billion for taxpayer services; $45.6 billion for enforcement; $25.3 billion for operations support; and $4.8 billion for business systems modernization. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031, and no use of the funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. The bill also makes it easier for the IRS to establish a free, direct e-file tax return system. The IRS currently outsources its free e-file program to private, for-profit tax preparers. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent of taxpayers--of 70 percent eligible--use the existing free e-file option. The second major provision establishes a minimum corporate income tax of 15 percent of book income on fewer than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations that currently pay less than the statutory corporate tax rate, which is 21 percent. The corporate alternative minimum tax--CAMT--proposal would impose the 15 percent minimum tax on adjusted financial statement--``book''--income for corporations with profits in excess of $1 billion. Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extentthe regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15 percent of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income. In 2020, 50 of the biggest corporations paid $0 in Federal corporate income tax, despite recording substantial profits. Some of these companies effectively had a negative Federal income tax because they received more in credits and rebates than they paid in taxes. The AMT makes the existing corporate tax structure fairer, especially for smaller businesses that often pay their taxes at higher rates than the largest corporations. Consider that many small businesses pay taxes through the individual tax code, where the highest tax rate is as much as 37 percent. Setting a baseline of taxes to be paid by the largest corporations gives small businesses a better chance to compete and succeed. The third provision is a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. Corporations can choose to distribute profits either by issuing dividends or buying back shares of stock, which inflates stock prices. Stock buybacks are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and create profit gaming opportunities for companies, which have been abused over time. By levying a small 1 percent tax on these buyback transactions, it improves tax efficiency and raises revenue that will significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The IRA's tax provisions will increase compliance and close the tax gap, which costs the U.S. $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes, according to the IRS. That is important for the revenue they raise. It is also important that millions of hard-working Americans who play by the rules and pay their taxes believe that the system is fair and that the ultrawealthy and large corporations aren't dodging their financial responsibilities. We need to address climate change by rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA does that. It will cut our emissions by 40 percent or more by 2030 and put us on track to meet 70 percent of our Paris agreement obligations. It contains a Methane Emissions Reduction Program to reduce leaks from the production and distribution of oil and natural gas. The IRA contains roughly $370 billion in clean energy, energy security, and climate change investments that will lower Americans' electricity bills and prices at the pump and create as many as 9 million good-paying jobs here in America in the clean energy sector over the next decade. I am pleased the IRA includes a provision I have championed, a production tax credit for our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. They are an essential source of baseload power and provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and over 50 percent of our carbon-free electricity. According to the non-partisan Resources for the Future, all told, the IRA will drive down retail costs of electricity by 5.2-6.7 percent over the next decade, saving electricity consumers $209-$278 billion. The average household will experience approximately $170-$220 in annual savings from smaller electricity bills and reductions in the costs of goods and services over the next decade. The clean energy investments will help to insulate ratepayers from volatility in natural gas prices, with electricity rates projected to decrease even under a high natural gas price scenario. More importantly, the IRA will bolster our economic and national security by strengthening our grid and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. The legislation also includes a historic expansion of a tax program I have led, the section 179D energy efficient commercial buildings deduction, which provides a tax deduction for energy efficient building investments. Energy efficiency is good business and good policy. This legislation will expand section 179D, which was made permanent in 2020 under my leadership, to increase the deduction amount, improve its administration, allow more nonprofits to use the deduction, and expand its use to building retrofits. In addition to the important steps the IRA takes to advance clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill delivers major Federal investments to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient in the face of increasing impacts of climate change. It provides Federal assistance for monitoring environmental quality, mitigating the harmful impacts of air pollution and excessive heat, and enhancing walkability in our neighborhoods. It does this through $3 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. By targeting resources to disadvantaged or underserved communities, the bill advances equity in our infrastructure planning and investments. Climate change is happening now. We need to address its impacts on the ground. The IRA invests $2.6 billion for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, as well as $250 million to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and State wildlife management areas. The bill supports America's farmers and rural communities, with around $20 billion in funds for climate-smart agricultural practices through existing farm bill conservation programs, including the regional conservation partnership program--RCPP--and $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. Many sustainable practices such as expanding cover crops and riparian buffers that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change also cost-effectively reduce pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. The IRA makes investments to accelerate clean energy deployment, help achieve our climate goals, and create millions of jobs over the next decade. These investments include an expanded tax credit to support domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries; and tax credits that will make battery and fuel cell electric vehicles--EVs--more affordable for millions of families. The bill provides over $9 billion for Federal procurement of American-made clean technologies, including $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emission vehicles, helping to create a stable market for clean, Made in America products. Researchers Robert Pollin, Chirag Lala, and Shouvik Chakraborty at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute estimate that the IRA's more than 100 climate, environmental, and energy provisions will generate an average of about 912,000 jobs each year over the next decade through combined annual public and private investments of $98 billion. The IRA tax credits and other provisions won't just help create jobs; they will help create jobs that pay prevailing wages. The middle class has experienced wage stagnation for half a century. Income inequality has grown. The IRA will help to rebuild the middle class. Unions from the Communication Workers of America and the United Auto Workers to the National Treasury Employees Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers all support the IRA because it promotes union jobs and apprenticeships and because it will lower healthcare costs. In May, the Treasury Department estimated that the budget deficit this year will decline by $1.5 trillion. As President Biden noted at the time, ``The bottom line is that the deficit went up every year under my predecessor before the pandemic and during the pandemic. And it's gone down both years since I've been here. Period.'' The IRA is fiscally responsible and will help reduce our budget deficits. Deficits remain too high, of course, but one of the best ways to address them is by getting unemployed Americans back to work. The July jobs report released on Friday put the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent, matching the lowest it has been in 50 years. The U.S. economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than twice the number economists anticipated. As Myles Udland, Senior Markets Editor of Yahoo! Finance, stated, This staggering increase in employment completes a milestone for the U.S. economy: Pre-pandemic employment is now fully restored. In February 2020, the last month before the COVID-19 pandemic tipped the U.S. economy into recession, there were 152.504 million people employed in the U.S. As of July 2022, 152.536 million people in the U.S. were working. And despite the labor market contraction during the pandemic being the sharpest in modern history, the bounce back marks the second-fastest job market recovery since 1981. In a little over two years, we've seen job losses that topped 20 million at one point be fully erased. This recovery stands in stark contrast to the malaise we saw in the labor market following the financial crisis, when it took the better part of a decade for pre-crisis employment levels to be restored. Inflation is also too high, but its root causes are COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. The IRA tackles these disruptions by promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chains and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. On August 2, 2022, over 120 prominent economists wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership stating that the IRA ``addresses some of the country's biggest challenges at a significant scale. And because it is deficit-reducing, it does so while putting downward pressure on inflation.'' There is much to celebrate in this bill, but there are many priorities that we were not able to add. This ``to do'' list includes reinstating the expanded child tax credit and making child care accessible and affordable. My priority list includes legislation I have long championed to expand dental coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as to Medicaid beneficiaries, along with expansions to home and community-based and maternal health services. Congress also needs to address housing supply and economic development priorities, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the Historic Tax Credit. While the IRA will help create good-paying union jobs, we need to do more to protect and enhance workers' rights to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining. And I will continue working to fund water infrastructure programs the IIJA created to address urgent affordability and resilience issues. While that seems like a long list, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the IRA is so much better than good. It is transformational legislation, and I am proud to support it. I want to commend Majority Leader Schumer and so many of my colleagues who have worked diligently both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to bring us to this point. I also want to acknowledge committee and personal staff; CBO and JCT staff; Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and her crew; leadership, floor, and cloakroom staff; the Senate legislative counsels; and others. You toil anonymously, but I hope you know how important you are. The Senate could not function without you. You are among our Nation's finest public servants, and you are making a critical difference in the lives of all Americans. The American essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, ``Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it''--a quote commonly misattributed to his friend Mark Twain. Passing a reconciliation bill is like that. We all complain about the process, especially the so-called vote-a-rama, which is grueling and grinding and befuddling to just about everyone, but we don't fix it. In fact, it seems to get worse each time, not better. I know I would prefer not to go through the process again, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan before it have been worth it. Dahlia Rockowitz, Washington director of Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, noted that the Senate consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act began on the Shabbat and Tisha B'Av, a Jewish day of collective mourning for historic destructions. But as she pointed out, `` . . . according to Jewish tradition, this day of despair is also the day that new hope and the potential of a rebuilt, reimagined, redeemed world is born. These investments in clean energy and transportation can help us emerge from climate-fueled disasters to a more hopeful, clean energy future for generations to come.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4210 | null | 4,945 |
formal | Yahoo | null | anti-Latino | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, Senate Democrats have stepped up and passed legislation that will make it easier for American families to afford health insurance coverage and prescription drugs and lower energy costs and boost domestic job creation in the growing clean energy sector. We have done so while reducing the deficit and without raising taxes on families and small businesses. The Inflation Reduction Act--IRA--tackles climate change, makes the Tax Code fairer, and invests in long-overdue environmental justice programs. This is an historic bill, and polling indicates that large majorities of Americans support its major provisions. While a simple majority of Senators can pass a budget reconciliation bill, there was nothing to prevent our Republican colleagues from joining us in supporting this measure to lower essential costs for American families and enhance our economic and national security. These are policies that all Senators and all Members of Congress should embrace, and this legislation contains many bipartisan policies. Reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. Just in the past year, the Senate passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--IIJA--the CHIPS + Science semiconductor manufacturing bill, the Honoring Our PACT Act, and Treaty Document No. 117-3, which contains Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, with strong bipartisan majorities. I regret that our Republican colleagues did not join us today in passing the IRA. As for me, if asked to choose between the status quo or lowering health coverage costs for Maryland families and having large companies pay a minimum, fair share of taxes, there is no contest. I will choose Maryland families every day. I find it incomprehensible that anyone--other than perhaps some billionaires--thinks it is acceptable that teachers, nurses, and mechanics and most small businesses often pay a greater percentage of their income in Federal taxes than the ultrawealthy or a company that makes billions of dollars in profits. The bill we passed today changes that calculation and holds the richest Americans and companies that make over a billion dollars accountable for paying their fair share of taxes, like everyone else in this country. This past Wednesday, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew, Henry M. Paulson Jr., Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers issued the following statement: As former Treasury Secretaries of both Democratic and Republican Administrations, we support the Inflation Reduction Act, which is financed by prudent tax policy that will collect more from top-earners and large corporations. Taxes due or paid will not increase for any family making less than $400,000/year. And the extra taxes levied on corporations do not reflect increases in the corporate tax rate, but rather the reclaiming of revenue lost to tax avoidance and provisions benefitting the most affluent. The selective presentation by some of the distributional effects of this bill neglects benefits to middle-class families from reducing deficits, from bringing down prescription drug prices, and from more affordable energy. This legislation will help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation--and should be passed immediately by Congress. The original top-line estimates from the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--and the Joint Committee on Taxation--JCT--were that the bill would raise $725 billion in revenue, invest $433 billion, and apply the balance--nearly $300 billion--to deficit reduction. These numbers will change some with the final score, but they illustrate the magnitude of what this bill will accomplish. The IRA will help to build a better America for all Americans. Let's start with health care. The bill we passed today will lower prescription drug prices and make healthcare more affordable for millions of Americans. Finally, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to negotiate lower drug prices for the Medicare Program, benefitting both millions of seniors on fixed incomes and taxpayers. In the private sector, no plan sponsor or manager would ever accept responsibility without the ability to decide how to negotiate. Medicare negotiation will ensure that patients with Medicare get the best deal possible on high-priced drugs, saving Medicare approximately $100 billion. The IRA will further lower drug costs for seniors by capping out-of-pocket costs for part D prescriptions at $2,000 each year, requiring drug manufacturers to pay penalties if they raise their prices faster than inflation, and delaying of the Trump administration's drug rebate rule. Although these provisions alone will lower beneficiary costs, the IRA also lowers costs through a redesign of the Medicare Part D formula, expansion of the low-income subsidy--LIS--in part D, and Federal coverage for vaccines. The IRA also invests $64 billion to extend ACA healthcare premium subsidies through 2025. These subsidies, first provided through the American Rescue Plan, have guaranteed millions of Americans access to affordable health insurance. Access to affordable health insurance saves lives and reduces costs because people get the care they need and they get it sooner. As Benjamin Franklin said, ``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The IRA will save Maryland families with median income about $2,200 annually. The IRA raises several hundred billion dollars by making the Tax Code fairer through three major provisions. The first provides up to $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service--IRS--to modernize its computer systems, some of which are 60 years old, and rebuild its workforce to ensure greater tax compliance. CBO estimates that investing $80 billion in tax enforcement and compliance will generate $203 billion in additional revenue over the next 10 years. Since 2010, the IRS budget has been cut by roughly 20 percent, and the budget earmarked for enforcement has dropped by 24 percent. Audit rates for the largest corporations and the ultrawealthy have fallen dramatically, by 54 and 71 percent, respectively. We now have the perverse situation where the poorest American families are audited at about the same rate as the top 1 percent richest taxpayers, even though that 1 percent is responsible for 28 percent the ``tax gap,'' the difference between taxes owed and collected. According to recent polling, nearly three-quarters of Americans believe the IRS should conduct more tax audits of large corporations and millionaires. The IRA provides 10-year funding for the IRS as follows: $3.2 billion for taxpayer services; $45.6 billion for enforcement; $25.3 billion for operations support; and $4.8 billion for business systems modernization. These appropriated funds are to remain available until September 30, 2031, and no use of the funds is intended to increase taxes on any taxpayer with taxable income below $400,000. The bill also makes it easier for the IRS to establish a free, direct e-file tax return system. The IRS currently outsources its free e-file program to private, for-profit tax preparers. Not surprisingly, only 3 percent of taxpayers--of 70 percent eligible--use the existing free e-file option. The second major provision establishes a minimum corporate income tax of 15 percent of book income on fewer than 200 of the Nation's largest corporations that currently pay less than the statutory corporate tax rate, which is 21 percent. The corporate alternative minimum tax--CAMT--proposal would impose the 15 percent minimum tax on adjusted financial statement--``book''--income for corporations with profits in excess of $1 billion. Corporations would generally be eligible to claim net operating losses and tax credits against the AMT and would be eligible to claim a tax credit against the regular corporate tax for AMT paid in prior years, to the extentthe regular tax liability in any year exceeds 15 percent of the corporation's adjusted financial statement income. In 2020, 50 of the biggest corporations paid $0 in Federal corporate income tax, despite recording substantial profits. Some of these companies effectively had a negative Federal income tax because they received more in credits and rebates than they paid in taxes. The AMT makes the existing corporate tax structure fairer, especially for smaller businesses that often pay their taxes at higher rates than the largest corporations. Consider that many small businesses pay taxes through the individual tax code, where the highest tax rate is as much as 37 percent. Setting a baseline of taxes to be paid by the largest corporations gives small businesses a better chance to compete and succeed. The third provision is a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks. Corporations can choose to distribute profits either by issuing dividends or buying back shares of stock, which inflates stock prices. Stock buybacks are taxed at a lower rate than dividends and create profit gaming opportunities for companies, which have been abused over time. By levying a small 1 percent tax on these buyback transactions, it improves tax efficiency and raises revenue that will significantly contribute to deficit reduction. The IRA's tax provisions will increase compliance and close the tax gap, which costs the U.S. $1 trillion per year in unpaid taxes, according to the IRS. That is important for the revenue they raise. It is also important that millions of hard-working Americans who play by the rules and pay their taxes believe that the system is fair and that the ultrawealthy and large corporations aren't dodging their financial responsibilities. We need to address climate change by rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The IRA does that. It will cut our emissions by 40 percent or more by 2030 and put us on track to meet 70 percent of our Paris agreement obligations. It contains a Methane Emissions Reduction Program to reduce leaks from the production and distribution of oil and natural gas. The IRA contains roughly $370 billion in clean energy, energy security, and climate change investments that will lower Americans' electricity bills and prices at the pump and create as many as 9 million good-paying jobs here in America in the clean energy sector over the next decade. I am pleased the IRA includes a provision I have championed, a production tax credit for our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. They are an essential source of baseload power and provide 20 percent of the Nation's electricity and over 50 percent of our carbon-free electricity. According to the non-partisan Resources for the Future, all told, the IRA will drive down retail costs of electricity by 5.2-6.7 percent over the next decade, saving electricity consumers $209-$278 billion. The average household will experience approximately $170-$220 in annual savings from smaller electricity bills and reductions in the costs of goods and services over the next decade. The clean energy investments will help to insulate ratepayers from volatility in natural gas prices, with electricity rates projected to decrease even under a high natural gas price scenario. More importantly, the IRA will bolster our economic and national security by strengthening our grid and reducing reliance on foreign energy supplies. The legislation also includes a historic expansion of a tax program I have led, the section 179D energy efficient commercial buildings deduction, which provides a tax deduction for energy efficient building investments. Energy efficiency is good business and good policy. This legislation will expand section 179D, which was made permanent in 2020 under my leadership, to increase the deduction amount, improve its administration, allow more nonprofits to use the deduction, and expand its use to building retrofits. In addition to the important steps the IRA takes to advance clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the bill delivers major Federal investments to make our communities healthier, safer, and more resilient in the face of increasing impacts of climate change. It provides Federal assistance for monitoring environmental quality, mitigating the harmful impacts of air pollution and excessive heat, and enhancing walkability in our neighborhoods. It does this through $3 billion for Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants and $3 billion for Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grants. By targeting resources to disadvantaged or underserved communities, the bill advances equity in our infrastructure planning and investments. Climate change is happening now. We need to address its impacts on the ground. The IRA invests $2.6 billion for the conservation, restoration, and protection of coastal and marine habitats and resources, including fisheries, to enable coastal communities to prepare for extreme storms and other changing climate conditions, as well as $250 million to rebuild and restore units of the National Wildlife Refuge System and State wildlife management areas. The bill supports America's farmers and rural communities, with around $20 billion in funds for climate-smart agricultural practices through existing farm bill conservation programs, including the regional conservation partnership program--RCPP--and $1 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to provide technical assistance on conservation to producers. Many sustainable practices such as expanding cover crops and riparian buffers that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and help farmers adapt to climate change also cost-effectively reduce pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. The IRA makes investments to accelerate clean energy deployment, help achieve our climate goals, and create millions of jobs over the next decade. These investments include an expanded tax credit to support domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies, including solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries; and tax credits that will make battery and fuel cell electric vehicles--EVs--more affordable for millions of families. The bill provides over $9 billion for Federal procurement of American-made clean technologies, including $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero-emission vehicles, helping to create a stable market for clean, Made in America products. Researchers Robert Pollin, Chirag Lala, and Shouvik Chakraborty at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst's Political Economy Research Institute estimate that the IRA's more than 100 climate, environmental, and energy provisions will generate an average of about 912,000 jobs each year over the next decade through combined annual public and private investments of $98 billion. The IRA tax credits and other provisions won't just help create jobs; they will help create jobs that pay prevailing wages. The middle class has experienced wage stagnation for half a century. Income inequality has grown. The IRA will help to rebuild the middle class. Unions from the Communication Workers of America and the United Auto Workers to the National Treasury Employees Union and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers all support the IRA because it promotes union jobs and apprenticeships and because it will lower healthcare costs. In May, the Treasury Department estimated that the budget deficit this year will decline by $1.5 trillion. As President Biden noted at the time, ``The bottom line is that the deficit went up every year under my predecessor before the pandemic and during the pandemic. And it's gone down both years since I've been here. Period.'' The IRA is fiscally responsible and will help reduce our budget deficits. Deficits remain too high, of course, but one of the best ways to address them is by getting unemployed Americans back to work. The July jobs report released on Friday put the unemployment rate at 3.5 percent, matching the lowest it has been in 50 years. The U.S. economy added 528,000 jobs in July, more than twice the number economists anticipated. As Myles Udland, Senior Markets Editor of Yahoo! Finance, stated, This staggering increase in employment completes a milestone for the U.S. economy: Pre-pandemic employment is now fully restored. In February 2020, the last month before the COVID-19 pandemic tipped the U.S. economy into recession, there were 152.504 million people employed in the U.S. As of July 2022, 152.536 million people in the U.S. were working. And despite the labor market contraction during the pandemic being the sharpest in modern history, the bounce back marks the second-fastest job market recovery since 1981. In a little over two years, we've seen job losses that topped 20 million at one point be fully erased. This recovery stands in stark contrast to the malaise we saw in the labor market following the financial crisis, when it took the better part of a decade for pre-crisis employment levels to be restored. Inflation is also too high, but its root causes are COVID-19 pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. The IRA tackles these disruptions by promoting domestic manufacturing and supply chains and reducing our reliance on foreign energy. On August 2, 2022, over 120 prominent economists wrote a letter to Senate and House leadership stating that the IRA ``addresses some of the country's biggest challenges at a significant scale. And because it is deficit-reducing, it does so while putting downward pressure on inflation.'' There is much to celebrate in this bill, but there are many priorities that we were not able to add. This ``to do'' list includes reinstating the expanded child tax credit and making child care accessible and affordable. My priority list includes legislation I have long championed to expand dental coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, as well as to Medicaid beneficiaries, along with expansions to home and community-based and maternal health services. Congress also needs to address housing supply and economic development priorities, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the New Markets Tax Credit, and the Historic Tax Credit. While the IRA will help create good-paying union jobs, we need to do more to protect and enhance workers' rights to form and join unions and engage in collective bargaining. And I will continue working to fund water infrastructure programs the IIJA created to address urgent affordability and resilience issues. While that seems like a long list, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and the IRA is so much better than good. It is transformational legislation, and I am proud to support it. I want to commend Majority Leader Schumer and so many of my colleagues who have worked diligently both in the spotlight and behind the scenes to bring us to this point. I also want to acknowledge committee and personal staff; CBO and JCT staff; Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough and her crew; leadership, floor, and cloakroom staff; the Senate legislative counsels; and others. You toil anonymously, but I hope you know how important you are. The Senate could not function without you. You are among our Nation's finest public servants, and you are making a critical difference in the lives of all Americans. The American essayist Charles Dudley Warner famously said, ``Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it''--a quote commonly misattributed to his friend Mark Twain. Passing a reconciliation bill is like that. We all complain about the process, especially the so-called vote-a-rama, which is grueling and grinding and befuddling to just about everyone, but we don't fix it. In fact, it seems to get worse each time, not better. I know I would prefer not to go through the process again, but the Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan before it have been worth it. Dahlia Rockowitz, Washington director of Dayenu: A Jewish Call to Climate Action, noted that the Senate consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act began on the Shabbat and Tisha B'Av, a Jewish day of collective mourning for historic destructions. But as she pointed out, `` . . . according to Jewish tradition, this day of despair is also the day that new hope and the potential of a rebuilt, reimagined, redeemed world is born. These investments in clean energy and transportation can help us emerge from climate-fueled disasters to a more hopeful, clean energy future for generations to come.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4210 | null | 4,946 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kim Brinkman, who will be retiring on August 11, and to thank her for her 34-plus years of exemplary service to the Senate community. Kim has spent her entire career working in the Senate Disbursing Office. Her colleagues in disbursing will miss her, but so, too, will all Senators and Senate staff and their families. We have all relied on Kim for expert advice and guidance on pay and health and retirement benefits and other issues. Kim is a constituent, but she originally hails from Nevada, IA. She attended Stephens College in Columbia, MO, for 2 years and then transferred to the University of Iowa, where she graduated with a degree in economics. She is a proud Hawkeye. In 1985, Kim had a summer internship working at the Federal Aviation Administration and decided she wanted to return to Washington, DC, after she graduated from college. She went to a library in nearby Ames, IA, and checked the ``Help Wanted'' section of the Washington Post's classifieds. The Senate Disbursing Office had an opening; she applied and returned to Washington to interview for the job; and she got it. She started working in the disbursing office on October 5, 1987. When Kim started her career, the disbursing office had a staff of 43; just 10 of them were women, including Kim. The Senate had just two female Senators: Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, and my former colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who had just assumed office a few months before Kim arrived. Fast forward to today, and 45 of the disbursing office's 58 staffers are women. There are 24 female Senators, plus Vice President Harris. That has been one of the biggest changes Kim has witnessed over the course of her career. The other is the advent of the internet, email, and other information technology, which has revolutionized the way we all work, including Kim. Senators Leahy, Grassley, McConnell, and Shelby are the only Members currently serving who arrived here before Kim, and just one of her colleagues at disbursing has more seniority. Kim began her career as a staff assistant in the front office, moved to the employee benefits section, became the employee benefits manager, and later was promoted to her current position as assistant financial clerk of the Senate. I have often said that the Senate is a family, and we are so grateful to staff members like Kim who make it function. Certainly, Kim has made the thousands of Senators and staffers she has helped over the years feel like family. She isn't just a subject matter expert when it comes to pay and benefits; she is friendly, cheerful, patient, and kind. Everyone who knows Kim has the highest regard and affection for her. Kim will travel back to Iowa this month to visit her parents and help celebrate her father's 90th birthday. She will also travel to Kentucky to celebrate her daughter Maya's graduation from the University of Kentucky. While Kim and her sister will continue to look after their parents as needed, I know Kim's legions of friends in the DC metropolitan area are glad that she will be coming back here, where she will step up her gardening and her antique shopping in Rappahannock County. She will have more time for her artwork and playing the piano and clarinet and volunteering at her church, where she is part of the visiting ministry team. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, ``To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.'' He was describing Kim Brinkman. On behalf of my colleagues, but especially on behalf of all the Senate staffers and their family members whom she has counseled and assisted over the years, I want to thank Kim for her outstanding service and wish her all the best as she embarks on the next chapter in a life well lived. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4212-2 | null | 4,947 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | TRAGIC ATTACK THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE SIKH TEMPLE OF WISCONSIN ON AUGUST 5, 2012, AND HONORING THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO DIED IN THE ATTACK Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mr. Johnson) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 749 Whereas the freedom of religion is protected in the Constitution, and no religious institution should be subject to violence, hate, intolerance, or religious and racial discrimination; Whereas, on Sunday, August 5, 2012, a shooting took place that resulted in the death of 7 worshipers who were at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Whereas the attack occurred as members of the congregation prepared a free community meal served to all congregants arriving for Sunday services; Whereas several worshipers were injured, including a responding officer, Lieutenant Brian Murphy, who was shot 15 times at close range; Whereas Lieutenant Brian Murphy, Officer Savan Lenda, and all the first responders to the gurdwara in Oak Creek demonstrated great courage in their quick response to the shooting, saving countless lives; Whereas the Oak Creek shooting was a senseless act of violence and tragedy that should never befall any house of worship; Whereas the Sikh community responded to the shooting in Oak Creek with compassion and stayed true to the Sikh principle of chardi kala, which roughly translates to ``relentless optimism''; Whereas, 10 years later, the effects of this shooting are still being felt and will be felt for years to come; and Whereas the community of Oak Creek will continue to overcome the tragedy and become stronger than before: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific attack that occurred at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin on August 5, 2012; (2) honors the memories of Paramjit Kaur Saini, Suveg Singh Khattra, Satwant Singh Kaleka, Ranjit Singh, Sita Singh, Prakash Singh, and Baba Punjab Singh who died in the attack; (3) offers its heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of those who died in the attack; (4) recognizes the Sikh community for demonstrating unwavering courage, strength, and resilience in response to the attack; (5) applauds the bravery of the first responders who prevented the gunman from potentially taking more lives and quickly treated those who were wounded; and (6) condemns intolerance, including religious and racial discrimination, and calls for unwavering resolve to prevent and seek justice for acts of hate and terrorism. