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 | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 23) to rescind certain balances made available to the Internal Revenue Service, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-09-pt1-PgH94-4 | null | 5,500 |
formal | anointing | null | religious | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: On this day, O Lord our God, give us a fresh anointing, a sure sense of purpose and protection, as we execute the responsibilities You and the American people have entrusted to us. And with Your Spirit in our midst, may we each walk in humility, with a healthy sense of our strengths and our weaknesses, our unique gifts and our vulnerabilities. May we walk in gentleness, with the power we could wield under the authority of Your purpose. Guard us against our own inclinations to dominate or defend. But spur us to engage in kind disagreements and civil conversation. Help us to walk in patience, to bear one another in love, a love born of selflessness and mercy, respect and forbearance. God and creator of us all, You are above all and through all and in all. May we each give testimony to the grace and peace to be found in You. We offer this prayer in Your most holy name. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-10-pt1-PgH119-5 | null | 5,501 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader, pursuant to House Resolution 5, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 12) establishing a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, and ask for its immediate consideration. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. COLE | House | CREC-2023-01-10-pt1-PgH129 | null | 5,502 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Agreeing to House Resolution 11; and Agreeing to House Resolution 12. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas) | House | CREC-2023-01-10-pt1-PgH143-4 | null | 5,503 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 12) establishing a Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government as a select investigative subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-10-pt1-PgH144 | null | 5,504 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(1) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-10-pt1-PgH151 | null | 5,505 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Adoption of the motion to recommit on H.R. 26; Passage of H.R. 26, if ordered; and Agreeing to H. Con. Res. 3. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-11-pt1-PgH190-3 | null | 5,506 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 26) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion, offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-11-pt1-PgH190-4 | null | 5,507 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on agreeing to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 3) expressing the sense of Congress condemning the recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-11-pt1-PgH192 | null | 5,508 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(1) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-11-pt1-PgH204 | null | 5,509 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7 (c)(1) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. . | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-12-pt1-PgH234 | null | 5,510 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(1) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-13-pt1-PgH238 | null | 5,511 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(l) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers grantedto Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-17-pt1-PgH243 | null | 5,512 |
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-73. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [RIN: 3084-AB42] received January 4, 2023, 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-74. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy statement -- Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Education Technology and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act received January 4, 2023, 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-75. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule- Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting [RIN: 3084-AB39] received January 4, 2023, 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-76. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Energy Labeling Rule [3084-AB15] received January 4, 2023, 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-77. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees [RIN: 3084-AA98] received January 4, 2023, 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-78. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's revision to policy statement -- Revision to the NRC Enforcement Policy [NRC-2022-0205] received January 6, 2023, 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-79. A letter from the Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, USCIS Office of Policy and Strategy, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Security Bars and Processing; Delay of Effective Date [CIS No.: 2670-20; Docket No: USCIS 2020-0013] (RIN: 1125-AB08) received January 4, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-80. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's notice -- Revised Jurisdictional Threshold for Section 8 of the Clayton Act received January 4, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-81. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Adjustments to Civil Penalty Amounts received January 4, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-82. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's notice -- Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds for Section 7A of the Clayton Act received January 4, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-83. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation for Fiscal Year 2023 [NRC-2021-0025] (RIN: 3150- AK59) received January 6, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-84. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report to Congress concerning emigration laws and policies of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2432(b); Public Law 93-618, Sec. 402(b); (88 Stat. 2056); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-85. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Exempt organization rulings and determination letters procedures [Rev. Proc. 2023-5] received January 9, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-86. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule -- Exception for Interests Held by Foreign Pension Funds [TD 9971] (RIN: 1545-BN89) received January 9, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-87. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Announcement Providing Transitional Guidance Under Sections 6045 and 6045A for Brokers of Digital Assets [Announcement 2023-2] received January 9, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-88. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Revised Timeline Regarding Implementation of Amended Section 6050W(e) Notice [Notice 2023-10] received January 9, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-89. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's IRB only rule -- Initial Guidance Regarding the Application of the Excise Tax on Repurchases of Corporate Stock under Section 4501 of the Internal Revenue Code [Notice 2023-2] received January 9, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Ways and Means. EC-90. A letter from the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting two reports entitled, ``Manufacturers May Need Additional Guidance To Ensure Consistent Calculations of Average Sales Prices (OEI-BL-21-00330)'' and ``CMS Should Bolster Its Oversight of Manufacturer-Submitted Average Sales Price Data To Ensure Accurate Part B Drug Payments (OEI-03- 21-00390)'', pursuant to Public Law 116-260, Sec. 401(d); (134 Stat. 2997); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-20-pt1-PgH247-10 | null | 5,513 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(l) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-20-pt1-PgH251 | null | 5,514 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Tribute to Donna Butt-Moore Madam President, on one final matter, over the recent State work period, my team unexpectedly lost a dear friend and longtime colleague, our Eastern Kentucky field assistant Donna Butt-Moore. Donna worked in my London, KY, field office for 14 years. She and her coworker, Donna McClure, ran their team as a dynamic duo. They were born only a month apart. They even shared the same initials. Back in Kentucky, they were known as just ``the Donnas.'' And while Donna M. would travel around Eastern Kentucky, Donna B. was the rock that held down the fort at our office. She fielded calls. She greeted visitors. She solved Kentuckians' problems. Donna was endlessly patient, endlessly kind, and endlessly focused on helping constituents. She was sweet and sometimes quiet, more of a listener than a talker, and deeply empathetic. She was the kind of person who would come to the verge of tears almost daily after reading a news article or Facebook post about somebody in need. But woe to anybody who mistook Donna's big heart for any lack of determination. If Donna wanted something--if Eastern Kentucky needed something done--she made it happen. That is why condolence notes have poured into our office and to Donna's family from all over Eastern Kentucky--all from people she helped through her public service. Donna's work brought her into contact with important leaders, but I understand she was most excited when she had the opportunity once to snap a picture with Lee Greenwood. I understand another longtime dream was fulfilled just this last August, when her duties led Donna to ride on a Black Hawk helicopter with the Kentucky National Guard. After each year's busy August State work period, Donna would always take a vacation on the first day of September, not to kick up her heels and take a rest but to head out into the woods and hunt with her husband. This past year, she bagged a deer all by herself. Donna was the definition of Eastern Kentucky resourcefulness. If she heard you had some extra flowers lying around your house, she would swing by to gather them for a beautiful arrangement. If you had leftover meat in your freezer, she would want to cook it up and feed the whole neighborhood. In fact, she spent much of her time outside of the office catering parties for her friends and her neighbors. Donna and her beloved husband Doug met later in life--fewer than 10 years ago. It was true love from the start, and Donna quickly became a doting grandma to Doug's grandkids. She loved her brothers, Bruce and Bub. She loved her nieces and nephews. She cherished having such a dynamic family so close to home and treasured any time they could spend together. Donna was also a woman of deep faith who looked to the Bible in every single aspect of her life. Her home and desk had signs containing just one word, ``Blessed.'' She savored every gift she received from the Lord, and her funeral service in London last week showed how Donna Butt-Moore was herself a blessing to everyone around her. Elaine and I and my entire staff were stunned and heartbroken to hear about Donna's passing. Friends, colleagues, and neighbors across Kentucky are grieving her loss. I am so grateful for her service to the people of our Commonwealth. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS43-3 | null | 5,515 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Senate Accomplishments Madam President, 4 years ago today, as another new Congress was starting its work, America was nearing the end of the longest Federal Government shutdown in history. It was day 33 of a 35-day shutdown, a shutdown that was precipitated by President Donald Trump when he refused to sign any budget that did not include billions of dollars for what he wanted to build and call his ``big, beautiful'' wall on the southern border. That dysfunction and that government shutdown cost our economy billions of dollars, and it shook the confidence of many--in this country and its future--in America's ability to do the basics. Fast-forward to the start of the last Congress 2 years ago when three of the newest Members of the Senate had just been sworn in, giving America only the second 50-50 Senate split in its history. It was a time of crises and division: the deadliest public health emergency in acentury; the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and then--and then--a violent attack on the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob, one of the darkest days in the history of this building and our Nation. The doubters said a 50-50 Senate coming into being with that circumstance was destined to be gridlocked. We proved them wrong. Today, we begin the legislative work of a new Congress, the 118th Congress. Will these 2 years--the next 2 years--be remembered for dysfunction or democracy? chaos or consensus? That really is the challenge we face. The choice is not entirely in our hands here in the Senate with a 51-to-49 slim majority. The new MAGA majority in the House of Representatives has promised endless investigations, confrontations, impeachments, and chaos, but it doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can be a steadying force. We can pass a budget. We can give a helping hand to families and businesses. We can invest in a better future. We can defend democracy against the rise of autocracy. We can pay our Nation's bills if we are willing to work together for the common good. If you want to see our choices, look at what we faced on January 4, just a few weeks ago. On that day, the House of Representatives was in chaos. A small band of MAGA hard-liners held the House hostage to their extreme demands. In the end, it took 15 rollcall votes, over 4 days, to elect a new Speaker, who will be, after all of his concessions to the extreme wing of his party, on paper, perhaps, the weakest Speaker in recent memory. However, on that same day, January 4, President Biden and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, were together at a major bridge that connects Covington, KY, with Cincinnati, OH. It is a bridge that has needed repair for years, and now those repairs will happen because of the historic infrastructure bill passed by the last Congress--the largest infrastructure plan since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and the creation of the Interstate Highway System. That bipartisan infrastructure plan will rebuild bridges and roads all across America and our State of Illinois. We have already seen evidence of that. It will expand affordable high-speed broadband services, and it will build the 21st century infrastructure America needs to remain the strongest in the world. It is already creating good jobs in Illinois and around the Nation, and it will continue to do so. That is just one of the achievements of this Congress that had a 50-50 Senate. We also passed the CHIPS and Science Act to supercharge America's microchip industry and bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. We passed the boldest economic recovery and investment plan since President Franklin Roosevelt, the most sweeping legislation enacted by any government on Earth to confront the climate crisis, and the bipartisan PACT Act to help millions of veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their military service. We kept the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Now, for the first time ever, Medicare can negotiate on prescription drug prices, and Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year. In the last Congress, we confirmed 97 outstanding new Article III judges, including the first Black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. These new judges will bring unprecedented diversity to our Federal courts both in terms of demographics as well as in their backgrounds and professional experience. In the last Congress, with President Biden's leadership and the support of Congress, the United States rallied the free world to confront Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yesterday, I was at a meeting in an area known as the Ukrainian Village in the city of Chicago. It was a gathering not only of proud Lithuanians, who were determined to do everything they could to help their friends and relatives back in Ukraine fight off Putin's invasion, but also a lot of others. There were many Polish people there, Lithuanians as well, and many other consulate generals were present to express their support for the common cause. I am proud that the United States is leading this effort, and we must continue to. When I hear suspicions and rumors and suggestions that maybe the MAGA Republicans in the House have grown weary of this war and impatient for it to end, I have to remind them that freedom is worth fighting for. The Ukrainians are dying for it. We need to stand by them with the NATO alliance and see this through and put an end to Putin's terrible war crimes. We ensure, as well, that the United States will not be a safe haven for the perpetrators of heinous war crimes in Ukraine. We will continue to stand with the Ukrainians until Putin's illegal war is over and Ukraine is once again free and at peace. We authorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act; passed new laws to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Over the last 2 years, the Federal Government delivered 700 million COVID shots for free--in 2 years, 700 million vaccinations--and according to the White House, COVID deaths in America are down by 80 percent. America's economy created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of our Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are headed down, and inflation is finally easing a little bit. All of that happened with a 50-50 Senate. That is not gridlock. That is government working for the common good. The priorities for this Congress are pretty obvious. We need to continue our efforts to protect the basic rights of Americans. As well as voting rights, we need to include on that list reproductive health rights for the women of America. We are determined to end the crisis on our southern border by securing the border, finally fixing our broken immigration system, and passing the DREAM Act--my ambition for almost two decades. Well, it has been longer than that to be honest with you. Over the last week, I visited with some of the migrants who were bused to Chicago, and I talked to them about their families and what they face. If there is anyone who thinks that they are trying to game the system in America, they ought to talk to them. They are ready to go to work, and we need to make sure that that is done in a proper fashion. Last year, we passed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years, but the horrific shooting that killed 11--now the latest number is 11--and wounded 9 more this past weekend at the Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, CA, is another terrible reminder that more work needs to be done for gun safety. The Lunar New Year shooting was the 33rd mass shooting in America so far this month--33 so far this month. Last year, there were 600 mass shootings. I remember one of them well, and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore does too. The gunman opened fire on the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL. He discharged 83 rounds in less than a minute, and he killed 7 people and injured dozens more. There were 19 little children and 2 of their teachers who were murdered in their classroom in Uvalde, TX, just days before. There were 10 people who were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, in a racist attack. The list goes on and on and on. It is madness. It is sickening. It is a uniquely American problem. Try to explain it away. You can't. There are just too darned many guns in the hands of the wrong people, and they continue to produce them and sell them with abandon and without any sense of responsibility for the results. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS43-5 | null | 5,516 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Senate Accomplishments Madam President, 4 years ago today, as another new Congress was starting its work, America was nearing the end of the longest Federal Government shutdown in history. It was day 33 of a 35-day shutdown, a shutdown that was precipitated by President Donald Trump when he refused to sign any budget that did not include billions of dollars for what he wanted to build and call his ``big, beautiful'' wall on the southern border. That dysfunction and that government shutdown cost our economy billions of dollars, and it shook the confidence of many--in this country and its future--in America's ability to do the basics. Fast-forward to the start of the last Congress 2 years ago when three of the newest Members of the Senate had just been sworn in, giving America only the second 50-50 Senate split in its history. It was a time of crises and division: the deadliest public health emergency in acentury; the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and then--and then--a violent attack on the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob, one of the darkest days in the history of this building and our Nation. The doubters said a 50-50 Senate coming into being with that circumstance was destined to be gridlocked. We proved them wrong. Today, we begin the legislative work of a new Congress, the 118th Congress. Will these 2 years--the next 2 years--be remembered for dysfunction or democracy? chaos or consensus? That really is the challenge we face. The choice is not entirely in our hands here in the Senate with a 51-to-49 slim majority. The new MAGA majority in the House of Representatives has promised endless investigations, confrontations, impeachments, and chaos, but it doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can be a steadying force. We can pass a budget. We can give a helping hand to families and businesses. We can invest in a better future. We can defend democracy against the rise of autocracy. We can pay our Nation's bills if we are willing to work together for the common good. If you want to see our choices, look at what we faced on January 4, just a few weeks ago. On that day, the House of Representatives was in chaos. A small band of MAGA hard-liners held the House hostage to their extreme demands. In the end, it took 15 rollcall votes, over 4 days, to elect a new Speaker, who will be, after all of his concessions to the extreme wing of his party, on paper, perhaps, the weakest Speaker in recent memory. However, on that same day, January 4, President Biden and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, were together at a major bridge that connects Covington, KY, with Cincinnati, OH. It is a bridge that has needed repair for years, and now those repairs will happen because of the historic infrastructure bill passed by the last Congress--the largest infrastructure plan since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and the creation of the Interstate Highway System. That bipartisan infrastructure plan will rebuild bridges and roads all across America and our State of Illinois. We have already seen evidence of that. It will expand affordable high-speed broadband services, and it will build the 21st century infrastructure America needs to remain the strongest in the world. It is already creating good jobs in Illinois and around the Nation, and it will continue to do so. That is just one of the achievements of this Congress that had a 50-50 Senate. We also passed the CHIPS and Science Act to supercharge America's microchip industry and bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. We passed the boldest economic recovery and investment plan since President Franklin Roosevelt, the most sweeping legislation enacted by any government on Earth to confront the climate crisis, and the bipartisan PACT Act to help millions of veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their military service. We kept the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Now, for the first time ever, Medicare can negotiate on prescription drug prices, and Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year. In the last Congress, we confirmed 97 outstanding new Article III judges, including the first Black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. These new judges will bring unprecedented diversity to our Federal courts both in terms of demographics as well as in their backgrounds and professional experience. In the last Congress, with President Biden's leadership and the support of Congress, the United States rallied the free world to confront Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yesterday, I was at a meeting in an area known as the Ukrainian Village in the city of Chicago. It was a gathering not only of proud Lithuanians, who were determined to do everything they could to help their friends and relatives back in Ukraine fight off Putin's invasion, but also a lot of others. There were many Polish people there, Lithuanians as well, and many other consulate generals were present to express their support for the common cause. I am proud that the United States is leading this effort, and we must continue to. When I hear suspicions and rumors and suggestions that maybe the MAGA Republicans in the House have grown weary of this war and impatient for it to end, I have to remind them that freedom is worth fighting for. The Ukrainians are dying for it. We need to stand by them with the NATO alliance and see this through and put an end to Putin's terrible war crimes. We ensure, as well, that the United States will not be a safe haven for the perpetrators of heinous war crimes in Ukraine. We will continue to stand with the Ukrainians until Putin's illegal war is over and Ukraine is once again free and at peace. We authorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act; passed new laws to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Over the last 2 years, the Federal Government delivered 700 million COVID shots for free--in 2 years, 700 million vaccinations--and according to the White House, COVID deaths in America are down by 80 percent. America's economy created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of our Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are headed down, and inflation is finally easing a little bit. All of that happened with a 50-50 Senate. That is not gridlock. That is government working for the common good. The priorities for this Congress are pretty obvious. We need to continue our efforts to protect the basic rights of Americans. As well as voting rights, we need to include on that list reproductive health rights for the women of America. We are determined to end the crisis on our southern border by securing the border, finally fixing our broken immigration system, and passing the DREAM Act--my ambition for almost two decades. Well, it has been longer than that to be honest with you. Over the last week, I visited with some of the migrants who were bused to Chicago, and I talked to them about their families and what they face. If there is anyone who thinks that they are trying to game the system in America, they ought to talk to them. They are ready to go to work, and we need to make sure that that is done in a proper fashion. Last year, we passed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years, but the horrific shooting that killed 11--now the latest number is 11--and wounded 9 more this past weekend at the Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, CA, is another terrible reminder that more work needs to be done for gun safety. The Lunar New Year shooting was the 33rd mass shooting in America so far this month--33 so far this month. Last year, there were 600 mass shootings. I remember one of them well, and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore does too. The gunman opened fire on the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL. He discharged 83 rounds in less than a minute, and he killed 7 people and injured dozens more. There were 19 little children and 2 of their teachers who were murdered in their classroom in Uvalde, TX, just days before. There were 10 people who were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, in a racist attack. The list goes on and on and on. It is madness. It is sickening. It is a uniquely American problem. Try to explain it away. You can't. There are just too darned many guns in the hands of the wrong people, and they continue to produce them and sell them with abandon and without any sense of responsibility for the results. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS43-5 | null | 5,517 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Senate Accomplishments Madam President, 4 years ago today, as another new Congress was starting its work, America was nearing the end of the longest Federal Government shutdown in history. It was day 33 of a 35-day shutdown, a shutdown that was precipitated by President Donald Trump when he refused to sign any budget that did not include billions of dollars for what he wanted to build and call his ``big, beautiful'' wall on the southern border. That dysfunction and that government shutdown cost our economy billions of dollars, and it shook the confidence of many--in this country and its future--in America's ability to do the basics. Fast-forward to the start of the last Congress 2 years ago when three of the newest Members of the Senate had just been sworn in, giving America only the second 50-50 Senate split in its history. It was a time of crises and division: the deadliest public health emergency in acentury; the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and then--and then--a violent attack on the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob, one of the darkest days in the history of this building and our Nation. The doubters said a 50-50 Senate coming into being with that circumstance was destined to be gridlocked. We proved them wrong. Today, we begin the legislative work of a new Congress, the 118th Congress. Will these 2 years--the next 2 years--be remembered for dysfunction or democracy? chaos or consensus? That really is the challenge we face. The choice is not entirely in our hands here in the Senate with a 51-to-49 slim majority. The new MAGA majority in the House of Representatives has promised endless investigations, confrontations, impeachments, and chaos, but it doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can be a steadying force. We can pass a budget. We can give a helping hand to families and businesses. We can invest in a better future. We can defend democracy against the rise of autocracy. We can pay our Nation's bills if we are willing to work together for the common good. If you want to see our choices, look at what we faced on January 4, just a few weeks ago. On that day, the House of Representatives was in chaos. A small band of MAGA hard-liners held the House hostage to their extreme demands. In the end, it took 15 rollcall votes, over 4 days, to elect a new Speaker, who will be, after all of his concessions to the extreme wing of his party, on paper, perhaps, the weakest Speaker in recent memory. However, on that same day, January 4, President Biden and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, were together at a major bridge that connects Covington, KY, with Cincinnati, OH. It is a bridge that has needed repair for years, and now those repairs will happen because of the historic infrastructure bill passed by the last Congress--the largest infrastructure plan since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and the creation of the Interstate Highway System. That bipartisan infrastructure plan will rebuild bridges and roads all across America and our State of Illinois. We have already seen evidence of that. It will expand affordable high-speed broadband services, and it will build the 21st century infrastructure America needs to remain the strongest in the world. It is already creating good jobs in Illinois and around the Nation, and it will continue to do so. That is just one of the achievements of this Congress that had a 50-50 Senate. We also passed the CHIPS and Science Act to supercharge America's microchip industry and bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. We passed the boldest economic recovery and investment plan since President Franklin Roosevelt, the most sweeping legislation enacted by any government on Earth to confront the climate crisis, and the bipartisan PACT Act to help millions of veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their military service. We kept the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Now, for the first time ever, Medicare can negotiate on prescription drug prices, and Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year. In the last Congress, we confirmed 97 outstanding new Article III judges, including the first Black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. These new judges will bring unprecedented diversity to our Federal courts both in terms of demographics as well as in their backgrounds and professional experience. In the last Congress, with President Biden's leadership and the support of Congress, the United States rallied the free world to confront Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yesterday, I was at a meeting in an area known as the Ukrainian Village in the city of Chicago. It was a gathering not only of proud Lithuanians, who were determined to do everything they could to help their friends and relatives back in Ukraine fight off Putin's invasion, but also a lot of others. There were many Polish people there, Lithuanians as well, and many other consulate generals were present to express their support for the common cause. I am proud that the United States is leading this effort, and we must continue to. When I hear suspicions and rumors and suggestions that maybe the MAGA Republicans in the House have grown weary of this war and impatient for it to end, I have to remind them that freedom is worth fighting for. The Ukrainians are dying for it. We need to stand by them with the NATO alliance and see this through and put an end to Putin's terrible war crimes. We ensure, as well, that the United States will not be a safe haven for the perpetrators of heinous war crimes in Ukraine. We will continue to stand with the Ukrainians until Putin's illegal war is over and Ukraine is once again free and at peace. We authorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act; passed new laws to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Over the last 2 years, the Federal Government delivered 700 million COVID shots for free--in 2 years, 700 million vaccinations--and according to the White House, COVID deaths in America are down by 80 percent. America's economy created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of our Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are headed down, and inflation is finally easing a little bit. All of that happened with a 50-50 Senate. That is not gridlock. That is government working for the common good. The priorities for this Congress are pretty obvious. We need to continue our efforts to protect the basic rights of Americans. As well as voting rights, we need to include on that list reproductive health rights for the women of America. We are determined to end the crisis on our southern border by securing the border, finally fixing our broken immigration system, and passing the DREAM Act--my ambition for almost two decades. Well, it has been longer than that to be honest with you. Over the last week, I visited with some of the migrants who were bused to Chicago, and I talked to them about their families and what they face. If there is anyone who thinks that they are trying to game the system in America, they ought to talk to them. They are ready to go to work, and we need to make sure that that is done in a proper fashion. Last year, we passed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years, but the horrific shooting that killed 11--now the latest number is 11--and wounded 9 more this past weekend at the Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, CA, is another terrible reminder that more work needs to be done for gun safety. The Lunar New Year shooting was the 33rd mass shooting in America so far this month--33 so far this month. Last year, there were 600 mass shootings. I remember one of them well, and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore does too. The gunman opened fire on the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL. He discharged 83 rounds in less than a minute, and he killed 7 people and injured dozens more. There were 19 little children and 2 of their teachers who were murdered in their classroom in Uvalde, TX, just days before. There were 10 people who were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, in a racist attack. The list goes on and on and on. It is madness. It is sickening. It is a uniquely American problem. Try to explain it away. You can't. There are just too darned many guns in the hands of the wrong people, and they continue to produce them and sell them with abandon and without any sense of responsibility for the results. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS43-5 | null | 5,518 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Senate Accomplishments Madam President, 4 years ago today, as another new Congress was starting its work, America was nearing the end of the longest Federal Government shutdown in history. It was day 33 of a 35-day shutdown, a shutdown that was precipitated by President Donald Trump when he refused to sign any budget that did not include billions of dollars for what he wanted to build and call his ``big, beautiful'' wall on the southern border. That dysfunction and that government shutdown cost our economy billions of dollars, and it shook the confidence of many--in this country and its future--in America's ability to do the basics. Fast-forward to the start of the last Congress 2 years ago when three of the newest Members of the Senate had just been sworn in, giving America only the second 50-50 Senate split in its history. It was a time of crises and division: the deadliest public health emergency in acentury; the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and then--and then--a violent attack on the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob, one of the darkest days in the history of this building and our Nation. The doubters said a 50-50 Senate coming into being with that circumstance was destined to be gridlocked. We proved them wrong. Today, we begin the legislative work of a new Congress, the 118th Congress. Will these 2 years--the next 2 years--be remembered for dysfunction or democracy? chaos or consensus? That really is the challenge we face. The choice is not entirely in our hands here in the Senate with a 51-to-49 slim majority. The new MAGA majority in the House of Representatives has promised endless investigations, confrontations, impeachments, and chaos, but it doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can be a steadying force. We can pass a budget. We can give a helping hand to families and businesses. We can invest in a better future. We can defend democracy against the rise of autocracy. We can pay our Nation's bills if we are willing to work together for the common good. If you want to see our choices, look at what we faced on January 4, just a few weeks ago. On that day, the House of Representatives was in chaos. A small band of MAGA hard-liners held the House hostage to their extreme demands. In the end, it took 15 rollcall votes, over 4 days, to elect a new Speaker, who will be, after all of his concessions to the extreme wing of his party, on paper, perhaps, the weakest Speaker in recent memory. However, on that same day, January 4, President Biden and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, were together at a major bridge that connects Covington, KY, with Cincinnati, OH. It is a bridge that has needed repair for years, and now those repairs will happen because of the historic infrastructure bill passed by the last Congress--the largest infrastructure plan since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and the creation of the Interstate Highway System. That bipartisan infrastructure plan will rebuild bridges and roads all across America and our State of Illinois. We have already seen evidence of that. It will expand affordable high-speed broadband services, and it will build the 21st century infrastructure America needs to remain the strongest in the world. It is already creating good jobs in Illinois and around the Nation, and it will continue to do so. That is just one of the achievements of this Congress that had a 50-50 Senate. We also passed the CHIPS and Science Act to supercharge America's microchip industry and bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. We passed the boldest economic recovery and investment plan since President Franklin Roosevelt, the most sweeping legislation enacted by any government on Earth to confront the climate crisis, and the bipartisan PACT Act to help millions of veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their military service. We kept the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Now, for the first time ever, Medicare can negotiate on prescription drug prices, and Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year. In the last Congress, we confirmed 97 outstanding new Article III judges, including the first Black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. These new judges will bring unprecedented diversity to our Federal courts both in terms of demographics as well as in their backgrounds and professional experience. In the last Congress, with President Biden's leadership and the support of Congress, the United States rallied the free world to confront Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yesterday, I was at a meeting in an area known as the Ukrainian Village in the city of Chicago. It was a gathering not only of proud Lithuanians, who were determined to do everything they could to help their friends and relatives back in Ukraine fight off Putin's invasion, but also a lot of others. There were many Polish people there, Lithuanians as well, and many other consulate generals were present to express their support for the common cause. I am proud that the United States is leading this effort, and we must continue to. When I hear suspicions and rumors and suggestions that maybe the MAGA Republicans in the House have grown weary of this war and impatient for it to end, I have to remind them that freedom is worth fighting for. The Ukrainians are dying for it. We need to stand by them with the NATO alliance and see this through and put an end to Putin's terrible war crimes. We ensure, as well, that the United States will not be a safe haven for the perpetrators of heinous war crimes in Ukraine. We will continue to stand with the Ukrainians until Putin's illegal war is over and Ukraine is once again free and at peace. We authorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act; passed new laws to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Over the last 2 years, the Federal Government delivered 700 million COVID shots for free--in 2 years, 700 million vaccinations--and according to the White House, COVID deaths in America are down by 80 percent. America's economy created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of our Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are headed down, and inflation is finally easing a little bit. All of that happened with a 50-50 Senate. That is not gridlock. That is government working for the common good. The priorities for this Congress are pretty obvious. We need to continue our efforts to protect the basic rights of Americans. As well as voting rights, we need to include on that list reproductive health rights for the women of America. We are determined to end the crisis on our southern border by securing the border, finally fixing our broken immigration system, and passing the DREAM Act--my ambition for almost two decades. Well, it has been longer than that to be honest with you. Over the last week, I visited with some of the migrants who were bused to Chicago, and I talked to them about their families and what they face. If there is anyone who thinks that they are trying to game the system in America, they ought to talk to them. They are ready to go to work, and we need to make sure that that is done in a proper fashion. Last year, we passed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years, but the horrific shooting that killed 11--now the latest number is 11--and wounded 9 more this past weekend at the Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, CA, is another terrible reminder that more work needs to be done for gun safety. The Lunar New Year shooting was the 33rd mass shooting in America so far this month--33 so far this month. Last year, there were 600 mass shootings. I remember one of them well, and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore does too. The gunman opened fire on the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL. He discharged 83 rounds in less than a minute, and he killed 7 people and injured dozens more. There were 19 little children and 2 of their teachers who were murdered in their classroom in Uvalde, TX, just days before. There were 10 people who were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, in a racist attack. The list goes on and on and on. It is madness. It is sickening. It is a uniquely American problem. Try to explain it away. You can't. There are just too darned many guns in the hands of the wrong people, and they continue to produce them and sell them with abandon and without any sense of responsibility for the results. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS43-5 | null | 5,519 |
formal | securing the border | null | anti-Latino | Senate Accomplishments Madam President, 4 years ago today, as another new Congress was starting its work, America was nearing the end of the longest Federal Government shutdown in history. It was day 33 of a 35-day shutdown, a shutdown that was precipitated by President Donald Trump when he refused to sign any budget that did not include billions of dollars for what he wanted to build and call his ``big, beautiful'' wall on the southern border. That dysfunction and that government shutdown cost our economy billions of dollars, and it shook the confidence of many--in this country and its future--in America's ability to do the basics. Fast-forward to the start of the last Congress 2 years ago when three of the newest Members of the Senate had just been sworn in, giving America only the second 50-50 Senate split in its history. It was a time of crises and division: the deadliest public health emergency in acentury; the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and then--and then--a violent attack on the Capitol by an insurrectionist mob, one of the darkest days in the history of this building and our Nation. The doubters said a 50-50 Senate coming into being with that circumstance was destined to be gridlocked. We proved them wrong. Today, we begin the legislative work of a new Congress, the 118th Congress. Will these 2 years--the next 2 years--be remembered for dysfunction or democracy? chaos or consensus? That really is the challenge we face. The choice is not entirely in our hands here in the Senate with a 51-to-49 slim majority. The new MAGA majority in the House of Representatives has promised endless investigations, confrontations, impeachments, and chaos, but it doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can be a steadying force. We can pass a budget. We can give a helping hand to families and businesses. We can invest in a better future. We can defend democracy against the rise of autocracy. We can pay our Nation's bills if we are willing to work together for the common good. If you want to see our choices, look at what we faced on January 4, just a few weeks ago. On that day, the House of Representatives was in chaos. A small band of MAGA hard-liners held the House hostage to their extreme demands. In the end, it took 15 rollcall votes, over 4 days, to elect a new Speaker, who will be, after all of his concessions to the extreme wing of his party, on paper, perhaps, the weakest Speaker in recent memory. However, on that same day, January 4, President Biden and the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, were together at a major bridge that connects Covington, KY, with Cincinnati, OH. It is a bridge that has needed repair for years, and now those repairs will happen because of the historic infrastructure bill passed by the last Congress--the largest infrastructure plan since the Eisenhower administration in the 1950s and the creation of the Interstate Highway System. That bipartisan infrastructure plan will rebuild bridges and roads all across America and our State of Illinois. We have already seen evidence of that. It will expand affordable high-speed broadband services, and it will build the 21st century infrastructure America needs to remain the strongest in the world. It is already creating good jobs in Illinois and around the Nation, and it will continue to do so. That is just one of the achievements of this Congress that had a 50-50 Senate. We also passed the CHIPS and Science Act to supercharge America's microchip industry and bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. We passed the boldest economic recovery and investment plan since President Franklin Roosevelt, the most sweeping legislation enacted by any government on Earth to confront the climate crisis, and the bipartisan PACT Act to help millions of veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxic chemicals during their military service. We kept the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. Now, for the first time ever, Medicare can negotiate on prescription drug prices, and Medicare recipients' out-of-pocket expenses for drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year. In the last Congress, we confirmed 97 outstanding new Article III judges, including the first Black woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. These new judges will bring unprecedented diversity to our Federal courts both in terms of demographics as well as in their backgrounds and professional experience. In the last Congress, with President Biden's leadership and the support of Congress, the United States rallied the free world to confront Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Yesterday, I was at a meeting in an area known as the Ukrainian Village in the city of Chicago. It was a gathering not only of proud Lithuanians, who were determined to do everything they could to help their friends and relatives back in Ukraine fight off Putin's invasion, but also a lot of others. There were many Polish people there, Lithuanians as well, and many other consulate generals were present to express their support for the common cause. I am proud that the United States is leading this effort, and we must continue to. When I hear suspicions and rumors and suggestions that maybe the MAGA Republicans in the House have grown weary of this war and impatient for it to end, I have to remind them that freedom is worth fighting for. The Ukrainians are dying for it. We need to stand by them with the NATO alliance and see this through and put an end to Putin's terrible war crimes. We ensure, as well, that the United States will not be a safe haven for the perpetrators of heinous war crimes in Ukraine. We will continue to stand with the Ukrainians until Putin's illegal war is over and Ukraine is once again free and at peace. We authorized and strengthened the Violence Against Women Act; passed new laws to strengthen protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child sexual abuse, and sexual harassment. Over the last 2 years, the Federal Government delivered 700 million COVID shots for free--in 2 years, 700 million vaccinations--and according to the White House, COVID deaths in America are down by 80 percent. America's economy created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of our Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are headed down, and inflation is finally easing a little bit. All of that happened with a 50-50 Senate. That is not gridlock. That is government working for the common good. The priorities for this Congress are pretty obvious. We need to continue our efforts to protect the basic rights of Americans. As well as voting rights, we need to include on that list reproductive health rights for the women of America. We are determined to end the crisis on our southern border by securing the border, finally fixing our broken immigration system, and passing the DREAM Act--my ambition for almost two decades. Well, it has been longer than that to be honest with you. Over the last week, I visited with some of the migrants who were bused to Chicago, and I talked to them about their families and what they face. If there is anyone who thinks that they are trying to game the system in America, they ought to talk to them. They are ready to go to work, and we need to make sure that that is done in a proper fashion. Last year, we passed the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years, but the horrific shooting that killed 11--now the latest number is 11--and wounded 9 more this past weekend at the Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, CA, is another terrible reminder that more work needs to be done for gun safety. The Lunar New Year shooting was the 33rd mass shooting in America so far this month--33 so far this month. Last year, there were 600 mass shootings. I remember one of them well, and I am sure the Acting President pro tempore does too. The gunman opened fire on the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, IL. He discharged 83 rounds in less than a minute, and he killed 7 people and injured dozens more. There were 19 little children and 2 of their teachers who were murdered in their classroom in Uvalde, TX, just days before. There were 10 people who were killed in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, in a racist attack. The list goes on and on and on. It is madness. It is sickening. It is a uniquely American problem. Try to explain it away. You can't. There are just too darned many guns in the hands of the wrong people, and they continue to produce them and sell them with abandon and without any sense of responsibility for the results. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS43-5 | null | 5,520 |
formal | deadbeat | null | racist | Debt Ceiling Madam President, we must pay our Nation's bills. We all agree with that. Using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to force deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare is unacceptable. Pushing through other extreme changes that can't pass on their own merits ought to be unthinkable; yet this is what the MAGA extremists in the House appear hell-bent on doing. I would remind those who want to pose for holy pictures as budget balancers that one-fourth--almost one-fourth--of our entire national debt that has been accumulated in the United States over the last 230 years was racked up during the 4 years that Donald Trump was in the White House--almost one-fourth of our national debt. What we are doing withthe debt ceiling now is paying for Donald Trump's priorities voted for by Congress and the Republicans. It is the responsible thing to do. Even in their policies, such as tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the country, the fact is it was enacted into law, and we have a responsibility, in preserving the good faith and credit of the United States, to extend the debt limit even for those policies which I personally disagree with. The Republicans moved to raise the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration, and the Democrats supported them every time. We don't want to turn America into a deadbeat nation. Defaulting on our national debt for the first time in history, as the MAGA Republicans are threatening in the House, would throw millions of Americans out of work. According to a think tank, the Third Way, a worker with a 401(k) retirement account could lose $20,000 because of interest rates, and a new 30-year mortgage would cost an additional $130,000. How many people would be willing to buy a new home or a new car facing those circumstances? Borrowing would become harder and more expensive, and the national debt would increase by $850 million just from our failure to extend the debt limit. Abraham Lincoln once said, ``We cannot escape history,'' warning Congress and a nation torn apart by a civil war. Thank God we are not facing anything like that today, but we are facing deep divisions and continued assaults on our democracy. So as we begin this new Congress, we need to ask ourselves: What do we want history to say about this Senate during the next 2 years? Will we be remembered for chaos or consensus? Will we work to heal the divisions in our Nation or deepen them? Will we solve the problems that really matter to the American people or invent problems and stoke them for political advantage? My Democratic colleagues and I are hopeful that there will be a positive answer to those questions, that we can negotiate and work together in good faith for a better America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS44 | null | 5,521 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Debt Ceiling Madam President, we must pay our Nation's bills. We all agree with that. Using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to force deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare is unacceptable. Pushing through other extreme changes that can't pass on their own merits ought to be unthinkable; yet this is what the MAGA extremists in the House appear hell-bent on doing. I would remind those who want to pose for holy pictures as budget balancers that one-fourth--almost one-fourth--of our entire national debt that has been accumulated in the United States over the last 230 years was racked up during the 4 years that Donald Trump was in the White House--almost one-fourth of our national debt. What we are doing withthe debt ceiling now is paying for Donald Trump's priorities voted for by Congress and the Republicans. It is the responsible thing to do. Even in their policies, such as tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the country, the fact is it was enacted into law, and we have a responsibility, in preserving the good faith and credit of the United States, to extend the debt limit even for those policies which I personally disagree with. The Republicans moved to raise the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration, and the Democrats supported them every time. We don't want to turn America into a deadbeat nation. Defaulting on our national debt for the first time in history, as the MAGA Republicans are threatening in the House, would throw millions of Americans out of work. According to a think tank, the Third Way, a worker with a 401(k) retirement account could lose $20,000 because of interest rates, and a new 30-year mortgage would cost an additional $130,000. How many people would be willing to buy a new home or a new car facing those circumstances? Borrowing would become harder and more expensive, and the national debt would increase by $850 million just from our failure to extend the debt limit. Abraham Lincoln once said, ``We cannot escape history,'' warning Congress and a nation torn apart by a civil war. Thank God we are not facing anything like that today, but we are facing deep divisions and continued assaults on our democracy. So as we begin this new Congress, we need to ask ourselves: What do we want history to say about this Senate during the next 2 years? Will we be remembered for chaos or consensus? Will we work to heal the divisions in our Nation or deepen them? Will we solve the problems that really matter to the American people or invent problems and stoke them for political advantage? My Democratic colleagues and I are hopeful that there will be a positive answer to those questions, that we can negotiate and work together in good faith for a better America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS44 | null | 5,522 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Debt Ceiling Madam President, we must pay our Nation's bills. We all agree with that. Using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip to force deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare is unacceptable. Pushing through other extreme changes that can't pass on their own merits ought to be unthinkable; yet this is what the MAGA extremists in the House appear hell-bent on doing. I would remind those who want to pose for holy pictures as budget balancers that one-fourth--almost one-fourth--of our entire national debt that has been accumulated in the United States over the last 230 years was racked up during the 4 years that Donald Trump was in the White House--almost one-fourth of our national debt. What we are doing withthe debt ceiling now is paying for Donald Trump's priorities voted for by Congress and the Republicans. It is the responsible thing to do. Even in their policies, such as tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the country, the fact is it was enacted into law, and we have a responsibility, in preserving the good faith and credit of the United States, to extend the debt limit even for those policies which I personally disagree with. The Republicans moved to raise the debt ceiling three times during the Trump administration, and the Democrats supported them every time. We don't want to turn America into a deadbeat nation. Defaulting on our national debt for the first time in history, as the MAGA Republicans are threatening in the House, would throw millions of Americans out of work. According to a think tank, the Third Way, a worker with a 401(k) retirement account could lose $20,000 because of interest rates, and a new 30-year mortgage would cost an additional $130,000. How many people would be willing to buy a new home or a new car facing those circumstances? Borrowing would become harder and more expensive, and the national debt would increase by $850 million just from our failure to extend the debt limit. Abraham Lincoln once said, ``We cannot escape history,'' warning Congress and a nation torn apart by a civil war. Thank God we are not facing anything like that today, but we are facing deep divisions and continued assaults on our democracy. So as we begin this new Congress, we need to ask ourselves: What do we want history to say about this Senate during the next 2 years? Will we be remembered for chaos or consensus? Will we work to heal the divisions in our Nation or deepen them? Will we solve the problems that really matter to the American people or invent problems and stoke them for political advantage? My Democratic colleagues and I are hopeful that there will be a positive answer to those questions, that we can negotiate and work together in good faith for a better America. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS44 | null | 5,523 |