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4215-2 | null | 4,948 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | TRAGIC ATTACK THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE SIKH TEMPLE OF WISCONSIN ON AUGUST 5, 2012, AND HONORING THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO DIED IN THE ATTACK Ms. BALDWIN (for herself and Mr. Johnson) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 749 Whereas the freedom of religion is protected in the Constitution, and no religious institution should be subject to violence, hate, intolerance, or religious and racial discrimination; Whereas, on Sunday, August 5, 2012, a shooting took place that resulted in the death of 7 worshipers who were at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin; Whereas the attack occurred as members of the congregation prepared a free community meal served to all congregants arriving for Sunday services; Whereas several worshipers were injured, including a responding officer, Lieutenant Brian Murphy, who was shot 15 times at close range; Whereas Lieutenant Brian Murphy, Officer Savan Lenda, and all the first responders to the gurdwara in Oak Creek demonstrated great courage in their quick response to the shooting, saving countless lives; Whereas the Oak Creek shooting was a senseless act of violence and tragedy that should never befall any house of worship; Whereas the Sikh community responded to the shooting in Oak Creek with compassion and stayed true to the Sikh principle of chardi kala, which roughly translates to ``relentless optimism''; Whereas, 10 years later, the effects of this shooting are still being felt and will be felt for years to come; and Whereas the community of Oak Creek will continue to overcome the tragedy and become stronger than before: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the horrific attack that occurred at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin on August 5, 2012; (2) honors the memories of Paramjit Kaur Saini, Suveg Singh Khattra, Satwant Singh Kaleka, Ranjit Singh, Sita Singh, Prakash Singh, and Baba Punjab Singh who died in the attack; (3) offers its heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of those who died in the attack; (4) recognizes the Sikh community for demonstrating unwavering courage, strength, and resilience in response to the attack; (5) applauds the bravery of the first responders who prevented the gunman from potentially taking more lives and quickly treated those who were wounded; and (6) condemns intolerance, including religious and racial discrimination, and calls for unwavering resolve to prevent and seek justice for acts of hate and terrorism. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4215-2 | null | 4,949 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5259. Ms. ERNST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 submitted by Mr. Schumer and intended to be proposed to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 10301(a), add the following: (4) Report on delinquent tax debt of federal employees.-- Not later than April 15 of each year, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall submit to Congress report detailing the number of Federal employees delinquent on Federal taxes and the total amount owed, along with a breakdown of that information by agency, department, and branch of the Federal government. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4250-5 | null | 4,950 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 5274. Ms. ERNST submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 505, strike line 23 and all that follows through page 506, line 24, and insert the following: ``(ii) Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.--The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of any transportation fuel shall be based on the most recent determinations under the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation model developed by Argonne National Laboratory, or a successor model (as determined by the Secretary). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4256 | null | 4,951 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5294. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Ms. Baldwin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 378, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 384, line 5, and insert the following: (g) Transfer of Credit.-- (1) In general.--Section 30D is amended-- (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h), and (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following: ``(g) Transfer of Credit.-- ``(1) In general.--Subject to such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary or appropriate, if the taxpayer who acquires a new clean vehicle elects the application of this subsection with respect to such vehicle, the credit which would (but for this subsection) be allowed to such taxpayer with respect to such vehicle shall be allowed to the eligible entity specified in such election (and not to such taxpayer). ``(2) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `eligible entity' means, with respect to the vehicle for which the credit is allowed under subsection (a), the dealer which sold such vehicle to the taxpayer and has-- ``(A) subject to paragraph (4), registered with the Secretary for purposes of this paragraph, at such time, and in such form and manner, as the Secretary may prescribe, ``(B) prior to the election described in paragraph (1) and not later than at the time of such sale, disclosed to the taxpayer purchasing such vehicle-- ``(i) the manufacturer's suggested retail price, ``(ii) the value of the credit allowed and any other incentive available for the purchase of such vehicle, and ``(iii) the amount provided by the dealer to such taxpayer as a condition of the election described in paragraph (1), ``(C) not later than at the time of such sale, made payment to such taxpayer (whether in cash or in the form of a partial payment or down payment for the purchase of such vehicle) in an amount equal to the credit otherwise allowable to such taxpayer, and ``(D) with respect to any incentive otherwise available for the purchase of a vehicle for which a credit is allowed under this section, including any incentive in the form of a rebate or discount provided by the dealer or manufacturer, ensured that-- ``(i) the availability or use of such incentive shall not limit the ability of a taxpayer to make an election described in paragraph (1), and ``(ii) such election shall not limit the value or use of such incentive. ``(3) Timing.--An election described in paragraph (1) shall be made by the taxpayer not later than the date on which the vehicle for which the credit is allowed under subsection (a) is purchased. ``(4) Revocation of registration.--Upon determination by the Secretary that a dealer has failed to comply with the requirements described in paragraph (2), the Secretary may revoke the registration (as described in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph) of such dealer. ``(5) Tax treatment of payments.--With respect to any payment described in paragraph (2)(C), such payment-- ``(A) shall not be includible in the gross income of the taxpayer, and ``(B) with respect to the dealer, shall not be deductible under this title. ``(6) Application of certain other requirements.--In the case of any election under paragraph (1) with respect to any vehicle-- ``(A) the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (f) shall apply to the taxpayer who acquired the vehicle in the same manner as if the credit determined under this section with respect to such vehicle were allowed to such taxpayer, ``(B) paragraph (6) of such subsection shall not apply, and ``(C) the requirement of paragraph (9) of such subsection (f) shall be treated as satisfied if the eligible entity provides the vehicle identification number of such vehicle to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary may provide. ``(7) Advance payment to registered dealers.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program to make advance payments to any eligible entity in an amount equal to the cumulative amount of the credits allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any vehicles sold by such entity for which an election described in paragraph (1) has been made. ``(B) Excessive payments.--Rules similar to the rules of section 6417(c)(6) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. ``(C) Treatment of advance payments.--For purposes of section 1324 of title 31, United States Code, the payments under subparagraph (A) shall be treated in the same manner as a refund due from a credit provision referred to in subsection (b)(2) of such section. ``(8) Dealer.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `dealer' means a person licensed by a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any other territory or possession of the United States, an Indian tribal government, or any Alaska Native Corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(m)) to engage in the sale of vehicles. ``(9) Indian tribal government.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `Indian tribal government' means the recognized governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, community, component band, or component reservation, individually identified (including parenthetically) in the list published most recently as of the date of enactment of this subsection pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131).''. (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 30D, as amended by the preceding provisions of this section, is amended-- (A) in subsection (d)(1)(H) of such section-- (i) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end, (ii) in clause (v), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, and'', and (iii) by adding at the end the following: ``(vi) in the case of a taxpayer who makes an election under subsection (g)(1), any amount described in subsection (g)(2)(C) which has been provided to such taxpayer.'', and (B) in subsection (f)-- (i) by striking paragraph (3), and (ii) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``, including any vehicle with respect to which the taxpayer elects the application of subsection (g)'' before the period at the end. (h) Extension of Credit for Qualified 2- or 3- Wheeled Plug-in Electric Vehicles; Termination.--Section 30D is amended-- (1) in subsection (h)(3), as redesignated by the preceding provisions of this section-- (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``4 kilowatt hours'' and inserting ``7 kilowatt hours'', and (B) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following: ``(E) in the case of a vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2026, the final assembly of which occurs within the United States.''. (2) by adding at the end the following: ``(i) Termination.--No credit shall be allowed under this section with respect to any vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2032.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4296-2 | null | 4,952 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 5340. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 718, strike lines 20 through 23 and insert the following: collection systems; (3) to support efforts to ensure that any mapping or screening tool is accessible to community-based organizations and community members; and (4) to collect and make publicly available information relating to the impacts of the process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) across Federal agencies, including-- (A)(i) the number of proposed actions for which a Federal agency issued a categorical exclusion in the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act; and (ii) the length of time that the Federal agency took to issue each such categorical exclusion; (B) the number of actions proposed by a Federal agency that are pending as of the date on which the information required under this paragraph is published and for which issuance of a categorical exclusion is pending; (C)(i) the number of proposed actions for which a Federal agency issued an environmental assessment in the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act; and (ii) the length of time that the Federal agency took to complete each such environmental assessment; (D) the number of actions proposed by a Federal agency that are pending as of the date on which the information required under this paragraph is published and for which issuance of an environmental assessment is pending; (E)(i) the number of proposed actions for which a Federal agency issued an environmental impact statement in the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act; and (ii) the length of time that the Federal agency took to complete each such environmental impact statement; (F) the number of actions proposed by a Federal agency that are pending as of the date on which the information required under this paragraph is published and for which issuance of an environmental impact statement is pending; and (G) the comprehensive costs of the process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for each action proposed by a Federal agency within the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act, including-- (i) the amount of money expended, as of the date of enactment of this Act, to carry out that process for each proposed action; and (ii) an estimate of the remaining cost to complete each proposed action. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4321-4 | null | 4,953 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5340. Mr. LEE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 718, strike lines 20 through 23 and insert the following: collection systems; (3) to support efforts to ensure that any mapping or screening tool is accessible to community-based organizations and community members; and (4) to collect and make publicly available information relating to the impacts of the process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) across Federal agencies, including-- (A)(i) the number of proposed actions for which a Federal agency issued a categorical exclusion in the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act; and (ii) the length of time that the Federal agency took to issue each such categorical exclusion; (B) the number of actions proposed by a Federal agency that are pending as of the date on which the information required under this paragraph is published and for which issuance of a categorical exclusion is pending; (C)(i) the number of proposed actions for which a Federal agency issued an environmental assessment in the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act; and (ii) the length of time that the Federal agency took to complete each such environmental assessment; (D) the number of actions proposed by a Federal agency that are pending as of the date on which the information required under this paragraph is published and for which issuance of an environmental assessment is pending; (E)(i) the number of proposed actions for which a Federal agency issued an environmental impact statement in the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act; and (ii) the length of time that the Federal agency took to complete each such environmental impact statement; (F) the number of actions proposed by a Federal agency that are pending as of the date on which the information required under this paragraph is published and for which issuance of an environmental impact statement is pending; and (G) the comprehensive costs of the process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for each action proposed by a Federal agency within the year preceding the date of enactment of this Act, including-- (i) the amount of money expended, as of the date of enactment of this Act, to carry out that process for each proposed action; and (ii) an estimate of the remaining cost to complete each proposed action. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4321-4 | null | 4,954 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5376. Mr. CRAMER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of section 50262, add the following: (g) Onshore Wind and Solar Energy Royalty Rate.-- (1) In general.--The Secretary shall require, as a term and condition of any lease, right-of-way, permit, or other authorization for the development of solar or wind energy on public lands (as defined in section 103 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702)), the payment of a royalty in accordance with paragraph (2). (2) Amount.--The royalty on electricity produced using wind or solar resources under paragraph (1) shall be not less than 16\2/3\ percent, but not more than 18\3/4\ percent, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, and not less than 16\2/3\ percent thereafter, of the gross proceeds from the sale of that electricity. (3) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as royalties under this subsection shall be disposed of in accordance with section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4327-9 | null | 4,955 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5486. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Ms. Baldwin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5194 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 5376, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: On page 378, strike line 6 and all that follows through page 384, line 5, and insert the following: (g) Transfer of Credit.-- (1) In general.--Section 30D is amended-- (A) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h), and (B) by inserting after subsection (f) the following: ``(g) Transfer of Credit.-- ``(1) In general.--Subject to such regulations or other guidance as the Secretary determines necessary or appropriate, if the taxpayer who acquires a new clean vehicle elects the application of this subsection with respect to such vehicle, the credit which would (but for this subsection) be allowed to such taxpayer with respect to such vehicle shall be allowed to the eligible entity specified in such election (and not to such taxpayer). ``(2) Eligible entity.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `eligible entity' means, with respect to the vehicle for which the credit is allowed under subsection (a), the dealer which sold such vehicle to the taxpayer and has-- ``(A) subject to paragraph (4), registered with the Secretary for purposes of this paragraph, at such time, and in such form and manner, as the Secretary may prescribe, ``(B) prior to the election described in paragraph (1) and not later than at the time of such sale, disclosed to the taxpayer purchasing such vehicle-- ``(i) the manufacturer's suggested retail price, ``(ii) the value of the credit allowed and any other incentive available for the purchase of such vehicle, and ``(iii) the amount provided by the dealer to such taxpayer as a condition of the election described in paragraph (1), ``(C) not later than at the time of such sale, made payment to such taxpayer (whether in cash or in the form of a partial payment or down payment for the purchase of such vehicle) in an amount equal to the credit otherwise allowable to such taxpayer, and ``(D) with respect to any incentive otherwise available for the purchase of a vehicle for which a credit is allowed under this section, including any incentive in the form of a rebate or discount provided by the dealer or manufacturer, ensured that-- ``(i) the availability or use of such incentive shall not limit the ability of a taxpayer to make an election described in paragraph (1), and ``(ii) such election shall not limit the value or use of such incentive. ``(3) Timing.--An election described in paragraph (1) shall be made by the taxpayer not later than the date on which the vehicle for which the credit is allowed under subsection (a) is purchased. ``(4) Revocation of registration.--Upon determination by the Secretary that a dealer has failed to comply with the requirements described in paragraph (2), the Secretary may revoke the registration (as described in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph) of such dealer. ``(5) Tax treatment of payments.--With respect to any payment described in paragraph (2)(C), such payment-- ``(A) shall not be includible in the gross income of the taxpayer, and ``(B) with respect to the dealer, shall not be deductible under this title. ``(6) Application of certain other requirements.--In the case of any election under paragraph (1) with respect to any vehicle-- ``(A) the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (f) shall apply to the taxpayer who acquired the vehicle in the same manner as if the credit determined under this section with respect to such vehicle were allowed to such taxpayer, ``(B) paragraph (6) of such subsection shall not apply, and ``(C) the requirement of paragraph (9) of such subsection (f) shall be treated as satisfied if the eligible entity provides the vehicle identification number of such vehicle to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary may provide. ``(7) Advance payment to registered dealers.-- ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a program to make advance payments to any eligible entity in an amount equal to the cumulative amount of the credits allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any vehicles sold by such entity for which an election described in paragraph (1) has been made. ``(B) Excessive payments.--Rules similar to the rules of section 6417(c)(6) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph. ``(C) Treatment of advance payments.--For purposes of section 1324 of title 31, United States Code, the payments under subparagraph (A) shall be treated in the same manner as a refund due from a credit provision referred to in subsection (b)(2) of such section. ``(8) Dealer.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `dealer' means a person licensed by a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any other territory or possession of the United States, an Indian tribal government, or any Alaska Native Corporation (as defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(m)) to engage in the sale of vehicles. ``(9) Indian tribal government.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `Indian tribal government' means the recognized governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, community, component band, or component reservation, individually identified (including parenthetically) in the list published most recently as of the date of enactment of this subsection pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131).''. (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 30D, as amended by the preceding provisions of this section, is amended-- (A) in subsection (d)(1)(H) of such section-- (i) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end, (ii) in clause (v), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``, and'', and (iii) by adding at the end the following: ``(vi) in the case of a taxpayer who makes an election under subsection (g)(1), any amount described in subsection (g)(2)(C) which has been provided to such taxpayer.'', and (B) in subsection (f)-- (i) by striking paragraph (3), and (ii) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``, including any vehicle with respect to which the taxpayer elects the application of subsection (g)'' before the period at the end. (h) Extension of Credit for Qualified 2- or 3- Wheeled Plug-in Electric Vehicles; Termination.--Section 30D is amended-- (1) in subsection (h)(3), as redesignated by the preceding provisions of this section-- (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``4 kilowatt hours'' and inserting ``7 kilowatt hours'', and (B) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the following: ``(E) in the case of a vehicle placed in service after December 31, 2021, the final assembly of which occurs within the United States.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-08-06-pt1-PgS4397-2 | null | 4,956 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-5048. A letter from the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting an authorization of Rear Admiral Frank M. Bradley, United States Navy, and Rear Admiral Richard A. Correll, United States Navy, to wear the insignia of the grade of vice admiral, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777a(b)(4); Public Law 111-383, Sec. 505(a)(1); (124 Stat. 4208); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5049. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Lieutenant General James M. Richardson, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5050. A letter from the Congressional Assistant III, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Collection of Checks and Other Items by Federal Reserve Banks and Funds Transfers Through Fedwire [Regulation J; Docket No.: R-1750] (RIN: 7100-AG16) received July 29, 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-5051. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria -- Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)--Grants to State Entities (State Entity Grants); Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer Grants) [Docket ID: ED-2022-OESE- 0006] received July 29, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5052. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Annual Report 2021; to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5053. A letter from the Section Chief, Diversion Control Division, DEA, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, FUB- AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA, and FUB-144 in Schedule I [Docket No.: DEA-491] received July 29, 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-5054. A letter from the Program Analyst, PERM/OMD, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Misuse of Internet Protocol Relay Service [CG Docket No.: 03-123; CG Docket No.: 10-51; CG Docket No.: 12-38] received July 29, 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-5055. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 652; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5056. A letter from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting one notification of a nomination and a designation of acting officer, 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-5057. A letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of External Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report for the period October 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5058. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting thirty-seven (37) notifications of a vacancy, designation of acting officer, nomination, action on nomination, and discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5059. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's FY 2021 No FEAR Act report, 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-5060. A letter from the Acting Ombudsman for the Energy Employees, Occupational Illness Compensation Program, Department of Labor, transmitting the 2021 Annual Report of the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7385s-15(e)(1); Public Law 106-398, Sec. 1 (as amended by Public Law 108-375, Sec. 3161); (118 Stat. 2185); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5061. A letter from the Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Congressional and Governmental Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a notification that the United States Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) ALDER (WL B 216) will change homeport from Duluth, MN, to San Francisco, CA; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-08-09-pt1-PgH7555-10 | null | 4,957 |
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-5048. A letter from the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense, transmitting an authorization of Rear Admiral Frank M. Bradley, United States Navy, and Rear Admiral Richard A. Correll, United States Navy, to wear the insignia of the grade of vice admiral, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 777a(b)(4); Public Law 111-383, Sec. 505(a)(1); (124 Stat. 4208); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5049. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting a letter on the approved retirement of Lieutenant General James M. Richardson, United States Army, and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-5050. A letter from the Congressional Assistant III, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Collection of Checks and Other Items by Federal Reserve Banks and Funds Transfers Through Fedwire [Regulation J; Docket No.: R-1750] (RIN: 7100-AG16) received July 29, 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-5051. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria -- Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria--Expanding Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP)--Grants to State Entities (State Entity Grants); Grants to Charter Management Organizations for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (CMO Grants); and Grants to Charter School Developers for the Opening of New Charter Schools and for the Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools (Developer Grants) [Docket ID: ED-2022-OESE- 0006] received July 29, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5052. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Annual Report 2021; to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5053. A letter from the Section Chief, Diversion Control Division, DEA, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of 5F-EDMB-PINACA, 5F-MDMB-PICA, FUB- AKB48, 5F-CUMYL-PINACA, and FUB-144 in Schedule I [Docket No.: DEA-491] received July 29, 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-5054. A letter from the Program Analyst, PERM/OMD, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Misuse of Internet Protocol Relay Service [CG Docket No.: 03-123; CG Docket No.: 10-51; CG Docket No.: 12-38] received July 29, 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-5055. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a memorandum of justification, pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 652; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5056. A letter from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting one notification of a nomination and a designation of acting officer, 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-5057. A letter from the Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of External Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's Office of Inspector General Semiannual Report for the period October 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022; to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5058. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting thirty-seven (37) notifications of a vacancy, designation of acting officer, nomination, action on nomination, and discontinuation of service in acting role, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform. EC-5059. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's FY 2021 No FEAR Act report, 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-5060. A letter from the Acting Ombudsman for the Energy Employees, Occupational Illness Compensation Program, Department of Labor, transmitting the 2021 Annual Report of the Ombudsman for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7385s-15(e)(1); Public Law 106-398, Sec. 1 (as amended by Public Law 108-375, Sec. 3161); (118 Stat. 2185); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-5061. A letter from the Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Chief, Congressional and Governmental Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a notification that the United States Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) ALDER (WL B 216) will change homeport from Duluth, MN, to San Francisco, CA; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-08-09-pt1-PgH7555-10 | null | 4,958 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: PT-140. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 344-22, urging public service employees to apply for student loan forgiveness through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and further urging the Federal Government to cancel all student debt; to the Committee on Education and Labor. PT-141. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, CA, relative to Resolution No. 319-22, urging the Honorable Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, to grant Salesh Prasad, a full pardon to allow him to remain in the United States with his family and to continue contributing to his community; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-08-23-pt1-PgH7721 | null | 4,959 |
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-5153. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Director, Legislative Affairs, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting the Bureau's interpretive rule -- Limited Applicability of Consumer Financial Protection Act's ``Time or Space'' Exception With Respect to Digital Marketing Providers received August 29, 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-5154. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Services, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education, transmitting the Department's notice -- Applications for New Awards; Full- Service Community Schools Program received August 2, 2022, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Education and Labor. EC-5155. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel, Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment to Incorporation by Reference in Safety Standard for High Chairs [Docket No.: CPSC-2015-0031] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-5156. 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 Procedure for Direct Expansion- Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems [EERE-2017 BT-TP-0018] (RIN: 1904-AE46) received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-5157. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and Management Staff, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Fumonisin Esterase [Docket No.: FDA-2020-F-1275] received August 12, 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-5158. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Department of Health and Human Services Repeal of HHS Rules on Guidance, Enforcement, and Adjudication Procedures [HHS- OS-2020-0008; HHS-OS-2021-0001] (RIN: 0991-AC29) received July 29, 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-5159. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Interstate Transport Requirements for 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards [EPA-R06-OAR-2021- 0772; FRL-9889-02-R6] received August 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-5160. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Oil and Natural Gas Control Measures [EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0450; FRL-9927-02-R2] received August 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-5161. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Albuquerque- Bernalillo County, New Mexico; Excess Emissions [EPA-R06-OAR- 2016-0673; FRL-9878-02-R6] received August 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-5162. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Removal of the Reformulated Gasoline Program From the Southern Maine Area [EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0398; FRL 9847-01-OAR] (RIN: 2060-AV75) received August 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-5163. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Deadlines for Submission and Recordation of Allowance Allocations Under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Trading Programs and the Texas SO2 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668; FRL-8670.1-01-OAR] received August 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-5164. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Reinstating Class D FM Exemption to Section 73.3527(e)(8) [MB Docket No.: 22-240] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-5165. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television Translator Stations [MB Docket No.: 03-185]; Update of Parts 74 of the Commission's Rules Related to Low Power Television and Television Translator Stations [MB Docket No.: 22-261] received August 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 Energy and Commerce. EC-5166. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's issuance of regulatory guide-- Water Sources for Long-Term Recirculation Cooling Following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident [Regulatory Guide RG 1.82 Revision 5] received August 9, 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-5167. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting the text of an Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2153(d); Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, Sec. 123 (as amended by Public Law 109-401, Sec. 104(e)); (120 Stat. 2734) (H. Doc. No. 117--139); to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed. EC-5168. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-064, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5169. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 20-054, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5170. A letter from the Senior Bureau Official, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 22-001, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5171. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 22-031, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5172. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 21-079, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5173. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 22-007, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5174. A letter from the Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Department Notification Number: DDTC 22-002, pursuant to Section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. EC-5175. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting Pay Adjustments for Civilian Federal Employees covered by the General Schedule and certain other pay systems in January 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5304a(a); Public Law 101-509, title I, Sec. 101(a)(1); (104 Stat. 1436) and 5 U.S.C. 5303(b)(1)(A); Public Law 89-554, Sec. 5303(b)(1)(A) (as amended by Public Law 101-509, Sec. 529); (104 Stat 1430) (H. Doc. No. 117--140); to the Committee on Oversight and Reform and ordered to be printed. EC-5176. A letter from the Director, Legal and Policy Division, Office of the Federal Register, Administrative Committee of the Federal Register, transmitting the Committee's final rule -- Official Subscription to the Print Edition of the Federal Register 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 Oversight and Reform. EC-5177. A letter from the Manager, Branch of Listing Policy and Support, Department of Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Paleontological Resources Preservation [Docket: NPS-2016-0003; FWS-93261, | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-09-02-pt1-PgH7734-3 | null | 4,960 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair announces to the House that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), the whole number of the House is 429. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-09-02-pt1-PgH7734 | null | 4,961 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Eternal God, our time is in Your hands. Every precious minute we share with friends, family, loved ones, and colleagues is a reminder of the many gifts we are given to cherish. Hour by hour, as we clock the passing of time with our meetings and appointments, remind us that we are called to set our schedules wisely and to exercise the skills and abilities as You have graced us, all for the betterment of our communities, the health and welfare of our Nation, and peace in the world. When each dawn breaks, may we greet it, rejoicing in the day You have made. And at the setting of the Sun, may we pause to give You thanks that You have guided our steps and directed us on the paths You would have us go. Allow us, then, to see Your presence in the minutes, hours, and days we are given. In each moment that You lavish upon us, may our spirits be renewed, our purpose made clear, and our lives proclaim the grace You have shown us. We offer our prayers in Your everlasting and timeless name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgH7737-3 | null | 4,962 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would clarify the announcement of September 2, 2022. Pursuant to clause 5(d) of rule XX, the whole number of the House is 430. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgH7737-6 | null | 4,963 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Finally, I want to say a few words on another monumental development that happened over the August recess: student debt cancelation. For the past 2 years, I have repeatedly stated that with the simple flick of a pen, President Biden could lower costs for millions of Americans by canceling their student debt. Everywhere I go, student debt is always front of mind for many of my fellow New Yorkers, as it is for millions across the country. There are many who don't have student debt--many--but for those who do, it is deep. This is not just 1 of 10 issues; this is the issue that really, really bothers them and motivates them, to have to wake up in the middle of the night, saying: How am I going to make that $400 payment next month when my salary doesn't stretch that far? What am I going to cut out of my life? Well, with that long-awaited flick of the pen, President Biden gave tens of millions of Americans a new lease on life by canceling significant amounts of student debt. To President Biden, I say thank you. Thank you for listening to our cause. Thank you for taking action. The President's decision will make it easier for millions of Americans to finally pursue their own American dream, whether that means making that downpayment on a house or buying that new car or opening a business or saving for retirement. It will help close the racial wealth gap that still holds far too many Americans back, and most of all, it is going to make our economy strong. Now, over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of fake outrage from Republicans, saying that canceling student debt is nothing more than a giveaway to wealthy Americans. The same Republicans who made tax cuts for the ultrarich their No. 1 priority are suddenly apoplectic at the thought of helping working-- and middle-class Americans with student debt relief. Well, here is the truth, I say to my Republican colleagues: Among borrowers who are no longer in school, 90 percent of the debt canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year--the opposite of the tax cuts that Republicans pushed for where the vast majority of the money went to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent. Let me repeat that. Among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90 percent of the debt being canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. Let's not forget that a majority of student loans are held by people whose families have zero net worth--zero. A majority of student loans are to families who have zero net worth. That is why the greatest help will go to those with the greatest need. Pell grant recipients, who for the most part come from families making under $60,000 a year, will have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled. So rather than helping the privileged few, canceling student debt is going to lift up Americans from all walks of life--students of color, poor Americans, children of immigrants, working- and middle-class families struggling to either get to the middle class or stay there. So, again, I thank President Biden for taking action. I also want to thank champions like Senator Warren, who has been such a great partner in this activity, Senator Warnock, and Representative Pressley, who joined with me in calling for the President to take this step. They have all been great partners in the effort, and I am glad our efforts finally began to pay off. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4418 | null | 4,964 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Finally, I want to say a few words on another monumental development that happened over the August recess: student debt cancelation. For the past 2 years, I have repeatedly stated that with the simple flick of a pen, President Biden could lower costs for millions of Americans by canceling their student debt. Everywhere I go, student debt is always front of mind for many of my fellow New Yorkers, as it is for millions across the country. There are many who don't have student debt--many--but for those who do, it is deep. This is not just 1 of 10 issues; this is the issue that really, really bothers them and motivates them, to have to wake up in the middle of the night, saying: How am I going to make that $400 payment next month when my salary doesn't stretch that far? What am I going to cut out of my life? Well, with that long-awaited flick of the pen, President Biden gave tens of millions of Americans a new lease on life by canceling significant amounts of student debt. To President Biden, I say thank you. Thank you for listening to our cause. Thank you for taking action. The President's decision will make it easier for millions of Americans to finally pursue their own American dream, whether that means making that downpayment on a house or buying that new car or opening a business or saving for retirement. It will help close the racial wealth gap that still holds far too many Americans back, and most of all, it is going to make our economy strong. Now, over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of fake outrage from Republicans, saying that canceling student debt is nothing more than a giveaway to wealthy Americans. The same Republicans who made tax cuts for the ultrarich their No. 1 priority are suddenly apoplectic at the thought of helping working-- and middle-class Americans with student debt relief. Well, here is the truth, I say to my Republican colleagues: Among borrowers who are no longer in school, 90 percent of the debt canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year--the opposite of the tax cuts that Republicans pushed for where the vast majority of the money went to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent. Let me repeat that. Among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90 percent of the debt being canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. Let's not forget that a majority of student loans are held by people whose families have zero net worth--zero. A majority of student loans are to families who have zero net worth. That is why the greatest help will go to those with the greatest need. Pell grant recipients, who for the most part come from families making under $60,000 a year, will have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled. So rather than helping the privileged few, canceling student debt is going to lift up Americans from all walks of life--students of color, poor Americans, children of immigrants, working- and middle-class families struggling to either get to the middle class or stay there. So, again, I thank President Biden for taking action. I also want to thank champions like Senator Warren, who has been such a great partner in this activity, Senator Warnock, and Representative Pressley, who joined with me in calling for the President to take this step. They have all been great partners in the effort, and I am glad our efforts finally began to pay off. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4418 | null | 4,965 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Finally, I want to say a few words on another monumental development that happened over the August recess: student debt cancelation. For the past 2 years, I have repeatedly stated that with the simple flick of a pen, President Biden could lower costs for millions of Americans by canceling their student debt. Everywhere I go, student debt is always front of mind for many of my fellow New Yorkers, as it is for millions across the country. There are many who don't have student debt--many--but for those who do, it is deep. This is not just 1 of 10 issues; this is the issue that really, really bothers them and motivates them, to have to wake up in the middle of the night, saying: How am I going to make that $400 payment next month when my salary doesn't stretch that far? What am I going to cut out of my life? Well, with that long-awaited flick of the pen, President Biden gave tens of millions of Americans a new lease on life by canceling significant amounts of student debt. To President Biden, I say thank you. Thank you for listening to our cause. Thank you for taking action. The President's decision will make it easier for millions of Americans to finally pursue their own American dream, whether that means making that downpayment on a house or buying that new car or opening a business or saving for retirement. It will help close the racial wealth gap that still holds far too many Americans back, and most of all, it is going to make our economy strong. Now, over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of fake outrage from Republicans, saying that canceling student debt is nothing more than a giveaway to wealthy Americans. The same Republicans who made tax cuts for the ultrarich their No. 1 priority are suddenly apoplectic at the thought of helping working-- and middle-class Americans with student debt relief. Well, here is the truth, I say to my Republican colleagues: Among borrowers who are no longer in school, 90 percent of the debt canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year--the opposite of the tax cuts that Republicans pushed for where the vast majority of the money went to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent. Let me repeat that. Among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90 percent of the debt being canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. Let's not forget that a majority of student loans are held by people whose families have zero net worth--zero. A majority of student loans are to families who have zero net worth. That is why the greatest help will go to those with the greatest need. Pell grant recipients, who for the most part come from families making under $60,000 a year, will have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled. So rather than helping the privileged few, canceling student debt is going to lift up Americans from all walks of life--students of color, poor Americans, children of immigrants, working- and middle-class families struggling to either get to the middle class or stay there. So, again, I thank President Biden for taking action. I also want to thank champions like Senator Warren, who has been such a great partner in this activity, Senator Warnock, and Representative Pressley, who joined with me in calling for the President to take this step. They have all been great partners in the effort, and I am glad our efforts finally began to pay off. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4418 | null | 4,966 |
formal | middle-class Americans | null | racist | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Finally, I want to say a few words on another monumental development that happened over the August recess: student debt cancelation. For the past 2 years, I have repeatedly stated that with the simple flick of a pen, President Biden could lower costs for millions of Americans by canceling their student debt. Everywhere I go, student debt is always front of mind for many of my fellow New Yorkers, as it is for millions across the country. There are many who don't have student debt--many--but for those who do, it is deep. This is not just 1 of 10 issues; this is the issue that really, really bothers them and motivates them, to have to wake up in the middle of the night, saying: How am I going to make that $400 payment next month when my salary doesn't stretch that far? What am I going to cut out of my life? Well, with that long-awaited flick of the pen, President Biden gave tens of millions of Americans a new lease on life by canceling significant amounts of student debt. To President Biden, I say thank you. Thank you for listening to our cause. Thank you for taking action. The President's decision will make it easier for millions of Americans to finally pursue their own American dream, whether that means making that downpayment on a house or buying that new car or opening a business or saving for retirement. It will help close the racial wealth gap that still holds far too many Americans back, and most of all, it is going to make our economy strong. Now, over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot of fake outrage from Republicans, saying that canceling student debt is nothing more than a giveaway to wealthy Americans. The same Republicans who made tax cuts for the ultrarich their No. 1 priority are suddenly apoplectic at the thought of helping working-- and middle-class Americans with student debt relief. Well, here is the truth, I say to my Republican colleagues: Among borrowers who are no longer in school, 90 percent of the debt canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year--the opposite of the tax cuts that Republicans pushed for where the vast majority of the money went to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent. Let me repeat that. Among borrowers who are no longer in school, nearly 90 percent of the debt being canceled will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. Let's not forget that a majority of student loans are held by people whose families have zero net worth--zero. A majority of student loans are to families who have zero net worth. That is why the greatest help will go to those with the greatest need. Pell grant recipients, who for the most part come from families making under $60,000 a year, will have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled. So rather than helping the privileged few, canceling student debt is going to lift up Americans from all walks of life--students of color, poor Americans, children of immigrants, working- and middle-class families struggling to either get to the middle class or stay there. So, again, I thank President Biden for taking action. I also want to thank champions like Senator Warren, who has been such a great partner in this activity, Senator Warnock, and Representative Pressley, who joined with me in calling for the President to take this step. They have all been great partners in the effort, and I am glad our efforts finally began to pay off. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4418 | null | 4,967 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | The Economy Now on another matter, American families are hurting, and they are very clearly telling anybody who will listen to them what our priorities ought to be. Americans' No. 1 concern--by a mile--is the crushing inflation that Democrats spent us into. The share of Americans who name inflation as our most urgent problem is almost triple the next closest issue. Democrats' policies have working people paying a Democrat inflation tax of more than 13 percent on top of their grocery bills, 15 percent extra on their electric bills, and on and on down the list of everything that families need to just stay afloat. As a result, Democrats have presided over plummeting real wages for American workers. The average American worker has gotten a raise on paper, but their bigger paycheck buys them less than their smaller paycheck bought them this time last year. Now, this wasn't inevitable. Inflation did not have to be nearly this bad. Democrats chose to spend so recklessly. Democrats chose to wage this economic warfare against the middle class, against their savings, against their financial stability, against the purchasing power and the lifestyles that workers and parents sacrificed, literally, for years to build up. Americans are also deeply concerned about the erosion of law and order on our streets, in our cities, on our borders, and across our country. When you combine together crime and immigration, the issue of law and order ranks as the people's clear No. 2 concern, second only to inflation. Last year, the national murder rate reached its highest level in 25 years. Cities across the country are contending with a historic surge in carjackings. My hometown of Louisville is now averaging an auto theft every 2\1/2\ hours. President Biden's failed border policies have Customs and Border Protection encountering 200 percent more fentanyl and apprehending the most illegal immigrants they have seen in more than 20 years. So there is no mystery about the crises facing our country. The American people know what needs to be addressed. Republicans know what needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, the Democrats, who control the Senate, the House, and the White House, are still refusing to get with the program. Democrats' top priority for the entire year was the multi-hundred-billion-dollar reckless taxing and spending spree they rammed through in August. Americans may want their leaders to cut inflation, fight crime and drugs, and secure the border, but Democrats just spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the people's money doing precisely none of that. Instead, our big-spending colleagues treated themselves to 87,000 new IRS agents, job-killing tax hikes, and the same kind of liberal energy policies that now have California officials warning--warning--about rolling blackouts and begging people not to charge up their electric cars. Oh, oh, and our Democratic colleagues have given no indication that cutting inflation, fighting crime, or securing the border will be on the Senate's agenda for September either. When our people are hurting this badly and speaking this clearly, it takes a willful choice--a choice--for Democrats to ignore them. Stable prices, safe streets, reliable energy, and a secure border--four of the most basic duties that any government owes its people; four things Democrats have proven they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4419 | null | 4,968 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | The Economy Now on another matter, American families are hurting, and they are very clearly telling anybody who will listen to them what our priorities ought to be. Americans' No. 1 concern--by a mile--is the crushing inflation that Democrats spent us into. The share of Americans who name inflation as our most urgent problem is almost triple the next closest issue. Democrats' policies have working people paying a Democrat inflation tax of more than 13 percent on top of their grocery bills, 15 percent extra on their electric bills, and on and on down the list of everything that families need to just stay afloat. As a result, Democrats have presided over plummeting real wages for American workers. The average American worker has gotten a raise on paper, but their bigger paycheck buys them less than their smaller paycheck bought them this time last year. Now, this wasn't inevitable. Inflation did not have to be nearly this bad. Democrats chose to spend so recklessly. Democrats chose to wage this economic warfare against the middle class, against their savings, against their financial stability, against the purchasing power and the lifestyles that workers and parents sacrificed, literally, for years to build up. Americans are also deeply concerned about the erosion of law and order on our streets, in our cities, on our borders, and across our country. When you combine together crime and immigration, the issue of law and order ranks as the people's clear No. 2 concern, second only to inflation. Last year, the national murder rate reached its highest level in 25 years. Cities across the country are contending with a historic surge in carjackings. My hometown of Louisville is now averaging an auto theft every 2\1/2\ hours. President Biden's failed border policies have Customs and Border Protection encountering 200 percent more fentanyl and apprehending the most illegal immigrants they have seen in more than 20 years. So there is no mystery about the crises facing our country. The American people know what needs to be addressed. Republicans know what needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, the Democrats, who control the Senate, the House, and the White House, are still refusing to get with the program. Democrats' top priority for the entire year was the multi-hundred-billion-dollar reckless taxing and spending spree they rammed through in August. Americans may want their leaders to cut inflation, fight crime and drugs, and secure the border, but Democrats just spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the people's money doing precisely none of that. Instead, our big-spending colleagues treated themselves to 87,000 new IRS agents, job-killing tax hikes, and the same kind of liberal energy policies that now have California officials warning--warning--about rolling blackouts and begging people not to charge up their electric cars. Oh, oh, and our Democratic colleagues have given no indication that cutting inflation, fighting crime, or securing the border will be on the Senate's agenda for September either. When our people are hurting this badly and speaking this clearly, it takes a willful choice--a choice--for Democrats to ignore them. Stable prices, safe streets, reliable energy, and a secure border--four of the most basic duties that any government owes its people; four things Democrats have proven they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4419 | null | 4,969 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | The Economy Now on another matter, American families are hurting, and they are very clearly telling anybody who will listen to them what our priorities ought to be. Americans' No. 1 concern--by a mile--is the crushing inflation that Democrats spent us into. The share of Americans who name inflation as our most urgent problem is almost triple the next closest issue. Democrats' policies have working people paying a Democrat inflation tax of more than 13 percent on top of their grocery bills, 15 percent extra on their electric bills, and on and on down the list of everything that families need to just stay afloat. As a result, Democrats have presided over plummeting real wages for American workers. The average American worker has gotten a raise on paper, but their bigger paycheck buys them less than their smaller paycheck bought them this time last year. Now, this wasn't inevitable. Inflation did not have to be nearly this bad. Democrats chose to spend so recklessly. Democrats chose to wage this economic warfare against the middle class, against their savings, against their financial stability, against the purchasing power and the lifestyles that workers and parents sacrificed, literally, for years to build up. Americans are also deeply concerned about the erosion of law and order on our streets, in our cities, on our borders, and across our country. When you combine together crime and immigration, the issue of law and order ranks as the people's clear No. 2 concern, second only to inflation. Last year, the national murder rate reached its highest level in 25 years. Cities across the country are contending with a historic surge in carjackings. My hometown of Louisville is now averaging an auto theft every 2\1/2\ hours. President Biden's failed border policies have Customs and Border Protection encountering 200 percent more fentanyl and apprehending the most illegal immigrants they have seen in more than 20 years. So there is no mystery about the crises facing our country. The American people know what needs to be addressed. Republicans know what needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, the Democrats, who control the Senate, the House, and the White House, are still refusing to get with the program. Democrats' top priority for the entire year was the multi-hundred-billion-dollar reckless taxing and spending spree they rammed through in August. Americans may want their leaders to cut inflation, fight crime and drugs, and secure the border, but Democrats just spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the people's money doing precisely none of that. Instead, our big-spending colleagues treated themselves to 87,000 new IRS agents, job-killing tax hikes, and the same kind of liberal energy policies that now have California officials warning--warning--about rolling blackouts and begging people not to charge up their electric cars. Oh, oh, and our Democratic colleagues have given no indication that cutting inflation, fighting crime, or securing the border will be on the Senate's agenda for September either. When our people are hurting this badly and speaking this clearly, it takes a willful choice--a choice--for Democrats to ignore them. Stable prices, safe streets, reliable energy, and a secure border--four of the most basic duties that any government owes its people; four things Democrats have proven they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4419 | null | 4,970 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | The Economy Now on another matter, American families are hurting, and they are very clearly telling anybody who will listen to them what our priorities ought to be. Americans' No. 1 concern--by a mile--is the crushing inflation that Democrats spent us into. The share of Americans who name inflation as our most urgent problem is almost triple the next closest issue. Democrats' policies have working people paying a Democrat inflation tax of more than 13 percent on top of their grocery bills, 15 percent extra on their electric bills, and on and on down the list of everything that families need to just stay afloat. As a result, Democrats have presided over plummeting real wages for American workers. The average American worker has gotten a raise on paper, but their bigger paycheck buys them less than their smaller paycheck bought them this time last year. Now, this wasn't inevitable. Inflation did not have to be nearly this bad. Democrats chose to spend so recklessly. Democrats chose to wage this economic warfare against the middle class, against their savings, against their financial stability, against the purchasing power and the lifestyles that workers and parents sacrificed, literally, for years to build up. Americans are also deeply concerned about the erosion of law and order on our streets, in our cities, on our borders, and across our country. When you combine together crime and immigration, the issue of law and order ranks as the people's clear No. 2 concern, second only to inflation. Last year, the national murder rate reached its highest level in 25 years. Cities across the country are contending with a historic surge in carjackings. My hometown of Louisville is now averaging an auto theft every 2\1/2\ hours. President Biden's failed border policies have Customs and Border Protection encountering 200 percent more fentanyl and apprehending the most illegal immigrants they have seen in more than 20 years. So there is no mystery about the crises facing our country. The American people know what needs to be addressed. Republicans know what needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, the Democrats, who control the Senate, the House, and the White House, are still refusing to get with the program. Democrats' top priority for the entire year was the multi-hundred-billion-dollar reckless taxing and spending spree they rammed through in August. Americans may want their leaders to cut inflation, fight crime and drugs, and secure the border, but Democrats just spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the people's money doing precisely none of that. Instead, our big-spending colleagues treated themselves to 87,000 new IRS agents, job-killing tax hikes, and the same kind of liberal energy policies that now have California officials warning--warning--about rolling blackouts and begging people not to charge up their electric cars. Oh, oh, and our Democratic colleagues have given no indication that cutting inflation, fighting crime, or securing the border will be on the Senate's agenda for September either. When our people are hurting this badly and speaking this clearly, it takes a willful choice--a choice--for Democrats to ignore them. Stable prices, safe streets, reliable energy, and a secure border--four of the most basic duties that any government owes its people; four things Democrats have proven they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4419 | null | 4,971 |
formal | securing the border | null | anti-Latino | The Economy Now on another matter, American families are hurting, and they are very clearly telling anybody who will listen to them what our priorities ought to be. Americans' No. 1 concern--by a mile--is the crushing inflation that Democrats spent us into. The share of Americans who name inflation as our most urgent problem is almost triple the next closest issue. Democrats' policies have working people paying a Democrat inflation tax of more than 13 percent on top of their grocery bills, 15 percent extra on their electric bills, and on and on down the list of everything that families need to just stay afloat. As a result, Democrats have presided over plummeting real wages for American workers. The average American worker has gotten a raise on paper, but their bigger paycheck buys them less than their smaller paycheck bought them this time last year. Now, this wasn't inevitable. Inflation did not have to be nearly this bad. Democrats chose to spend so recklessly. Democrats chose to wage this economic warfare against the middle class, against their savings, against their financial stability, against the purchasing power and the lifestyles that workers and parents sacrificed, literally, for years to build up. Americans are also deeply concerned about the erosion of law and order on our streets, in our cities, on our borders, and across our country. When you combine together crime and immigration, the issue of law and order ranks as the people's clear No. 2 concern, second only to inflation. Last year, the national murder rate reached its highest level in 25 years. Cities across the country are contending with a historic surge in carjackings. My hometown of Louisville is now averaging an auto theft every 2\1/2\ hours. President Biden's failed border policies have Customs and Border Protection encountering 200 percent more fentanyl and apprehending the most illegal immigrants they have seen in more than 20 years. So there is no mystery about the crises facing our country. The American people know what needs to be addressed. Republicans know what needs to be addressed. But, unfortunately, the Democrats, who control the Senate, the House, and the White House, are still refusing to get with the program. Democrats' top priority for the entire year was the multi-hundred-billion-dollar reckless taxing and spending spree they rammed through in August. Americans may want their leaders to cut inflation, fight crime and drugs, and secure the border, but Democrats just spent hundreds of billions of dollars of the people's money doing precisely none of that. Instead, our big-spending colleagues treated themselves to 87,000 new IRS agents, job-killing tax hikes, and the same kind of liberal energy policies that now have California officials warning--warning--about rolling blackouts and begging people not to charge up their electric cars. Oh, oh, and our Democratic colleagues have given no indication that cutting inflation, fighting crime, or securing the border will be on the Senate's agenda for September either. When our people are hurting this badly and speaking this clearly, it takes a willful choice--a choice--for Democrats to ignore them. Stable prices, safe streets, reliable energy, and a secure border--four of the most basic duties that any government owes its people; four things Democrats have proven they cannot deliver. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4419 | null | 4,972 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of John Z. Lee Mr. President, later today, we will add, I hope, one more name to this impressive roster. The Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge John Lee, who was selected for the Illinois seat on the Seventh Circuit. If confirmed, Judge Lee will be the first Asian-American judge ever to serve on the Seventh Circuit. His confirmation will mark yet another stride forward in building a judiciary that reflects the diversity of our Nation. Judge Lee was born to Korean parents in Germany. His father was a coal miner. His mother was a nurse. He arrived in America at the age of 4 and settled with his family in a one-bedroom apartment in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago. It wasn't easy starting off in kindergarten in a new land, but Judge Lee says he found the support of a nurturing community of classmates and teachers. He quickly learned English and excelled in school, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard College and cum laude from Harvard Law School. He began his legal career as a trial attorney in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department before working in private practice in Chicago. His practice focused on complex litigation, including antitrust and intellectual property. In 2011, President Biden nominated Judge Lee to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. When he was confirmed in 2012 by voice vote, Judge Lee became the first Korean American to serve as an article III judge in Illinois. Since joining the bench, he has written hundreds of opinions and presided over 35 trials that went to verdict or judgment. He also sat by designation on the Seventh Circuit, a number of times, writing several opinions for the majority. During his time on the bench, he always applied the law to the facts before him in an evenhanded and fair fashion. Given his impeccable record and impressive credentials, it is no surprise that the American Bar Association has rated John Lee unanimously ``well qualified'' for this circuit court position. He has the strong support of myself and Senator Duckworth. I urge my colleagues to join us. I want to close by emphasizing this: Our work is not finished by a long shot. Judge Lee is one of ten circuit court nominees awaiting action by the full Senate, and many more are still moving through the Committee. Each one of these public servants will bring much needed professional and demographic diversity. The judges being confirmed by this Senate will ensure that the rule of law applies to every single one of us without fear or favor. They will work to uphold America's most sacred promise--equal justice for all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4421-2 | null | 4,973 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Nomination of John Z. Lee Mr. President, later today, we will add, I hope, one more name to this impressive roster. The Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge John Lee, who was selected for the Illinois seat on the Seventh Circuit. If confirmed, Judge Lee will be the first Asian-American judge ever to serve on the Seventh Circuit. His confirmation will mark yet another stride forward in building a judiciary that reflects the diversity of our Nation. Judge Lee was born to Korean parents in Germany. His father was a coal miner. His mother was a nurse. He arrived in America at the age of 4 and settled with his family in a one-bedroom apartment in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago. It wasn't easy starting off in kindergarten in a new land, but Judge Lee says he found the support of a nurturing community of classmates and teachers. He quickly learned English and excelled in school, graduating magna cum laude from Harvard College and cum laude from Harvard Law School. He began his legal career as a trial attorney in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department before working in private practice in Chicago. His practice focused on complex litigation, including antitrust and intellectual property. In 2011, President Biden nominated Judge Lee to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. When he was confirmed in 2012 by voice vote, Judge Lee became the first Korean American to serve as an article III judge in Illinois. Since joining the bench, he has written hundreds of opinions and presided over 35 trials that went to verdict or judgment. He also sat by designation on the Seventh Circuit, a number of times, writing several opinions for the majority. During his time on the bench, he always applied the law to the facts before him in an evenhanded and fair fashion. Given his impeccable record and impressive credentials, it is no surprise that the American Bar Association has rated John Lee unanimously ``well qualified'' for this circuit court position. He has the strong support of myself and Senator Duckworth. I urge my colleagues to join us. I want to close by emphasizing this: Our work is not finished by a long shot. Judge Lee is one of ten circuit court nominees awaiting action by the full Senate, and many more are still moving through the Committee. Each one of these public servants will bring much needed professional and demographic diversity. The judges being confirmed by this Senate will ensure that the rule of law applies to every single one of us without fear or favor. They will work to uphold America's most sacred promise--equal justice for all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4421-2 | null | 4,974 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, on another matter, I want to take a moment to speak about one of my highest priorities as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee: the confirmation of highly qualified judges. This is one of the great shared successes of President Biden and the Senate Democrats and Republicans who have stood with us on some key votes. As of today, the Senate has confirmed 76 judges to lifetime positions during this 117th Congress. That figure includes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an outstanding jurist, the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. I would just state that I have been in politics most of my adult life. I did not appreciate the impact that the selection of this African-American woman would have on the people I represent. Some of the toughest, hardest bargaining African-American women that I have known in politics have come up to me and, in a moment, broken down in tears to thank me for President Biden's leadership and the fact that the Senate approved this new Justice. It means that much to them. Her historic confirmation was a crowning achievement in our efforts to build a system of justice that works on behalf of every American. Outside of the Supreme Court, as I mentioned, the Senate has confirmed an impressive number of Federal judges: 18 circuit court nominees, 57 district court nominees. Why is that important? Because the vast majority of cases don't make it to the Supreme Court. They are resolved by judges like these nominees, at the district and circuit court level. Look at the most recent ruling yesterday, in terms of the judge in Florida and the special master that has been appointed for the records that were removed from Mar-a-Lago. That judge made a critical and historic decision. The judges we are approving are in the same position to do that, and with each one of the judges we have confirmed, the American people can trust that they will apply the law to the facts, follow the precedent, and defend the rule of law. Now, these 76 judicial appointments are more than a statistic. With each confirmation, the Senate has taken a crucial step toward ensuring diversity in the Federal judiciary. President Biden and Senate Democrats have made it a priority to elevate judicial nominees from demographically and professionally diverse backgrounds. Many times, Republican Senators have joined us in this effort, and I want to give them credit where it is due. During the 117th Congress we have shattered records when it comes to diversity on the Federal Bench. Of the 18 circuit judges confirmed by Senate Democrats, 14 are women and 13 are people of color. And of the 57 district court judges we have confirmed, 42 of the 57 are women and many represent a historic first--the first Muslim American article III judge to the first Latina article III judge in the State of Illinois. We have confirmed a record number of nominees who have experience serving not only as prosecutors but also as public defenders, voting rights experts, civil rights attorneys. For too long, the perspectives that they represent have not been seen on our benches in Federal courts. Thanks to President Biden's leadership and the work of the Senate Democrats, the Federal Judiciary now includes many dedicated public servants who will help bring balance to the Nation's courts. And let me add that some of the key votes came from a handful of Republican Senators who have looked at these nominees in an honest fashion. Every one of these jurists is highly qualified to serve our Nation and the American people. That is a welcome shift from the previous administration, which often advanced nominees who simply checked the box ``Federalist Society.'' Thankfully, the judges taking the bench under President Biden are impartial and evenhanded. All of them will continue to administer equal justice under the law. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4421 | null | 4,975 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the 75th anniversary of an integral Vermont institution, the Proctor Maple Research Center, which is housed at the University of Vermont. The Proctor Maple Research Center has been an international leader in the development of knowledge in maple production and in the sustainability of the maple tree and the Northern Forest for the past 75 years. The practical and scholarly research conducted at the center has contributed to increased efficiency and sustainability of maple production and to the well-being of maple trees and their habitat. In fact, the work of the Proctor Maple Research Center has been essential to the development of the entire North American maple industry. In 1946, former Vermont Governor Mortimer Proctor purchased the Harvey Farm in Underhill to give to the University of Vermont as a site to conduct research on the extensive maple stand located there. In 1947, Dr. James Marvin and Dr. Fred Taylor opened the Proctor Maple Research Center, marking its first year of maple research and production. Today, it has close to 6,500 taps for production, with research located on 200 acres of land on the western side of Vermont's Mount Mansfield, and new trees added each year for research. Maple research has been a proud part of the University of Vermont's history since the 1890s, and the establishment of the Proctor Maple Research Center has made UVM a leader in maple research globally. The university has provided technical support, research-based data, and created new techniques and technology for maple producers across North America. Patented inventions have increased maple yield, such as the 2009 check valve spout that nearly doubles production from each maple tree. Climate change has had a direct and visible impact on maple production, and the Proctor Maple Research Center's research on sap yield and sugar maple health in the face of differing tree nutrition levels and climate challenges has been crucial in understanding how climate change may be affecting maple tree health and sap production. Proctor Maple Research Center staff serve as advisers to maple producers on the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers Association, the North American Maple Syrup Council, and the International Maple Syrup Institute. The center has provided invaluable support to the maple industry, especially as it confronts environmental challenges, ever-changing regulations, and diseases and pests of the sugar maple tree. Many Vermonters grow up sugaring, spending many a cold March evening in a sugarhouse tending sap as it boils into syrup. For generations, maple sugar production has played an important role in our State's agricultural economy. The Proctor Maple Research Center has provided the research, technical assistance, and the on-going support that has helped continue this beloved and important Vermont tradition. It is hard to imagine that Vermont would remain the top maple producer in the country without the Proctor Maple Research Center. I offer my sincere congratulations to the Proctor Maple Research Center and to Dr. Timothy Perkins, research professor and director, his staff, and the many students who have worked there on its 75th anniversary. I look forward to their continued success in the field of sugar maple research and development for years to come. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEAHY | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4425 | null | 4,976 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on August 2, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 280, the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. Millions of American veterans whose time in the military spanned from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan came home injured from toxic exposure to Agent Orange, burn pits, and more while serving our Nation with honor. They deserve not only our utmost respect for their sacrifice, but also the ability to access their earned benefits without bureaucratic obstacles. For too long, these veterans were met with skepticism and denial about the consequences of toxic exposure, despite mounting evidence of the serious health consequences that can stem from this exposure. No more. These generations of men and women stood up for us, now it is our duty to stand up for them. Ensuring that those exposed to these harmful and deadly toxins can get the care they need is the least that we can do for such heroes. Mr. President, on August 3, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 282, Treaty Doc. 117-3, Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. For over seven decades, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--NATO--has been the bedrock of security in Europe and helped preserve world order. Today, in the face of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the importance of transatlantic strength and unity cannot be overstated. It is more important than ever that, as we remain committed to the pursuit of peace and prosperity in Europe, we work with our NATO allies to stand up to Vladimir Putin's aggression and send a clear message to any who attempt to follow his path that the free world will not stand idly by while its values and its sovereignty are attacked. The addition of these two Nordic countries and European Union members, Finland and Sweden, who have long acted in partnership with this alliance, will serve to not only send that critical message, but will make NATO a stronger force for peace in the world. This is a historic day. And I gladly support and welcome the addition of these two important allies whose military and diplomatic capabilities will help NATO better address urgent and emerging threats to European and global security. Mr. President, on August 4, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 283, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted no because this resolution would undermine core provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--that are critical for protecting our environment, our water and air, endangered species and their habitats, and the well-being of the American people. The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that the Federal Government fully thinks through and considers all of the impacts of infrastructure projects, both the direct and indirect cumulative impact of a projects. In the fight against climate chaos, NEPA is a critical tool for ensuring that our government considers all of the ways that a project might add to or mitigate the climate crisis, and then empower agencies to analyze reasonable alternatives that are less harmful to our natural environment. As part of its relentless campaign to undermine the fight against climate chaos, the last administration went togreat lengths to weaken NEPA's ability to protect our environment and severely limited the ability of agencies to seek out less harmful alternatives. The previous administration also directed that the indirect and cumulative impacts of Federal projects no longer needed to be considered. As stated in a letter sent to the Senate by a group of 200 organizations representing millions of members and supporters, these changes were a blatant effort ``to entrench federal climate denial, hastily permit dangerous or polluting projects, and systematically disenfranchise low-income, rural, and minority communities from government decision-making.'' Since coming into office, President Biden has worked to restore NEPA's core provisions, reduce litigation risk, and help deliver more sustainable and equitable projects. The ``Phase 1'' rulemaking that this CRA attacks, is essential to addressing the climate crisis and ensuring environmental justice for communities that disproportionately bear its brunt. If this joint resolution were to pass, it would not only undermine our agencies' ability to mitigate climate change or make decisions that ensure a project is more resilient to the foreseeable effects of a changing climate, it would also potentially stop any future administration from using NEPA to address the climate impacts of Federal decisions. That would be disastrous for our environment, for our country, and for the American people. Therefore, as previously stated, for the well-being of our planet and of future generations, had I been present, I would have strongly opposed this effort to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act and voted no on this joint resolution. Mr. President, on August 4, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 284, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1100, Roopali H. Desai, of Arizona, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4434-3 | null | 4,977 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Brad Hopkins, recipient of the 2022 Mick and Susie McMurry Cowboy Code Try Award. Brad will receive the award in front of over a thousand attendees at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Central Wyoming's 24th Annual Awards and Recognition Breakfast in Casper. The Try Award recognizes people in our community who live the Cowboy Code to its fullest. ``The Try'' is described as ``that special characteristic which contributes to success in life--along with perseverance, hard work, and loyalty. It's that quality withinoneself that allows a person to overcome obstacles with courage and tenacity.'' It is a remarkable distinction. Each year, a bronze sculpture crafted by acclaimed artist Chris Navarro is given to the Try Award honoree. The sculpture is titled ``Cowboy Code'' and depicts a cowboy on his horse, with the phrases, ``Always Finish What You Start'' and ``Protect and Help The Weak''. Brad Hopkins has served as executive director of the Wyoming Rescue Mission since 2012. Born in Dallas, TX, Brad is an ordained minister and earned his master of theology from the Dallas Theological Seminary. He completed postgraduate studies at the University of Wisconsin and the University of Colorado-Denver. While in Colorado, Brad was a contributor to Denver's Road Home, the Denver Commission to End Homelessness, and the Denver Mayor's Clergy Council. He served as an advisor to the Colorado Governor's Interagency Council on Homelessness. Brad was a founding board member of the Wyoming Governor's Homeless Collaborative. He is also a member of the Casper Homeless Collaborative and a board member for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program. Brad's spiritual leadership is as strong as his organizational leadership. Under his direction, the Wyoming Rescue Mission raised funds to triple their space to allow adequate housing for their guests. Brad and the mission oversee the restoration work of 2,500 homeless individuals and families. They serve 70,000 hot meals and 42,000 nights of stay each year. Under Brad's leadership, the mission opened two thrift stores, which provide revenue and job placement opportunities for their guests. Participants in their Discipleship Recovery Program progress through a yearlong, Bible-based, addiction recovery model. This program offers them an opportunity to transition to independent living as healthy, productive men and women. Their program advancement and graduation ceremonies are an inspirational experience. Brad's passion and compassion for those less fortunate comes from a shared experience with vulnerability. He described an early failed career move that left him and his wife homeless for a time. Consistently an example of the ``Try'' mentality, he continues to give his time and talents to help others. He and his wife Christine have been married for 29 years. They have lived in Casper since 2012. Brad, like the Try Award's namesakes Mick and Susie McMurry, epitomizes the Code of the West. The Cowboy Code teaches us to live each day with courage and to take pride in our work. Brad's dedication and spiritual guidance empower others to find their own courage, leading them to a more fulfilled and productive life. Casper and Wyoming are fortunate to have him as a member of our community. It is with great honor that I recognize this outstanding member of our Wyoming family. My wife, Bobbi, joins me in extending our congratulations to Brad Hopkins upon his selection for this special award. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4435-3 | null | 4,978 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The Secretary of the Senate reported that on August 9, 2022, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bill: S. 3373. An act to improve the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant and the Children of Fallen Heroes Grant. The Secretary of the Senate reported that on August 15, 2022, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bill: S. 3451. An act to include certain computer-related projects in the Federal permitting program under title XLI of the FAST Act, and for other purposes. The Secretary of the Senate reported that on August 23, 2022, she had presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled bill: S. 4458. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the process by which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines whether an educational institution meets requirements relating to the percentage of students who receive educational assistance furnished by the Secretary, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4439-5 | null | 4,979 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor again today to talk about the situation in Ukraine--this is the 21st week in a row since we have been in session that I have done so--and to talk about how Ukraine is responding to Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on that sovereign country--an ally of ours, a democracy. This is a map of Ukraine. You can see here where the Russian invasion came back in 2014 and where they are now. You can also see some progress being made in blue as the Ukrainian military pushes back on this latest invasion. Last week, I was able to visit Ukraine and to go to Kyiv, the capital, along with a colleague of mine across the aisle, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Senator Klobuchar and I believed it was important to demonstrate bipartisan support for Ukraine at a very critical time. She and I will be back here on the Senate floor, together, later this week to talk further about this trip. The trip came on the 6-month anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It also came in the same week that Ukraine began a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion here in the Kherson area. It also came at a time when there was increased concern about the nuclear powerplant at Zaporizhzhia here. The powerplant is actually right here near this red line. Inspectors from the U.N.--United Nations--International Atomic Energy Agency visited this Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant last week, which is Europe's single largest nuclear powerplant. We began our trip in Poland, where we met with the leadership of the elite 101st Airborne Division, which is stationed in south Poland. The 101st is a unit with a long, proud history, including of participating in the daring airborne assaults on D-day, in striking deep within enemy lines during Operation Desert Storm, and in serving with distinction in the Global War on Terror. As its motto attests, the 101st had a ``rendezvous with destiny'' during pivotal moments in our country's history. Now they have another rendezvous with destiny. In Poland, they are not only bolstering allied defenses in Eastern Europe--here in Poland but really all around Eastern Europe--but they are also conducting a very important mission: They are facilitating the delivery of vital military assistance to Ukraine from 42 other countries--other than the United States--all around the world. These soldiers are really at the tip of the spear of America's historic effort to arm Ukrainian soldiers with the tools they need to protect themselves and to protect their democracy. I also got to meet soldiers from the 101st from my home State of Ohio. They told me of the Polish people's welcoming of them. They said that people are so grateful for what the American soldiers are doing there in Poland. They feel so much better knowing that the American presence is there. One guy told me about walking down a street in Poland and of someone coming up and hugging him just to say thank you. He was a little surprised by that. The senior leaders of the 101st briefed Senator Klobuchar and me on how the military assistance mission is going and on what is actually happening on the battlefield against the Russians. In Ukraine, Senator Klobuchar and I traveled to Kyiv to meet with senior Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, Defense Minister Reznikov, Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, and others, as well as members of their Parliament, which is called the Rada. We also traveled north of Kyiv to see firsthand where Russian forces committed unspeakable atrocities against defenseless, innocent Ukrainian civilians during the initial stages of this war. We also saw where Russian forces were stopped dead in their tracks--in the early assault on the capital--by brave Ukrainian defenders. During our meeting with President Zelenskyy, the very first thing that he wanted to say was thank you--thank you to the American people for beingsuch great partners and strong allies in helping Ukraine defend itself. He and his leadership team know well the vital role that America's assistance has played in helping Ukraine not just to defend itself against Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and cold-blooded invasion but now to actually push Russian forces back and begin to liberate territory in some places, like in the southern part of Ukraine. It was a common theme of our trip that we heard from all Ukrainians regarding their thankfulness to America. They are immensely appreciative of what the American people have done, the fact that we have stepped up and led in helping Ukraine in this fight for freedom. By the way, because of that, because of America's assistance and America's leadership, they are very optimistic about their future. We spoke about many topics with President Zelenskyy, including the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant, which has grown increasingly dangerous over the past few weeks. The Russians have captured this plant and now have taken the Ukrainian employees of this nuclear powerplant--the biggest in Europe--captive and have intimidated them in various ways. We were told about their being harassed. There have even been reports of torture and of working at gunpoint. Now Russia is reportedly using explosives to destroy electrical infrastructure from the plant that takes electricity into Ukraine. They want to cut off the infrastructure that goes into Ukraine and steal the energy for themselves. Remember that this is not just the biggest plant in Europe; it provides 20 percent of the electricity for Ukraine. It allows Ukraine, actually, right now, to sell some of its electricity to other countries, which is helping with regard to Ukraine's serious budget problems. The Russians are also using this nuclear powerplant as a military base essentially--as a nuclear shield. This is playing with fire. They are firing artillery, which is positioned at the plant, on the Ukrainian forces nearby, knowing that the Ukrainians cannot fire back. Russia has already irresponsibly used oil and gas energy as a weapon of war. We have seen this. We have seen what they have done to Europe. They have said to Europe: If you don't stop all of these sanctions, we are going to cut off your energy. In fact, Nord Stream 1 now has been cut off, causing great harm and pain in Europe. So they are using energy as a weapon already. We have seen them use food as a weapon of war--totally irresponsible--including actually bombing Ukrainian grain bins with grain that is absolutely essential right now to places like Sub-Saharan Africa to be able to survive because they depend so much on Ukrainian wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. Now, they are taking it to the next step. Now, they are actually using nuclear power and this military base as a weapon of war. Using nuclear power and these reactors as a tool in this war is a reckless escalation, risking a catastrophe. We can have on our hands the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I encourage President Putin to do the right thing and demilitarize this area around the plant. This is dangerous to the entire continent, including to Russia and the rest of Europe. Allow these workers to do their jobs without this kind of pressure and ensure there is no leakage from the plant. President Zelenskyy agreed with us in our meeting that that is the way this should be handled: It should be demilitarized. I note that today the United Nations' IAEA inspectors at the plant have also said there should be a demilitarized zone around the plant. I also heard today that two members of this inspection team who visited last week when we were there will now be staying at the plant for an uncertain period. That is good news, that there actually will be some inspectors there from the United Nations. It is a step in the right direction, at least. What Russia needs to do is to back off this plant and demilitarize the area. We know that Russia's ultimate plan here is to disconnect this nuclear powerplant from Ukraine's grid, as I said, and connect it to the Russian grid. This is a theft of power, plain and simple. This plant, which is the largest in Europe, produces, again, 20 percent of Ukraine's electricity. We also talked to President Zelenskyy about the various weapon needs that they continue to have. He talked specifically about how effective the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, has been. These are weapons that the United States has provided to Ukraine, about 16 of them. Also, the UK and Germany have provided comparable systems to Ukraine, and they have been extremely effective. They have used these missile systems to target Russian ammo depots' logistics lines that are within Ukraine but are far from the frontlines. They are destroying these ammo depots--these command posts, these pieces of critical infrastructure--and this is causing disarray in Russia's ability to supply, control, and maneuver its forces. We have heard repeatedly that Ukrainian military morale has been lifted by these HIMARS because of their ability, finally, to reach these Russian positions and reach the Russian artillery that previously was out of reach of the Ukrainian artillery. They said they were sitting back with impunity and destroying Ukrainian cities, killing civilians and killing soldiers without having any consequences. Now, they are feeling some consequences. They also said that not only is the Ukrainian morale increasing but that the Russian morale is decreasing. It is deteriorating as the Ukrainians make progress. HIMARS have been in use by the U.S. Armed Forces for over a decade; yet even the soldiers I talked to at the 101st told us how surprised they were at how resourceful and creative the Ukrainians were in using and maintaining these systems. Ukrainian soldiers clearly have the ingenuity as well as the will and the determination to fight. If we continue to provide them with these tools that they need to be able to be successful, Ukraine will persevere over time and preserve its freedom and independence from Russian domination. The point I would like to make, really, is that what we did here in this Chamber by voting for this aid that resulted in these HIMARS is making a huge difference in Ukraine. After meeting with President Zelenskyy, we visited some of the suburbs outside Kyiv. Collectively, these places tell the story of Russia's failed attempt to capture Kyiv. We first visited Irpin. It is a small town about 30 minutes outside of Kyiv. Before the war, Irpin was a quiet town where people lived and worked in peace, but Russia's invasion in February brought horrific violence there. As these pictures show our walking through Kyiv--Senator Klobuchar and myself--you can see the destruction to the civilian targets, to these apartment buildings. The Russian forces assaulted Irpin with no regard for civilian property or civilian life. Everywhere we looked, we saw destroyed businesses, apartment buildings, cars. We saw bullet holes everywhere, massive holes in the sides of buildings. You can see where tank rounds were fired through buildings. We also saw small craters in parking lots from mortars. Thankfully, a lot of the civilians were able to flee the violence just before the Russians reached the city, but not all had that opportunity. Irpin's mayor estimated that up to 300 civilians were killed in Russia's assault on the town. We also visited the nearby town of Bucha--a name that has, unfortunately, become synonymous with war crimes and Russia's atrocities during this war. During the few weeks that Russian soldiers controlled this small town in March and April, unspeakable crimes were committed there, including rape and torture and the executions of hundreds of civilians. Senator Klobuchar and I went to the Church of St. Andrew--a beautiful church but, sadly, also the site of a mass grave dug by Russian soldiers. There, the Russians buried dozens of innocent Ukrainians, civilians who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Russians. Our visits to Irpin and Bucha were sobering. It is one thing to see the destruction of apartments and other civilian targets on television; it is another to see it firsthand and to talk to the people--the locals, the residents--about what happened. It is hard to believe that such things can happen in the 21st century. Senator Klobuchar and I also visited Hostomel Airport, which is outside ofKyiv. This photograph is of the airport and of some of the destruction there. This is the Deputy Minister of Interior of Ukraine, who joined us there. This airport was meant to be Russia's forward operating base for its assault on Kyiv. It was assaulted by elite Russian airborne forces and experienced Chechen fighters on the very first day of the war--February 24--with a plan to secure the airport and use it for ferrying in troops and equipment and flying in Russian forces to take over Kyiv and take over the country. However, these troops had landed deep into Ukrainian territory, and brave Ukraine soldiers--mostly inexperienced but highly motivated national guard troops--counterattacked the Russian invaders at the airport and fought ferociously. Remember, these were elite Russian airborne troopers who had come into this airport. Yet they were defeated by Ukraine's national guardsmen, most of whom had never seen combat before. We had the opportunity to speak with some of the soldiers who were there at Hostomel Airport during Russia's initial assault. The national guard commander, who was there that day, told us about his unit's heroic efforts to defend the airport that day and the next day and the next day and about the men he lost, including several captured soldiers who are still prisoners of Russia 6 months later. I asked him how they could have been successful beating the odds. He said simply: We were fighting to defend our families, our freedom . . . our homeland, and that's why we won. Hostomel Airport is where Ukrainian forces won their first major victory against the Russian invaders and where they stopped Russia's northern advance dead in its tracks. If you look at this map, you can see what the Russians intended to do and what actually happened. They intended to come into the airport here, north and east of town, take over Kyiv, topple the government, and eventually take over all of Ukraine. Eventually, because of the fighting and the Ukrainian troops that pushed back, they ended up going through Belarus, back into Russia, and now are in this area. So if this war had not been successfully prosecuted at Hostomel Airport, it would have been a very different outcome. You would have seen Kyiv fall. You would have seen the President's government fall--the duly elected government of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy--the Rada, the Parliament, fall. This war could have been over very soon if that had happened. But, thankfully, it did not. And, again, it is because of the bravery and courage of the Ukrainian National Guard. Hostomel Airport, to me, is a symbol of Ukrainian resistance, of Ukrainian victory in the face of overwhelming odds. And I was very honored to meet some of the brave heroes who were there that day and liberated the airport. We also met with members of Ukraine's Parliament, called the Rada, from various political parties, including David Arakhamia. David is the majority leader in the Parliament and one of Ukraine's chief negotiators with the Russians. We spoke about the current state of the war and the future of the conflict, including possible paths of victory for Ukraine. The consensus was that the only way that Russia would come to the bargaining table would be if the sanctions could be further tightened and if the Ukrainians continued to make progress on the battlefield. Victories in the east and the south give Ukraine more leverage at the bargaining table when negotiations begin. That is why it is so important, you see here in the light blue, some of the success the Ukrainian soldiers have had recently, even in the last week or so, as well as up here around Kharkiv. In each of our meetings--with the 101st Airborne, the President and his top advisers, the Secretary of Defense--we spoke extensively about ensuring proper oversight and accountability for U.S.-provided assistance, including military assistance. The 101st Airborne told us they had a sophisticated ``end-use monitoring'' program for weapons with the ability to track all of the military equipment being transferred to Ukraine. I am happy to report that much progress is being made on that front. The United States has spent billions of dollars to support Ukrainians in the defense of their nation, and it was appropriate. But Ukrainian officials understand that it is important that we provide transparency to this funding. They do not take it for granted. They know this funding is ultimately accountable to the U.S. taxpayer. They are eager to demonstrate to their allies to the West that they are using these weapons and this equipment properly and to great effect on the battlefield. So we have good partners here who want to be sure that we do have this transparency. They have been providing significant visibility on the weapons and equipment, we learned, as it has been received from the United States, and they will continue to do so. The goal is to be able to track the delivery of every single weapon down to the individual serial number all the way to the frontlines. We left this trip with several takeaways. First, the genuine gratitude of the Ukrainian people and the government of Ukraine, the feeling of common cause with the people of America. Forty-plus countries have provided military equipment and other support. The Ukrainians recognize that if it weren't for these weapons and training that the United States and our allies have provided to Ukraine, their country might very well be part of Russia today. And they know that America has led the efforts. Some officers from Embassy Kyiv told us that a few weeks ago, they ordered takeout from a restaurant. They got some cheeseburgers. And in the bag that was delivered to the Embassy, the local restaurant personnel had written: Thank you for the HIMARS. Remember, HIMARS are these rocket assault systems. HIMARS has now become a household name in Ukraine. They are so appreciative that they have the ability to defend themselves. Second, it was remarkable to Senator Klobuchar and me to learn just how much of an impact our military assistance is having on the battlefield. In the opening stages of the war, that was the Javelins--remember, the anti-tank missiles that were a decisive weapon that halted the slow advance of the Russian armored columns toward Kyiv. Now, in this stage of the war, it is the HIMARS and the anti-aircraft weaponry. Every day, Ukrainian forces are pounding Russian positions all across the frontlines, particularly in the south. In fact, the day before we arrived in Kyiv, they launched their long-awaited counteroffensive in southern Ukraine. And from what I hear in Ukraine from both U.S. and Ukrainian officials, it is clear this counteroffensive would not have been possible without our help. HIMARS strikes have softened up Russia's position in the south and made it possible for the counteroffensive that is going on right here, tonight, as we speak. Again, as you may recall, the Russian artillery was out of reach before and was just pounding Ukrainian forces and civilians with impunity. HIMARS have also struck command posts, which is very important because that has crippled Russia's ability to effectively command and control its forces. They have also struck some really important bridges across the country, including one here that is incredibly important to Russia to be able to supply its troops. So this has isolated some of these Russian forces and prevented them from being able to maneuver to support one another. Our assistance in Ukraine is having a significant and positive impact on the battlefield, and we must not stop now and squander the progress that we have made. The money is being well-spent in the defense of freedom. The weapons we are providing are giving the Ukrainians a real chance at leveling this battlefield and giving them an opportunity to win back their lost territory. My third takeaway from this trip is that we need to do more for Ukraine both in the short term and the long term. President Zelenskyy made an appeal to Senator Klobuchar and me for the United States to provide Ukraine with ATACMS, which are Army Tactical Missile Systems. These can be fired from the HIMARS launchers currently in Ukraine, and they have significantly longer range and longer reach than the missiles we are currently providing. It seems to me these missiles would be an important part of their arsenal, from what we learned from both American and Russian briefing and Ukrainian briefings. President Zelenskyy also requested more air defense systems: short, medium, and long-range. His rationale was very simple. He wants the 7 million Ukrainians who have left his country to be able to return, and they want to return. Having met with refugees in two previous trips this year to the border of Poland, Moldova, and talked to these refugees, all of them want to go back. But when it is safe, they will be able to go back. So having more air defense systems at every range--short, medium, and long-range--would enable people to come back. This is crucial because this is one of the issues now, is that Ukraine's economy has been reduced by about 40 percent because of the terrible war that is being waged. If these people could move back to Ukraine, get back to work as normal, pay taxes, begin to become part of the economy again, this would be the most helpful thing to Ukraine's budget problems and their economic woes. With a layered air defense system, they could close its skies to the Russian missiles, protect its people, and get life across much of Ukraine back to normal. I am glad the Biden administration has already acted on some of the request to provide more protection for the skies by pledging eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or NASAMS, in conjunction with our German allies. I urge the Biden administration and other partners to do more to respond to this request. Ukraine is where we are engaging in the fight for freedom in this generation. And it is not just about Ukraine. For years, Russia and China have been saying that the West is in decline, that the United States and our allies are weak-willed and untrustworthy. That is certainly what President Putin thought when he invaded Ukraine. He thought he would divide NATO, divide the West, and that we would not respond; that Ukraine and our allies would fold; that we would just stand aside and let it happen. We have proved him wrong so far, not only by aiding Ukraine but protecting the region. The recent announcement that we were sending 250 of the best tanks in the world--the Abrams battle tanks, which are made in my home State of Ohio--to Poland is a commitment to the region. It is a commitment to Eastern Europe. This will send a critical message to Russia that the United States stands for freedom not only in Ukraine, but all throughout Europe and the world. I thank our European allies for all they are doing as well and urge them to continue to step up their support for Ukraine. After all, their own ability to remain free may very well rest on Ukraine remaining free. As one Ukrainian told me on this trip: Ukraine is the shield for democracy for Europe. We must show Vladimir Putin's cynicism about the West, that he is wrong. America has always stood by its values: freedom, democracy, and the right of nations to chart their own futures and to live in peace with their neighbors. We cannot stop now. Most of us who serve in this Chamber understand that, and so do the vast majority of American people. Ten days ago, before I headed overseas, I marched in the Ukraine Independence Day Parade in Parma, OH, just outside of Cleveland. I was with two national leaders in the Ukrainian community: Marta Liscynesky and Andy Futey. I proudly marched with them. There were over 60 entrants in this parade. It went on and on and on. The large turnout, both in terms of participants and spectators, was a demonstration of the support for Ukraine. Ohio is home to tens of thousands of Ukrainian Americans who do not want to see Ukraine become part of some renewed Russian empire. They want Ukraine--their homeland--to remain free and sovereign. And the so-called Nationalities Community--from Slovenians to Poles, from Georgians to Lithuanians--all have the same understanding of the direct threat that Russia poses. They know Ukraine is on the frontlines of a larger battle for freedom. So many Ohioans have rallied together to support Ukraine from all backgrounds. In closing, I want to thank everyone who helped make our important trip possible, including the State Department and our allies in Ukraine and including our military colleagues in Poland. It is important that Congress continue to show our strong support for Ukraine, particularly during this critical period for the country's future. The stakes are so high. This is a fight about global freedom, self-determination, democracy, and respect for territorial integrity. All of us--the United States and our allies--need to stand up because the alternative is a far more dangerous and volatile world, and that affects all of us. Forty-two freedom-loving allies of the United States have stood together in support of Ukraine militarily. Dozens of others have helped in other ways. But all nations around the world are carefully paying attention to what happens in Ukraine, not just our allies but also our adversaries. We have shown the world that America and allies didn't back down after 6 weeks, not even after 6 months. We haven't faltered. We must commit to continuing to help Ukraine defend itself until Vladimir Putin understands that Russia's borders end where freedom begins. ``Slava Ukraini'' and Godspeed to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. ``Heroyam Slava.'' I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4444-4 | null | 4,980 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor again today to talk about the situation in Ukraine--this is the 21st week in a row since we have been in session that I have done so--and to talk about how Ukraine is responding to Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on that sovereign country--an ally of ours, a democracy. This is a map of Ukraine. You can see here where the Russian invasion came back in 2014 and where they are now. You can also see some progress being made in blue as the Ukrainian military pushes back on this latest invasion. Last week, I was able to visit Ukraine and to go to Kyiv, the capital, along with a colleague of mine across the aisle, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Senator Klobuchar and I believed it was important to demonstrate bipartisan support for Ukraine at a very critical time. She and I will be back here on the Senate floor, together, later this week to talk further about this trip. The trip came on the 6-month anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It also came in the same week that Ukraine began a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion here in the Kherson area. It also came at a time when there was increased concern about the nuclear powerplant at Zaporizhzhia here. The powerplant is actually right here near this red line. Inspectors from the U.N.