formal | illegal aliens | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,524 |
formal | illegal alien | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,525 |
formal | criminal illegal aliens | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,526 |
formal | criminal illegal alien | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,527 |
formal | criminal alien | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,528 |
formal | criminal aliens | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,529 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,530 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,531 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Border Codel Madam President, over the past few years, we have seen proof that until President Biden and his administration secure the southern border, every town is a border town and every State is a border State. My colleague from Texas spoke so well about this issue and the impact that an open border is having on our communities. Tennesseans are suffering because of the open border agenda, particularly when it comes to the disastrous consequences of the cross-border drug trade. Tennessee law enforcement officials are working overtime to take down the cartel kingpins who have set up shop in our State, just like they have set up shop in so many of our States. But drug overdoses continue to destroy families, they destroy lives and careers, and the Biden administration continues to look the other way. This month, I had the opportunity to see just how bad the situation has gotten right down on that southern border. Senators Hyde-Smith and Britt were kind enough to join me as we went to Eagle Pass, TX, where we witnessed firsthand the chaos that this administration's open border policies have created. As most of my colleagues know, the situation in Texas became so dire that the Texas officials decided to take matters into their own hands. In 2022, Operation Lone Star helped law enforcement apprehend more than 336,000 illegal immigrants. That is just in Texas. They arrested more than 23,000 criminals--criminal illegal aliens, 23,000--just in Texas, and they seized 354 million doses of fentanyl--354 million doses. Now, these numbers are appalling. When you hear them stand-alone, they are appalling. When you talk to the Border Patrol and you realize that this is Texas, that this doesn't account for the other States, that this doesn't account for what is going on as every State becomes a border State and every town becomes a border town--when you hear these numbers, one would think common sense would tell you this Chamber should get busy saying: How do we secure that southern border? But that hasn't happened, and the cost of negligence is more crime and more death and more American citizens losing their lives and the cartels making more money. Yes, indeed, the cartels are running that border. You do not cross. Nothing crosses without paying the cartels. Now, we visited several locations in the Del Rio sector that are experiencing significant migrant traffic along the river. At every location, we found clothing, IDs, medication, and other personal items that the migrants dropped as they entered the country. What happened to those individuals is anyone's guess, because many of them don't want to be found out who they really are. Many of them are convicted criminal aliens. Many of them come from countries where they would be sent back, so they create a new identity once they touch U.S. soil. Then they can be here because we have catch-and-release, because we do not have ``Remain in Mexico,'' because we do not have what the Border Patrol has been telling us for 30 years they need--a physical barrier and a better technology where they cannot have a physical barrier. In Eagle Pass we were able to witness firsthand two separate migrant groups crossing the river. One of those groups included a pregnant woman and several children. The other included children and an elderly woman who was clearly struggling to keep her footing while she was coming across that river. With this dangerous situation, with those freezing waters, the Texas National Guard troops could only watch and just hope that no one drowned. Now, that is what we saw in the early morning hours. But what we know is, during the night there were 57 other groups that crossed--a lot of them single adults. We know that the cartels, which are multi-billion dollar, multi-national organizations, work globally, and they are bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars a week. And they have brought along people from 150 different countries who are going to the cartel to come into the country because they think it is faster to do it that way. Or maybe they want to be the ``got-aways,'' people we see on surveillance who are known ``got-aways'' or the unknown ``got-aways,'' which are what the really bad ones are. They are going to completely different areas in crossing to bring in drugs, to bring in sex traffickers, to bring in human traffickers, to put people into modern-day slavery. There were 57 more known crossings--known--that we did not see. Border agents told us that the day before our tour, there were 1,000 arrestsin the Del Rio sector. The day before we were out, it is important to note that there in Eagle Pass, there were 1,000 arrests. The President, on that very same day, was at El Paso. He saw no migrants. He saw a cleaned-up community. The visit had been sanitized so that he did not see what they were experiencing in the Del Rio sector and at Eagle Pass. Now, after we had been out with Border Patrol and were watching all of this, we made one more stop, and it was to the Harris Ranch, which is near Uvalde, TX. This area has seen significant migrant traffic. It has disrupted their entire community. I met with local officials--mayors, sheriffs, DAs, people that own businesses, farmers, ranchers--and they told us that sometimes people may need an ambulance, but many times they are unavailable to the people at Uvalde or Kinney County because they are too busy responding to migrant emergencies. The county attorney stated that he has prosecuted 4,000 criminal trespass cases--4,000--and since August of 2021, he has prosecuted twice the number of people as live in the entire county. Now think about that: double the number of people in your county where you live. And think about that as cases that are going to come before your local court system. And who pays for that? That's right--you do, the taxpayer. Every penny being spent, every penny is coming out of your pocket. And when you talk about the humanitarian crisis at that border--the loss of life, the abuse--the humanitarian cost is amazing. People are risking their lives because they are buying the lie of the cartels. They are physically, mentally, emotionally, sexually, and drug abused as they make this journey. Now, the Harris Ranch has about 30 miles of fencing around it; but even though they have that fencing, it doesn't stop the migrants from coming onto the property. The owner of the ranch told us that he regularly gets a call in the middle of the night informing him that a migrant is having an emergency somewhere on his land and has dialed 911. Sometimes these calls come in too late or they don't come in at all. And we have all seen the news reports of these ranchers finding dead bodies on their property. And I will tell you that nothing in these reports is blown out of proportion. It is devastating. It is sad. It is a humanitarian crisis. Many of the migrants that the people at Harris Ranch have discovered got lost or they were abandoned by the smugglers. Others were dumped there by the cartels, and we know this because the ranchers have seen it play out on their security footage. I would encourage my colleagues to think about this the next time they are in front of the cameras and commenting about how compassionate they think the Biden administration policy is when it comes to open borders. Madam President, it is not compassionate when you talk to a young woman who, for 4 years, suffered at the hands of a cartel and sex traffickers, raped over 400 times, beaten with chains. It is not compassionate when you hear these stories of abuse, when you hear about cartels killing somebody who they think is too weak to make the journey. There is nothing compassionate about it. In December, according to Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security--which, by the way, is this administration's Department of Homeland Security--there were more than a quarter-million migrant encounters, which is the highest number of encounters ever recorded at the southern border. Putting that into context, that is more than the population of Knoxville, TN; more than the population of Chattanooga, TN. Part of the tragedy is month after month, year after year, this gets worse. It continues to get worse. And we have to remember, these are the numbers that we know. These are not the ``got-aways'' that they could see on surveillance camera. They think they have had, in the last year, a million--a million ``got-aways'' that are running into the country. Those are the known ``got-aways.'' We don't have a number on the unknown ``got-aways.'' And we have people that want to say this administration's policy is compassionate? They are bringing in drugs like fentanyl--16,000 pounds of it--enough to kill 3.3 billion people. They are trafficking women and girls and know that because we are hearing their stories. Our human-trafficking organizations are rescuing these women and girls. We hear about the gangs. We hear about crime in our communities, and we also hear from the Border Patrol. We can fix this. We can fix it. As I said, they have asked for a barrier. They have asked for better technology. They tell us keep title 42. They tell us we need ``Remain in Mexico.'' They tell us: You have to end catch-and-release in this country, take away the incentives to come to the country illegally. It is time that we make certain that we secure that southern border. My hope is that my Democratic colleagues will put down their talking points and that they will pay attention to what is happening, not only in the border communities but in towns and cities and communities and in families who are experiencing adverse effects because of what is happening with this open border. It is time that we realize the cartels are taking advantage of an open border. They are taking advantage of a weak administration who will not stop them. It is time to secure that southern border. It is time to give the Border Patrol what they need to defend our southern border. It is imperative that we address these issues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS48 | null | 5,532 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate Alfie Alvarado-Ramos, the Director of Washington State's Department of Veterans Affairs, who will retire on January 31, 2023, after serving Washington State and our veterans for over 29 years. Alfie's impressive career is marked by many well-earned accolades, but most of all by her dedication to serving Washington State and the Nation. Throughout her military service, Alfie's service has been recognized with awards and decorations, including the Legion of Merit, Order of Military Medical Merit, Expert Field Medical Badge, and Meritorious Service medal. After 22 years, she retired from Active Duty in August 1993 as the command sergeant major of Madigan Army Medical Center and Troop Command, Joint Base Lewis-McChord. She has also proven herself a distinguished and passionate leader in the management of medical services delivery and human resources management, especially for our veterans. Alfie is an alumna of the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Executive Program, the University of Washington Executive Management Program, and holds a master's degree in healthcare administration, and a licensed nursing home administrator. As director of Washington State's Department of Veterans Affairs, Alfie was a member of Governor Jay Inslee's executive cabinet and chaired the Washington State Military Transition Council. In this capacity, she has helped the agency lead statewide efforts for the seamless transition of servicemembers and their families to Washington State's communities. As a leader in our State, she has been honored with many well-earned local, State, and national awards, including the Governor's Distinguished Management Leadership Award and the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary's Leadership Award. Alfie's extraordinary commitment to servicemembers and veterans is unmatched. Anyone who has worked with Alfie, as I have been honored to do for many years, knows her tireless dedication and relentless drive to improve services for members of the military, veterans, and their families. From mental health to education and training, military spouse employment, to emergency funding for State veterans homes in the depths of the COVID pandemic, Alfie has been an incredible partner. Although there are so many stories I could share about the way Alfie has fought for veterans in Washington State, there is one in particular that I will never forget. Back in 2013, the State of Washington, thanks to Alfie's leadership, secured Federal funding for a veterans home in Walla Walla. Unfortunately, through a series of bureaucratic mishaps, our State was in danger of losing that funding--that is, until Alfie stepped in. She called to let my office know about the problem and was absolutely furious the Federal Government would pull the rug out from under those veterans who needed care the most. I couldn't have agreed more. It was unacceptable--so we didn't accept it. Together, we fought to keep the funding, and we won. There is now a beautiful veterans home in Walla Walla thanks to Alfie's tireless dedication to Washington State veterans. I will miss working with her in the years ahead, but it has been an honor to know Alfie throughout her career as dedicated mentor, teacher, and guide for the next generation of military and veteran leaders. I know Washington State and the Nation will be in good hands, thanks to her and her legacy will continue far beyond her own retirement. I offer my deepest appreciation for Alfie's dedicated service to the United States of America and Washington State. I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Alfie on her well-earned retirement and wishing her many years of enjoyment with her family. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. MURRAY | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS50-2 | null | 5,533 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, in the past half century, Arkansans have played millions of basketball games, most of which have disappeared into a blur of fond memories and forgotten scores. For many of the residents of Jefferson County, however, one game still stands out from the rest: the 1973 State overall championship final between the Vaster High School Pirates and the Little Rock Central High School Tigers. In that game, the Pirates represented a small rural community of only a few hundred, against the Tigers of Little Rock, a city of a quarter million. The Tigers were taller, better ranked, and were defending champs. Vaster, on the other hand, had overcome great odds just to get to the championship final, and few thought they had a chance. The Pirates could have made a halfhearted effort that March day and met expectations. But that is not what makes a great game and not what the Pirates had in mind. When they took the court, Vaster's coaches and players were intent on shattering expectations, and that is exactly what they did. Far from being blown out, the Pirates went toe-to-toe with the Tigers. Central would take the lead, only for Vaster to wrest it away. The Pirates made the Tigers fight for every pass, point, and inch of progress. And you better believe they made Central sweat. This climactic battle between two great teams ended in a one-point Tiger victory, after Vaster missed a free throw in the last 12 seconds of the game. Fifty years later, that game still fills many Arkansans with pride. It remains proof that extraordinary effort, commitment, and drive, even by teenagers on a basketball court, can inspire and make a difference years later. That is why I would like to honor the great coaches, players, and staff of the 1972-73 Vaster High School Pirates: head coach Herbert Pryor, assistant coach Andrew Carr, Cleveland Allen, Eric Biley, Samuel Biley, Jr., Reddic Borkins, Jimmy Dade, Carl Evans, James Evans, Tommy Evans, Roy Franklin, Jimmy Gladney, Homer Jackson, Melvin Jackson, Charles Petty, Rodney Ryce, Thomas Tarty, Ronnie Grice, Rodney Crawford, and Jacob Jones. The State of Arkansas and the U.S. Senate salute you on this 50th anniversary of your great game. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. COTTON | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS51-4 | null | 5,534 |
formal | school choice | null | racist | Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Scott Robison, who is retiring after more than 40 years educating Hoosier children. Dr. Robison hails from New Albany, IN, and earned his bachelor's degree in education from Indiana University in 1980. His career began as an elementary teacher in New Albany-Floyd County schools, as well as MSD Pike Township in Indianapolis. He then served as a principal in Southwest Allen Schools in Fort Wayne and as the founding principal of Pike Township's New Augusta K-8 Academy. He later became assistant school superintendent in Westfield Washington Schools before becoming superintendent of Marion-Adams Schools in Sheridan. In 2006, he was named superintendent of Zionsville Community Schools. After 16 years in the district, he is retiring this month. Dr. Robison is an innovative leader. In the 1990s, he pioneered practices such as in-district school choice, alternative school calendars, multi-age classrooms, and parent/community partnerships that are now well-established practices in schools across the State. He is known as a tremendous recruiter and developer of educators, many of whom have benefited directly from his wisdom and inspirational leadership. Throughout his tenure, Dr. Robison has never lost his own love of learning. He earned an M.S. from Indiana University in 1986 and a Ph.D. from Purdue University in 2003. He has also served on countless boards, commissions, and committees throughout the years and even refereed high school and college basketball games for 20 years. It is my honor to thank Dr. Robison for his tireless devotion to the children of Indiana, and all Hoosiers join me in wishing him a restful retirement. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. YOUNG | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS53-3 | null | 5,535 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagerty, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Young, and Mr. Budd) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 11 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K-12 education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the 13th annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 22 through January 28, 2023: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 22 through January 28, 2023, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS57-2 | null | 5,536 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagerty, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Young, and Mr. Budd) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 11 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K-12 education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the 13th annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 22 through January 28, 2023: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 22 through January 28, 2023, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS57-2 | null | 5,537 |
formal | educational choice | null | racist | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Braun, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagerty, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Young, and Mr. Budd) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 11 Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K-12 education empowers parents to select education environments that meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; Whereas high-quality K-12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home schooling; Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the education environments prepare children to achieve their dreams; Whereas more families than ever before in the United States actively choose the best education for their children; Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental choice in education can inform additional families of the benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, and effective education environments for their children; Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves the utmost respect; and Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate the benefits of educational choice during the 13th annual National School Choice Week, held the week of January 22 through January 28, 2023: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of January 22 through January 28, 2023, as ``National School Choice Week''; (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 12 education environments of all varieties for their persistence, achievements, dedication, and contributions to society in the United States; (3) encourages all parents, during National School Choice Week, to learn more about the education options available to them; and (4) encourages the people of the United States to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities during National School Choice Week to raise public awareness of the benefits of opportunity in education. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS57-2 | null | 5,538 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 12 Whereas, each year in the United States, approximately 700 individuals die as a result of complications related to pregnancy and childbirth; Whereas the pregnancy-related mortality ratio, defined as the number of pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births, more than doubled in the United States between 1987 and 2017; Whereas the United States is one of the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries in which the maternal mortality rate has increased over the last several decades; Whereas, of all pregnancy-related deaths in the United States between 2011 and 2016-- (1) nearly 32 percent occurred during pregnancy; (2) approximately 35 percent occurred during childbirth or the week after childbirth; and (3) 33 percent occurred between 1 week and 1 year postpartum; Whereas more than 80 percent of maternal deaths in the United States are preventable; Whereas, each year, more than 50,000 individuals in the United States suffer from a ``near miss'' or severe maternal morbidity, which includes potentially life-threatening complications that arise from labor and childbirth; Whereas approximately 17 percent of individuals who give birth in a hospital in the United States report experiencing 1 or more types of mistreatment, such as-- (1) loss of autonomy; (2) being shouted at, scolded, or threatened; or (3) being ignored or refused or receiving no response to requests for help; Whereas certain social determinants of health, including bias and racism, have a negative impact on maternal health outcomes; Whereas significant disparities in maternal health outcomes exist in the United States, including that-- (1) Black individuals are more than 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as are White individuals; (2) American Indian and Alaska Native individuals are more than twice as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as are White individuals; (3) Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals with at least some college education are more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than are individuals of all other racial and ethnic backgrounds with less than a high school diploma; (4) Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals are about twice as likely to suffer from severe maternal morbidity as are White individuals; (5) individuals who live in rural areas have a greater likelihood of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, compared to individuals who live in urban areas; (6) less than \1/2\ of rural counties have a hospital with obstetric services; (7) counties with more Black and Hispanic residents and lower median incomes are less likely to have access to hospital obstetric services; (8) more than 50 percent of individuals who live in a rural area must travel more than 30 minutes to access hospital obstetric services, compared to 7 percent of individuals who live in urban areas; and (9) American Indian and Alaska Native individuals living in rural communities are twice as likely as their White counterparts to report receiving late or no prenatal care; Whereas pregnant individuals may be at increased risk for severe outcomes associated with COVID-19, as-- (1) COVID-19 contributed to 25 percent of maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021; (2) pregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 are more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit, receive invasive ventilation, and receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (commonly known as ``ECMO'') treatment, compared to nonpregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19; (3) pregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 have a risk of dying that is 7 times higher than nonpregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19; and (4) pregnant individuals with COVID-19 are at risk for pre- term delivery and stillbirth; Whereas 49 States have designated committees to review maternal deaths; Whereas State and local maternal mortality review committees are positioned to comprehensively assess maternal deaths and identify opportunities for prevention; Whereas 48 States and the District of Columbia are participating in the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health, which promotes consistent and safe maternity care to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality; Whereas community-based maternal health care models, including midwifery childbirth services, doula support services, community and perinatal health worker services, and group prenatal care, in collaboration with culturally competent physician care, show great promise in improving maternal health outcomes and reducing disparities in maternal health outcomes; Whereas many organizations have implemented initiatives to educate patients and providers about-- (1) all causes of, contributing factors to, and disparities in maternal mortality; (2) the prevention of pregnancy-related deaths; and (3) the importance of listening to and empowering all people to report pregnancy-related medical issues; and Whereas several States, communities, and organizations recognize January 23 as ``Maternal Health Awareness Day'' to raise awareness about maternal health and promote maternal safety: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates January 23, 2023, as ``Maternal Health Awareness Day''; (2) supports the goals and ideals of Maternal Health Awareness Day, including-- (A) raising public awareness about maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, and disparities in maternal health outcomes; and (B) encouraging the Federal Government, States, territories, Tribes, local communities, public health organizations, physicians, health care providers, and others to take action to reduce adverse maternal health outcomes and improve maternal safety; (3) promotes initiatives-- (A) to address and eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes; and (B) to ensure respectful and equitable maternity care practices; (4) honors those who have passed away as a result of pregnancy-related causes; and (5) supports and recognizes the need for further investments in efforts to improve maternal health, eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes, and promote respectful and equitable maternity care practices. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS57-3 | null | 5,539 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 12 Whereas, each year in the United States, approximately 700 individuals die as a result of complications related to pregnancy and childbirth; Whereas the pregnancy-related mortality ratio, defined as the number of pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births, more than doubled in the United States between 1987 and 2017; Whereas the United States is one of the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries in which the maternal mortality rate has increased over the last several decades; Whereas, of all pregnancy-related deaths in the United States between 2011 and 2016-- (1) nearly 32 percent occurred during pregnancy; (2) approximately 35 percent occurred during childbirth or the week after childbirth; and (3) 33 percent occurred between 1 week and 1 year postpartum; Whereas more than 80 percent of maternal deaths in the United States are preventable; Whereas, each year, more than 50,000 individuals in the United States suffer from a ``near miss'' or severe maternal morbidity, which includes potentially life-threatening complications that arise from labor and childbirth; Whereas approximately 17 percent of individuals who give birth in a hospital in the United States report experiencing 1 or more types of mistreatment, such as-- (1) loss of autonomy; (2) being shouted at, scolded, or threatened; or (3) being ignored or refused or receiving no response to requests for help; Whereas certain social determinants of health, including bias and racism, have a negative impact on maternal health outcomes; Whereas significant disparities in maternal health outcomes exist in the United States, including that-- (1) Black individuals are more than 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as are White individuals; (2) American Indian and Alaska Native individuals are more than twice as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as are White individuals; (3) Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals with at least some college education are more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than are individuals of all other racial and ethnic backgrounds with less than a high school diploma; (4) Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals are about twice as likely to suffer from severe maternal morbidity as are White individuals; (5) individuals who live in rural areas have a greater likelihood of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, compared to individuals who live in urban areas; (6) less than \1/2\ of rural counties have a hospital with obstetric services; (7) counties with more Black and Hispanic residents and lower median incomes are less likely to have access to hospital obstetric services; (8) more than 50 percent of individuals who live in a rural area must travel more than 30 minutes to access hospital obstetric services, compared to 7 percent of individuals who live in urban areas; and (9) American Indian and Alaska Native individuals living in rural communities are twice as likely as their White counterparts to report receiving late or no prenatal care; Whereas pregnant individuals may be at increased risk for severe outcomes associated with COVID-19, as-- (1) COVID-19 contributed to 25 percent of maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021; (2) pregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 are more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit, receive invasive ventilation, and receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (commonly known as ``ECMO'') treatment, compared to nonpregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19; (3) pregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 have a risk of dying that is 7 times higher than nonpregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19; and (4) pregnant individuals with COVID-19 are at risk for pre- term delivery and stillbirth; Whereas 49 States have designated committees to review maternal deaths; Whereas State and local maternal mortality review committees are positioned to comprehensively assess maternal deaths and identify opportunities for prevention; Whereas 48 States and the District of Columbia are participating in the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health, which promotes consistent and safe maternity care to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality; Whereas community-based maternal health care models, including midwifery childbirth services, doula support services, community and perinatal health worker services, and group prenatal care, in collaboration with culturally competent physician care, show great promise in improving maternal health outcomes and reducing disparities in maternal health outcomes; Whereas many organizations have implemented initiatives to educate patients and providers about-- (1) all causes of, contributing factors to, and disparities in maternal mortality; (2) the prevention of pregnancy-related deaths; and (3) the importance of listening to and empowering all people to report pregnancy-related medical issues; and Whereas several States, communities, and organizations recognize January 23 as ``Maternal Health Awareness Day'' to raise awareness about maternal health and promote maternal safety: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates January 23, 2023, as ``Maternal Health Awareness Day''; (2) supports the goals and ideals of Maternal Health Awareness Day, including-- (A) raising public awareness about maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, and disparities in maternal health outcomes; and (B) encouraging the Federal Government, States, territories, Tribes, local communities, public health organizations, physicians, health care providers, and others to take action to reduce adverse maternal health outcomes and improve maternal safety; (3) promotes initiatives-- (A) to address and eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes; and (B) to ensure respectful and equitable maternity care practices; (4) honors those who have passed away as a result of pregnancy-related causes; and (5) supports and recognizes the need for further investments in efforts to improve maternal health, eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes, and promote respectful and equitable maternity care practices. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS57-3 | null | 5,540 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 12 Whereas, each year in the United States, approximately 700 individuals die as a result of complications related to pregnancy and childbirth; Whereas the pregnancy-related mortality ratio, defined as the number of pregnancy-related deaths per 100,000 live births, more than doubled in the United States between 1987 and 2017; Whereas the United States is one of the only Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries in which the maternal mortality rate has increased over the last several decades; Whereas, of all pregnancy-related deaths in the United States between 2011 and 2016-- (1) nearly 32 percent occurred during pregnancy; (2) approximately 35 percent occurred during childbirth or the week after childbirth; and (3) 33 percent occurred between 1 week and 1 year postpartum; Whereas more than 80 percent of maternal deaths in the United States are preventable; Whereas, each year, more than 50,000 individuals in the United States suffer from a ``near miss'' or severe maternal morbidity, which includes potentially life-threatening complications that arise from labor and childbirth; Whereas approximately 17 percent of individuals who give birth in a hospital in the United States report experiencing 1 or more types of mistreatment, such as-- (1) loss of autonomy; (2) being shouted at, scolded, or threatened; or (3) being ignored or refused or receiving no response to requests for help; Whereas certain social determinants of health, including bias and racism, have a negative impact on maternal health outcomes; Whereas significant disparities in maternal health outcomes exist in the United States, including that-- (1) Black individuals are more than 3 times as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as are White individuals; (2) American Indian and Alaska Native individuals are more than twice as likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause as are White individuals; (3) Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals with at least some college education are more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than are individuals of all other racial and ethnic backgrounds with less than a high school diploma; (4) Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native individuals are about twice as likely to suffer from severe maternal morbidity as are White individuals; (5) individuals who live in rural areas have a greater likelihood of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, compared to individuals who live in urban areas; (6) less than \1/2\ of rural counties have a hospital with obstetric services; (7) counties with more Black and Hispanic residents and lower median incomes are less likely to have access to hospital obstetric services; (8) more than 50 percent of individuals who live in a rural area must travel more than 30 minutes to access hospital obstetric services, compared to 7 percent of individuals who live in urban areas; and (9) American Indian and Alaska Native individuals living in rural communities are twice as likely as their White counterparts to report receiving late or no prenatal care; Whereas pregnant individuals may be at increased risk for severe outcomes associated with COVID-19, as-- (1) COVID-19 contributed to 25 percent of maternal deaths from 2020 to 2021; (2) pregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 are more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit, receive invasive ventilation, and receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (commonly known as ``ECMO'') treatment, compared to nonpregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19; (3) pregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 have a risk of dying that is 7 times higher than nonpregnant individuals with symptomatic COVID-19; and (4) pregnant individuals with COVID-19 are at risk for pre- term delivery and stillbirth; Whereas 49 States have designated committees to review maternal deaths; Whereas State and local maternal mortality review committees are positioned to comprehensively assess maternal deaths and identify opportunities for prevention; Whereas 48 States and the District of Columbia are participating in the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health, which promotes consistent and safe maternity care to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality; Whereas community-based maternal health care models, including midwifery childbirth services, doula support services, community and perinatal health worker services, and group prenatal care, in collaboration with culturally competent physician care, show great promise in improving maternal health outcomes and reducing disparities in maternal health outcomes; Whereas many organizations have implemented initiatives to educate patients and providers about-- (1) all causes of, contributing factors to, and disparities in maternal mortality; (2) the prevention of pregnancy-related deaths; and (3) the importance of listening to and empowering all people to report pregnancy-related medical issues; and Whereas several States, communities, and organizations recognize January 23 as ``Maternal Health Awareness Day'' to raise awareness about maternal health and promote maternal safety: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates January 23, 2023, as ``Maternal Health Awareness Day''; (2) supports the goals and ideals of Maternal Health Awareness Day, including-- (A) raising public awareness about maternal mortality, maternal morbidity, and disparities in maternal health outcomes; and (B) encouraging the Federal Government, States, territories, Tribes, local communities, public health organizations, physicians, health care providers, and others to take action to reduce adverse maternal health outcomes and improve maternal safety; (3) promotes initiatives-- (A) to address and eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes; and (B) to ensure respectful and equitable maternity care practices; (4) honors those who have passed away as a result of pregnancy-related causes; and (5) supports and recognizes the need for further investments in efforts to improve maternal health, eliminate disparities in maternal health outcomes, and promote respectful and equitable maternity care practices. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-23-pt1-PgS57-3 | null | 5,541 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I honor the life and legacy of Russell Pearce, a constituent, a colleague, a patriot, and a dear friend. Russell passed January 5, 2023, in Mesa, Arizona. A fifth-generation Arizonan with a deep pioneer heritage, Russell was born June 23, 1947, to Hal and Norma Pearce in Mesa, Arizona. Russell had humble roots, but was raised by a loving, hardworking mother who taught him that he could make his own path in the world. Driven by his faith, he knew that the principles of our divinely inspired founding documents established the United States of America as a bastion of liberty and peace. This belief ignited a sense of duty that led Russell to a life of success through service to his community, his State, and his country. He first answered the call to serve in 1965 when he joined the Arizona National Guard during the Vietnam conflict. He served honorably until 1972, and, in the interim, joined the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, being sworn in as a deputy in 1970. Law enforcement was in Russell's blood, as his ancestor, Joe Pearce, had been one of the original Arizona Rangers. Two of his own sons, Sean and Colten, have followed Russell's example, joining the MCSO and also the Gilbert Police Department, respectively. In protecting his community, Russell demonstrated unrivaled toughness, courage, and dedication to duty. In 1977, while pursuing known gang members through a Phoenix suburb, one of them turned and fired. Russell was shot through the hand and chest, losing a finger. However, though wounded, Russell raced after the criminals and arrested them before seeking medical treatment. He received the Medal of Valor for his actions, the department's highest honor. Russell's tenacity and excellence led to steady promotions, eventually reaching the level of captain. After his first stint at MCSO, Russell was elected to his public office as justice of the peace for Mesa's new north justice district in 1991. He earned a reputation of trust from Mesa's citizens and public officials. He rejoined MCSO when he was appointed MCSO's chief deputy in 1993 by America's toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Serving as chief deputy for the largest law enforcement organization in Arizona and the fourth largest in the United States was a monumental task. Russell developed not only a love of but a true talent for public policy. He crafted and successfully implemented major reforms aimed at cutting millions in taxpayer costs and reducing offender recidivism. His success as chief deputy led to his appointment as director of the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety, where he led the Motor Vehicle Division. He created ServiceArizona.com, a first-in-the-Nation web service that made registration faster and simpler for Arizona motorists and exponentially reduced wait times and costs. Of course, Russell is best known, nationally and locally, for his work in the Arizona State Legislature. He served for 11 years representing North Mesa in the Arizona State House first, and then the Arizona Senate. While in the senate, Russell demonstrated the foresight to tackle the biggest challenges facing Arizona and its citizens. I was honored to serve with him and call him my friend and colleague. Russell authored and introduced important legislation designed to shrink government. Ultimately, he was elected senate president and worked steadfastly to advance legislation that promoted the principles and values important to Arizonans: the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, defense of our southern border, and reverence for the Constitution and God-given liberties. At times, Russell's courage to bring these issues to the front placed Arizona in front of national issues, such as the passage of S.B. 1070, which allowed, among other provisions, State and local enforcement of immigration law. That took foresight. It took immense courage to be the face of that legislation. Russell Pearce was ahead of his time. With the current overwhelming crisis at our southern border, we see that States take the brunt of the consequences when the Federal Government fails to enforce our laws and protect our citizens. Millions of Arizonans are freer, safer, and more prosperous thanks to Russell Pearce's courageous and farsighted leadership in addressing difficult public policies. Freedom-loving Americans across this great country enjoy the fruits of his efforts, thanks to their respective States modeling legislation after those crafted under Russell's leadership. His professional and political legacy is truly unmatched and is only outshone by his love of God and service to his church, his loyalty to the country he loved and, most importantly, his beautiful family that survives him: his wife, LuAnne; his 5 children and 13 grandchildren. To quote Russell himself: ``You know where my heart is. You know it is with this great Republic of ours and its freedom-loving citizens. I believe God had His hand in making America. We have the greatest document ever written by wise and virtuous men and the greatest country in the world because of freedom-loving people like you, the freedom-loving people of America. I, for one, will continue to fight to protect your freedoms from government encroachment. It is America's commitment to that freedom, personal responsibility, and moral government that makes us strong.'' Rest in peace, Russell, and God bless LuAnne and the Pearce family. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH256 | null | 5,542 |
formal | God-given liberties | null | homophobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I honor the life and legacy of Russell Pearce, a constituent, a colleague, a patriot, and a dear friend. Russell passed January 5, 2023, in Mesa, Arizona. A fifth-generation Arizonan with a deep pioneer heritage, Russell was born June 23, 1947, to Hal and Norma Pearce in Mesa, Arizona. Russell had humble roots, but was raised by a loving, hardworking mother who taught him that he could make his own path in the world. Driven by his faith, he knew that the principles of our divinely inspired founding documents established the United States of America as a bastion of liberty and peace. This belief ignited a sense of duty that led Russell to a life of success through service to his community, his State, and his country. He first answered the call to serve in 1965 when he joined the Arizona National Guard during the Vietnam conflict. He served honorably until 1972, and, in the interim, joined the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, being sworn in as a deputy in 1970. Law enforcement was in Russell's blood, as his ancestor, Joe Pearce, had been one of the original Arizona Rangers. Two of his own sons, Sean and Colten, have followed Russell's example, joining the MCSO and also the Gilbert Police Department, respectively. In protecting his community, Russell demonstrated unrivaled toughness, courage, and dedication to duty. In 1977, while pursuing known gang members through a Phoenix suburb, one of them turned and fired. Russell was shot through the hand and chest, losing a finger. However, though wounded, Russell raced after the criminals and arrested them before seeking medical treatment. He received the Medal of Valor for his actions, the department's highest honor. Russell's tenacity and excellence led to steady promotions, eventually reaching the level of captain. After his first stint at MCSO, Russell was elected to his public office as justice of the peace for Mesa's new north justice district in 1991. He earned a reputation of trust from Mesa's citizens and public officials. He rejoined MCSO when he was appointed MCSO's chief deputy in 1993 by America's toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Serving as chief deputy for the largest law enforcement organization in Arizona and the fourth largest in the United States was a monumental task. Russell developed not only a love of but a true talent for public policy. He crafted and successfully implemented major reforms aimed at cutting millions in taxpayer costs and reducing offender recidivism. His success as chief deputy led to his appointment as director of the Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety, where he led the Motor Vehicle Division. He created ServiceArizona.com, a first-in-the-Nation web service that made registration faster and simpler for Arizona motorists and exponentially reduced wait times and costs. Of course, Russell is best known, nationally and locally, for his work in the Arizona State Legislature. He served for 11 years representing North Mesa in the Arizona State House first, and then the Arizona Senate. While in the senate, Russell demonstrated the foresight to tackle the biggest challenges facing Arizona and its citizens. I was honored to serve with him and call him my friend and colleague. Russell authored and introduced important legislation designed to shrink government. Ultimately, he was elected senate president and worked steadfastly to advance legislation that promoted the principles and values important to Arizonans: the right to life, the sanctity of marriage, defense of our southern border, and reverence for the Constitution and God-given liberties. At times, Russell's courage to bring these issues to the front placed Arizona in front of national issues, such as the passage of S.B. 1070, which allowed, among other provisions, State and local enforcement of immigration law. That took foresight. It took immense courage to be the face of that legislation. Russell Pearce was ahead of his time. With the current overwhelming crisis at our southern border, we see that States take the brunt of the consequences when the Federal Government fails to enforce our laws and protect our citizens. Millions of Arizonans are freer, safer, and more prosperous thanks to Russell Pearce's courageous and farsighted leadership in addressing difficult public policies. Freedom-loving Americans across this great country enjoy the fruits of his efforts, thanks to their respective States modeling legislation after those crafted under Russell's leadership. His professional and political legacy is truly unmatched and is only outshone by his love of God and service to his church, his loyalty to the country he loved and, most importantly, his beautiful family that survives him: his wife, LuAnne; his 5 children and 13 grandchildren. To quote Russell himself: ``You know where my heart is. You know it is with this great Republic of ours and its freedom-loving citizens. I believe God had His hand in making America. We have the greatest document ever written by wise and virtuous men and the greatest country in the world because of freedom-loving people like you, the freedom-loving people of America. I, for one, will continue to fight to protect your freedoms from government encroachment. It is America's commitment to that freedom, personal responsibility, and moral government that makes us strong.'' Rest in peace, Russell, and God bless LuAnne and the Pearce family. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH256 | null | 5,543 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill(H.R. 159) to implement merit-based reforms to the civil service hiring system that replace degree-based hiring with skills- and competency-based hiring, and for other purposes, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. COMER | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH258-10 | null | 5,544 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH258-9 | null | 5,545 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Motions to suspend the rules and pass: H.R. 159; and H.R. 300; and Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH265-3 | null | 5,546 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 159) to implement merit-based reforms to the civil service hiring system that replace degree-based hiring with skills- and competency-based hiring, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH265-4 | null | 5,547 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 159) to implement merit-based reforms to the civil service hiring system that replace degree-based hiring with skills- and competency-based hiring, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH265-4 | null | 5,548 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 300) to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH266 | null | 5,549 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Alford). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, which the Chair will put de novo. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Alford) | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH267 | null | 5,550 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)1(l) of rule XII and Section 31(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgH278-3 | null | 5,551 |