--United Nations--International Atomic Energy Agency visited this Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant last week, which is Europe's single largest nuclear powerplant. We began our trip in Poland, where we met with the leadership of the elite 101st Airborne Division, which is stationed in south Poland. The 101st is a unit with a long, proud history, including of participating in the daring airborne assaults on D-day, in striking deep within enemy lines during Operation Desert Storm, and in serving with distinction in the Global War on Terror. As its motto attests, the 101st had a ``rendezvous with destiny'' during pivotal moments in our country's history. Now they have another rendezvous with destiny. In Poland, they are not only bolstering allied defenses in Eastern Europe--here in Poland but really all around Eastern Europe--but they are also conducting a very important mission: They are facilitating the delivery of vital military assistance to Ukraine from 42 other countries--other than the United States--all around the world. These soldiers are really at the tip of the spear of America's historic effort to arm Ukrainian soldiers with the tools they need to protect themselves and to protect their democracy. I also got to meet soldiers from the 101st from my home State of Ohio. They told me of the Polish people's welcoming of them. They said that people are so grateful for what the American soldiers are doing there in Poland. They feel so much better knowing that the American presence is there. One guy told me about walking down a street in Poland and of someone coming up and hugging him just to say thank you. He was a little surprised by that. The senior leaders of the 101st briefed Senator Klobuchar and me on how the military assistance mission is going and on what is actually happening on the battlefield against the Russians. In Ukraine, Senator Klobuchar and I traveled to Kyiv to meet with senior Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, Defense Minister Reznikov, Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, and others, as well as members of their Parliament, which is called the Rada. We also traveled north of Kyiv to see firsthand where Russian forces committed unspeakable atrocities against defenseless, innocent Ukrainian civilians during the initial stages of this war. We also saw where Russian forces were stopped dead in their tracks--in the early assault on the capital--by brave Ukrainian defenders. During our meeting with President Zelenskyy, the very first thing that he wanted to say was thank you--thank you to the American people for beingsuch great partners and strong allies in helping Ukraine defend itself. He and his leadership team know well the vital role that America's assistance has played in helping Ukraine not just to defend itself against Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and cold-blooded invasion but now to actually push Russian forces back and begin to liberate territory in some places, like in the southern part of Ukraine. It was a common theme of our trip that we heard from all Ukrainians regarding their thankfulness to America. They are immensely appreciative of what the American people have done, the fact that we have stepped up and led in helping Ukraine in this fight for freedom. By the way, because of that, because of America's assistance and America's leadership, they are very optimistic about their future. We spoke about many topics with President Zelenskyy, including the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant, which has grown increasingly dangerous over the past few weeks. The Russians have captured this plant and now have taken the Ukrainian employees of this nuclear powerplant--the biggest in Europe--captive and have intimidated them in various ways. We were told about their being harassed. There have even been reports of torture and of working at gunpoint. Now Russia is reportedly using explosives to destroy electrical infrastructure from the plant that takes electricity into Ukraine. They want to cut off the infrastructure that goes into Ukraine and steal the energy for themselves. Remember that this is not just the biggest plant in Europe; it provides 20 percent of the electricity for Ukraine. It allows Ukraine, actually, right now, to sell some of its electricity to other countries, which is helping with regard to Ukraine's serious budget problems. The Russians are also using this nuclear powerplant as a military base essentially--as a nuclear shield. This is playing with fire. They are firing artillery, which is positioned at the plant, on the Ukrainian forces nearby, knowing that the Ukrainians cannot fire back. Russia has already irresponsibly used oil and gas energy as a weapon of war. We have seen this. We have seen what they have done to Europe. They have said to Europe: If you don't stop all of these sanctions, we are going to cut off your energy. In fact, Nord Stream 1 now has been cut off, causing great harm and pain in Europe. So they are using energy as a weapon already. We have seen them use food as a weapon of war--totally irresponsible--including actually bombing Ukrainian grain bins with grain that is absolutely essential right now to places like Sub-Saharan Africa to be able to survive because they depend so much on Ukrainian wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. Now, they are taking it to the next step. Now, they are actually using nuclear power and this military base as a weapon of war. Using nuclear power and these reactors as a tool in this war is a reckless escalation, risking a catastrophe. We can have on our hands the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I encourage President Putin to do the right thing and demilitarize this area around the plant. This is dangerous to the entire continent, including to Russia and the rest of Europe. Allow these workers to do their jobs without this kind of pressure and ensure there is no leakage from the plant. President Zelenskyy agreed with us in our meeting that that is the way this should be handled: It should be demilitarized. I note that today the United Nations' IAEA inspectors at the plant have also said there should be a demilitarized zone around the plant. I also heard today that two members of this inspection team who visited last week when we were there will now be staying at the plant for an uncertain period. That is good news, that there actually will be some inspectors there from the United Nations. It is a step in the right direction, at least. What Russia needs to do is to back off this plant and demilitarize the area. We know that Russia's ultimate plan here is to disconnect this nuclear powerplant from Ukraine's grid, as I said, and connect it to the Russian grid. This is a theft of power, plain and simple. This plant, which is the largest in Europe, produces, again, 20 percent of Ukraine's electricity. We also talked to President Zelenskyy about the various weapon needs that they continue to have. He talked specifically about how effective the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, has been. These are weapons that the United States has provided to Ukraine, about 16 of them. Also, the UK and Germany have provided comparable systems to Ukraine, and they have been extremely effective. They have used these missile systems to target Russian ammo depots' logistics lines that are within Ukraine but are far from the frontlines. They are destroying these ammo depots--these command posts, these pieces of critical infrastructure--and this is causing disarray in Russia's ability to supply, control, and maneuver its forces. We have heard repeatedly that Ukrainian military morale has been lifted by these HIMARS because of their ability, finally, to reach these Russian positions and reach the Russian artillery that previously was out of reach of the Ukrainian artillery. They said they were sitting back with impunity and destroying Ukrainian cities, killing civilians and killing soldiers without having any consequences. Now, they are feeling some consequences. They also said that not only is the Ukrainian morale increasing but that the Russian morale is decreasing. It is deteriorating as the Ukrainians make progress. HIMARS have been in use by the U.S. Armed Forces for over a decade; yet even the soldiers I talked to at the 101st told us how surprised they were at how resourceful and creative the Ukrainians were in using and maintaining these systems. Ukrainian soldiers clearly have the ingenuity as well as the will and the determination to fight. If we continue to provide them with these tools that they need to be able to be successful, Ukraine will persevere over time and preserve its freedom and independence from Russian domination. The point I would like to make, really, is that what we did here in this Chamber by voting for this aid that resulted in these HIMARS is making a huge difference in Ukraine. After meeting with President Zelenskyy, we visited some of the suburbs outside Kyiv. Collectively, these places tell the story of Russia's failed attempt to capture Kyiv. We first visited Irpin. It is a small town about 30 minutes outside of Kyiv. Before the war, Irpin was a quiet town where people lived and worked in peace, but Russia's invasion in February brought horrific violence there. As these pictures show our walking through Kyiv--Senator Klobuchar and myself--you can see the destruction to the civilian targets, to these apartment buildings. The Russian forces assaulted Irpin with no regard for civilian property or civilian life. Everywhere we looked, we saw destroyed businesses, apartment buildings, cars. We saw bullet holes everywhere, massive holes in the sides of buildings. You can see where tank rounds were fired through buildings. We also saw small craters in parking lots from mortars. Thankfully, a lot of the civilians were able to flee the violence just before the Russians reached the city, but not all had that opportunity. Irpin's mayor estimated that up to 300 civilians were killed in Russia's assault on the town. We also visited the nearby town of Bucha--a name that has, unfortunately, become synonymous with war crimes and Russia's atrocities during this war. During the few weeks that Russian soldiers controlled this small town in March and April, unspeakable crimes were committed there, including rape and torture and the executions of hundreds of civilians. Senator Klobuchar and I went to the Church of St. Andrew--a beautiful church but, sadly, also the site of a mass grave dug by Russian soldiers. There, the Russians buried dozens of innocent Ukrainians, civilians who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Russians. Our visits to Irpin and Bucha were sobering. It is one thing to see the destruction of apartments and other civilian targets on television; it is another to see it firsthand and to talk to the people--the locals, the residents--about what happened. It is hard to believe that such things can happen in the 21st century. Senator Klobuchar and I also visited Hostomel Airport, which is outside ofKyiv. This photograph is of the airport and of some of the destruction there. This is the Deputy Minister of Interior of Ukraine, who joined us there. This airport was meant to be Russia's forward operating base for its assault on Kyiv. It was assaulted by elite Russian airborne forces and experienced Chechen fighters on the very first day of the war--February 24--with a plan to secure the airport and use it for ferrying in troops and equipment and flying in Russian forces to take over Kyiv and take over the country. However, these troops had landed deep into Ukrainian territory, and brave Ukraine soldiers--mostly inexperienced but highly motivated national guard troops--counterattacked the Russian invaders at the airport and fought ferociously. Remember, these were elite Russian airborne troopers who had come into this airport. Yet they were defeated by Ukraine's national guardsmen, most of whom had never seen combat before. We had the opportunity to speak with some of the soldiers who were there at Hostomel Airport during Russia's initial assault. The national guard commander, who was there that day, told us about his unit's heroic efforts to defend the airport that day and the next day and the next day and about the men he lost, including several captured soldiers who are still prisoners of Russia 6 months later. I asked him how they could have been successful beating the odds. He said simply: We were fighting to defend our families, our freedom . . . our homeland, and that's why we won. Hostomel Airport is where Ukrainian forces won their first major victory against the Russian invaders and where they stopped Russia's northern advance dead in its tracks. If you look at this map, you can see what the Russians intended to do and what actually happened. They intended to come into the airport here, north and east of town, take over Kyiv, topple the government, and eventually take over all of Ukraine. Eventually, because of the fighting and the Ukrainian troops that pushed back, they ended up going through Belarus, back into Russia, and now are in this area. So if this war had not been successfully prosecuted at Hostomel Airport, it would have been a very different outcome. You would have seen Kyiv fall. You would have seen the President's government fall--the duly elected government of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy--the Rada, the Parliament, fall. This war could have been over very soon if that had happened. But, thankfully, it did not. And, again, it is because of the bravery and courage of the Ukrainian National Guard. Hostomel Airport, to me, is a symbol of Ukrainian resistance, of Ukrainian victory in the face of overwhelming odds. And I was very honored to meet some of the brave heroes who were there that day and liberated the airport. We also met with members of Ukraine's Parliament, called the Rada, from various political parties, including David Arakhamia. David is the majority leader in the Parliament and one of Ukraine's chief negotiators with the Russians. We spoke about the current state of the war and the future of the conflict, including possible paths of victory for Ukraine. The consensus was that the only way that Russia would come to the bargaining table would be if the sanctions could be further tightened and if the Ukrainians continued to make progress on the battlefield. Victories in the east and the south give Ukraine more leverage at the bargaining table when negotiations begin. That is why it is so important, you see here in the light blue, some of the success the Ukrainian soldiers have had recently, even in the last week or so, as well as up here around Kharkiv. In each of our meetings--with the 101st Airborne, the President and his top advisers, the Secretary of Defense--we spoke extensively about ensuring proper oversight and accountability for U.S.-provided assistance, including military assistance. The 101st Airborne told us they had a sophisticated ``end-use monitoring'' program for weapons with the ability to track all of the military equipment being transferred to Ukraine. I am happy to report that much progress is being made on that front. The United States has spent billions of dollars to support Ukrainians in the defense of their nation, and it was appropriate. But Ukrainian officials understand that it is important that we provide transparency to this funding. They do not take it for granted. They know this funding is ultimately accountable to the U.S. taxpayer. They are eager to demonstrate to their allies to the West that they are using these weapons and this equipment properly and to great effect on the battlefield. So we have good partners here who want to be sure that we do have this transparency. They have been providing significant visibility on the weapons and equipment, we learned, as it has been received from the United States, and they will continue to do so. The goal is to be able to track the delivery of every single weapon down to the individual serial number all the way to the frontlines. We left this trip with several takeaways. First, the genuine gratitude of the Ukrainian people and the government of Ukraine, the feeling of common cause with the people of America. Forty-plus countries have provided military equipment and other support. The Ukrainians recognize that if it weren't for these weapons and training that the United States and our allies have provided to Ukraine, their country might very well be part of Russia today. And they know that America has led the efforts. Some officers from Embassy Kyiv told us that a few weeks ago, they ordered takeout from a restaurant. They got some cheeseburgers. And in the bag that was delivered to the Embassy, the local restaurant personnel had written: Thank you for the HIMARS. Remember, HIMARS are these rocket assault systems. HIMARS has now become a household name in Ukraine. They are so appreciative that they have the ability to defend themselves. Second, it was remarkable to Senator Klobuchar and me to learn just how much of an impact our military assistance is having on the battlefield. In the opening stages of the war, that was the Javelins--remember, the anti-tank missiles that were a decisive weapon that halted the slow advance of the Russian armored columns toward Kyiv. Now, in this stage of the war, it is the HIMARS and the anti-aircraft weaponry. Every day, Ukrainian forces are pounding Russian positions all across the frontlines, particularly in the south. In fact, the day before we arrived in Kyiv, they launched their long-awaited counteroffensive in southern Ukraine. And from what I hear in Ukraine from both U.S. and Ukrainian officials, it is clear this counteroffensive would not have been possible without our help. HIMARS strikes have softened up Russia's position in the south and made it possible for the counteroffensive that is going on right here, tonight, as we speak. Again, as you may recall, the Russian artillery was out of reach before and was just pounding Ukrainian forces and civilians with impunity. HIMARS have also struck command posts, which is very important because that has crippled Russia's ability to effectively command and control its forces. They have also struck some really important bridges across the country, including one here that is incredibly important to Russia to be able to supply its troops. So this has isolated some of these Russian forces and prevented them from being able to maneuver to support one another. Our assistance in Ukraine is having a significant and positive impact on the battlefield, and we must not stop now and squander the progress that we have made. The money is being well-spent in the defense of freedom. The weapons we are providing are giving the Ukrainians a real chance at leveling this battlefield and giving them an opportunity to win back their lost territory. My third takeaway from this trip is that we need to do more for Ukraine both in the short term and the long term. President Zelenskyy made an appeal to Senator Klobuchar and me for the United States to provide Ukraine with ATACMS, which are Army Tactical Missile Systems. These can be fired from the HIMARS launchers currently in Ukraine, and they have significantly longer range and longer reach than the missiles we are currently providing. It seems to me these missiles would be an important part of their arsenal, from what we learned from both American and Russian briefing and Ukrainian briefings. President Zelenskyy also requested more air defense systems: short, medium, and long-range. His rationale was very simple. He wants the 7 million Ukrainians who have left his country to be able to return, and they want to return. Having met with refugees in two previous trips this year to the border of Poland, Moldova, and talked to these refugees, all of them want to go back. But when it is safe, they will be able to go back. So having more air defense systems at every range--short, medium, and long-range--would enable people to come back. This is crucial because this is one of the issues now, is that Ukraine's economy has been reduced by about 40 percent because of the terrible war that is being waged. If these people could move back to Ukraine, get back to work as normal, pay taxes, begin to become part of the economy again, this would be the most helpful thing to Ukraine's budget problems and their economic woes. With a layered air defense system, they could close its skies to the Russian missiles, protect its people, and get life across much of Ukraine back to normal. I am glad the Biden administration has already acted on some of the request to provide more protection for the skies by pledging eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or NASAMS, in conjunction with our German allies. I urge the Biden administration and other partners to do more to respond to this request. Ukraine is where we are engaging in the fight for freedom in this generation. And it is not just about Ukraine. For years, Russia and China have been saying that the West is in decline, that the United States and our allies are weak-willed and untrustworthy. That is certainly what President Putin thought when he invaded Ukraine. He thought he would divide NATO, divide the West, and that we would not respond; that Ukraine and our allies would fold; that we would just stand aside and let it happen. We have proved him wrong so far, not only by aiding Ukraine but protecting the region. The recent announcement that we were sending 250 of the best tanks in the world--the Abrams battle tanks, which are made in my home State of Ohio--to Poland is a commitment to the region. It is a commitment to Eastern Europe. This will send a critical message to Russia that the United States stands for freedom not only in Ukraine, but all throughout Europe and the world. I thank our European allies for all they are doing as well and urge them to continue to step up their support for Ukraine. After all, their own ability to remain free may very well rest on Ukraine remaining free. As one Ukrainian told me on this trip: Ukraine is the shield for democracy for Europe. We must show Vladimir Putin's cynicism about the West, that he is wrong. America has always stood by its values: freedom, democracy, and the right of nations to chart their own futures and to live in peace with their neighbors. We cannot stop now. Most of us who serve in this Chamber understand that, and so do the vast majority of American people. Ten days ago, before I headed overseas, I marched in the Ukraine Independence Day Parade in Parma, OH, just outside of Cleveland. I was with two national leaders in the Ukrainian community: Marta Liscynesky and Andy Futey. I proudly marched with them. There were over 60 entrants in this parade. It went on and on and on. The large turnout, both in terms of participants and spectators, was a demonstration of the support for Ukraine. Ohio is home to tens of thousands of Ukrainian Americans who do not want to see Ukraine become part of some renewed Russian empire. They want Ukraine--their homeland--to remain free and sovereign. And the so-called Nationalities Community--from Slovenians to Poles, from Georgians to Lithuanians--all have the same understanding of the direct threat that Russia poses. They know Ukraine is on the frontlines of a larger battle for freedom. So many Ohioans have rallied together to support Ukraine from all backgrounds. In closing, I want to thank everyone who helped make our important trip possible, including the State Department and our allies in Ukraine and including our military colleagues in Poland. It is important that Congress continue to show our strong support for Ukraine, particularly during this critical period for the country's future. The stakes are so high. This is a fight about global freedom, self-determination, democracy, and respect for territorial integrity. All of us--the United States and our allies--need to stand up because the alternative is a far more dangerous and volatile world, and that affects all of us. Forty-two freedom-loving allies of the United States have stood together in support of Ukraine militarily. Dozens of others have helped in other ways. But all nations around the world are carefully paying attention to what happens in Ukraine, not just our allies but also our adversaries. We have shown the world that America and allies didn't back down after 6 weeks, not even after 6 months. We haven't faltered. We must commit to continuing to help Ukraine defend itself until Vladimir Putin understands that Russia's borders end where freedom begins. ``Slava Ukraini'' and Godspeed to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. ``Heroyam Slava.'' I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4444-4 | null | 4,981 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor again today to talk about the situation in Ukraine--this is the 21st week in a row since we have been in session that I have done so--and to talk about how Ukraine is responding to Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on that sovereign country--an ally of ours, a democracy. This is a map of Ukraine. You can see here where the Russian invasion came back in 2014 and where they are now. You can also see some progress being made in blue as the Ukrainian military pushes back on this latest invasion. Last week, I was able to visit Ukraine and to go to Kyiv, the capital, along with a colleague of mine across the aisle, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota. Senator Klobuchar and I believed it was important to demonstrate bipartisan support for Ukraine at a very critical time. She and I will be back here on the Senate floor, together, later this week to talk further about this trip. The trip came on the 6-month anniversary of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. It also came in the same week that Ukraine began a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion here in the Kherson area. It also came at a time when there was increased concern about the nuclear powerplant at Zaporizhzhia here. The powerplant is actually right here near this red line. Inspectors from the U.N.--United Nations--International Atomic Energy Agency visited this Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant last week, which is Europe's single largest nuclear powerplant. We began our trip in Poland, where we met with the leadership of the elite 101st Airborne Division, which is stationed in south Poland. The 101st is a unit with a long, proud history, including of participating in the daring airborne assaults on D-day, in striking deep within enemy lines during Operation Desert Storm, and in serving with distinction in the Global War on Terror. As its motto attests, the 101st had a ``rendezvous with destiny'' during pivotal moments in our country's history. Now they have another rendezvous with destiny. In Poland, they are not only bolstering allied defenses in Eastern Europe--here in Poland but really all around Eastern Europe--but they are also conducting a very important mission: They are facilitating the delivery of vital military assistance to Ukraine from 42 other countries--other than the United States--all around the world. These soldiers are really at the tip of the spear of America's historic effort to arm Ukrainian soldiers with the tools they need to protect themselves and to protect their democracy. I also got to meet soldiers from the 101st from my home State of Ohio. They told me of the Polish people's welcoming of them. They said that people are so grateful for what the American soldiers are doing there in Poland. They feel so much better knowing that the American presence is there. One guy told me about walking down a street in Poland and of someone coming up and hugging him just to say thank you. He was a little surprised by that. The senior leaders of the 101st briefed Senator Klobuchar and me on how the military assistance mission is going and on what is actually happening on the battlefield against the Russians. In Ukraine, Senator Klobuchar and I traveled to Kyiv to meet with senior Ukrainian officials, including President Zelenskyy, Defense Minister Reznikov, Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak, and others, as well as members of their Parliament, which is called the Rada. We also traveled north of Kyiv to see firsthand where Russian forces committed unspeakable atrocities against defenseless, innocent Ukrainian civilians during the initial stages of this war. We also saw where Russian forces were stopped dead in their tracks--in the early assault on the capital--by brave Ukrainian defenders. During our meeting with President Zelenskyy, the very first thing that he wanted to say was thank you--thank you to the American people for beingsuch great partners and strong allies in helping Ukraine defend itself. He and his leadership team know well the vital role that America's assistance has played in helping Ukraine not just to defend itself against Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and cold-blooded invasion but now to actually push Russian forces back and begin to liberate territory in some places, like in the southern part of Ukraine. It was a common theme of our trip that we heard from all Ukrainians regarding their thankfulness to America. They are immensely appreciative of what the American people have done, the fact that we have stepped up and led in helping Ukraine in this fight for freedom. By the way, because of that, because of America's assistance and America's leadership, they are very optimistic about their future. We spoke about many topics with President Zelenskyy, including the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear powerplant, which has grown increasingly dangerous over the past few weeks. The Russians have captured this plant and now have taken the Ukrainian employees of this nuclear powerplant--the biggest in Europe--captive and have intimidated them in various ways. We were told about their being harassed. There have even been reports of torture and of working at gunpoint. Now Russia is reportedly using explosives to destroy electrical infrastructure from the plant that takes electricity into Ukraine. They want to cut off the infrastructure that goes into Ukraine and steal the energy for themselves. Remember that this is not just the biggest plant in Europe; it provides 20 percent of the electricity for Ukraine. It allows Ukraine, actually, right now, to sell some of its electricity to other countries, which is helping with regard to Ukraine's serious budget problems. The Russians are also using this nuclear powerplant as a military base essentially--as a nuclear shield. This is playing with fire. They are firing artillery, which is positioned at the plant, on the Ukrainian forces nearby, knowing that the Ukrainians cannot fire back. Russia has already irresponsibly used oil and gas energy as a weapon of war. We have seen this. We have seen what they have done to Europe. They have said to Europe: If you don't stop all of these sanctions, we are going to cut off your energy. In fact, Nord Stream 1 now has been cut off, causing great harm and pain in Europe. So they are using energy as a weapon already. We have seen them use food as a weapon of war--totally irresponsible--including actually bombing Ukrainian grain bins with grain that is absolutely essential right now to places like Sub-Saharan Africa to be able to survive because they depend so much on Ukrainian wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. Now, they are taking it to the next step. Now, they are actually using nuclear power and this military base as a weapon of war. Using nuclear power and these reactors as a tool in this war is a reckless escalation, risking a catastrophe. We can have on our hands the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I encourage President Putin to do the right thing and demilitarize this area around the plant. This is dangerous to the entire continent, including to Russia and the rest of Europe. Allow these workers to do their jobs without this kind of pressure and ensure there is no leakage from the plant. President Zelenskyy agreed with us in our meeting that that is the way this should be handled: It should be demilitarized. I note that today the United Nations' IAEA inspectors at the plant have also said there should be a demilitarized zone around the plant. I also heard today that two members of this inspection team who visited last week when we were there will now be staying at the plant for an uncertain period. That is good news, that there actually will be some inspectors there from the United Nations. It is a step in the right direction, at least. What Russia needs to do is to back off this plant and demilitarize the area. We know that Russia's ultimate plan here is to disconnect this nuclear powerplant from Ukraine's grid, as I said, and connect it to the Russian grid. This is a theft of power, plain and simple. This plant, which is the largest in Europe, produces, again, 20 percent of Ukraine's electricity. We also talked to President Zelenskyy about the various weapon needs that they continue to have. He talked specifically about how effective the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, has been. These are weapons that the United States has provided to Ukraine, about 16 of them. Also, the UK and Germany have provided comparable systems to Ukraine, and they have been extremely effective. They have used these missile systems to target Russian ammo depots' logistics lines that are within Ukraine but are far from the frontlines. They are destroying these ammo depots--these command posts, these pieces of critical infrastructure--and this is causing disarray in Russia's ability to supply, control, and maneuver its forces. We have heard repeatedly that Ukrainian military morale has been lifted by these HIMARS because of their ability, finally, to reach these Russian positions and reach the Russian artillery that previously was out of reach of the Ukrainian artillery. They said they were sitting back with impunity and destroying Ukrainian cities, killing civilians and killing soldiers without having any consequences. Now, they are feeling some consequences. They also said that not only is the Ukrainian morale increasing but that the Russian morale is decreasing. It is deteriorating as the Ukrainians make progress. HIMARS have been in use by the U.S. Armed Forces for over a decade; yet even the soldiers I talked to at the 101st told us how surprised they were at how resourceful and creative the Ukrainians were in using and maintaining these systems. Ukrainian soldiers clearly have the ingenuity as well as the will and the determination to fight. If we continue to provide them with these tools that they need to be able to be successful, Ukraine will persevere over time and preserve its freedom and independence from Russian domination. The point I would like to make, really, is that what we did here in this Chamber by voting for this aid that resulted in these HIMARS is making a huge difference in Ukraine. After meeting with President Zelenskyy, we visited some of the suburbs outside Kyiv. Collectively, these places tell the story of Russia's failed attempt to capture Kyiv. We first visited Irpin. It is a small town about 30 minutes outside of Kyiv. Before the war, Irpin was a quiet town where people lived and worked in peace, but Russia's invasion in February brought horrific violence there. As these pictures show our walking through Kyiv--Senator Klobuchar and myself--you can see the destruction to the civilian targets, to these apartment buildings. The Russian forces assaulted Irpin with no regard for civilian property or civilian life. Everywhere we looked, we saw destroyed businesses, apartment buildings, cars. We saw bullet holes everywhere, massive holes in the sides of buildings. You can see where tank rounds were fired through buildings. We also saw small craters in parking lots from mortars. Thankfully, a lot of the civilians were able to flee the violence just before the Russians reached the city, but not all had that opportunity. Irpin's mayor estimated that up to 300 civilians were killed in Russia's assault on the town. We also visited the nearby town of Bucha--a name that has, unfortunately, become synonymous with war crimes and Russia's atrocities during this war. During the few weeks that Russian soldiers controlled this small town in March and April, unspeakable crimes were committed there, including rape and torture and the executions of hundreds of civilians. Senator Klobuchar and I went to the Church of St. Andrew--a beautiful church but, sadly, also the site of a mass grave dug by Russian soldiers. There, the Russians buried dozens of innocent Ukrainians, civilians who were tortured and murdered at the hands of the Russians. Our visits to Irpin and Bucha were sobering. It is one thing to see the destruction of apartments and other civilian targets on television; it is another to see it firsthand and to talk to the people--the locals, the residents--about what happened. It is hard to believe that such things can happen in the 21st century. Senator Klobuchar and I also visited Hostomel Airport, which is outside ofKyiv. This photograph is of the airport and of some of the destruction there. This is the Deputy Minister of Interior of Ukraine, who joined us there. This airport was meant to be Russia's forward operating base for its assault on Kyiv. It was assaulted by elite Russian airborne forces and experienced Chechen fighters on the very first day of the war--February 24--with a plan to secure the airport and use it for ferrying in troops and equipment and flying in Russian forces to take over Kyiv and take over the country. However, these troops had landed deep into Ukrainian territory, and brave Ukraine soldiers--mostly inexperienced but highly motivated national guard troops--counterattacked the Russian invaders at the airport and fought ferociously. Remember, these were elite Russian airborne troopers who had come into this airport. Yet they were defeated by Ukraine's national guardsmen, most of whom had never seen combat before. We had the opportunity to speak with some of the soldiers who were there at Hostomel Airport during Russia's initial assault. The national guard commander, who was there that day, told us about his unit's heroic efforts to defend the airport that day and the next day and the next day and about the men he lost, including several captured soldiers who are still prisoners of Russia 6 months later. I asked him how they could have been successful beating the odds. He said simply: We were fighting to defend our families, our freedom . . . our homeland, and that's why we won. Hostomel Airport is where Ukrainian forces won their first major victory against the Russian invaders and where they stopped Russia's northern advance dead in its tracks. If you look at this map, you can see what the Russians intended to do and what actually happened. They intended to come into the airport here, north and east of town, take over Kyiv, topple the government, and eventually take over all of Ukraine. Eventually, because of the fighting and the Ukrainian troops that pushed back, they ended up going through Belarus, back into Russia, and now are in this area. So if this war had not been successfully prosecuted at Hostomel Airport, it would have been a very different outcome. You would have seen Kyiv fall. You would have seen the President's government fall--the duly elected government of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy--the Rada, the Parliament, fall. This war could have been over very soon if that had happened. But, thankfully, it did not. And, again, it is because of the bravery and courage of the Ukrainian National Guard. Hostomel Airport, to me, is a symbol of Ukrainian resistance, of Ukrainian victory in the face of overwhelming odds. And I was very honored to meet some of the brave heroes who were there that day and liberated the airport. We also met with members of Ukraine's Parliament, called the Rada, from various political parties, including David Arakhamia. David is the majority leader in the Parliament and one of Ukraine's chief negotiators with the Russians. We spoke about the current state of the war and the future of the conflict, including possible paths of victory for Ukraine. The consensus was that the only way that Russia would come to the bargaining table would be if the sanctions could be further tightened and if the Ukrainians continued to make progress on the battlefield. Victories in the east and the south give Ukraine more leverage at the bargaining table when negotiations begin. That is why it is so important, you see here in the light blue, some of the success the Ukrainian soldiers have had recently, even in the last week or so, as well as up here around Kharkiv. In each of our meetings--with the 101st Airborne, the President and his top advisers, the Secretary of Defense--we spoke extensively about ensuring proper oversight and accountability for U.S.-provided assistance, including military assistance. The 101st Airborne told us they had a sophisticated ``end-use monitoring'' program for weapons with the ability to track all of the military equipment being transferred to Ukraine. I am happy to report that much progress is being made on that front. The United States has spent billions of dollars to support Ukrainians in the defense of their nation, and it was appropriate. But Ukrainian officials understand that it is important that we provide transparency to this funding. They do not take it for granted. They know this funding is ultimately accountable to the U.S. taxpayer. They are eager to demonstrate to their allies to the West that they are using these weapons and this equipment properly and to great effect on the battlefield. So we have good partners here who want to be sure that we do have this transparency. They have been providing significant visibility on the weapons and equipment, we learned, as it has been received from the United States, and they will continue to do so. The goal is to be able to track the delivery of every single weapon down to the individual serial number all the way to the frontlines. We left this trip with several takeaways. First, the genuine gratitude of the Ukrainian people and the government of Ukraine, the feeling of common cause with the people of America. Forty-plus countries have provided military equipment and other support. The Ukrainians recognize that if it weren't for these weapons and training that the United States and our allies have provided to Ukraine, their country might very well be part of Russia today. And they know that America has led the efforts. Some officers from Embassy Kyiv told us that a few weeks ago, they ordered takeout from a restaurant. They got some cheeseburgers. And in the bag that was delivered to the Embassy, the local restaurant personnel had written: Thank you for the HIMARS. Remember, HIMARS are these rocket assault systems. HIMARS has now become a household name in Ukraine. They are so appreciative that they have the ability to defend themselves. Second, it was remarkable to Senator Klobuchar and me to learn just how much of an impact our military assistance is having on the battlefield. In the opening stages of the war, that was the Javelins--remember, the anti-tank missiles that were a decisive weapon that halted the slow advance of the Russian armored columns toward Kyiv. Now, in this stage of the war, it is the HIMARS and the anti-aircraft weaponry. Every day, Ukrainian forces are pounding Russian positions all across the frontlines, particularly in the south. In fact, the day before we arrived in Kyiv, they launched their long-awaited counteroffensive in southern Ukraine. And from what I hear in Ukraine from both U.S. and Ukrainian officials, it is clear this counteroffensive would not have been possible without our help. HIMARS strikes have softened up Russia's position in the south and made it possible for the counteroffensive that is going on right here, tonight, as we speak. Again, as you may recall, the Russian artillery was out of reach before and was just pounding Ukrainian forces and civilians with impunity. HIMARS have also struck command posts, which is very important because that has crippled Russia's ability to effectively command and control its forces. They have also struck some really important bridges across the country, including one here that is incredibly important to Russia to be able to supply its troops. So this has isolated some of these Russian forces and prevented them from being able to maneuver to support one another. Our assistance in Ukraine is having a significant and positive impact on the battlefield, and we must not stop now and squander the progress that we have made. The money is being well-spent in the defense of freedom. The weapons we are providing are giving the Ukrainians a real chance at leveling this battlefield and giving them an opportunity to win back their lost territory. My third takeaway from this trip is that we need to do more for Ukraine both in the short term and the long term. President Zelenskyy made an appeal to Senator Klobuchar and me for the United States to provide Ukraine with ATACMS, which are Army Tactical Missile Systems. These can be fired from the HIMARS launchers currently in Ukraine, and they have significantly longer range and longer reach than the missiles we are currently providing. It seems to me these missiles would be an important part of their arsenal, from what we learned from both American and Russian briefing and Ukrainian briefings. President Zelenskyy also requested more air defense systems: short, medium, and long-range. His rationale was very simple. He wants the 7 million Ukrainians who have left his country to be able to return, and they want to return. Having met with refugees in two previous trips this year to the border of Poland, Moldova, and talked to these refugees, all of them want to go back. But when it is safe, they will be able to go back. So having more air defense systems at every range--short, medium, and long-range--would enable people to come back. This is crucial because this is one of the issues now, is that Ukraine's economy has been reduced by about 40 percent because of the terrible war that is being waged. If these people could move back to Ukraine, get back to work as normal, pay taxes, begin to become part of the economy again, this would be the most helpful thing to Ukraine's budget problems and their economic woes. With a layered air defense system, they could close its skies to the Russian missiles, protect its people, and get life across much of Ukraine back to normal. I am glad the Biden administration has already acted on some of the request to provide more protection for the skies by pledging eight National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or NASAMS, in conjunction with our German allies. I urge the Biden administration and other partners to do more to respond to this request. Ukraine is where we are engaging in the fight for freedom in this generation. And it is not just about Ukraine. For years, Russia and China have been saying that the West is in decline, that the United States and our allies are weak-willed and untrustworthy. That is certainly what President Putin thought when he invaded Ukraine. He thought he would divide NATO, divide the West, and that we would not respond; that Ukraine and our allies would fold; that we would just stand aside and let it happen. We have proved him wrong so far, not only by aiding Ukraine but protecting the region. The recent announcement that we were sending 250 of the best tanks in the world--the Abrams battle tanks, which are made in my home State of Ohio--to Poland is a commitment to the region. It is a commitment to Eastern Europe. This will send a critical message to Russia that the United States stands for freedom not only in Ukraine, but all throughout Europe and the world. I thank our European allies for all they are doing as well and urge them to continue to step up their support for Ukraine. After all, their own ability to remain free may very well rest on Ukraine remaining free. As one Ukrainian told me on this trip: Ukraine is the shield for democracy for Europe. We must show Vladimir Putin's cynicism about the West, that he is wrong. America has always stood by its values: freedom, democracy, and the right of nations to chart their own futures and to live in peace with their neighbors. We cannot stop now. Most of us who serve in this Chamber understand that, and so do the vast majority of American people. Ten days ago, before I headed overseas, I marched in the Ukraine Independence Day Parade in Parma, OH, just outside of Cleveland. I was with two national leaders in the Ukrainian community: Marta Liscynesky and Andy Futey. I proudly marched with them. There were over 60 entrants in this parade. It went on and on and on. The large turnout, both in terms of participants and spectators, was a demonstration of the support for Ukraine. Ohio is home to tens of thousands of Ukrainian Americans who do not want to see Ukraine become part of some renewed Russian empire. They want Ukraine--their homeland--to remain free and sovereign. And the so-called Nationalities Community--from Slovenians to Poles, from Georgians to Lithuanians--all have the same understanding of the direct threat that Russia poses. They know Ukraine is on the frontlines of a larger battle for freedom. So many Ohioans have rallied together to support Ukraine from all backgrounds. In closing, I want to thank everyone who helped make our important trip possible, including the State Department and our allies in Ukraine and including our military colleagues in Poland. It is important that Congress continue to show our strong support for Ukraine, particularly during this critical period for the country's future. The stakes are so high. This is a fight about global freedom, self-determination, democracy, and respect for territorial integrity. All of us--the United States and our allies--need to stand up because the alternative is a far more dangerous and volatile world, and that affects all of us. Forty-two freedom-loving allies of the United States have stood together in support of Ukraine militarily. Dozens of others have helped in other ways. But all nations around the world are carefully paying attention to what happens in Ukraine, not just our allies but also our adversaries. We have shown the world that America and allies didn't back down after 6 weeks, not even after 6 months. We haven't faltered. We must commit to continuing to help Ukraine defend itself until Vladimir Putin understands that Russia's borders end where freedom begins. ``Slava Ukraini'' and Godspeed to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. ``Heroyam Slava.'' I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-09-06-pt1-PgS4444-4 | null | 4,982 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Inflation Reduction Act Mr. President, on Democratic results, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law less than a month ago and already the verdict is in. Our bill is already creating new investments, new jobs, new opportunities for American families--jobs here in America, not overseas. Let me repeat the good news. The Inflation Reduction Act that every Republican voted against is already delivering for our country. This morning, the New York Times reported that in the wake of the Inflation Reduction Act, a whole host of companies ``have announced a series of big-ticket projects to produce the kind of technology the legislation aims to promote.'' For example, companies like Toyota have announced billions in new investments to start manufacturing batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles right here in America. Elsewhere, the company First Solar announced a $1 billion investment to build new solar manufacturing facilities in the Southeast. Their CEO is explicit that their decision hinged in large part on our legislation, saying it provided ``a level of clarity'' that made investment in the United States the right move. The examples go on. Honda and LG Energy also recently announced over $4 billion for EV battery production in the United States. Panasonic, which supplies parts to Tesla's EV production, said they are also considering $4 billion to build another EV battery plant. And thanks to tax incentives we passed recently that specifically reward domestic battery production, Samsung has decided to accelerate plans to break ground on their own EV battery plant in the next few months in the United States. These are just a few examples of how the Inflation Reduction Act is already delivering on its promise to create countless new jobs and ignite billions in private sector investment and pave the way for America to lead the future with cheap and reliable clean energy. Had we not done this, these plants probably would have been built, most of them overseas. As electric vehicles become predominant throughout our country and the world, America would have lost out. We led the world in auto production in the 20th century, and because of this act and what Democrats, without a single Republican vote, have done, we are going to lead in the 21st century as well. It is exciting and gratifying to know that millions of Americans will be employed in good-paying jobs, in jobs that have a real future. All of this is the result of Democratic leadership keeping its promise to the American people. Again, I have to say, this kind of thing used to happen when Democrats and Republicans came together. It is shameful that not a single Republican voted with us to pass these investments--not one. And, of course, I would also be remiss not to highlight all the ways that the CHIPS and Science Act is sparking a new wave of investment as well. Just recently, the CEO of Micron announced a $15 billion investment in manufacturing last week, saying that the CHIPS and Science Act ``made this investment decision possible.'' And Micron has committed to significantly more and even larger investments to come, I am happy to say. When you pass good legislation, you get good results. It has been a long time, sadly, since the American people have felt that Washington is capable of doing big things to meet big challenges. After 4 years where President Trump spent all of his time, it seems, just being nasty and negative and calling people names but never making promises and never getting anything concrete done, Democrats are actually delivering with real results. Senate Democrats have shown that with the right people in office, government can work to promote, not hinder, the well-being and security of the American people. It is why we took on Big Pharma and won. It is why we took on entrenched oil interests and won. It is why we took on the NRA and beat them by passing the first gun safety law in decades. And all of this is the result of Democrats following through on our promise. While the junior Senator from Florida continues to promote tax hikes for working families and putting Medicare on the chopping block, Democrats want to cut costs for families, increase prosperity, continue to strengthen ladders for people to get into the middle class and give them the stability to say that, once they are there, they are going to stay there. Democrats have given America hope in the future, that in the new industries and new ways of thinking and new sciences, we are going to lead, not follow, not lag behind, not spend time, as President Trump did most of his time, playing petty political games and never getting anything done. We are getting stuff done--big stuff, important stuff, stuff that gives us a brighter future. That is why we work so hard to pass our agenda and, already, it is clear the American people are feeling the benefits. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4452 | null | 4,983 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Inflation Reduction Act Mr. President, on Democratic results, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law less than a month ago and already the verdict is in. Our bill is already creating new investments, new jobs, new opportunities for American families--jobs here in America, not overseas. Let me repeat the good news. The Inflation Reduction Act that every Republican voted against is already delivering for our country. This morning, the New York Times reported that in the wake of the Inflation Reduction Act, a whole host of companies ``have announced a series of big-ticket projects to produce the kind of technology the legislation aims to promote.'' For example, companies like Toyota have announced billions in new investments to start manufacturing batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles right here in America. Elsewhere, the company First Solar announced a $1 billion investment to build new solar manufacturing facilities in the Southeast. Their CEO is explicit that their decision hinged in large part on our legislation, saying it provided ``a level of clarity'' that made investment in the United States the right move. The examples go on. Honda and LG Energy also recently announced over $4 billion for EV battery production in the United States. Panasonic, which supplies parts to Tesla's EV production, said they are also considering $4 billion to build another EV battery plant. And thanks to tax incentives we passed recently that specifically reward domestic battery production, Samsung has decided to accelerate plans to break ground on their own EV battery plant in the next few months in the United States. These are just a few examples of how the Inflation Reduction Act is already delivering on its promise to create countless new jobs and ignite billions in private sector investment and pave the way for America to lead the future with cheap and reliable clean energy. Had we not done this, these plants probably would have been built, most of them overseas. As electric vehicles become predominant throughout our country and the world, America would have lost out. We led the world in auto production in the 20th century, and because of this act and what Democrats, without a single Republican vote, have done, we are going to lead in the 21st century as well. It is exciting and gratifying to know that millions of Americans will be employed in good-paying jobs, in jobs that have a real future. All of this is the result of Democratic leadership keeping its promise to the American people. Again, I have to say, this kind of thing used to happen when Democrats and Republicans came together. It is shameful that not a single Republican voted with us to pass these investments--not one. And, of course, I would also be remiss not to highlight all the ways that the CHIPS and Science Act is sparking a new wave of investment as well. Just recently, the CEO of Micron announced a $15 billion investment in manufacturing last week, saying that the CHIPS and Science Act ``made this investment decision possible.'' And Micron has committed to significantly more and even larger investments to come, I am happy to say. When you pass good legislation, you get good results. It has been a long time, sadly, since the American people have felt that Washington is capable of doing big things to meet big challenges. After 4 years where President Trump spent all of his time, it seems, just being nasty and negative and calling people names but never making promises and never getting anything concrete done, Democrats are actually delivering with real results. Senate Democrats have shown that with the right people in office, government can work to promote, not hinder, the well-being and security of the American people. It is why we took on Big Pharma and won. It is why we took on entrenched oil interests and won. It is why we took on the NRA and beat them by passing the first gun safety law in decades. And all of this is the result of Democrats following through on our promise. While the junior Senator from Florida continues to promote tax hikes for working families and putting Medicare on the chopping block, Democrats want to cut costs for families, increase prosperity, continue to strengthen ladders for people to get into the middle class and give them the stability to say that, once they are there, they are going to stay there. Democrats have given America hope in the future, that in the new industries and new ways of thinking and new sciences, we are going to lead, not follow, not lag behind, not spend time, as President Trump did most of his time, playing petty political games and never getting anything done. We are getting stuff done--big stuff, important stuff, stuff that gives us a brighter future. That is why we work so hard to pass our agenda and, already, it is clear the American people are feeling the benefits. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4452 | null | 4,984 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Inflation Reduction Act Mr. President, on Democratic results, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law less than a month ago and already the verdict is in. Our bill is already creating new investments, new jobs, new opportunities for American families--jobs here in America, not overseas. Let me repeat the good news. The Inflation Reduction Act that every Republican voted against is already delivering for our country. This morning, the New York Times reported that in the wake of the Inflation Reduction Act, a whole host of companies ``have announced a series of big-ticket projects to produce the kind of technology the legislation aims to promote.'' For example, companies like Toyota have announced billions in new investments to start manufacturing batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles right here in America. Elsewhere, the company First Solar announced a $1 billion investment to build new solar manufacturing facilities in the Southeast. Their CEO is explicit that their decision hinged in large part on our legislation, saying it provided ``a level of clarity'' that made investment in the United States the right move. The examples go on. Honda and LG Energy also recently announced over $4 billion for EV battery production in the United States. Panasonic, which supplies parts to Tesla's EV production, said they are also considering $4 billion to build another EV battery plant. And thanks to tax incentives we passed recently that specifically reward domestic battery production, Samsung has decided to accelerate plans to break ground on their own EV battery plant in the next few months in the United States. These are just a few examples of how the Inflation Reduction Act is already delivering on its promise to create countless new jobs and ignite billions in private sector investment and pave the way for America to lead the future with cheap and reliable clean energy. Had we not done this, these plants probably would have been built, most of them overseas. As electric vehicles become predominant throughout our country and the world, America would have lost out. We led the world in auto production in the 20th century, and because of this act and what Democrats, without a single Republican vote, have done, we are going to lead in the 21st century as well. It is exciting and gratifying to know that millions of Americans will be employed in good-paying jobs, in jobs that have a real future. All of this is the result of Democratic leadership keeping its promise to the American people. Again, I have to say, this kind of thing used to happen when Democrats and Republicans came together. It is shameful that not a single Republican voted with us to pass these investments--not one. And, of course, I would also be remiss not to highlight all the ways that the CHIPS and Science Act is sparking a new wave of investment as well. Just recently, the CEO of Micron announced a $15 billion investment in manufacturing last week, saying that the CHIPS and Science Act ``made this investment decision possible.'' And Micron has committed to significantly more and even larger investments to come, I am happy to say. When you pass good legislation, you get good results. It has been a long time, sadly, since the American people have felt that Washington is capable of doing big things to meet big challenges. After 4 years where President Trump spent all of his time, it seems, just being nasty and negative and calling people names but never making promises and never getting anything concrete done, Democrats are actually delivering with real results. Senate Democrats have shown that with the right people in office, government can work to promote, not hinder, the well-being and security of the American people. It is why we took on Big Pharma and won. It is why we took on entrenched oil interests and won. It is why we took on the NRA and beat them by passing the first gun safety law in decades. And all of this is the result of Democrats following through on our promise. While the junior Senator from Florida continues to promote tax hikes for working families and putting Medicare on the chopping block, Democrats want to cut costs for families, increase prosperity, continue to strengthen ladders for people to get into the middle class and give them the stability to say that, once they are there, they are going to stay there. Democrats have given America hope in the future, that in the new industries and new ways of thinking and new sciences, we are going to lead, not follow, not lag behind, not spend time, as President Trump did most of his time, playing petty political games and never getting anything done. We are getting stuff done--big stuff, important stuff, stuff that gives us a brighter future. That is why we work so hard to pass our agenda and, already, it is clear the American people are feeling the benefits. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4452 | null | 4,985 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Law Enforcement Mr. President, now on another matter, inflation is not the only way the last 2 years have shown that bad policies and bad ideas have real consequences. One especially damaging myth is the liberal notion that making our country kinder means having weaker public safety, weaker justice for criminals, and weaker borders. This misunderstanding dominates today's Democratic Party. Across our country, Democrats have spent years--years--trying to defund law enforcement. Studies have proven that anti-police hostility changes how officers do their jobs, leading directly to more crime, including more murders. So liberals' nationwide anti-police PR campaign has literally cost people their lives. When liberals do let police arrest criminals, a growing cadre of far-left prosecutors often simply declines to charge them. One liberal millionaire has donated more than a million dollars each to the campaigns of soft-on-crime district attorneys in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The Los Angeles DA has presided over a 69-percent increase in shootings and a 40-percent spike in car thefts. Chicago's liberal DA ``appeared to be simply dropping nearly 30 percent of all felony cases, including''--listen to this--``alleged murders.'' Philadelphia's liberal DA has presided over an 85-percent spike in shootings and a huge increase in murders since he took over. In the name of equity or compassion, these people are announcing they will not prosecute entire categories of crimes. No wonder American cities are becoming more dangerous by the day. A couple years back, a former DA from outside Boston published a list of crimes she would not prosecute: shoplifting, breaking and entering, resisting arrest, and, even in the middle of the opioid crisis, possession with intent to distribute. As a reward, Washington Democrats made Rachel Rollins the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts. She got a promotion. Just last month, Senator Rubio put forward an amendment to increase funding for cops and keeping violent criminals behind bars. Democrats blocked it. Every Senate Democrat has also voted multiple times to strip Customs and Border Protection of the only remaining emergency authorities to contend with the historic surge in illegal immigration unfolding on their watch. Of course, the open-door policies our colleagues support in office are rooted in open-border rhetoric that they have embraced literally for years. On the campaign trail, then-Candidate Biden himself said, ``You want to flee . . . you should come.'' So on President Biden's watch, illegal immigrants flocked--literally flocked--to the border, some carrying his campaign's flags and T-shirts. There is an outright security crisis at our southern border. We are in the middle of the most illegal immigration arrests in more than two decades. This year, just January to August, Border Patrol says they have already run into nearly double the number of known criminals this fiscal year as they saw in the entire year--entire year--before President Biden took office and huge, huge upticks of deadly drugs like fentanyl. But Democrats aren't just ignoring a security crisis; it is a humanitarian crisis as well. Waves of unaccompanied children have stretched Border Patrol's facilities to the limit. Under incompetent leadership, the Department of Health and Human Services has had to scramble to help ensure the safety of children in its custody. There is nothing--nothing--compassionate about tolerating or even encouraging anarchy down at the border, violence in our streets, and a steady erosion of public safety. It is neither fair, nor is it compassionate, not to any Americans, least of all to the vulnerable people Democrats say--say--they are helping. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4453 | null | 4,986 |
formal | Janet Yellen | null | antisemitic | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Mr. President, 8 days--8 days--that is how long it took President Biden to completely erase any of the supposed deficit reduction included in the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act. On August 24, 8 days after signing the Inflation Reduction Act into law, President Biden announced that, with the stroke of his pen, he would be forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt, $20,000 for Pell grant recipients, and taking other costly measures on student loans. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, incidentally, is where Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen served prior to joining the Biden administration, estimates that, all together, the President's student loan changes will cost anywhere from $440 billion to $600 billion over the next decade. The Penn Wharton Budget Model suggests it could be even worse than that, with the total cost over 10 years exceeding $1 trillion. Now, even using the most optimistic assumptions, the Inflation Reduction Act would have only reduced the deficit by about $300 billion. President Biden's student loan plan will wipe out every single dime of that reduction and then add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt on top of it--so much for the Democrats' commitment to reducing the deficit, which, I think, was a hoax in the first place. There wasn't any serious commitment to it, but it only took them 8 days--8 days--to wipe it out after they crowed about it and talked about how they got Joe Manchin on board because he made a commitment to deficit reduction, which was something he supposedly insisted on in these discussions. And yet here we are. Eight days--in 8 days it is gone. Now, I have already noted that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the President's student loan measures will cost a staggering half a trillion dollars over the next decade. Here is what else the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget had to say: The student debt cancellation and relief measures announced . . . by the Biden administration . . . would meaningfully boost inflation. ``Would meaningfully boost inflation''--that is right. Americans have spent the majority of the Biden administration struggling with huge increases in the price of everything from gas to groceries, and the President just imposed by fiat a new policy that is likely to ``meaningfully boost inflation.'' I guess it isn't surprising. After all, it is thanks in large part to the Democrats and the President that we ended up with this inflation crisis in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, their reckless American Rescue Plan spending spree flooded the country with unnecessary money and the economy overheated as a result. But the President's latest reckless action underscores just how committed Democrats are to big-spending and big-government agenda. Now, Democrats tried to suggest that they had gotten serious about the economy with their so-called Inflation Reduction Act, even though the bill was only serious about spending taxpayer dollars on ill-considered priorities like their Green New Deal agenda. But the fact--the fact--that it took the President exactly 8 days to wipe out any deficit reduction from the Democrats' bill tells you all you need to know about exactly how serious Democrats are about handling taxpayer dollars responsibly. Now, I have talked for a while about why the President's student loan plans are such bad economic policy, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say about President Biden's student loan plans: Pouring roughly half [a] trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that already is burning is reckless. Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise, [which is $10,000] of student loan relief, and breaking another, [which is that] all proposals [have to be] paid for, is even worse. That is from Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. Another former Obama economic adviser noted: Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation. . . . It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions. Well, there are even some current Democrat Members of Congress that have expressed their concerns about the President's reckless student loan decision. And the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, I mentioned, is where President Biden's very own Treasury Secretary once served on the board, issued a scathing statement in which she said: This announcement is gallingly reckless--with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. . . . It would do nothing to actually make education more affordable, and if anything, this policy will drive up tuition costs while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans. This is from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is where the President's own Treasury Secretary used to serve. Let me repeat that: ``while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans.'' Well, as the Washington Post editorial board noted, American taxpayers will be footing the bill for the President's student loan decision. Ordinary Americans will pay in the form of higher prices. They will pay in the form of higher rates on loans and mortgages, and they will pay in the form of higher tuition costs. The majority of Americans do not have student loan debt, either because they paid off their loans, never went to college, got a scholarship, or worked their way through college or were able to go thanks to their or their parents' savings. Now these Americans are going to be footing the bill for the 13 percent of Americans who do have student loan debt. Everyone is going to have to suffer economically to provide loan forgiveness for the few. This is deeply, deeply unfair. It is unfair to expect Americans who either never went to college, paid off their loans, or paid their way through to shoulder the cost of other Americans' loans. The President's decision is unfair to parents who scrimped and saved to send their children to college, representing a lot of American families; to the students who chose a lower cost college or worked to put themselves through; to the men and women in uniform in the military who fought for this country to earn money for their college education; and to the families struggling with high grocery bills and high energy bills and high rent prices who are likely to end up facing even more price increases, thanks to the President's student loan decisions. And let's remember that taxpayers are going to be facing economic hardship to pay off student loans for Americans who, if they graduated from college, enjoy greater long-term earning potential than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burden for their debts. The President's plan isn't even targeted to the most needy, with families making $250,000 a year--nearly 10 times the poverty line for a family of 4--now eligible to have their loans forgiven. There is no doubt that the cost of a college education has risen outrageously and that, in some cases, students have been encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt to pay for it, but the President's student loan plan does absolutely nothing to fix these problems. The President's plan will not only do nothing to control the cost of a college education, it will almost undoubtedly make our current situation worse. What college is going to spend time worrying about lowering tuition fees if it can expect the Federal Government to pick up part of the bill for its students' educations? The President's plan will also do nothing to discourage students from taking on unrealistic levels of debt. In fact, it is likely to encourage students to incur even more debt since the President has now set up an expectation that the government will step in to help pay down students' loan burdens. Given the fact that student loan debt is expected to be back to its current level in 6 years, I imagine we will be hearing more Democratic calls for student loan forgiveness in the very near future. In fact, some Members of the Democratic Party already think the President didn't go far enough. More than one Democrat wanted the President to forgive $50,000 in debt. Now, apparently, these Democrats won't be satisfied until our economy drowns entirely under the weight of reckless government spending. The defining achievement of the Biden administration so far has been an economy that has left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Apparently, the President wants that to be his legacy because, for the sake of a few possible votes in November, he has decided to pursue yet another economic policy that will almost undoubtedly result in further economic pain for the American people. Now he will just have to hope that his strategy doesn't backfire because, while his reckless student loan plan may buy him a vote or two, a lot of other Americans may decide that they have had their fill of inflationary spending and far-left appeasement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4454 | null | 4,987 |
formal | government spending | null | racist | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Mr. President, 8 days--8 days--that is how long it took President Biden to completely erase any of the supposed deficit reduction included in the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act. On August 24, 8 days after signing the Inflation Reduction Act into law, President Biden announced that, with the stroke of his pen, he would be forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt, $20,000 for Pell grant recipients, and taking other costly measures on student loans. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, incidentally, is where Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen served prior to joining the Biden administration, estimates that, all together, the President's student loan changes will cost anywhere from $440 billion to $600 billion over the next decade. The Penn Wharton Budget Model suggests it could be even worse than that, with the total cost over 10 years exceeding $1 trillion. Now, even using the most optimistic assumptions, the Inflation Reduction Act would have only reduced the deficit by about $300 billion. President Biden's student loan plan will wipe out every single dime of that reduction and then add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt on top of it--so much for the Democrats' commitment to reducing the deficit, which, I think, was a hoax in the first place. There wasn't any serious commitment to it, but it only took them 8 days--8 days--to wipe it out after they crowed about it and talked about how they got Joe Manchin on board because he made a commitment to deficit reduction, which was something he supposedly insisted on in these discussions. And yet here we are. Eight days--in 8 days it is gone. Now, I have already noted that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the President's student loan measures will cost a staggering half a trillion dollars over the next decade. Here is what else the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget had to say: The student debt cancellation and relief measures announced . . . by the Biden administration . . . would meaningfully boost inflation. ``Would meaningfully boost inflation''--that is right. Americans have spent the majority of the Biden administration struggling with huge increases in the price of everything from gas to groceries, and the President just imposed by fiat a new policy that is likely to ``meaningfully boost inflation.'' I guess it isn't surprising. After all, it is thanks in large part to the Democrats and the President that we ended up with this inflation crisis in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, their reckless American Rescue Plan spending spree flooded the country with unnecessary money and the economy overheated as a result. But the President's latest reckless action underscores just how committed Democrats are to big-spending and big-government agenda. Now, Democrats tried to suggest that they had gotten serious about the economy with their so-called Inflation Reduction Act, even though the bill was only serious about spending taxpayer dollars on ill-considered priorities like their Green New Deal agenda. But the fact--the fact--that it took the President exactly 8 days to wipe out any deficit reduction from the Democrats' bill tells you all you need to know about exactly how serious Democrats are about handling taxpayer dollars responsibly. Now, I have talked for a while about why the President's student loan plans are such bad economic policy, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say about President Biden's student loan plans: Pouring roughly half [a] trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that already is burning is reckless. Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise, [which is $10,000] of student loan relief, and breaking another, [which is that] all proposals [have to be] paid for, is even worse. That is from Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. Another former Obama economic adviser noted: Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation. . . . It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions. Well, there are even some current Democrat Members of Congress that have expressed their concerns about the President's reckless student loan decision. And the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, I mentioned, is where President Biden's very own Treasury Secretary once served on the board, issued a scathing statement in which she said: This announcement is gallingly reckless--with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. . . . It would do nothing to actually make education more affordable, and if anything, this policy will drive up tuition costs while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans. This is from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is where the President's own Treasury Secretary used to serve. Let me repeat that: ``while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans.'' Well, as the Washington Post editorial board noted, American taxpayers will be footing the bill for the President's student loan decision. Ordinary Americans will pay in the form of higher prices. They will pay in the form of higher rates on loans and mortgages, and they will pay in the form of higher tuition costs. The majority of Americans do not have student loan debt, either because they paid off their loans, never went to college, got a scholarship, or worked their way through college or were able to go thanks to their or their parents' savings. Now these Americans are going to be footing the bill for the 13 percent of Americans who do have student loan debt. Everyone is going to have to suffer economically to provide loan forgiveness for the few. This is deeply, deeply unfair. It is unfair to expect Americans who either never went to college, paid off their loans, or paid their way through to shoulder the cost of other Americans' loans. The President's decision is unfair to parents who scrimped and saved to send their children to college, representing a lot of American families; to the students who chose a lower cost college or worked to put themselves through; to the men and women in uniform in the military who fought for this country to earn money for their college education; and to the families struggling with high grocery bills and high energy bills and high rent prices who are likely to end up facing even more price increases, thanks to the President's student loan decisions. And let's remember that taxpayers are going to be facing economic hardship to pay off student loans for Americans who, if they graduated from college, enjoy greater long-term earning potential than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burden for their debts. The President's plan isn't even targeted to the most needy, with families making $250,000 a year--nearly 10 times the poverty line for a family of 4--now eligible to have their loans forgiven. There is no doubt that the cost of a college education has risen outrageously and that, in some cases, students have been encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt to pay for it, but the President's student loan plan does absolutely nothing to fix these problems. The President's plan will not only do nothing to control the cost of a college education, it will almost undoubtedly make our current situation worse. What college is going to spend time worrying about lowering tuition fees if it can expect the Federal Government to pick up part of the bill for its students' educations? The President's plan will also do nothing to discourage students from taking on unrealistic levels of debt. In fact, it is likely to encourage students to incur even more debt since the President has now set up an expectation that the government will step in to help pay down students' loan burdens. Given the fact that student loan debt is expected to be back to its current level in 6 years, I imagine we will be hearing more Democratic calls for student loan forgiveness in the very near future. In fact, some Members of the Democratic Party already think the President didn't go far enough. More than one Democrat wanted the President to forgive $50,000 in debt. Now, apparently, these Democrats won't be satisfied until our economy drowns entirely under the weight of reckless government spending. The defining achievement of the Biden administration so far has been an economy that has left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Apparently, the President wants that to be his legacy because, for the sake of a few possible votes in November, he has decided to pursue yet another economic policy that will almost undoubtedly result in further economic pain for the American people. Now he will just have to hope that his strategy doesn't backfire because, while his reckless student loan plan may buy him a vote or two, a lot of other Americans may decide that they have had their fill of inflationary spending and far-left appeasement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4454 | null | 4,988 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Mr. President, 8 days--8 days--that is how long it took President Biden to completely erase any of the supposed deficit reduction included in the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act. On August 24, 8 days after signing the Inflation Reduction Act into law, President Biden announced that, with the stroke of his pen, he would be forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt, $20,000 for Pell grant recipients, and taking other costly measures on student loans. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, incidentally, is where Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen served prior to joining the Biden administration, estimates that, all together, the President's student loan changes will cost anywhere from $440 billion to $600 billion over the next decade. The Penn Wharton Budget Model suggests it could be even worse than that, with the total cost over 10 years exceeding $1 trillion. Now, even using the most optimistic assumptions, the Inflation Reduction Act would have only reduced the deficit by about $300 billion. President Biden's student loan plan will wipe out every single dime of that reduction and then add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt on top of it--so much for the Democrats' commitment to reducing the deficit, which, I think, was a hoax in the first place. There wasn't any serious commitment to it, but it only took them 8 days--8 days--to wipe it out after they crowed about it and talked about how they got Joe Manchin on board because he made a commitment to deficit reduction, which was something he supposedly insisted on in these discussions. And yet here we are. Eight days--in 8 days it is gone. Now, I have already noted that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the President's student loan measures will cost a staggering half a trillion dollars over the next decade. Here is what else the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget had to say: The student debt cancellation and relief measures announced . . . by the Biden administration . . . would meaningfully boost inflation. ``Would meaningfully boost inflation''--that is right. Americans have spent the majority of the Biden administration struggling with huge increases in the price of everything from gas to groceries, and the President just imposed by fiat a new policy that is likely to ``meaningfully boost inflation.'' I guess it isn't surprising. After all, it is thanks in large part to the Democrats and the President that we ended up with this inflation crisis in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, their reckless American Rescue Plan spending spree flooded the country with unnecessary money and the economy overheated as a result. But the President's latest reckless action underscores just how committed Democrats are to big-spending and big-government agenda. Now, Democrats tried to suggest that they had gotten serious about the economy with their so-called Inflation Reduction Act, even though the bill was only serious about spending taxpayer dollars on ill-considered priorities like their Green New Deal agenda. But the fact--the fact--that it took the President exactly 8 days to wipe out any deficit reduction from the Democrats' bill tells you all you need to know about exactly how serious Democrats are about handling taxpayer dollars responsibly. Now, I have talked for a while about why the President's student loan plans are such bad economic policy, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say about President Biden's student loan plans: Pouring roughly half [a] trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that already is burning is reckless. Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise, [which is $10,000] of student loan relief, and breaking another, [which is that] all proposals [have to be] paid for, is even worse. That is from Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. Another former Obama economic adviser noted: Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation. . . . It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions. Well, there are even some current Democrat Members of Congress that have expressed their concerns about the President's reckless student loan decision. And the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, I mentioned, is where President Biden's very own Treasury Secretary once served on the board, issued a scathing statement in which she said: This announcement is gallingly reckless--with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. . . . It would do nothing to actually make education more affordable, and if anything, this policy will drive up tuition costs while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans. This is from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is where the President's own Treasury Secretary used to serve. Let me repeat that: ``while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans.'' Well, as the Washington Post editorial board noted, American taxpayers will be footing the bill for the President's student loan decision. Ordinary Americans will pay in the form of higher prices. They will pay in the form of higher rates on loans and mortgages, and they will pay in the form of higher tuition costs. The majority of Americans do not have student loan debt, either because they paid off their loans, never went to college, got a scholarship, or worked their way through college or were able to go thanks to their or their parents' savings. Now these Americans are going to be footing the bill for the 13 percent of Americans who do have student loan debt. Everyone is going to have to suffer economically to provide loan forgiveness for the few. This is deeply, deeply unfair. It is unfair to expect Americans who either never went to college, paid off their loans, or paid their way through to shoulder the cost of other Americans' loans. The President's decision is unfair to parents who scrimped and saved to send their children to college, representing a lot of American families; to the students who chose a lower cost college or worked to put themselves through; to the men and women in uniform in the military who fought for this country to earn money for their college education; and to the families struggling with high grocery bills and high energy bills and high rent prices who are likely to end up facing even more price increases, thanks to the President's student loan decisions. And let's remember that taxpayers are going to be facing economic hardship to pay off student loans for Americans who, if they graduated from college, enjoy greater long-term earning potential than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burden for their debts. The President's plan isn't even targeted to the most needy, with families making $250,000 a year--nearly 10 times the poverty line for a family of 4--now eligible to have their loans forgiven. There is no doubt that the cost of a college education has risen outrageously and that, in some cases, students have been encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt to pay for it, but the President's student loan plan does absolutely nothing to fix these problems. The President's plan will not only do nothing to control the cost of a college education, it will almost undoubtedly make our current situation worse. What college is going to spend time worrying about lowering tuition fees if it can expect the Federal Government to pick up part of the bill for its students' educations? The President's plan will also do nothing to discourage students from taking on unrealistic levels of debt. In fact, it is likely to encourage students to incur even more debt since the President has now set up an expectation that the government will step in to help pay down students' loan burdens. Given the fact that student loan debt is expected to be back to its current level in 6 years, I imagine we will be hearing more Democratic calls for student loan forgiveness in the very near future. In fact, some Members of the Democratic Party already think the President didn't go far enough. More than one Democrat wanted the President to forgive $50,000 in debt. Now, apparently, these Democrats won't be satisfied until our economy drowns entirely under the weight of reckless government spending. The defining achievement of the Biden administration so far has been an economy that has left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Apparently, the President wants that to be his legacy because, for the sake of a few possible votes in November, he has decided to pursue yet another economic policy that will almost undoubtedly result in further economic pain for the American people. Now he will just have to hope that his strategy doesn't backfire because, while his reckless student loan plan may buy him a vote or two, a lot of other Americans may decide that they have had their fill of inflationary spending and far-left appeasement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4454 | null | 4,989 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Student Loan Debt Relief Plan Mr. President, 8 days--8 days--that is how long it took President Biden to completely erase any of the supposed deficit reduction included in the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act. On August 24, 8 days after signing the Inflation Reduction Act into law, President Biden announced that, with the stroke of his pen, he would be forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt, $20,000 for Pell grant recipients, and taking other costly measures on student loans. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, incidentally, is where Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen served prior to joining the Biden administration, estimates that, all together, the President's student loan changes will cost anywhere from $440 billion to $600 billion over the next decade. The Penn Wharton Budget Model suggests it could be even worse than that, with the total cost over 10 years exceeding $1 trillion. Now, even using the most optimistic assumptions, the Inflation Reduction Act would have only reduced the deficit by about $300 billion. President Biden's student loan plan will wipe out every single dime of that reduction and then add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt on top of it--so much for the Democrats' commitment to reducing the deficit, which, I think, was a hoax in the first place. There wasn't any serious commitment to it, but it only took them 8 days--8 days--to wipe it out after they crowed about it and talked about how they got Joe Manchin on board because he made a commitment to deficit reduction, which was something he supposedly insisted on in these discussions. And yet here we are. Eight days--in 8 days it is gone. Now, I have already noted that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the President's student loan measures will cost a staggering half a trillion dollars over the next decade. Here is what else the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget had to say: The student debt cancellation and relief measures announced . . . by the Biden administration . . . would meaningfully boost inflation. ``Would meaningfully boost inflation''--that is right. Americans have spent the majority of the Biden administration struggling with huge increases in the price of everything from gas to groceries, and the President just imposed by fiat a new policy that is likely to ``meaningfully boost inflation.'' I guess it isn't surprising. After all, it is thanks in large part to the Democrats and the President that we ended up with this inflation crisis in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, their reckless American Rescue Plan spending spree flooded the country with unnecessary money and the economy overheated as a result. But the President's latest reckless action underscores just how committed Democrats are to big-spending and big-government agenda. Now, Democrats tried to suggest that they had gotten serious about the economy with their so-called Inflation Reduction Act, even though the bill was only serious about spending taxpayer dollars on ill-considered priorities like their Green New Deal agenda. But the fact--the fact--that it took the President exactly 8 days to wipe out any deficit reduction from the Democrats' bill tells you all you need to know about exactly how serious Democrats are about handling taxpayer dollars responsibly. Now, I have talked for a while about why the President's student loan plans are such bad economic policy, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say about President Biden's student loan plans: Pouring roughly half [a] trillion dollars of gasoline on the inflationary fire that already is burning is reckless. Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise, [which is $10,000] of student loan relief, and breaking another, [which is that] all proposals [have to be] paid for, is even worse. That is from Obama economic adviser Jason Furman. Another former Obama economic adviser noted: Student loan debt relief is spending that raises demand and increases inflation. . . . It will also tend to be inflationary by raising tuitions. Well, there are even some current Democrat Members of Congress that have expressed their concerns about the President's reckless student loan decision. And the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which, I mentioned, is where President Biden's very own Treasury Secretary once served on the board, issued a scathing statement in which she said: This announcement is gallingly reckless--with the national debt approaching record levels and inflation surging, it will make both worse. . . . It would do nothing to actually make education more affordable, and if anything, this policy will drive up tuition costs while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans. This is from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is where the President's own Treasury Secretary used to serve. Let me repeat that: ``while raising prices on a variety of other goods and services for ordinary Americans.'' Well, as the Washington Post editorial board noted, American taxpayers will be footing the bill for the President's student loan decision. Ordinary Americans will pay in the form of higher prices. They will pay in the form of higher rates on loans and mortgages, and they will pay in the form of higher tuition costs. The majority of Americans do not have student loan debt, either because they paid off their loans, never went to college, got a scholarship, or worked their way through college or were able to go thanks to their or their parents' savings. Now these Americans are going to be footing the bill for the 13 percent of Americans who do have student loan debt. Everyone is going to have to suffer economically to provide loan forgiveness for the few. This is deeply, deeply unfair. It is unfair to expect Americans who either never went to college, paid off their loans, or paid their way through to shoulder the cost of other Americans' loans. The President's decision is unfair to parents who scrimped and saved to send their children to college, representing a lot of American families; to the students who chose a lower cost college or worked to put themselves through; to the men and women in uniform in the military who fought for this country to earn money for their college education; and to the families struggling with high grocery bills and high energy bills and high rent prices who are likely to end up facing even more price increases, thanks to the President's student loan decisions. And let's remember that taxpayers are going to be facing economic hardship to pay off student loans for Americans who, if they graduated from college, enjoy greater long-term earning potential than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burden for their debts. The President's plan isn't even targeted to the most needy, with families making $250,000 a year--nearly 10 times the poverty line for a family of 4--now eligible to have their loans forgiven. There is no doubt that the cost of a college education has risen outrageously and that, in some cases, students have been encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt to pay for it, but the President's student loan plan does absolutely nothing to fix these problems. The President's plan will not only do nothing to control the cost of a college education, it will almost undoubtedly make our current situation worse. What college is going to spend time worrying about lowering tuition fees if it can expect the Federal Government to pick up part of the bill for its students' educations? The President's plan will also do nothing to discourage students from taking on unrealistic levels of debt. In fact, it is likely to encourage students to incur even more debt since the President has now set up an expectation that the government will step in to help pay down students' loan burdens. Given the fact that student loan debt is expected to be back to its current level in 6 years, I imagine we will be hearing more Democratic calls for student loan forgiveness in the very near future. In fact, some Members of the Democratic Party already think the President didn't go far enough. More than one Democrat wanted the President to forgive $50,000 in debt. Now, apparently, these Democrats won't be satisfied until our economy drowns entirely under the weight of reckless government spending. The defining achievement of the Biden administration so far has been an economy that has left millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet. Apparently, the President wants that to be his legacy because, for the sake of a few possible votes in November, he has decided to pursue yet another economic policy that will almost undoubtedly result in further economic pain for the American people. Now he will just have to hope that his strategy doesn't backfire because, while his reckless student loan plan may buy him a vote or two, a lot of other Americans may decide that they have had their fill of inflationary spending and far-left appeasement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4454 | null | 4,990 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize my good friend Mr. Bob Fee as he nears the end of his term as the 116th chairman of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America--IIABA--also known as the Big ``I.'' He was installed as chairman of the Big ``I'' in September 2021 in Kansas City. Over the past year, he has done a remarkable job leading the association as a strong and thoughtful leader for independent insurance agents and small businesses across the country. Bob is a graduate of the University of Kansas and the USF&G School of Insurance in Baltimore, MD. He is currently the president of Fee Insurance Group in Hutchinson, KS. He joined his family's agency in 1987, continuing a long family tradition of serving the community. The Fee Insurance Group can trace its roots back to 1883 in its hometown of Hutchinson and now has four locations throughout the State. At the national association level, Bob has been a member of the Big ``I'' government affairs committee and the Trusted Choice board of directors, including a term as the Trusted Choice board chairman. He received the Big ``I'' Chairman's Citation in 2011. At the State association level, Bob served on the Kansas Association of Insurance Agents--KAIA--board of directors and as the Kansas director on the national association board. He has also served on several KAIA committees, including the government affairs committee, and was the 2007-2008 KAIA president. As chairman of the Big ``I,'' Bob has represented his country, his industry, and the great State of Kansas with distinction. The State of Kansas is proud of Bob Fee and wishes him and his wife Annie well following his successful term as chairman of the Big ``I.'' | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MORAN | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4472-3 | null | 4,991 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-188. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Illinois urging the United States Congress to protect, strengthen, and improve the child nutrition programs through a Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act that builds on the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 to ensure that low-income children continue to have access to nutritious meals through the year; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. House Resolution No. 615 Whereas, Regular access to healthy and affordable meals has been proven to be one of the strongest means of improved school performance, improved health, and sound childhood development; and Whereas, According to 2020 census data, Black households reported food insecurity rates that were more than twice as high as white households; and Whereas, Research shows that childhood hunger and food insecurity have a range of negative impacts on the health, academic performance, and overall well-being of children; and Whereas, Research suggests that older Black students may be more likely to skip meals during the week than white students; and Whereas, School nutrition programs offer the opportunity to provide healthy food and improve dietary quality for students who may otherwise not eat; and Whereas, School meals can also have a positive impact on grades, absences, and tardiness among students; and Whereas, Students from Black families are more likely to receive free or reduced-price lunches during the school year, and research shows students who receive these meals during the school year are more likely to face food insufficiency in the summer; and Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic led to a dramatic spike in the rate of children experiencing hunger and food insecurity, peaking at 18% of families with children reporting their household did not have enough to eat in December 2020 according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and also created challenges to safely accessing child nutrition programs; and Whereas, Substantial racial and ethnic disparities in food insecurity exist among parents of school-age children, and Black families experienced significant hardship as a result of the pandemic; and Whereas, Approximately four in 10 families with parents who are Black (40.8%) reported food insecurity in the prior 30 days, almost triple the rate of families with white parents (15.1%); and Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an ongoing increase in the scope and scale of children experiencing hunger and food insecurity, with the most recent estimates from Feeding America showing that 13 million may face hunger in 2021 compared with the all-time low of 11 million in 2019, according to USDA; and Whereas, Non-congregate meal delivery options were especially critical in distributing meals to children in rural and hard to reach communities or where transportation challenges make it difficult for programs to distribute meals at a localized site; and Whereas, Child nutrition programs are the front line of defense against childhood hunger and food insecurity, promoting healthy eating and providing healthy, nutritious food for the nation's children through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Summer EBT for Children (SEBTC), Pandemic-EBT, the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and Whereas, The SEBTC Program reaches children who most need additional food support over summer and school breaks and is proven to reduce food insecurity among children; and Whereas, P-EBT, a temporary program providing a grocery benefit to children who have lost access to free and reduced priced meals at school due to COVID-19, has been highly effective at reducing food insecurity; and Whereas, The CEP program promotes equity and reduces stigma for families and has been proven to reduce hunger and improve student outcomes; and Whereas, A proven barrier to continued participation in the WIC Program is unavailability of remote appointments, short certification periods, and lack of flexibility in food purchasing, ordering, and delivery; and Whereas, Millions of children benefit from these programs, including the 21.5 million low-income children who participated in the school lunch program and the 12.4 million who participated in the school breakfast program in the 2018- 2019 school year, as well as the 6.3 million mothers and children who received food and nutrition education through WIC and 2.8 million children who ate summer meals in 2019; and Whereas, The Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 has improved the nutritional standards for school nutrition programs, and as a result, kids have access to increased fruits, vegetables, and whole grains but less sugars, fats, and sodium; Congress has the opportunity to ensure that children continue to have access to nutritious and quality meals to help prevent childhood hunger and obesity; and Whereas, Congress has an opportunity to improve and strengthen access to nutrition through the 2021 Child Nutrition Reauthorization (CNR) bill by making permanent the COVID-19 waiver flexibilities that help to better reach children and by including provisions that would increase access and reach more kids through streamlining, reducing administrative burdens, and providing program flexibility, giving them the access to quality meals that they have during the school year; and Whereas, An adequately funded and evidence-based reauthorization bill can reduce childhood hunger and food insecurity in America, help reduce childhood obesity, improve child nutrition and health, and enhance healthy child development and school readiness, allowing children to reach their full potential; and Whereas, Congress has a unique opportunity in the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act to improve and promote equitable access and nutrition for millions of children, particularly low-income children; Therefore, be it Resolved, by the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Second General Assembly of the State of Illinois, That we urge Congress to protect, strengthen, and improve the child nutrition programs through a Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act that builds on the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 to ensure that low-income children continue to have access to nutritious meals throughout the year; and be it further Resolved, That we urge Congress to streamline and simplify provisions governing the summer meals program in order to reduce administrative burdens, bureaucracies, and duplications in program administration and operation during the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act; and be it further Resolved, That we urge Congress to allow for more flexibility around where children are able to access and eat summer meals, by allowing for non-congregate models in communities where summer meals sites are not available and by lowering the threshold required to operate sites open to all children; and be it further Resolved, That we urge Congress to permanently authorize the operation of the SEBTC program, make program funding mandatory, and expand the reach of the program to kids eligible for free or reduced-price school meals in all states, tribal nations, and localities in order to close the summer meals gap; and be it further Resolved, That we urge Congress to permanently authorize the PEBT system beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing authorities to quickly deliver increased nutritional aid during times of crisis; and be it further Resolved, That we urge Congress to expand the well- documented benefits of CEP, which allows schools to serve meals at no charge to all students if enough are identified as qualifying for other assistance programs, by lowering the minimum identified student percentage (ISP), by increasing the ISP multiplier, by expanding direct certification with Medicaid data nationwide, and by supporting the improvement of direct certification systems; and be it further Resolved, That we urge Congress to increase the flexibility of WIC appointments through increased access to remote appointments and extended certification periods as well as to support equitable access to the WIC food package through modernization efforts that increase access to online ordering, online purchasing, and delivery: and be it further Resolved, That we support the enactment of a Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act that ensures low-income children's improved and equitable access to and participation in the child nutrition programs and includes the policy goals stated above; and be it further Resolved, That suitable copies of this resolution be delivered to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, and other federal and state government officials and agencies as appropriate. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4472-6 | null | 4,992 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last week, while I was meeting with constituents in Iowa, news broke herein Washington, DC, about Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault's retirement. Since May 31 of this year, I have highlighted Tim Thibault's partisan bias and how it infected major FBI investigations. That included a July 18 letter of this year that highlighted his role in opening a criminal investigation into Trump's campaign and advisers. That investigation is the electoral investigation that has been in the news. For example, on July 26 of this year, the Washington Post reported on that very same Trump investigation. Now, however, the Post failed to note that Thibault was the prime mover in opening it. Now get this: The Post failed to note that Tim Thibault predicated the investigation, in a substantial part, on liberal news articles, as well as information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray approved a full investigation anyway, which, as we all know, was contrary to standard procedure for moving ahead on an investigation. That Washington Post article occurred 1 day after I made the Trump investigation letter public and 1 day after I made the July 25 Hunter Biden investigation letter public. Since Tim Thibault's exit from the FBI, I have noticed more news articles and reporting that haven't been accurate with respect to the allegations that I have made public. Let me take this opportunity, then, to correct the record with respect to that inaccurate reporting. Some reports have noted that the Hunter Biden criminal probe is ongoing; therefore, how can the allegations of Thibault shutting down investigation activity relating to Hunter Biden be credible? Well, this is the difference: The whistleblower disclosures to me relate to investigative activity and avenues of information that originated entirely separate from the ongoing Hunter Biden criminal probe. That is why the allegations that I made--that I brought forward--are so very, very important, because we are dealing with a separate category of potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden that the FBI has within its possession and the information received by the FBI was either verified or verifiable. Even so, based on allegations, the investigative activity was shut down by Special Agent Thibault and, of course, by others based on the false assertion that it was disinformation. How many times do we have this ``disinformation'' coming up as an excuse all the time with Grassley's investigations? Now, to be precise, FBI officials want to take action with respect to this separate investigative information that the FBI had in its possession related to Hunter Biden. However, Thibault blocked the FBI from doing what would normally be done. Accordingly, the investigative activity and the information cannot be advanced as it should have been, which means the FBI could have gathered more evidence with respect to Hunter Biden but cut bait instead. And the FBI and Thibault cut bait right before the 2020 Presidential election. Since the information and activity was shut down, it wouldn't have been initially shared with any ongoing criminal probe. That calls into question, then, what U.S. Attorney Weiss is actually investigating. It also calls into question what the FBI's Baltimore field office is reviewing and whether it is the full scope of evidence. Now, I have asked Director Wray about that whole issue. I asked him: How can verified and verifiable information relating to the Hunter Biden's potential criminality be shared with U.S. Attorney Weiss if it is shut down? We have no answer from Director Wray. At the Judiciary Committee's August 4 oversight hearing, Director Wray said that it is his expectation that such information would be shared with relevant offices. So, Director Wray, I have this question: What have you done to ensure that your expectation has been met? Because of Director Wray's failure to answer, Congress is unaware of whether or not the FBI has finally shared full and complete information and investigative activity with any ongoing criminal probe. Therefore, without additional transparency from the government, there is a very real chance the Hunter Biden criminal probe doesn't include the full evidentiary picture. Now, how can the American people trust the results? Some have also questioned how an assistant special agent in charge like Thibault can have so much power--power to open and close investigative activities. Well, that is exactly what he did. And that power is often abused within the FBI. For example, on March 28 of this year, Chairman Durbin and I wrote a letter to the FBI about an audit. That audit showed widespread violations of internal policies designed to ensure proper handling of the FBI's most sensitive investigations. To read from my letter with Chairman Durbin: The FBI reviewed 353 Sensitive Investigative Matters--just under half of all such matters that were pending during this 18-month review period--and identified 747 violations. In 45 investigations, the FBI didn't conduct or document a legal review prior to opening it. In 40 investigations, the FBI officials who opened a sensitive investigative matter didn't obtain approval from the relevant special agent in charge or even the assistant special agent in charge. Now, with those statistics, I fear that is just the tip of the iceberg. In conclusion, let's look at Thibault's recent statement and the allegations he didn't address. I think we have five or six. First, he didn't address his role in opening a Trump investigation based on liberal news articles and information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Secondly, he didn't address his collaboration with Richard Pilger with respect to that investigation. Third, he didn't address efforts to water down the Trump investigation memo sent to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray which they ultimately approved. Fourth, he didn't address the shutting down of the investigative activity and avenues of information relating to Hunter Biden. Fifth, he didn't address the alleged criminality within the information provided to the FBI about Hunter Biden. Sixth, he didn't address the August 2020 assessment opened by Brian Auten that was used to falsely label Hunter Biden's information as ``disinformation.'' Seventh, he didn't address his actions to try and improperly mark investigative closings so that they couldn't be opened in the future. Lastly, Thibault said that he ``welcomes any investigation'' into allegations against him. Well, Mr. Thibault, come on in. Sit for a transcribed interview with me and my colleagues. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4488-6 | null | 4,993 |
formal | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last week, while I was meeting with constituents in Iowa, news broke herein Washington, DC, about Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault's retirement. Since May 31 of this year, I have highlighted Tim Thibault's partisan bias and how it infected major FBI investigations. That included a July 18 letter of this year that highlighted his role in opening a criminal investigation into Trump's campaign and advisers. That investigation is the electoral investigation that has been in the news. For example, on July 26 of this year, the Washington Post reported on that very same Trump investigation. Now, however, the Post failed to note that Thibault was the prime mover in opening it. Now get this: The Post failed to note that Tim Thibault predicated the investigation, in a substantial part, on liberal news articles, as well as information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray approved a full investigation anyway, which, as we all know, was contrary to standard procedure for moving ahead on an investigation. That Washington Post article occurred 1 day after I made the Trump investigation letter public and 1 day after I made the July 25 Hunter Biden investigation letter public. Since Tim Thibault's exit from the FBI, I have noticed more news articles and reporting that haven't been accurate with respect to the allegations that I have made public. Let me take this opportunity, then, to correct the record with respect to that inaccurate reporting. Some reports have noted that the Hunter Biden criminal probe is ongoing; therefore, how can the allegations of Thibault shutting down investigation activity relating to Hunter Biden be credible? Well, this is the difference: The whistleblower disclosures to me relate to investigative activity and avenues of information that originated entirely separate from the ongoing Hunter Biden criminal probe. That is why the allegations that I made--that I brought forward--are so very, very important, because we are dealing with a separate category of potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden that the FBI has within its possession and the information received by the FBI was either verified or verifiable. Even so, based on allegations, the investigative activity was shut down by Special Agent Thibault and, of course, by others based on the false assertion that it was disinformation. How many times do we have this ``disinformation'' coming up as an excuse all the time with Grassley's investigations? Now, to be precise, FBI officials want to take action with respect to this separate investigative information that the FBI had in its possession related to Hunter Biden. However, Thibault blocked the FBI from doing what would normally be done. Accordingly, the investigative activity and the information cannot be advanced as it should have been, which means the FBI could have gathered more evidence with respect to Hunter Biden but cut bait instead. And the FBI and Thibault cut bait right before the 2020 Presidential election. Since the information and activity was shut down, it wouldn't have been initially shared with any ongoing criminal probe. That calls into question, then, what U.S. Attorney Weiss is actually investigating. It also calls into question what the FBI's Baltimore field office is reviewing and whether it is the full scope of evidence. Now, I have asked Director Wray about that whole issue. I asked him: How can verified and verifiable information relating to the Hunter Biden's potential criminality be shared with U.S. Attorney Weiss if it is shut down? We have no answer from Director Wray. At the Judiciary Committee's August 4 oversight hearing, Director Wray said that it is his expectation that such information would be shared with relevant offices. So, Director Wray, I have this question: What have you done to ensure that your expectation has been met? Because of Director Wray's failure to answer, Congress is unaware of whether or not the FBI has finally shared full and complete information and investigative activity with any ongoing criminal probe. Therefore, without additional transparency from the government, there is a very real chance the Hunter Biden criminal probe doesn't include the full evidentiary picture. Now, how can the American people trust the results? Some have also questioned how an assistant special agent in charge like Thibault can have so much power--power to open and close investigative activities. Well, that is exactly what he did. And that power is often abused within the FBI. For example, on March 28 of this year, Chairman Durbin and I wrote a letter to the FBI about an audit. That audit showed widespread violations of internal policies designed to ensure proper handling of the FBI's most sensitive investigations. To read from my letter with Chairman Durbin: The FBI reviewed 353 Sensitive Investigative Matters--just under half of all such matters that were pending during this 18-month review period--and identified 747 violations. In 45 investigations, the FBI didn't conduct or document a legal review prior to opening it. In 40 investigations, the FBI officials who opened a sensitive investigative matter didn't obtain approval from the relevant special agent in charge or even the assistant special agent in charge. Now, with those statistics, I fear that is just the tip of the iceberg. In conclusion, let's look at Thibault's recent statement and the allegations he didn't address. I think we have five or six. First, he didn't address his role in opening a Trump investigation based on liberal news articles and information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Secondly, he didn't address his collaboration with Richard Pilger with respect to that investigation. Third, he didn't address efforts to water down the Trump investigation memo sent to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray which they ultimately approved. Fourth, he didn't address the shutting down of the investigative activity and avenues of information relating to Hunter Biden. Fifth, he didn't address the alleged criminality within the information provided to the FBI about Hunter Biden. Sixth, he didn't address the August 2020 assessment opened by Brian Auten that was used to falsely label Hunter Biden's information as ``disinformation.'' Seventh, he didn't address his actions to try and improperly mark investigative closings so that they couldn't be opened in the future. Lastly, Thibault said that he ``welcomes any investigation'' into allegations against him. Well, Mr. Thibault, come on in. Sit for a transcribed interview with me and my colleagues. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-09-07-pt1-PgS4488-6 | null | 4,994 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, four words are inscribed in the stone above the U.S. Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law''--``Equal Justice Under Law.'' In many ways, the story of America has been about making those words true for all Americans. Sometimes we take bold steps forward. Other times, unfortunately, we take disturbing steps backward. We all know that when the Constitution was written, there was not equal justice under law. That is pretty obvious. So many people were excluded from voting and other rights. But we have tried to move forward, and that is one of the beautiful things about America. We keep moving forward. We push. But, unfortunately, today America finds itself in one of those frightening moments of regression--of regression. A few months ago, tens of millions of women saw their fundamental right to choose taken away before their very eyes. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, suggested that other rights, like the freedom to marry protected in Obergefell might come next. The mere thought should make us sick to our stomachs. The Senate has a responsibility now to act. Because of this threat, the Senate will hold a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act in the coming weeks so that no American is discriminated against because of whom they love. My colleagues Senators Baldwin and Sinema and others have worked for months to build bipartisan support for this legislation. I applaud them for their efforts. I hope that we will get at least 10 Republicans to join us to pass marriage equality through the Senate. If the Respect for Marriage Act can win significant Republican support in the House, there is no legitimate reason for Republicans in this Chamber to stand in the way. Over the past few weeks, we have heard many on the other side say: Well, this vote isn't necessary. They say marriage equality is not something Americans spend a lot of time thinking about anymore. They want us to believe that the Supreme Court would never do something as reckless as reversing the precedent of marriage equality that millions have relied on for years. Well, where oh where have we heard that before? The very same people who suggested that Roe was established precedent now want us to think that the Supreme Court won't go further, even though a sitting Justice on the highest Court in the land openly said something to the contrary, and he is often joined by four others. Lest we forget, marriage equality was not the law of the land a decade ago. Discrimination against LGBTQ Americans still continues to this day. Now MAGA Republicans have escalated their rhetoric against same sex marriage and want to normalize gender discrimination. MAGA Republicans seem to make it their business to pick on certain groups, not to do things that are positive and move things forward but to sort of just point their fingers at someone and blame them for some abstract reason that really doesn't hurt them at all. That is where this Republican Party--unfortunately, too many of them--are headed, led by these MAGA Republicans and often fomented by former President Trump. Earlier this year--here is what I am talking about. This isn't pie in the sky. The Texas Republican GOP, earlier this year, even adopted a party platform. This is of the largest Republican State in the country, the one with the most congressional representatives. The Texas GOP adopted this year a party platform that said ``homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.'' Let me repeat that. The largest Republican State in the country, its Republican Party, captured by MAGA fervor--absurd fervor--said ``homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.'' Just yesterday, a judge said that employers can deny access to medication if they believe it would encourage homosexuality. And we all know that these MAGA Republicans and their ilk, led by this man named Leonard Leo, with billions of dollars of dark money, use the courts to move America backward--move the courts to move America backward. And that is what happened yesterday with this judge coming up with this absurd, obnoxious, despicable resolution. I trust that that radical view of that judge and of that Texas GOP is not something many of us embrace here in this Chamber. But we can't act as if our fundamental rights will stay safe if we aren't willing to safeguard them through legislation. If we are going to let these MAGA judges--rightwing, appointed by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society--if we are not going to let them move America backward, then we have an obligation to act. So let me make clear that a vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor in the coming weeks, and I hope there will be at least 10 Republicans to support it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-09-08-pt1-PgS4497-9 | null | 4,995 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, four words are inscribed in the stone above the U.S. Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law''--``Equal Justice Under Law.'' In many ways, the story of America has been about making those words true for all Americans. Sometimes we take bold steps forward. Other times, unfortunately, we take disturbing steps backward. We all know that when the Constitution was written, there was not equal justice under law. That is pretty obvious. So many people were excluded from voting and other rights. But we have tried to move forward, and that is one of the beautiful things about America. We keep moving forward. We push. But, unfortunately, today America finds itself in one of those frightening moments of regression--of regression. A few months ago, tens of millions of women saw their fundamental right to choose taken away before their very eyes. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, suggested that other rights, like the freedom to marry protected in Obergefell might come next. The mere thought should make us sick to our stomachs. The Senate has a responsibility now to act. Because of this threat, the Senate will hold a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act in the coming weeks so that no American is discriminated against because of whom they love. My colleagues Senators Baldwin and Sinema and others have worked for months to build bipartisan support for this legislation. I applaud them for their efforts. I hope that we will get at least 10 Republicans to join us to pass marriage equality through the Senate. If the Respect for Marriage Act can win significant Republican support in the House, there is no legitimate reason for Republicans in this Chamber to stand in the way. Over the past few weeks, we have heard many on the other side say: Well, this vote isn't necessary. They say marriage equality is not something Americans spend a lot of time thinking about anymore. They want us to believe that the Supreme Court would never do something as reckless as reversing the precedent of marriage equality that millions have relied on for years. Well, where oh where have we heard that before? The very same people who suggested that Roe was established precedent now want us to think that the Supreme Court won't go further, even though a sitting Justice on the highest Court in the land openly said something to the contrary, and he is often joined by four others. Lest we forget, marriage equality was not the law of the land a decade ago. Discrimination against LGBTQ Americans still continues to this day. Now MAGA Republicans have escalated their rhetoric against same sex marriage and want to normalize gender discrimination. MAGA Republicans seem to make it their business to pick on certain groups, not to do things that are positive and move things forward but to sort of just point their fingers at someone and blame them for some abstract reason that really doesn't hurt them at all. That is where this Republican Party--unfortunately, too many of them--are headed, led by these MAGA Republicans and often fomented by former President Trump. Earlier this year--here is what I am talking about. This isn't pie in the sky. The Texas Republican GOP, earlier this year, even adopted a party platform. This is of the largest Republican State in the country, the one with the most congressional representatives. The Texas GOP adopted this year a party platform that said ``homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.'' Let me repeat that. The largest Republican State in the country, its Republican Party, captured by MAGA fervor--absurd fervor--said ``homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.'' Just yesterday, a judge said that employers can deny access to medication if they believe it would encourage homosexuality. And we all know that these MAGA Republicans and their ilk, led by this man named Leonard Leo, with billions of dollars of dark money, use the courts to move America backward--move the courts to move America backward. And that is what happened yesterday with this judge coming up with this absurd, obnoxious, despicable resolution. I trust that that radical view of that judge and of that Texas GOP is not something many of us embrace here in this Chamber. But we can't act as if our fundamental rights will stay safe if we aren't willing to safeguard them through legislation. If we are going to let these MAGA judges--rightwing, appointed by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society--if we are not going to let them move America backward, then we have an obligation to act. So let me make clear that a vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor in the coming weeks, and I hope there will be at least 10 Republicans to support it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-09-08-pt1-PgS4497-9 | null | 4,996 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, four words are inscribed in the stone above the U.S. Supreme Court: ``Equal Justice Under Law''--``Equal Justice Under Law.'' In many ways, the story of America has been about making those words true for all Americans. Sometimes we take bold steps forward. Other times, unfortunately, we take disturbing steps backward. We all know that when the Constitution was written, there was not equal justice under law. That is pretty obvious. So many people were excluded from voting and other rights. But we have tried to move forward, and that is one of the beautiful things about America. We keep moving forward. We push. But, unfortunately, today America finds itself in one of those frightening moments of regression--of regression. A few months ago, tens of millions of women saw their fundamental right to choose taken away before their very eyes. Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, suggested that other rights, like the freedom to marry protected in Obergefell might come next. The mere thought should make us sick to our stomachs. The Senate has a responsibility now to act. Because of this threat, the Senate will hold a vote on the Respect for Marriage Act in the coming weeks so that no American is discriminated against because of whom they love. My colleagues Senators Baldwin and Sinema and others have worked for months to build bipartisan support for this legislation. I applaud them for their efforts. I hope that we will get at least 10 Republicans to join us to pass marriage equality through the Senate. If the Respect for Marriage Act can win significant Republican support in the House, there is no legitimate reason for Republicans in this Chamber to stand in the way. Over the past few weeks, we have heard many on the other side say: Well, this vote isn't necessary. They say marriage equality is not something Americans spend a lot of time thinking about anymore. They want us to believe that the Supreme Court would never do something as reckless as reversing the precedent of marriage equality that millions have relied on for years. Well, where oh where have we heard that before? The very same people who suggested that Roe was established precedent now want us to think that the Supreme Court won't go further, even though a sitting Justice on the highest Court in the land openly said something to the contrary, and he is often joined by four others. Lest we forget, marriage equality was not the law of the land a decade ago. Discrimination against LGBTQ Americans still continues to this day. Now MAGA Republicans have escalated their rhetoric against same sex marriage and want to normalize gender discrimination. MAGA Republicans seem to make it their business to pick on certain groups, not to do things that are positive and move things forward but to sort of just point their fingers at someone and blame them for some abstract reason that really doesn't hurt them at all. That is where this Republican Party--unfortunately, too many of them--are headed, led by these MAGA Republicans and often fomented by former President Trump. Earlier this year--here is what I am talking about. This isn't pie in the sky. The Texas Republican GOP, earlier this year, even adopted a party platform. This is of the largest Republican State in the country, the one with the most congressional representatives. The Texas GOP adopted this year a party platform that said ``homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.'' Let me repeat that. The largest Republican State in the country, its Republican Party, captured by MAGA fervor--absurd fervor--said ``homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice.'' Just yesterday, a judge said that employers can deny access to medication if they believe it would encourage homosexuality. And we all know that these MAGA Republicans and their ilk, led by this man named Leonard Leo, with billions of dollars of dark money, use the courts to move America backward--move the courts to move America backward. And that is what happened yesterday with this judge coming up with this absurd, obnoxious, despicable resolution. I trust that that radical view of that judge and of that Texas GOP is not something many of us embrace here in this Chamber. But we can't act as if our fundamental rights will stay safe if we aren't willing to safeguard them through legislation. If we are going to let these MAGA judges--rightwing, appointed by Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society--if we are not going to let them move America backward, then we have an obligation to act. So let me make clear that a vote on marriage equality will happen on the Senate floor in the coming weeks, and I hope there will be at least 10 Republicans to support it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-09-08-pt1-PgS4497-9 | null | 4,997 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the related subject, obviously, of judges, today the Senate will continue fulfilling its constitutional duty to confirm more judges to sit on our Federal judiciary. It has really been a productive week here on the floor when it comes to judges. Yesterday, we confirmed John Lee to serve a lifetime appointment as circuit judge on the Seventh Circuit, the first Asian American to ever sit on that court. Today, we will confirm another circuit judge--Andre Mathis--to sit on the Sixth Circuit. When confirmed, Mathis will be the 78th judge we have confirmed under President Biden--more than President Trump, more than President Obama, more than President Bush had confirmed up to this point. It is a great record. We are proud of it, and we aren't done. Later this afternoon, we will begin working on our third--our third--circuit court judge of the week, Salvador Mendoza, to sit on the Ninth Circuit. After we vote on cloture today, Members should expect to vote on his confirmation as early as the beginning of next week. Moving forward, it will be one of our top priorities to confirm as many judges as possible. It is one of the best things we can do with our time here on the floor, especially given how many MAGA-type judges President Trump and the Republican majority appointed. The lion's share of legal disputes never make it to the Supreme Court, giving those who preside in the lower courts immense power to affect the lives of the American people. And, of course, when they get it wrong--as they have all too frequently recently--the results can be disastrous. Just yesterday, a hard-right judge in Texas, as I mentioned, stripped away Americans' rights to access preventive care. Over 150 million Americans could now be at risk of losing everything from breast cancer screenings to cholesterol screenings, free vaccinations, mental health assessments, and so much more. Add that to the previous case I mentioned before, and you can see that judges are out of control, far away from what most Americans want, foisted upon us by the Republican Senate majority, President Trump, and a small band of rightwing, MAGA billionaires. In the long run, this decision could mean more people get sick or die needlessly simply because they can't afford preventive care to stay healthy. That is the kind of thing that is at stake when it comes to judges. It is a frightening reminder of the difference between our side and the hard right, the MAGA hard right, the extreme MAGA hard right. Whether through judges or legislation, the hard right remains obsessed--obsessed--with stripping away people's rights to affordable healthcare. It is dangerous. It is malicious. It is wildly out of step with the American people. Democrats want something different. We want to protect people's healthcare, not destroy it. We want judges who will preserve long-established precedent, not obliterate it, who will move us forward on our fight to equality, not take steps backward. And in the coming weeks and months, we will maintain a laser-like focus on confirming judges who will do the kinds of things that we believe must be done in America. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-09-08-pt1-PgS4498 | null | 4,998 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on another matter, in January 2019, a bipartisan supermajority of the Senate voted for an amendment I authored warning that the ``. . . precipitous withdrawal of United States forces from [Afghanistan] could put at risk hard-won gains and United States national security.'' Two years later, senior experts and advisers repeated the same warning to President Biden. His own experts made it clear that a hasty retreat from counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan would lead to the collapse of the Afghan Government. Those warnings, of course, fell on deaf ears. Thirteen American servicemembers died fulfilling the Biden administration's rush to evacuation. The Taliban now rules again in Kabul, as it did before U.S. forces arrived. Now, 1 year on from last August's disaster, the devastating scale of the fallout from President Biden's decision has come into sharper focus. Afghanistan has become, once again, a global pariah. Its economy has shrunk by nearly a third. Half of its population is now suffering critical levels of food insecurity. Afghan women and girls have had their rights to work, attend school, and live independently torn away under Taliban rule. And just as we feared, just as was predicted, Afghanistan is again becoming a serious haven for terrorists. The recent American strike that took out al-Qaida's leader al-Zawahiri is a credit to decades of work by the professionals of our intelligence community. Ah, but the fact that a terrorist kingpin felt comfortable in Kabul just months after America's withdrawal is a damning condemnation of the Biden administration's unjustified confidence that the Taliban could be trusted not to lay out the welcome mat for our most consequential terrorist enemies. The strike was a success, but the underlying fact that President Biden's policies led this top terrorist to set up shop with impunity right in downtown Kabul is a colossal failure. In fact, just weeks before the strike that killed Zawahiri, when the administration already knew full well that the Taliban government and senior Haqqani terrorists were harboring him, the administration still--still--released another hardened terrorist from Guantanamo and returned him into the Taliban's waiting arms. So al-Qaida is rebuilding under the patronage of the Taliban and the Haqqanis. There is no question that so-called over-the-horizon counterterrorism operations are becoming much more difficult. Senior administration officials have acknowledged that our intelligence about the growing threat is drying up--so is our ability to combat it. And the damage, the fallout, isn't limited just to Afghanistan itself. America's reckless abandonment has done lasting damage to the coalition partnerships that had made our operations there so successful. President Biden showed America's allies we couldn't be trusted or reasoned with, and he showed our adversaries the weakness of our resolve. There is no question in my mind that Russian, Chinese, and Iranian leaders watched us retreat from Afghanistan and, of course, were emboldened. I advised three consecutive Presidents not to withdraw from Afghanistan--three of them. I believed a small residual presence was sustainable, would help us keep pressure on the terrorists, and protect us here at home. Gen. Frank McKenzie, CENTCOM commander during the withdrawal, has said repeatedly that he voiced the very same view to President Biden. But even now, a year after the President's orders were carried out, the Biden administration continues to shirk accountability and responsibility. The fact that their haphazard scramble required an unprecedented airlift was not a success; it was a failure. The fact that over a year later, the administration still cannot really account for who they brought into our country, while both Americans and vulnerable Afghan partners still remain in Afghanistan as we speak, is not a success; it is a failure. President Biden has rejected practically every part of his predecessor's agenda, foreign and domestic, but he pretends he was somehow powerless to alter the previous administration's Doha agreement to pull out of Afghanistan--the one time President Biden decided the previous President had it right. Of course, the truth is that President Biden wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan. He campaigned on it. According to public reports, he spent the entire Obama administration pushing back against the generals' advice not to cut and run. And once in office himself, he pushed ahead. Senate Republicans will continue to press for accountability, will continue to pursue answers to tough questions about why the Biden administrationran headfirst--headfirst--into this national embarrassment. Just as importantly, we will also keep pushing to rebuild America's military, both to meet major threats from Russia and China and to defend the terrorist challenges President Biden has left to fester. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-09-08-pt1-PgS4499 | null | 4,999 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.