formal | cutting taxes | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to business, in no time at all, the House Republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. Have you ever seen anything like this? We aren't even a month into the new Congress, and already the House GOP has shown the American people they have been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. On their first day of voting--the very first day--House Republicans decided their first order of business as the new majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. Amazing. That is their first thing. At the same time, as they did that, they would blow a hole--a $100 billion hole--in the deficit because according to CBO, the amount of money brought into the Federal Treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats--very wealthy tax cheats--would far exceed the expenditure made for the new IRS agents. The deficit would come down if we passed this legislation. For all the talk on the other side about we have got to bring down the deficit--not when it comes to closing loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay a smaller percentage than most Americans, uh-uh. Wow. Apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1 percent was not enough for Republicans 5 years ago. They did that in the Trump tax bill. Now they want to make things even easier for tax cheats. Then, a few days later, the House Republicans doubled down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. Make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the Senate. But again, the extreme--the extreme--MAGA fringe element of the Republican Party seems to be controlling the whole entity. We hope that doesn't last for long. We in the Senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-woman, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. So, right off the bat, the House Republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they arein: the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. Now, make no mistake, Democrats want to work with a competent and capable Republican Party wherever possible to make life better for average Americans. Democrats are united in this commitment because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. Later today, in fact, I will join President Biden, Leader Jeffries, and a number of Senate and House colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the American people. House Republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism so powerful that now they are even giving proposals like a national sales tax--a national sales tax--serious consideration. According to some House Republicans, House leadership has agreed to give GOP radicals a vote on a 30-percent national sales tax on all goods across the board. That means, right now, with inflation finally beginning to drop, Republicans are looking to make Americans pay 30 percent more for everything they buy. Look, if Republicans want to have a debate with Democrats on their national sales tax bill, we will be happy to have it. We would love to hear Republicans explain to the American people why it is a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries, to diapers, and everything in between. We would love to hear Republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they have spent a lifetime for retirement. And we would love to hear Republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. If Republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they are welcome to make their case. Make our day. I think many within the Republicans own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is an especially dimwitted idea. Even Grover Norquist, whose ideas on tax are far away from most Americans--and he is one of the most conservative voices out there--called it ``a terrible idea.'' Even Steve Forbes said this would make the average new home in this country cost $100,000 more. Young families, do you want to buy a home? Some of our Republican friends want to add $100,000 to the cost of buying that home, and of course it would raise bills by thousands more. And yet--yet--despite the insanity of this idea, the House Republican leadership is bent to the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and have promised a vote. If this is how House Republicans want to spend their time--taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats--be our guest. Once again, this is the central quandary of the new Republican majority. By bending to the demands of the MAGA hard right, Speaker McCarthy has guaranteed that Republicans will have to constantly cater to the whims of the MAGA wing at the expense of the American people. Now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and I am sure the American people are glad that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals because when extremists run the show, as seems to be happening in the House, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. No issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. Over the next few months, we are going to hear more about the debt ceiling in Congress, maybe more than any other issue. But the matter is very simple. If the United States is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single American will pay the price. A default means interest rates will spike on everything from car loans to credit cards, to mortgages. It means that Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. Homes will lose their value. Homes, the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggled and saved for so that they could own a home and so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage where they get equity--those homes will lose their value if we default, God forbid, on the debt because mortgage interest rates will soar. That means people will have less money to pay for a home and supply and demand just sits. The price goes down. The value goes down. Meanwhile, the millions of Americans who have saved for retirement will see their retirement plans, like 401(k)s, lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. So the dangers of default are not abstract. Oh, no, this is not some academic argument up there in the clouds. This affects every American family, and we are going to make sure that they hear all about it. The consequences are as real as they get, and the entire world is watching what we do here in Congress. But, rather than work with Democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the House GOP has immediately resorted to brinksmanship and hostage-taking. They say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give in to their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every American--again, in a very bad way. Well, I say to my Republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation--an obligation--to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about. Are Republicans going to hold Social Security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling or pay raises for our troops or support for veterans or funding for police and fire and first responders or Medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? Republicans, you owe the American people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. Remember, the House rules that the GOP approved are clear. They need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, let the entirety of the House debate it and vote on it, and let the American people see and assess the cuts for themselves. So, once again, to my House GOP colleagues, if you are serious about spending cuts, show us the math. Show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda, because, inevitably, what you are saying are cuts are vital to so many Americans--so many Americans. Being in the majority means that it won't be enough to hide behind time-worn rhetoric about wasteful spending. When it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts; the details count; and the consequences are very, very real. Unless the Republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, I fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk of default and risk the great harm it will do to the American people. And, should that happen, Americans will see that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the radical GOP. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS61-8 | null | 5,552 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to business, in no time at all, the House Republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. Have you ever seen anything like this? We aren't even a month into the new Congress, and already the House GOP has shown the American people they have been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. On their first day of voting--the very first day--House Republicans decided their first order of business as the new majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. Amazing. That is their first thing. At the same time, as they did that, they would blow a hole--a $100 billion hole--in the deficit because according to CBO, the amount of money brought into the Federal Treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats--very wealthy tax cheats--would far exceed the expenditure made for the new IRS agents. The deficit would come down if we passed this legislation. For all the talk on the other side about we have got to bring down the deficit--not when it comes to closing loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay a smaller percentage than most Americans, uh-uh. Wow. Apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1 percent was not enough for Republicans 5 years ago. They did that in the Trump tax bill. Now they want to make things even easier for tax cheats. Then, a few days later, the House Republicans doubled down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. Make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the Senate. But again, the extreme--the extreme--MAGA fringe element of the Republican Party seems to be controlling the whole entity. We hope that doesn't last for long. We in the Senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-woman, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. So, right off the bat, the House Republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they arein: the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. Now, make no mistake, Democrats want to work with a competent and capable Republican Party wherever possible to make life better for average Americans. Democrats are united in this commitment because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. Later today, in fact, I will join President Biden, Leader Jeffries, and a number of Senate and House colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the American people. House Republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism so powerful that now they are even giving proposals like a national sales tax--a national sales tax--serious consideration. According to some House Republicans, House leadership has agreed to give GOP radicals a vote on a 30-percent national sales tax on all goods across the board. That means, right now, with inflation finally beginning to drop, Republicans are looking to make Americans pay 30 percent more for everything they buy. Look, if Republicans want to have a debate with Democrats on their national sales tax bill, we will be happy to have it. We would love to hear Republicans explain to the American people why it is a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries, to diapers, and everything in between. We would love to hear Republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they have spent a lifetime for retirement. And we would love to hear Republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. If Republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they are welcome to make their case. Make our day. I think many within the Republicans own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is an especially dimwitted idea. Even Grover Norquist, whose ideas on tax are far away from most Americans--and he is one of the most conservative voices out there--called it ``a terrible idea.'' Even Steve Forbes said this would make the average new home in this country cost $100,000 more. Young families, do you want to buy a home? Some of our Republican friends want to add $100,000 to the cost of buying that home, and of course it would raise bills by thousands more. And yet--yet--despite the insanity of this idea, the House Republican leadership is bent to the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and have promised a vote. If this is how House Republicans want to spend their time--taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats--be our guest. Once again, this is the central quandary of the new Republican majority. By bending to the demands of the MAGA hard right, Speaker McCarthy has guaranteed that Republicans will have to constantly cater to the whims of the MAGA wing at the expense of the American people. Now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and I am sure the American people are glad that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals because when extremists run the show, as seems to be happening in the House, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. No issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. Over the next few months, we are going to hear more about the debt ceiling in Congress, maybe more than any other issue. But the matter is very simple. If the United States is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single American will pay the price. A default means interest rates will spike on everything from car loans to credit cards, to mortgages. It means that Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. Homes will lose their value. Homes, the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggled and saved for so that they could own a home and so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage where they get equity--those homes will lose their value if we default, God forbid, on the debt because mortgage interest rates will soar. That means people will have less money to pay for a home and supply and demand just sits. The price goes down. The value goes down. Meanwhile, the millions of Americans who have saved for retirement will see their retirement plans, like 401(k)s, lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. So the dangers of default are not abstract. Oh, no, this is not some academic argument up there in the clouds. This affects every American family, and we are going to make sure that they hear all about it. The consequences are as real as they get, and the entire world is watching what we do here in Congress. But, rather than work with Democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the House GOP has immediately resorted to brinksmanship and hostage-taking. They say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give in to their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every American--again, in a very bad way. Well, I say to my Republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation--an obligation--to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about. Are Republicans going to hold Social Security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling or pay raises for our troops or support for veterans or funding for police and fire and first responders or Medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? Republicans, you owe the American people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. Remember, the House rules that the GOP approved are clear. They need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, let the entirety of the House debate it and vote on it, and let the American people see and assess the cuts for themselves. So, once again, to my House GOP colleagues, if you are serious about spending cuts, show us the math. Show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda, because, inevitably, what you are saying are cuts are vital to so many Americans--so many Americans. Being in the majority means that it won't be enough to hide behind time-worn rhetoric about wasteful spending. When it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts; the details count; and the consequences are very, very real. Unless the Republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, I fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk of default and risk the great harm it will do to the American people. And, should that happen, Americans will see that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the radical GOP. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS61-8 | null | 5,553 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to business, in no time at all, the House Republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. Have you ever seen anything like this? We aren't even a month into the new Congress, and already the House GOP has shown the American people they have been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. On their first day of voting--the very first day--House Republicans decided their first order of business as the new majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. Amazing. That is their first thing. At the same time, as they did that, they would blow a hole--a $100 billion hole--in the deficit because according to CBO, the amount of money brought into the Federal Treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats--very wealthy tax cheats--would far exceed the expenditure made for the new IRS agents. The deficit would come down if we passed this legislation. For all the talk on the other side about we have got to bring down the deficit--not when it comes to closing loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay a smaller percentage than most Americans, uh-uh. Wow. Apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1 percent was not enough for Republicans 5 years ago. They did that in the Trump tax bill. Now they want to make things even easier for tax cheats. Then, a few days later, the House Republicans doubled down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. Make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the Senate. But again, the extreme--the extreme--MAGA fringe element of the Republican Party seems to be controlling the whole entity. We hope that doesn't last for long. We in the Senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-woman, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. So, right off the bat, the House Republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they arein: the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. Now, make no mistake, Democrats want to work with a competent and capable Republican Party wherever possible to make life better for average Americans. Democrats are united in this commitment because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. Later today, in fact, I will join President Biden, Leader Jeffries, and a number of Senate and House colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the American people. House Republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism so powerful that now they are even giving proposals like a national sales tax--a national sales tax--serious consideration. According to some House Republicans, House leadership has agreed to give GOP radicals a vote on a 30-percent national sales tax on all goods across the board. That means, right now, with inflation finally beginning to drop, Republicans are looking to make Americans pay 30 percent more for everything they buy. Look, if Republicans want to have a debate with Democrats on their national sales tax bill, we will be happy to have it. We would love to hear Republicans explain to the American people why it is a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries, to diapers, and everything in between. We would love to hear Republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they have spent a lifetime for retirement. And we would love to hear Republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. If Republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they are welcome to make their case. Make our day. I think many within the Republicans own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is an especially dimwitted idea. Even Grover Norquist, whose ideas on tax are far away from most Americans--and he is one of the most conservative voices out there--called it ``a terrible idea.'' Even Steve Forbes said this would make the average new home in this country cost $100,000 more. Young families, do you want to buy a home? Some of our Republican friends want to add $100,000 to the cost of buying that home, and of course it would raise bills by thousands more. And yet--yet--despite the insanity of this idea, the House Republican leadership is bent to the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and have promised a vote. If this is how House Republicans want to spend their time--taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats--be our guest. Once again, this is the central quandary of the new Republican majority. By bending to the demands of the MAGA hard right, Speaker McCarthy has guaranteed that Republicans will have to constantly cater to the whims of the MAGA wing at the expense of the American people. Now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and I am sure the American people are glad that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals because when extremists run the show, as seems to be happening in the House, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. No issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. Over the next few months, we are going to hear more about the debt ceiling in Congress, maybe more than any other issue. But the matter is very simple. If the United States is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single American will pay the price. A default means interest rates will spike on everything from car loans to credit cards, to mortgages. It means that Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. Homes will lose their value. Homes, the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggled and saved for so that they could own a home and so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage where they get equity--those homes will lose their value if we default, God forbid, on the debt because mortgage interest rates will soar. That means people will have less money to pay for a home and supply and demand just sits. The price goes down. The value goes down. Meanwhile, the millions of Americans who have saved for retirement will see their retirement plans, like 401(k)s, lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. So the dangers of default are not abstract. Oh, no, this is not some academic argument up there in the clouds. This affects every American family, and we are going to make sure that they hear all about it. The consequences are as real as they get, and the entire world is watching what we do here in Congress. But, rather than work with Democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the House GOP has immediately resorted to brinksmanship and hostage-taking. They say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give in to their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every American--again, in a very bad way. Well, I say to my Republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation--an obligation--to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about. Are Republicans going to hold Social Security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling or pay raises for our troops or support for veterans or funding for police and fire and first responders or Medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? Republicans, you owe the American people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. Remember, the House rules that the GOP approved are clear. They need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, let the entirety of the House debate it and vote on it, and let the American people see and assess the cuts for themselves. So, once again, to my House GOP colleagues, if you are serious about spending cuts, show us the math. Show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda, because, inevitably, what you are saying are cuts are vital to so many Americans--so many Americans. Being in the majority means that it won't be enough to hide behind time-worn rhetoric about wasteful spending. When it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts; the details count; and the consequences are very, very real. Unless the Republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, I fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk of default and risk the great harm it will do to the American people. And, should that happen, Americans will see that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the radical GOP. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS61-8 | null | 5,554 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to business, in no time at all, the House Republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. Have you ever seen anything like this? We aren't even a month into the new Congress, and already the House GOP has shown the American people they have been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. On their first day of voting--the very first day--House Republicans decided their first order of business as the new majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. Amazing. That is their first thing. At the same time, as they did that, they would blow a hole--a $100 billion hole--in the deficit because according to CBO, the amount of money brought into the Federal Treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats--very wealthy tax cheats--would far exceed the expenditure made for the new IRS agents. The deficit would come down if we passed this legislation. For all the talk on the other side about we have got to bring down the deficit--not when it comes to closing loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay a smaller percentage than most Americans, uh-uh. Wow. Apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1 percent was not enough for Republicans 5 years ago. They did that in the Trump tax bill. Now they want to make things even easier for tax cheats. Then, a few days later, the House Republicans doubled down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. Make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the Senate. But again, the extreme--the extreme--MAGA fringe element of the Republican Party seems to be controlling the whole entity. We hope that doesn't last for long. We in the Senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-woman, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. So, right off the bat, the House Republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they arein: the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. Now, make no mistake, Democrats want to work with a competent and capable Republican Party wherever possible to make life better for average Americans. Democrats are united in this commitment because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. Later today, in fact, I will join President Biden, Leader Jeffries, and a number of Senate and House colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the American people. House Republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism so powerful that now they are even giving proposals like a national sales tax--a national sales tax--serious consideration. According to some House Republicans, House leadership has agreed to give GOP radicals a vote on a 30-percent national sales tax on all goods across the board. That means, right now, with inflation finally beginning to drop, Republicans are looking to make Americans pay 30 percent more for everything they buy. Look, if Republicans want to have a debate with Democrats on their national sales tax bill, we will be happy to have it. We would love to hear Republicans explain to the American people why it is a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries, to diapers, and everything in between. We would love to hear Republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they have spent a lifetime for retirement. And we would love to hear Republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. If Republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they are welcome to make their case. Make our day. I think many within the Republicans own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is an especially dimwitted idea. Even Grover Norquist, whose ideas on tax are far away from most Americans--and he is one of the most conservative voices out there--called it ``a terrible idea.'' Even Steve Forbes said this would make the average new home in this country cost $100,000 more. Young families, do you want to buy a home? Some of our Republican friends want to add $100,000 to the cost of buying that home, and of course it would raise bills by thousands more. And yet--yet--despite the insanity of this idea, the House Republican leadership is bent to the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and have promised a vote. If this is how House Republicans want to spend their time--taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats--be our guest. Once again, this is the central quandary of the new Republican majority. By bending to the demands of the MAGA hard right, Speaker McCarthy has guaranteed that Republicans will have to constantly cater to the whims of the MAGA wing at the expense of the American people. Now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and I am sure the American people are glad that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals because when extremists run the show, as seems to be happening in the House, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. No issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. Over the next few months, we are going to hear more about the debt ceiling in Congress, maybe more than any other issue. But the matter is very simple. If the United States is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single American will pay the price. A default means interest rates will spike on everything from car loans to credit cards, to mortgages. It means that Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. Homes will lose their value. Homes, the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggled and saved for so that they could own a home and so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage where they get equity--those homes will lose their value if we default, God forbid, on the debt because mortgage interest rates will soar. That means people will have less money to pay for a home and supply and demand just sits. The price goes down. The value goes down. Meanwhile, the millions of Americans who have saved for retirement will see their retirement plans, like 401(k)s, lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. So the dangers of default are not abstract. Oh, no, this is not some academic argument up there in the clouds. This affects every American family, and we are going to make sure that they hear all about it. The consequences are as real as they get, and the entire world is watching what we do here in Congress. But, rather than work with Democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the House GOP has immediately resorted to brinksmanship and hostage-taking. They say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give in to their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every American--again, in a very bad way. Well, I say to my Republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation--an obligation--to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about. Are Republicans going to hold Social Security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling or pay raises for our troops or support for veterans or funding for police and fire and first responders or Medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? Republicans, you owe the American people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. Remember, the House rules that the GOP approved are clear. They need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, let the entirety of the House debate it and vote on it, and let the American people see and assess the cuts for themselves. So, once again, to my House GOP colleagues, if you are serious about spending cuts, show us the math. Show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda, because, inevitably, what you are saying are cuts are vital to so many Americans--so many Americans. Being in the majority means that it won't be enough to hide behind time-worn rhetoric about wasteful spending. When it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts; the details count; and the consequences are very, very real. Unless the Republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, I fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk of default and risk the great harm it will do to the American people. And, should that happen, Americans will see that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the radical GOP. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS61-8 | null | 5,555 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to business, in no time at all, the House Republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. Have you ever seen anything like this? We aren't even a month into the new Congress, and already the House GOP has shown the American people they have been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. On their first day of voting--the very first day--House Republicans decided their first order of business as the new majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. Amazing. That is their first thing. At the same time, as they did that, they would blow a hole--a $100 billion hole--in the deficit because according to CBO, the amount of money brought into the Federal Treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats--very wealthy tax cheats--would far exceed the expenditure made for the new IRS agents. The deficit would come down if we passed this legislation. For all the talk on the other side about we have got to bring down the deficit--not when it comes to closing loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay a smaller percentage than most Americans, uh-uh. Wow. Apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1 percent was not enough for Republicans 5 years ago. They did that in the Trump tax bill. Now they want to make things even easier for tax cheats. Then, a few days later, the House Republicans doubled down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. Make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the Senate. But again, the extreme--the extreme--MAGA fringe element of the Republican Party seems to be controlling the whole entity. We hope that doesn't last for long. We in the Senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-woman, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. So, right off the bat, the House Republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they arein: the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. Now, make no mistake, Democrats want to work with a competent and capable Republican Party wherever possible to make life better for average Americans. Democrats are united in this commitment because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. Later today, in fact, I will join President Biden, Leader Jeffries, and a number of Senate and House colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the American people. House Republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism so powerful that now they are even giving proposals like a national sales tax--a national sales tax--serious consideration. According to some House Republicans, House leadership has agreed to give GOP radicals a vote on a 30-percent national sales tax on all goods across the board. That means, right now, with inflation finally beginning to drop, Republicans are looking to make Americans pay 30 percent more for everything they buy. Look, if Republicans want to have a debate with Democrats on their national sales tax bill, we will be happy to have it. We would love to hear Republicans explain to the American people why it is a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries, to diapers, and everything in between. We would love to hear Republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they have spent a lifetime for retirement. And we would love to hear Republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. If Republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they are welcome to make their case. Make our day. I think many within the Republicans own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is an especially dimwitted idea. Even Grover Norquist, whose ideas on tax are far away from most Americans--and he is one of the most conservative voices out there--called it ``a terrible idea.'' Even Steve Forbes said this would make the average new home in this country cost $100,000 more. Young families, do you want to buy a home? Some of our Republican friends want to add $100,000 to the cost of buying that home, and of course it would raise bills by thousands more. And yet--yet--despite the insanity of this idea, the House Republican leadership is bent to the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and have promised a vote. If this is how House Republicans want to spend their time--taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats--be our guest. Once again, this is the central quandary of the new Republican majority. By bending to the demands of the MAGA hard right, Speaker McCarthy has guaranteed that Republicans will have to constantly cater to the whims of the MAGA wing at the expense of the American people. Now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and I am sure the American people are glad that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals because when extremists run the show, as seems to be happening in the House, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. No issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. Over the next few months, we are going to hear more about the debt ceiling in Congress, maybe more than any other issue. But the matter is very simple. If the United States is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single American will pay the price. A default means interest rates will spike on everything from car loans to credit cards, to mortgages. It means that Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. Homes will lose their value. Homes, the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggled and saved for so that they could own a home and so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage where they get equity--those homes will lose their value if we default, God forbid, on the debt because mortgage interest rates will soar. That means people will have less money to pay for a home and supply and demand just sits. The price goes down. The value goes down. Meanwhile, the millions of Americans who have saved for retirement will see their retirement plans, like 401(k)s, lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. So the dangers of default are not abstract. Oh, no, this is not some academic argument up there in the clouds. This affects every American family, and we are going to make sure that they hear all about it. The consequences are as real as they get, and the entire world is watching what we do here in Congress. But, rather than work with Democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the House GOP has immediately resorted to brinksmanship and hostage-taking. They say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give in to their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every American--again, in a very bad way. Well, I say to my Republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation--an obligation--to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about. Are Republicans going to hold Social Security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling or pay raises for our troops or support for veterans or funding for police and fire and first responders or Medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? Republicans, you owe the American people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. Remember, the House rules that the GOP approved are clear. They need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, let the entirety of the House debate it and vote on it, and let the American people see and assess the cuts for themselves. So, once again, to my House GOP colleagues, if you are serious about spending cuts, show us the math. Show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda, because, inevitably, what you are saying are cuts are vital to so many Americans--so many Americans. Being in the majority means that it won't be enough to hide behind time-worn rhetoric about wasteful spending. When it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts; the details count; and the consequences are very, very real. Unless the Republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, I fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk of default and risk the great harm it will do to the American people. And, should that happen, Americans will see that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the radical GOP. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS61-8 | null | 5,556 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to business, in no time at all, the House Republicans are off to the rockiest start of any new majority in recent memory. Have you ever seen anything like this? We aren't even a month into the new Congress, and already the House GOP has shown the American people they have been consumed by chaos, paralyzed by division, and held captive by the most extreme elements of their conference. On their first day of voting--the very first day--House Republicans decided their first order of business as the new majority was to pass legislation making it easier for ultrarich tax cheats to escape accountability. Amazing. That is their first thing. At the same time, as they did that, they would blow a hole--a $100 billion hole--in the deficit because according to CBO, the amount of money brought into the Federal Treasury by closing some of these loopholes against tax cheats--very wealthy tax cheats--would far exceed the expenditure made for the new IRS agents. The deficit would come down if we passed this legislation. For all the talk on the other side about we have got to bring down the deficit--not when it comes to closing loopholes of the ultrarich and corporations that pay a smaller percentage than most Americans, uh-uh. Wow. Apparently, cutting taxes for megacorporations and the 1 percent was not enough for Republicans 5 years ago. They did that in the Trump tax bill. Now they want to make things even easier for tax cheats. Then, a few days later, the House Republicans doubled down on their war on women by passing measures that will undermine women's freedom of choice. Make no mistake, these bills will never see the light of day in the Senate. But again, the extreme--the extreme--MAGA fringe element of the Republican Party seems to be controlling the whole entity. We hope that doesn't last for long. We in the Senate will serve as an inextinguishable firewall and stop the anti-woman, anti-health, anti-choice bills in their tracks. So, right off the bat, the House Republicans are showing us exactly whose corner they arein: the ultrarich and the fringe elements of their party. Now, make no mistake, Democrats want to work with a competent and capable Republican Party wherever possible to make life better for average Americans. Democrats are united in this commitment because we all saw firsthand how bipartisanship was the key to so many of last year's successes. Later today, in fact, I will join President Biden, Leader Jeffries, and a number of Senate and House colleagues precisely to talk about how we can turn our unity into action to help the American people. House Republicans, meanwhile, seem trapped in a cycle of extremism so powerful that now they are even giving proposals like a national sales tax--a national sales tax--serious consideration. According to some House Republicans, House leadership has agreed to give GOP radicals a vote on a 30-percent national sales tax on all goods across the board. That means, right now, with inflation finally beginning to drop, Republicans are looking to make Americans pay 30 percent more for everything they buy. Look, if Republicans want to have a debate with Democrats on their national sales tax bill, we will be happy to have it. We would love to hear Republicans explain to the American people why it is a good idea to send prices skyrocketing on everything from cars to groceries, to diapers, and everything in between. We would love to hear Republicans tell seniors why their expenses would go up by a third after they have spent a lifetime for retirement. And we would love to hear Republicans explain to middle-class families why their taxes would increase by thousands of dollars a year while the ultrarich see their taxes go down. If Republicans want to push this terrible proposal, they are welcome to make their case. Make our day. I think many within the Republicans own ranks recognize that a national sales tax is an especially dimwitted idea. Even Grover Norquist, whose ideas on tax are far away from most Americans--and he is one of the most conservative voices out there--called it ``a terrible idea.'' Even Steve Forbes said this would make the average new home in this country cost $100,000 more. Young families, do you want to buy a home? Some of our Republican friends want to add $100,000 to the cost of buying that home, and of course it would raise bills by thousands more. And yet--yet--despite the insanity of this idea, the House Republican leadership is bent to the MAGA wing of the Republican Party and have promised a vote. If this is how House Republicans want to spend their time--taxing middle-class families, attacking women's freedom of choice, giving cover to tax cheats--be our guest. Once again, this is the central quandary of the new Republican majority. By bending to the demands of the MAGA hard right, Speaker McCarthy has guaranteed that Republicans will have to constantly cater to the whims of the MAGA wing at the expense of the American people. Now, we will be a firewall against all of these things, and I am sure the American people are glad that we have a Democratic majority in the Senate to stop some of these rather insane proposals because when extremists run the show, as seems to be happening in the House, it makes it nearly impossible to have serious-minded, constructive conversations on the big issues that matter. No issue, of course, will matter more in the coming months than raising the debt ceiling. Over the next few months, we are going to hear more about the debt ceiling in Congress, maybe more than any other issue. But the matter is very simple. If the United States is allowed to default on its debt for the first time, the consequences will be severe and every single American will pay the price. A default means interest rates will spike on everything from car loans to credit cards, to mortgages. It means that Americans will have to pay thousands of dollars more on regular expenses. Homes will lose their value. Homes, the average middle-class person's piece of the rock that they struggled and saved for so that they could own a home and so they don't have to pay rent and can pay a mortgage where they get equity--those homes will lose their value if we default, God forbid, on the debt because mortgage interest rates will soar. That means people will have less money to pay for a home and supply and demand just sits. The price goes down. The value goes down. Meanwhile, the millions of Americans who have saved for retirement will see their retirement plans, like 401(k)s, lose their value, robbing retirees of their hard-earned livelihoods. So the dangers of default are not abstract. Oh, no, this is not some academic argument up there in the clouds. This affects every American family, and we are going to make sure that they hear all about it. The consequences are as real as they get, and the entire world is watching what we do here in Congress. But, rather than work with Democrats in a productive, constructive way to raise the debt ceiling, the House GOP has immediately resorted to brinksmanship and hostage-taking. They say they will not raise the debt ceiling unless we give in to their demands for draconian spending cuts that would impact just about every American--again, in a very bad way. Well, I say to my Republican colleagues, if you want to talk about deep cuts, then you have an obligation--an obligation--to show the American people precisely what kind of cuts you are talking about. Are Republicans going to hold Social Security hostage in exchange for the debt ceiling or pay raises for our troops or support for veterans or funding for police and fire and first responders or Medicare funding that millions of seniors rely on? Republicans, you owe the American people answers on what you mean by spending cuts. Remember, the House rules that the GOP approved are clear. They need to bring a debt ceiling bill to the floor, let the entirety of the House debate it and vote on it, and let the American people see and assess the cuts for themselves. So, once again, to my House GOP colleagues, if you are serious about spending cuts, show us the math. Show us why you think it is worth risking a global financial crisis just to pass an extremist agenda, because, inevitably, what you are saying are cuts are vital to so many Americans--so many Americans. Being in the majority means that it won't be enough to hide behind time-worn rhetoric about wasteful spending. When it comes to the debt ceiling, the substance counts; the details count; and the consequences are very, very real. Unless the Republicans can resolve their own chaos and beat back their own extremism, I fear that every day that passes without action on the debt ceiling will increase the risk of default and risk the great harm it will do to the American people. And, should that happen, Americans will see that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the radical GOP. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS61-8 | null | 5,557 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Biden administration has spent 2 years turning its back on the proven tools and policies that Republicans used to strengthen our southern border--2 years of a functionally open borders policy from Washington Democrats and 2 years of chaos and suffering as a result. Last week, Customs and Border Protection announced that an already recordbreaking year ended on a particularly catastrophic note. Illegal immigration apprehensions clocked an alltime high of more than 2.7 million during the last fiscal year--by far the highest annual total ever recorded. But then December set an astonishingrecord all by itself at over 250,000 apprehensions. Last month was CBP's busiest month ever recorded. The American people are outraged at this willful failure. They rate immigration and the border as one of the single biggest problems facing our country, second only to the economy. Two-thirds--two-thirds--of the country disapprove of President Biden's handling of immigration and the border. That is a 67-percent supermajority of Americans who believe this administration is failing on border security. Our Democratic friends tie themselves in knots making excuses for why they can't simply do their job, enforce Federal law, and secure our border. Their far-left base makes them pretend that we can't enforce the laws on the books unless--unless--we find new ways to be even more generous to people who come here illegally. It is nonsensical. Even local officials who belong to the Democratic Party are rapidly losing patience with the Biden administration's border incompetence. The Democratic mayor of New York, Eric Adams, has spent months sounding the alarm on the catastrophic effects of this administration's functionally open borders. He said: This is a national crisis. He said: There is no more room in New York. Yet the far left attacks him, the mayor of New York, for pointing out the problem. The Democratic Governor of Colorado is taking a cue from Governor Abbott and Governor DeSantis and arranging transportation for illegal immigrants to various liberal jurisdictions that have self-identified as so-called sanctuary cities. There is a growing bipartisan chorus that is begging--begging--President Biden to do his job and secure our Nation. It doesn't take new laws. It doesn't take some new, grand bargain or amnesty. The administration just needs to do its job: Secure the border, and let law enforcement enforce our laws. The Biden administration has all the tools and authorities it needs to tackle this crisis--if a solution were actually what they were after. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS62-2 | null | 5,558 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Friday, as they have done for decades, Americans from around the country--many of them young people--took to the streets of Washington, DC, to march for life. This year, of course, was a little different because for the first time since the march began nearly 50 years ago, pro-lifers marched in a post-Roe America. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and recognized that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, that our founding document does not confer a right to deprive one group of citizens of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are small and defenseless. The Supreme Court's decision marked the righting of a constitutional wrong, and it opened up the chance to right a great moral wrong: the legalized killing of unborn Americans. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade does not, of course, make abortion illegal, but it does allow State governments and the Federal Government to finally begin to establish meaningful protections for unborn children. The Dobbs decision marked a major victory for the pro-life movement and for the babies whose lives are in jeopardy from abortion, but the Dobbs decision does not mark an end to the pro-life movement or the March for Life but a new beginning. The legal fight turns from the courts to Congress and State legislatures--in other words, to the democratic process, where this issue belongs and has always belonged--and the work to change hearts and minds to support moms and babies continues. The Dobbs decision may have opened the door to meaningful legal protections for unborn Americans, but abortion extremists, who unfortunately count the majority of the Democratic Party among their ranks, are doing everything they can to stand in the wayof these protections. To give just one example of how far the abortion-on-demand caucus has taken things, 2 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortions and are born alive are guaranteed medical care. Almost every single Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the legislation. That is 210 men and women who apparently think that living babies who have already been born--already been born--can legitimately be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is a horrifying position. There is much work to be done to get to a day when a country that is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of life and liberty actually guarantees the right to life of all Americans, including the most vulnerable and most innocent Americans--our unborn children. So the March for Life today is more important than ever. The march, of course, is just one small facet of the pro-life movement, which works every day in every State around the country to help provide help and hope to moms in need, but it is nevertheless a vitally important facet because the March for Life provides a public witness to the humanity of the unborn child and to the great injustice that is happening behind closed doors. Abortion happens away from public view, so it can be all too easy to forget that every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, reported that there were more than 900,000 abortions in 2020--900,000. To put that number in perspective, 900,000 is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the State of South Dakota--the entire population of South Dakota. That is a lot of lives lost, a lot of love lost. Our society is a poorer place without those babies, and the March for Life reminds us of that. It reminds us that every day, thousands of babies lose their lives to abortion. It reminds us of our responsibility to confront this injustice and to work for a day when every child enjoys the right to life and the full protection of the laws. I am profoundly grateful for all those who spent last Friday marching for life, and for all the men and women and young people in the pro-life movement who work every day around this country to help mothers and their babies and secure legal protections for unborn Americans. I know there are many days when it feels like an uphill battle, but you are all on the right side of history. And I am confident that in the end, life will prevail. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of my Father. And, again: Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. There is no greater work than standing up for these defenseless little ones. I pray that God will bless the efforts of all those marching for life and one day soon, every child, born and unborn, will enjoy the full protection of our laws. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS63-2 | null | 5,559 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Friday, as they have done for decades, Americans from around the country--many of them young people--took to the streets of Washington, DC, to march for life. This year, of course, was a little different because for the first time since the march began nearly 50 years ago, pro-lifers marched in a post-Roe America. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and recognized that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, that our founding document does not confer a right to deprive one group of citizens of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are small and defenseless. The Supreme Court's decision marked the righting of a constitutional wrong, and it opened up the chance to right a great moral wrong: the legalized killing of unborn Americans. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade does not, of course, make abortion illegal, but it does allow State governments and the Federal Government to finally begin to establish meaningful protections for unborn children. The Dobbs decision marked a major victory for the pro-life movement and for the babies whose lives are in jeopardy from abortion, but the Dobbs decision does not mark an end to the pro-life movement or the March for Life but a new beginning. The legal fight turns from the courts to Congress and State legislatures--in other words, to the democratic process, where this issue belongs and has always belonged--and the work to change hearts and minds to support moms and babies continues. The Dobbs decision may have opened the door to meaningful legal protections for unborn Americans, but abortion extremists, who unfortunately count the majority of the Democratic Party among their ranks, are doing everything they can to stand in the wayof these protections. To give just one example of how far the abortion-on-demand caucus has taken things, 2 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortions and are born alive are guaranteed medical care. Almost every single Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the legislation. That is 210 men and women who apparently think that living babies who have already been born--already been born--can legitimately be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is a horrifying position. There is much work to be done to get to a day when a country that is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of life and liberty actually guarantees the right to life of all Americans, including the most vulnerable and most innocent Americans--our unborn children. So the March for Life today is more important than ever. The march, of course, is just one small facet of the pro-life movement, which works every day in every State around the country to help provide help and hope to moms in need, but it is nevertheless a vitally important facet because the March for Life provides a public witness to the humanity of the unborn child and to the great injustice that is happening behind closed doors. Abortion happens away from public view, so it can be all too easy to forget that every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, reported that there were more than 900,000 abortions in 2020--900,000. To put that number in perspective, 900,000 is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the State of South Dakota--the entire population of South Dakota. That is a lot of lives lost, a lot of love lost. Our society is a poorer place without those babies, and the March for Life reminds us of that. It reminds us that every day, thousands of babies lose their lives to abortion. It reminds us of our responsibility to confront this injustice and to work for a day when every child enjoys the right to life and the full protection of the laws. I am profoundly grateful for all those who spent last Friday marching for life, and for all the men and women and young people in the pro-life movement who work every day around this country to help mothers and their babies and secure legal protections for unborn Americans. I know there are many days when it feels like an uphill battle, but you are all on the right side of history. And I am confident that in the end, life will prevail. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of my Father. And, again: Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. There is no greater work than standing up for these defenseless little ones. I pray that God will bless the efforts of all those marching for life and one day soon, every child, born and unborn, will enjoy the full protection of our laws. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS63-2 | null | 5,560 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Friday, as they have done for decades, Americans from around the country--many of them young people--took to the streets of Washington, DC, to march for life. This year, of course, was a little different because for the first time since the march began nearly 50 years ago, pro-lifers marched in a post-Roe America. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and recognized that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, that our founding document does not confer a right to deprive one group of citizens of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are small and defenseless. The Supreme Court's decision marked the righting of a constitutional wrong, and it opened up the chance to right a great moral wrong: the legalized killing of unborn Americans. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade does not, of course, make abortion illegal, but it does allow State governments and the Federal Government to finally begin to establish meaningful protections for unborn children. The Dobbs decision marked a major victory for the pro-life movement and for the babies whose lives are in jeopardy from abortion, but the Dobbs decision does not mark an end to the pro-life movement or the March for Life but a new beginning. The legal fight turns from the courts to Congress and State legislatures--in other words, to the democratic process, where this issue belongs and has always belonged--and the work to change hearts and minds to support moms and babies continues. The Dobbs decision may have opened the door to meaningful legal protections for unborn Americans, but abortion extremists, who unfortunately count the majority of the Democratic Party among their ranks, are doing everything they can to stand in the wayof these protections. To give just one example of how far the abortion-on-demand caucus has taken things, 2 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortions and are born alive are guaranteed medical care. Almost every single Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the legislation. That is 210 men and women who apparently think that living babies who have already been born--already been born--can legitimately be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is a horrifying position. There is much work to be done to get to a day when a country that is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of life and liberty actually guarantees the right to life of all Americans, including the most vulnerable and most innocent Americans--our unborn children. So the March for Life today is more important than ever. The march, of course, is just one small facet of the pro-life movement, which works every day in every State around the country to help provide help and hope to moms in need, but it is nevertheless a vitally important facet because the March for Life provides a public witness to the humanity of the unborn child and to the great injustice that is happening behind closed doors. Abortion happens away from public view, so it can be all too easy to forget that every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, reported that there were more than 900,000 abortions in 2020--900,000. To put that number in perspective, 900,000 is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the State of South Dakota--the entire population of South Dakota. That is a lot of lives lost, a lot of love lost. Our society is a poorer place without those babies, and the March for Life reminds us of that. It reminds us that every day, thousands of babies lose their lives to abortion. It reminds us of our responsibility to confront this injustice and to work for a day when every child enjoys the right to life and the full protection of the laws. I am profoundly grateful for all those who spent last Friday marching for life, and for all the men and women and young people in the pro-life movement who work every day around this country to help mothers and their babies and secure legal protections for unborn Americans. I know there are many days when it feels like an uphill battle, but you are all on the right side of history. And I am confident that in the end, life will prevail. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of my Father. And, again: Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. There is no greater work than standing up for these defenseless little ones. I pray that God will bless the efforts of all those marching for life and one day soon, every child, born and unborn, will enjoy the full protection of our laws. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS63-2 | null | 5,561 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. The Senate finds itself in familiar territory. The United States narrowly avoided hitting the debt ceiling over a year ago, but now we are staring down the barrel of another debt crisis. The United States hit the debt limit last Thursday, according to the Secretary of Treasury, and now the Treasury is using what they refer to, euphemistically, as ``extraordinary measures'' in order to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts. Unless the Congress takes action in the coming months, the American economy will be confronted with an unprecedented crisis. But here is what I find strange: Despite the fact that we are hurtling toward this disaster, the White House seems completely disinterested in finding a solution. President Biden has drawn a redline. He said: We are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. In other words, he expects Congress to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached and let this reckless runaway spending and outrageous debt continue to rise. Now, I don't want to disparage drunken sailors, but it seems to me that that is the model for how the White House is responding. It is as if you or I were spending beyond our means on our credit card, and then the issuer of the credit card said: You know, you are going to have to pay the money back at some point. And you say: To heck with that. I want you to raise my credit limit even higher, without any demonstrated means or plan to actually pay the money back. We know what would happen for you and me is the issuer of the credit card would cancel our credit card, as well it should, if we responded the way that the White House is responding. So apparently what the administration plans to continue to do is continue this spending bender. It can't cover the current bills--now it is roughly $30 trillion--and it expects somebody, anybody, maybe nobody, to pay the money back and to deal with this ever-growing national debt. We know this is an even bigger problem in inflationary times because the more money the Federal Government continues to spend, it is like throwing gasoline on inflation, and consumers have already experienced sky-high prices--some of the highest prices in 40 years--on everything from gasoline to food, to housing, and to the essentials of life. So why in the world does it make sense for the administration to say: We are not even going to talk; we are not even going to negotiate with the House when it comes to the debt ceiling. We are just going to keep spending as much money as we can, racking up more and more debt. I know that President Biden has children and grandchildren. Is he concerned for their welfare? We are writing checks that we are not going to have to pay back, Mr. President. You and I are at the age where this bird is not going to come home to roost in our lifetime, but it will in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, including those of President Biden. So how responsible--or I should say how irresponsible--is it for the President to say: We are just going to keep on keeping on, and we are not even going to talk about what we need to do to deal with this mounting debt. We are not even going to entertain any reasonable ideas or suggestions about how we dig our way out of this hole. Well, the American people witnessed our Democratic colleagues' wasteful spending over the last 2 years and chose a new direction in the midterm elections that gave Republicans the House after 2 years in which our Democratic colleagues spent $1.9 trillion on the so-called American Rescue Plan and then another 700-or-so billion dollars on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which, by the way, doesn't reduce inflation, but that is what it is called. In response, the voters gave Republicans the majority in the House. I can only imagine that part of that was a response to what they saw as a reckless spending binge that was going to continue without end if they maintained Democratic control of both Houses and the White House. So the new reality of divided government means there is only one path we can take to avoiding a debt bomb: Republicans and Democrats have to reach a compromise. I know the Presiding Officer believes that part of our responsibility is to negotiate and try to come up with common ground where we can and not simply to give the Heisman to one another and say we are not even going to talk. I don't know why we are here as Members of Congress or why you would want to be President of the United States when you would see such a big problem growing bigger by the day and say: Forget it. I am not talking. I am not going to try to solve the problem. That is somebody else's issue; that is not ours. I don't believe that is a responsible reaction, and I don't think most Members of Congress think it is a responsible reaction, but that is where we are today, but it needs to change. As we know, the reality of Republican control of the House means that the negotiation on the debt ceiling--and there has to be a negotiation--in reality, has to be between the House and the White House. Nothing we do here that would get 60 votes would pass the House, I believe. I think that is pretty clear. But in order to avoid a catastrophe, a bill not only has to pass the House, it needs to get 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature. Those are the facts. Now, drawing unreasonable lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums do nothing to solve the problem. Instead of doling out marching orders, the President needs to do his job and listen to what is being proposed and to negotiate a solution. Nobody I know of thinks that breaching the debt ceiling is an acceptable outcome. If that is true, and I believe it is true, then there is only one alternative: try to work together to come up with some negotiated outcome that avoids breaching the debt ceiling but at the same time provides some answer to those people concerned--and I am one of them--about the ever-increasing debt and what high interest rates that are used to combat inflation are going to mean in terms of how much money we are going to have to pay to service that debt and where that will come--out of things like defense spending or other priorities. President Biden served as a Member of the Senate for many, many years, and he ran on the promise of continuing his same approach as a dealmaker as President of the United States. In fact, he pointed to his record in the Senate and as Vice President as proof of his ability to reach across the aisle and to strike a compromise. Now, I know in some quarters ``compromise'' is a dirty word these days, but there is no other way for us to function here because none of us is a dictator, none of us can say: This is the way it is and actually be able to accomplish what they seek. Instead, the President does have some record--a good record, in one instance--of doing exactly what he refuses to do today. As Vice President, Joe Biden helped negotiate the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was the last substantial and meaningful attempt to rein in wasteful Washington spending. At that point, our economy was still recovering from a recession caused by the financial crisis in 2008. Federal spending soared, revenues plummeted, and it was clear that something--something--had to be done to stave off an even bigger economic crisis. President Obama was in the White House, and Congress was divided; Democrats controlled the Senate, Republicans controlled the House in 2011. And as it turns out, then-Vice President Biden was a key negotiator. He helped broker the agreement, working principally with then-Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, to come up with a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. So here we are, a dozen years later, and we find ourselves in a similar condition, without the solution. Our economy is recovering from an unprecedented pandemic. Federal spending has soared. A large part of that was roughly $5 trillion that Democrats and Republicans spent together because we saw no alternative but to try to respond to the COVID crisis in a way that addressed public health needs--like coming up with a vaccine--and helped sustain our economy during this crisis. But then the wheels came off the bipartisanship over the last 2 years, as I mentioned, with the ARP and the IRA, to use a couple of acronyms. But the American people have nowhere else to turn but here for to us address this problem. Now, I think it is easy to engage in the blame game, and we do it here all the time. In fact, here in Washington, DC, it is a world-class sport, but at some point you have got to quit pointing the finger and you have got to try to step up and roll up your sleeves and try to solve the immediate problem. I am not suggesting we can solve all of our problems or even do it permanently, but we can address this current crisis by doing what we are paid to do, what we are elected to do, what we took an oath to do, which is to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. So this is the time for President Biden to step up. He is President of the United States, and he has done it before when he was Vice President in 2011. All it would take to start this process is to invite the House, the Senate: Come. Sit around the table to discuss the problem and to try to listen to what potential solutions there might be, just as he promised to do on the campaign trail. So it is time for him to do what he promised to do all along and lead. Presidents can't be a spectator. They can't sit on the sidelines. Nobody in America expects a President of the United States to do that. And the fact is, the President is not just a leader of the Democratic Party. He is the elected leader of the United States of America--all 330-plus million of us. So taking a partisan position, knowing the challenges that the House is going to have dealing with a debt ceiling, and just sort of enjoying watching them struggle to deal with this is not an act of courage. It is not an act of leadership. We expect our Presidents to make tough decisions, just as we ourselves are expected to make tough decisions and to try to come up with solutions. I can't imagine any responsible person in the country, much less in Congress, who would take the position that a clean debt ceiling increase is the way to go. I mentioned that a moment ago. Who is going to pay the 30 trillion back we already owe? Is the idea that we can just continue to heap debt upon debt upon debt? Does anybody think that is a good idea? How, if we have another fiscal crisis like we had in 2008, would we be able to respond? How, if we had another pandemic, would we be able to respond with this debt handcuffing Congress when we need maximum flexibility to be able to respond? And I mentioned the interest rates that are higher than they have been in a long time, which continue to eat up more and more tax revenue just to service that debt to pay their bondholders on their investment. So this is not just a problem that can be punted. This does not call for partisan responses. This calls for statesmanship. It calls for leadership. And as part of this, we have to look at what got us in this condition in the first place. Why it is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. We know that America's debt crisis didn't appear overnight. It has been building for decades. And lest anybody believe that I am suggesting that this is strictly a Democratic problem, it has really been something that both political parties have contributed to over time. Somehow, we became anaesthetized or desensitized to the fact that we continue to spend borrowed money. It is true that we point to the various crises we have had, and we say, ``Well, we really didn't have any other choice.'' But now we do have a choice. We can respond to this responsibly and do our jobs. Well, we need to get out-of-control spending habits in check. No household, no city council, no county government, no State government could possibly do what the Federal Government is doing. They have to live with a balanced budget. They have to live within their means. I am not suggesting it is going to be easy--because it is not--but it is not optional. One of the most important things we can do as part of this response is to return to a regular appropriations process in funding the government each year. The idea that we can do this through an omnibus appropriations process, like we were forced to do last year in backing it up to December 23rd, right before Christmas, and threatening a shutdown, is not the right way to do business. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 12 separate bills to fund each of the different components of the Federal Government. These bills are supposed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. That didn't happen in 2022 or 2021. The Democratic-led Senate did not pass a single appropriations bill,and I understand why. The majority leader Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi realized that delaying the appropriations process and not going through this regular order gave them immense power because they could decide what went into that omnibus bill. They could say yes to some and no to others, and they knew that the only alternative would be a government shutdown and that rank-and-file Members of the Senate and the House would be left with no other choice than to vote yes or no. Congress cannot continue to operate like this. We have to swear off this newfound habit of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibuses and return to a regular, on-time appropriations process. It is more transparent. It allows every Member of the Congress to participate, to offer amendments, to debate, and to vote--something denied to rank-and-file Members of Congress when you do this through an omnibus bill at the end of the year. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to look at broader reforms to the government's spending habits. The good news is that there are a number of ideas that have been proposed. Last Congress, Senator Romney, the Senator from Utah, introduced something he calls the TRUST Act, which creates a process to save Social Security and protect this critical lifeline for Americans. Social Security, you might recall, is going to become insolvent in the coming years. This is a responsible way to save Social Security and to address what is, roughly, a part of the two-thirds of the Federal spending. In other words, about a third of it is discretionary spending we appropriate, and the other two-thirds is mandatory, or automatic, spending. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and would encourage the President and our Democratic colleagues to consider it as part of the debt ceiling discussion. I am also a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, Republicans and Democrats are responsible for where we are today, but it would finally make clear that we have to live under the same sort of spending limits that every family in America has to live under and that every local and State government has to live with--a balanced budget. Now, that is common sense. Families and businesses across the country have no choice but to operate within a balanced budget. My State of Texas has a balanced budget requirement, and lo and behold, it just started the current legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. We are looking at a $30 trillion debt. My State has a $33 billion surplus in part, I believe, because it is required by law to balance its budget each year. I have introduced, cosponsored, and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, and I plan on doing so again this year. That should be part of the conversation. There is a wide range of ideas from our colleagues that would help the Federal Government get its financial house in order, and I would hope that the President would take these ideas and his responsibility seriously. No matter how inconvenient this may be for President Biden, we are operating under a divided government. The ``drunken sailor'' approach may have worked when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, but it won't succeed now. It is time for the administration to sober up and get serious about bipartisan solutions. It is the only path out of this mess. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS64 | null | 5,562 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. The Senate finds itself in familiar territory. The United States narrowly avoided hitting the debt ceiling over a year ago, but now we are staring down the barrel of another debt crisis. The United States hit the debt limit last Thursday, according to the Secretary of Treasury, and now the Treasury is using what they refer to, euphemistically, as ``extraordinary measures'' in order to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts. Unless the Congress takes action in the coming months, the American economy will be confronted with an unprecedented crisis. But here is what I find strange: Despite the fact that we are hurtling toward this disaster, the White House seems completely disinterested in finding a solution. President Biden has drawn a redline. He said: We are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. In other words, he expects Congress to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached and let this reckless runaway spending and outrageous debt continue to rise. Now, I don't want to disparage drunken sailors, but it seems to me that that is the model for how the White House is responding. It is as if you or I were spending beyond our means on our credit card, and then the issuer of the credit card said: You know, you are going to have to pay the money back at some point. And you say: To heck with that. I want you to raise my credit limit even higher, without any demonstrated means or plan to actually pay the money back. We know what would happen for you and me is the issuer of the credit card would cancel our credit card, as well it should, if we responded the way that the White House is responding. So apparently what the administration plans to continue to do is continue this spending bender. It can't cover the current bills--now it is roughly $30 trillion--and it expects somebody, anybody, maybe nobody, to pay the money back and to deal with this ever-growing national debt. We know this is an even bigger problem in inflationary times because the more money the Federal Government continues to spend, it is like throwing gasoline on inflation, and consumers have already experienced sky-high prices--some of the highest prices in 40 years--on everything from gasoline to food, to housing, and to the essentials of life. So why in the world does it make sense for the administration to say: We are not even going to talk; we are not even going to negotiate with the House when it comes to the debt ceiling. We are just going to keep spending as much money as we can, racking up more and more debt. I know that President Biden has children and grandchildren. Is he concerned for their welfare? We are writing checks that we are not going to have to pay back, Mr. President. You and I are at the age where this bird is not going to come home to roost in our lifetime, but it will in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, including those of President Biden. So how responsible--or I should say how irresponsible--is it for the President to say: We are just going to keep on keeping on, and we are not even going to talk about what we need to do to deal with this mounting debt. We are not even going to entertain any reasonable ideas or suggestions about how we dig our way out of this hole. Well, the American people witnessed our Democratic colleagues' wasteful spending over the last 2 years and chose a new direction in the midterm elections that gave Republicans the House after 2 years in which our Democratic colleagues spent $1.9 trillion on the so-called American Rescue Plan and then another 700-or-so billion dollars on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which, by the way, doesn't reduce inflation, but that is what it is called. In response, the voters gave Republicans the majority in the House. I can only imagine that part of that was a response to what they saw as a reckless spending binge that was going to continue without end if they maintained Democratic control of both Houses and the White House. So the new reality of divided government means there is only one path we can take to avoiding a debt bomb: Republicans and Democrats have to reach a compromise. I know the Presiding Officer believes that part of our responsibility is to negotiate and try to come up with common ground where we can and not simply to give the Heisman to one another and say we are not even going to talk. I don't know why we are here as Members of Congress or why you would want to be President of the United States when you would see such a big problem growing bigger by the day and say: Forget it. I am not talking. I am not going to try to solve the problem. That is somebody else's issue; that is not ours. I don't believe that is a responsible reaction, and I don't think most Members of Congress think it is a responsible reaction, but that is where we are today, but it needs to change. As we know, the reality of Republican control of the House means that the negotiation on the debt ceiling--and there has to be a negotiation--in reality, has to be between the House and the White House. Nothing we do here that would get 60 votes would pass the House, I believe. I think that is pretty clear. But in order to avoid a catastrophe, a bill not only has to pass the House, it needs to get 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature. Those are the facts. Now, drawing unreasonable lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums do nothing to solve the problem. Instead of doling out marching orders, the President needs to do his job and listen to what is being proposed and to negotiate a solution. Nobody I know of thinks that breaching the debt ceiling is an acceptable outcome. If that is true, and I believe it is true, then there is only one alternative: try to work together to come up with some negotiated outcome that avoids breaching the debt ceiling but at the same time provides some answer to those people concerned--and I am one of them--about the ever-increasing debt and what high interest rates that are used to combat inflation are going to mean in terms of how much money we are going to have to pay to service that debt and where that will come--out of things like defense spending or other priorities. President Biden served as a Member of the Senate for many, many years, and he ran on the promise of continuing his same approach as a dealmaker as President of the United States. In fact, he pointed to his record in the Senate and as Vice President as proof of his ability to reach across the aisle and to strike a compromise. Now, I know in some quarters ``compromise'' is a dirty word these days, but there is no other way for us to function here because none of us is a dictator, none of us can say: This is the way it is and actually be able to accomplish what they seek. Instead, the President does have some record--a good record, in one instance--of doing exactly what he refuses to do today. As Vice President, Joe Biden helped negotiate the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was the last substantial and meaningful attempt to rein in wasteful Washington spending. At that point, our economy was still recovering from a recession caused by the financial crisis in 2008. Federal spending soared, revenues plummeted, and it was clear that something--something--had to be done to stave off an even bigger economic crisis. President Obama was in the White House, and Congress was divided; Democrats controlled the Senate, Republicans controlled the House in 2011. And as it turns out, then-Vice President Biden was a key negotiator. He helped broker the agreement, working principally with then-Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, to come up with a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. So here we are, a dozen years later, and we find ourselves in a similar condition, without the solution. Our economy is recovering from an unprecedented pandemic. Federal spending has soared. A large part of that was roughly $5 trillion that Democrats and Republicans spent together because we saw no alternative but to try to respond to the COVID crisis in a way that addressed public health needs--like coming up with a vaccine--and helped sustain our economy during this crisis. But then the wheels came off the bipartisanship over the last 2 years, as I mentioned, with the ARP and the IRA, to use a couple of acronyms. But the American people have nowhere else to turn but here for to us address this problem. Now, I think it is easy to engage in the blame game, and we do it here all the time. In fact, here in Washington, DC, it is a world-class sport, but at some point you have got to quit pointing the finger and you have got to try to step up and roll up your sleeves and try to solve the immediate problem. I am not suggesting we can solve all of our problems or even do it permanently, but we can address this current crisis by doing what we are paid to do, what we are elected to do, what we took an oath to do, which is to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. So this is the time for President Biden to step up. He is President of the United States, and he has done it before when he was Vice President in 2011. All it would take to start this process is to invite the House, the Senate: Come. Sit around the table to discuss the problem and to try to listen to what potential solutions there might be, just as he promised to do on the campaign trail. So it is time for him to do what he promised to do all along and lead. Presidents can't be a spectator. They can't sit on the sidelines. Nobody in America expects a President of the United States to do that. And the fact is, the President is not just a leader of the Democratic Party. He is the elected leader of the United States of America--all 330-plus million of us. So taking a partisan position, knowing the challenges that the House is going to have dealing with a debt ceiling, and just sort of enjoying watching them struggle to deal with this is not an act of courage. It is not an act of leadership. We expect our Presidents to make tough decisions, just as we ourselves are expected to make tough decisions and to try to come up with solutions. I can't imagine any responsible person in the country, much less in Congress, who would take the position that a clean debt ceiling increase is the way to go. I mentioned that a moment ago. Who is going to pay the 30 trillion back we already owe? Is the idea that we can just continue to heap debt upon debt upon debt? Does anybody think that is a good idea? How, if we have another fiscal crisis like we had in 2008, would we be able to respond? How, if we had another pandemic, would we be able to respond with this debt handcuffing Congress when we need maximum flexibility to be able to respond? And I mentioned the interest rates that are higher than they have been in a long time, which continue to eat up more and more tax revenue just to service that debt to pay their bondholders on their investment. So this is not just a problem that can be punted. This does not call for partisan responses. This calls for statesmanship. It calls for leadership. And as part of this, we have to look at what got us in this condition in the first place. Why it is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. We know that America's debt crisis didn't appear overnight. It has been building for decades. And lest anybody believe that I am suggesting that this is strictly a Democratic problem, it has really been something that both political parties have contributed to over time. Somehow, we became anaesthetized or desensitized to the fact that we continue to spend borrowed money. It is true that we point to the various crises we have had, and we say, ``Well, we really didn't have any other choice.'' But now we do have a choice. We can respond to this responsibly and do our jobs. Well, we need to get out-of-control spending habits in check. No household, no city council, no county government, no State government could possibly do what the Federal Government is doing. They have to live with a balanced budget. They have to live within their means. I am not suggesting it is going to be easy--because it is not--but it is not optional. One of the most important things we can do as part of this response is to return to a regular appropriations process in funding the government each year. The idea that we can do this through an omnibus appropriations process, like we were forced to do last year in backing it up to December 23rd, right before Christmas, and threatening a shutdown, is not the right way to do business. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 12 separate bills to fund each of the different components of the Federal Government. These bills are supposed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. That didn't happen in 2022 or 2021. The Democratic-led Senate did not pass a single appropriations bill,and I understand why. The majority leader Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi realized that delaying the appropriations process and not going through this regular order gave them immense power because they could decide what went into that omnibus bill. They could say yes to some and no to others, and they knew that the only alternative would be a government shutdown and that rank-and-file Members of the Senate and the House would be left with no other choice than to vote yes or no. Congress cannot continue to operate like this. We have to swear off this newfound habit of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibuses and return to a regular, on-time appropriations process. It is more transparent. It allows every Member of the Congress to participate, to offer amendments, to debate, and to vote--something denied to rank-and-file Members of Congress when you do this through an omnibus bill at the end of the year. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to look at broader reforms to the government's spending habits. The good news is that there are a number of ideas that have been proposed. Last Congress, Senator Romney, the Senator from Utah, introduced something he calls the TRUST Act, which creates a process to save Social Security and protect this critical lifeline for Americans. Social Security, you might recall, is going to become insolvent in the coming years. This is a responsible way to save Social Security and to address what is, roughly, a part of the two-thirds of the Federal spending. In other words, about a third of it is discretionary spending we appropriate, and the other two-thirds is mandatory, or automatic, spending. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and would encourage the President and our Democratic colleagues to consider it as part of the debt ceiling discussion. I am also a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, Republicans and Democrats are responsible for where we are today, but it would finally make clear that we have to live under the same sort of spending limits that every family in America has to live under and that every local and State government has to live with--a balanced budget. Now, that is common sense. Families and businesses across the country have no choice but to operate within a balanced budget. My State of Texas has a balanced budget requirement, and lo and behold, it just started the current legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. We are looking at a $30 trillion debt. My State has a $33 billion surplus in part, I believe, because it is required by law to balance its budget each year. I have introduced, cosponsored, and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, and I plan on doing so again this year. That should be part of the conversation. There is a wide range of ideas from our colleagues that would help the Federal Government get its financial house in order, and I would hope that the President would take these ideas and his responsibility seriously. No matter how inconvenient this may be for President Biden, we are operating under a divided government. The ``drunken sailor'' approach may have worked when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, but it won't succeed now. It is time for the administration to sober up and get serious about bipartisan solutions. It is the only path out of this mess. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS64 | null | 5,563 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. The Senate finds itself in familiar territory. The United States narrowly avoided hitting the debt ceiling over a year ago, but now we are staring down the barrel of another debt crisis. The United States hit the debt limit last Thursday, according to the Secretary of Treasury, and now the Treasury is using what they refer to, euphemistically, as ``extraordinary measures'' in order to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts. Unless the Congress takes action in the coming months, the American economy will be confronted with an unprecedented crisis. But here is what I find strange: Despite the fact that we are hurtling toward this disaster, the White House seems completely disinterested in finding a solution. President Biden has drawn a redline. He said: We are not going to negotiate on the debt ceiling. In other words, he expects Congress to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached and let this reckless runaway spending and outrageous debt continue to rise. Now, I don't want to disparage drunken sailors, but it seems to me that that is the model for how the White House is responding. It is as if you or I were spending beyond our means on our credit card, and then the issuer of the credit card said: You know, you are going to have to pay the money back at some point. And you say: To heck with that. I want you to raise my credit limit even higher, without any demonstrated means or plan to actually pay the money back. We know what would happen for you and me is the issuer of the credit card would cancel our credit card, as well it should, if we responded the way that the White House is responding. So apparently what the administration plans to continue to do is continue this spending bender. It can't cover the current bills--now it is roughly $30 trillion--and it expects somebody, anybody, maybe nobody, to pay the money back and to deal with this ever-growing national debt. We know this is an even bigger problem in inflationary times because the more money the Federal Government continues to spend, it is like throwing gasoline on inflation, and consumers have already experienced sky-high prices--some of the highest prices in 40 years--on everything from gasoline to food, to housing, and to the essentials of life. So why in the world does it make sense for the administration to say: We are not even going to talk; we are not even going to negotiate with the House when it comes to the debt ceiling. We are just going to keep spending as much money as we can, racking up more and more debt. I know that President Biden has children and grandchildren. Is he concerned for their welfare? We are writing checks that we are not going to have to pay back, Mr. President. You and I are at the age where this bird is not going to come home to roost in our lifetime, but it will in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren, including those of President Biden. So how responsible--or I should say how irresponsible--is it for the President to say: We are just going to keep on keeping on, and we are not even going to talk about what we need to do to deal with this mounting debt. We are not even going to entertain any reasonable ideas or suggestions about how we dig our way out of this hole. Well, the American people witnessed our Democratic colleagues' wasteful spending over the last 2 years and chose a new direction in the midterm elections that gave Republicans the House after 2 years in which our Democratic colleagues spent $1.9 trillion on the so-called American Rescue Plan and then another 700-or-so billion dollars on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which, by the way, doesn't reduce inflation, but that is what it is called. In response, the voters gave Republicans the majority in the House. I can only imagine that part of that was a response to what they saw as a reckless spending binge that was going to continue without end if they maintained Democratic control of both Houses and the White House. So the new reality of divided government means there is only one path we can take to avoiding a debt bomb: Republicans and Democrats have to reach a compromise. I know the Presiding Officer believes that part of our responsibility is to negotiate and try to come up with common ground where we can and not simply to give the Heisman to one another and say we are not even going to talk. I don't know why we are here as Members of Congress or why you would want to be President of the United States when you would see such a big problem growing bigger by the day and say: Forget it. I am not talking. I am not going to try to solve the problem. That is somebody else's issue; that is not ours. I don't believe that is a responsible reaction, and I don't think most Members of Congress think it is a responsible reaction, but that is where we are today, but it needs to change. As we know, the reality of Republican control of the House means that the negotiation on the debt ceiling--and there has to be a negotiation--in reality, has to be between the House and the White House. Nothing we do here that would get 60 votes would pass the House, I believe. I think that is pretty clear. But in order to avoid a catastrophe, a bill not only has to pass the House, it needs to get 60 votes in the Senate and the President's signature. Those are the facts. Now, drawing unreasonable lines in the sand and issuing ultimatums do nothing to solve the problem. Instead of doling out marching orders, the President needs to do his job and listen to what is being proposed and to negotiate a solution. Nobody I know of thinks that breaching the debt ceiling is an acceptable outcome. If that is true, and I believe it is true, then there is only one alternative: try to work together to come up with some negotiated outcome that avoids breaching the debt ceiling but at the same time provides some answer to those people concerned--and I am one of them--about the ever-increasing debt and what high interest rates that are used to combat inflation are going to mean in terms of how much money we are going to have to pay to service that debt and where that will come--out of things like defense spending or other priorities. President Biden served as a Member of the Senate for many, many years, and he ran on the promise of continuing his same approach as a dealmaker as President of the United States. In fact, he pointed to his record in the Senate and as Vice President as proof of his ability to reach across the aisle and to strike a compromise. Now, I know in some quarters ``compromise'' is a dirty word these days, but there is no other way for us to function here because none of us is a dictator, none of us can say: This is the way it is and actually be able to accomplish what they seek. Instead, the President does have some record--a good record, in one instance--of doing exactly what he refuses to do today. As Vice President, Joe Biden helped negotiate the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was the last substantial and meaningful attempt to rein in wasteful Washington spending. At that point, our economy was still recovering from a recession caused by the financial crisis in 2008. Federal spending soared, revenues plummeted, and it was clear that something--something--had to be done to stave off an even bigger economic crisis. President Obama was in the White House, and Congress was divided; Democrats controlled the Senate, Republicans controlled the House in 2011. And as it turns out, then-Vice President Biden was a key negotiator. He helped broker the agreement, working principally with then-Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, to come up with a bill that passed with strong bipartisan support. So here we are, a dozen years later, and we find ourselves in a similar condition, without the solution. Our economy is recovering from an unprecedented pandemic. Federal spending has soared. A large part of that was roughly $5 trillion that Democrats and Republicans spent together because we saw no alternative but to try to respond to the COVID crisis in a way that addressed public health needs--like coming up with a vaccine--and helped sustain our economy during this crisis. But then the wheels came off the bipartisanship over the last 2 years, as I mentioned, with the ARP and the IRA, to use a couple of acronyms. But the American people have nowhere else to turn but here for to us address this problem. Now, I think it is easy to engage in the blame game, and we do it here all the time. In fact, here in Washington, DC, it is a world-class sport, but at some point you have got to quit pointing the finger and you have got to try to step up and roll up your sleeves and try to solve the immediate problem. I am not suggesting we can solve all of our problems or even do it permanently, but we can address this current crisis by doing what we are paid to do, what we are elected to do, what we took an oath to do, which is to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. So this is the time for President Biden to step up. He is President of the United States, and he has done it before when he was Vice President in 2011. All it would take to start this process is to invite the House, the Senate: Come. Sit around the table to discuss the problem and to try to listen to what potential solutions there might be, just as he promised to do on the campaign trail. So it is time for him to do what he promised to do all along and lead. Presidents can't be a spectator. They can't sit on the sidelines. Nobody in America expects a President of the United States to do that. And the fact is, the President is not just a leader of the Democratic Party. He is the elected leader of the United States of America--all 330-plus million of us. So taking a partisan position, knowing the challenges that the House is going to have dealing with a debt ceiling, and just sort of enjoying watching them struggle to deal with this is not an act of courage. It is not an act of leadership. We expect our Presidents to make tough decisions, just as we ourselves are expected to make tough decisions and to try to come up with solutions. I can't imagine any responsible person in the country, much less in Congress, who would take the position that a clean debt ceiling increase is the way to go. I mentioned that a moment ago. Who is going to pay the 30 trillion back we already owe? Is the idea that we can just continue to heap debt upon debt upon debt? Does anybody think that is a good idea? How, if we have another fiscal crisis like we had in 2008, would we be able to respond? How, if we had another pandemic, would we be able to respond with this debt handcuffing Congress when we need maximum flexibility to be able to respond? And I mentioned the interest rates that are higher than they have been in a long time, which continue to eat up more and more tax revenue just to service that debt to pay their bondholders on their investment. So this is not just a problem that can be punted. This does not call for partisan responses. This calls for statesmanship. It calls for leadership. And as part of this, we have to look at what got us in this condition in the first place. Why it is that we need to raise the debt ceiling. We know that America's debt crisis didn't appear overnight. It has been building for decades. And lest anybody believe that I am suggesting that this is strictly a Democratic problem, it has really been something that both political parties have contributed to over time. Somehow, we became anaesthetized or desensitized to the fact that we continue to spend borrowed money. It is true that we point to the various crises we have had, and we say, ``Well, we really didn't have any other choice.'' But now we do have a choice. We can respond to this responsibly and do our jobs. Well, we need to get out-of-control spending habits in check. No household, no city council, no county government, no State government could possibly do what the Federal Government is doing. They have to live with a balanced budget. They have to live within their means. I am not suggesting it is going to be easy--because it is not--but it is not optional. One of the most important things we can do as part of this response is to return to a regular appropriations process in funding the government each year. The idea that we can do this through an omnibus appropriations process, like we were forced to do last year in backing it up to December 23rd, right before Christmas, and threatening a shutdown, is not the right way to do business. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have 12 separate bills to fund each of the different components of the Federal Government. These bills are supposed to pass both Chambers and be signed into law before the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30. That didn't happen in 2022 or 2021. The Democratic-led Senate did not pass a single appropriations bill,and I understand why. The majority leader Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi realized that delaying the appropriations process and not going through this regular order gave them immense power because they could decide what went into that omnibus bill. They could say yes to some and no to others, and they knew that the only alternative would be a government shutdown and that rank-and-file Members of the Senate and the House would be left with no other choice than to vote yes or no. Congress cannot continue to operate like this. We have to swear off this newfound habit of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibuses and return to a regular, on-time appropriations process. It is more transparent. It allows every Member of the Congress to participate, to offer amendments, to debate, and to vote--something denied to rank-and-file Members of Congress when you do this through an omnibus bill at the end of the year. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to look at broader reforms to the government's spending habits. The good news is that there are a number of ideas that have been proposed. Last Congress, Senator Romney, the Senator from Utah, introduced something he calls the TRUST Act, which creates a process to save Social Security and protect this critical lifeline for Americans. Social Security, you might recall, is going to become insolvent in the coming years. This is a responsible way to save Social Security and to address what is, roughly, a part of the two-thirds of the Federal spending. In other words, about a third of it is discretionary spending we appropriate, and the other two-thirds is mandatory, or automatic, spending. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and would encourage the President and our Democratic colleagues to consider it as part of the debt ceiling discussion. I am also a supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I said, Republicans and Democrats are responsible for where we are today, but it would finally make clear that we have to live under the same sort of spending limits that every family in America has to live under and that every local and State government has to live with--a balanced budget. Now, that is common sense. Families and businesses across the country have no choice but to operate within a balanced budget. My State of Texas has a balanced budget requirement, and lo and behold, it just started the current legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. We are looking at a $30 trillion debt. My State has a $33 billion surplus in part, I believe, because it is required by law to balance its budget each year. I have introduced, cosponsored, and voted for balanced budget amendments in the past, and I plan on doing so again this year. That should be part of the conversation. There is a wide range of ideas from our colleagues that would help the Federal Government get its financial house in order, and I would hope that the President would take these ideas and his responsibility seriously. No matter how inconvenient this may be for President Biden, we are operating under a divided government. The ``drunken sailor'' approach may have worked when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, but it won't succeed now. It is time for the administration to sober up and get serious about bipartisan solutions. It is the only path out of this mess. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS64 | null | 5,564 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,565 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,566 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,567 |
formal | judicial activist | null | conservative | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,568 |
formal | judicial activists | null | conservative | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,569 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,570 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 50 years ago this last Sunday, the Supreme Court ruled that reproductive healthcare in America is a constitutionally protected right and that Americans have the freedom to make the most personal decision imaginable: when--and whether--to start a family. The case was called Roe v. Wade. For those who were alive when it was decided, we remember what it meant for millions of Americans: the freedom to make their own reproductive health decisions. Remember, at the time Roe was decided in 1973, our Nation had a long, long way to go in living up to the promise of equal justice under the law. As just one example, women were often required, at that time in history, to ask their husbands for permission to apply for credit cards. In many banks, widowers and divorced women had to bring along a man who would cosign for a credit card. Can you imagine that? Fifty years later, we still have a long way to go, of course, but Roe was a breakthrough. It was a vision of an America that could be looking to the future of opportunity. Well, today, sadly, marks a very different anniversary. You see, it was 7 months ago today when six rightwing, judicial activists on the Supreme Court sent us back in time. Of course, I am referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--the crowning achievement of the Republican-led, decades-long campaign to overturn Roe and abolish reproductive rights in America. The Dobbs ruling is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions ever handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. It ripped away a constitutional right from individuals, handing it over to politicians in suits. With the Dobbs decision, the ultraconservative majority not only overturned a nearly 50-year-old precedent that had been reaffirmed many, many times, they twisted the facts to reach the outcome they wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, in his majority opinion, Justice Alito claimed that abortion cannot be constitutionally protected because it is not ``deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition.'' He is wrong because whatever you think about abortion, it has deep roots in our country. As the dissenting Justices in Dobbs wrote, ``embarrassingly for the majority--early law in fact does provide some support for abortion rights.'' The dissent noted that common law authorities did not treat abortion as a crime before the point of fetal movement in the womb--also known as quickening. And as Justice Alito himself conceded, historians dispute whether prequickening abortions were punished before the 19th century. So there is no credibility to Justice Alito's argument for overturning Roe. It wasn't originalism by any stretch. It wasn't textualism. It was an ideologically motivated outcome based on historical cherry-picking. Someone asked the question the other day: After this decision, should the Justices be asked to wear red and blue robes instead of black robes? Over the past 7 months, Republican lawmakers picked up right where the Thomas-Alito Court left off. In State after State, they have ripped away reproductive rights from millions of Americans. Overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a healthcare crisis in our country. In just 7 months, 24 States have banned or severely restricted access to abortion or are preparing to do so. Many of these bans provide no exceptions, even for rape and incest victims, and many are insufficient in protecting the health and lives of mothers. And all of these bans have added layers and layers of government bureaucracy for women seeking emergency care. If these Republican lawmakers have actually listened to all of the medical professionals who sounded the alarm on overturning Roe, if these lawmakers had actually listened to all of the Americans who took to the streets in protest or the millions of voters who rejected their radical agenda, then maybe you would understand the simple, indisputable truth: You cannot ban abortion out of existence. The only thing these laws have changed, if anything, is pushing women into dangerous and deadly situations. We have already seen the barbaric consequences in these Republican abortion bans. And they haven't just endangered the lives of women living in red States; they have put every woman in danger. Christina Zielke is one of those women. She recently shared her storyon NPR. This past July, Christina and her husband were overjoyed when they discovered she was pregnant. It was their first pregnancy. But that joy turned to sorrow after the first ultrasound. The doctors couldn't detect a heartbeat, and they concluded it was a miscarriage. When Christina asked the doctor, ``What do I do next,'' the doctor recommended giving her body time to pass the pregnancy tissue--a process that can take days or even weeks. So Christina and her husband decided to wait and move on with their lives. Soon after that appointment, the two of them drove from their home in Washington, DC, to Ohio to attend a family wedding. But during the drive, Christina started bleeding. She assumed her body had finally passed the pregnancy tissue. But later, in the middle of the night, she started bleeding again. It was serious. It was at that time that Christina and her husband, at the advice of a nurse, went to an emergency room in Painesville, OH. Now, remember, Christina's doctor had already told her that her pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. But when she arrived at that Ohio hospital, the medical staff refused to provide her any care because they were afraid of violating Ohio's new abortion ban. So while Christina was still in danger, still bleeding, and carrying a fetus with no heartbeat, the hospital discharged her and refused to treat her. She objected, even showing them her records confirming the miscarriage. She was ignored and sent home. Hours later, she returned to that same ER. By that point, she had lost so much blood she had lost consciousness. The paramedics had to use a sheet to pull her limp body out of a bathtub and onto a stretcher. Christina's family thought she was going to die. And let's be blunt: The only reason her life was in peril was because of Ohio's State law banning abortion. This is America's post-Roe reality: women denied urgent care because doctors and nurses are afraid of breaking State laws. Ohio's abortion ban subjects healthcare providers who violate it to felony charges, up to a year in prison, loss of medical licenses, and fines up to $20,000. The law is so unclear in Ohio that even medical professionals struggle to navigate its narrow exceptions. When you hear stories like that by Christina, imagine if it was a member of your family--your wife, the mother of your children, people who want to live desperately and simply need the healthcare to make it happen--it is really no surprise that Americans are fleeing red States to access essential healthcare in blue States. My State of Illinois, for instance, has become a leader on reproductive freedom--a so-called oasis. Every single State that we border has either restricted abortion or abandoned it outright. For women living in the Midwest, our reproductive health facilities are indispensable. Look at the numbers. Before Roe was overturned, only 6 percent of women seeking abortions at Illinois Planned Parenthood facilities traveled from out of State--6 percent. Since the Dobbs decision, that number has jumped to 30 percent. And I want to commend our State's leadership because they stepped in to provide care for women who have been betrayed by their own States. Earlier this month, Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law protecting women traveling to Illinois for reproductive care. Sadly, these efforts to protect reproductive freedom have also made Illinois providers a target. Just 2 days ago, after Governor Pritzker signed a bill into law, someone firebombed a Planned Parenthood clinic in Peoria--a clinic that doesn't even perform surgical abortions. In post-Roe America, the mere act of seeking reproductive advice and care--even for a procedure as simple as a Pap smear--has taken on new risks. Lawmakers on both sides need to condemn this and any form of politically motivated violence against any person or entity. If there is any doubt that the Dobbs decision has unleashed chaos, consider the impact on maternal health outcomes. Even before Roe was overturned, our Nation had the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world--America, the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world. And as of 2020, those death rates are more than 60 percent higher in States with abortion restrictions. This is not a problem without a solution: Studies show that more than four in five pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. These mothers can be saved. And one way to prevent them is by expanding access to postpartum health coverage. That is why I have worked with Illinois Congresswoman Robin Kelly to pass a law that gives States the option to expand health coverage under Medicaid from 60 days postpartum to a full year. We led this effort because in our State, one-third of pregnancy-related deaths happen after 60 days postpartum. So for States that have now outlawed abortion, you would imagine the first thing they would do is to take advantage of this new benefit and expand health coverage for its expecting mothers on Medicaid. That sounds like a no-brainer, right? Apparently not. Today, there are 15 States that have not extended Medicaid postpartum coverage, and 12 of these States have also passed laws restricting abortion. If they are truly dedicated to the new mother and her baby, why wouldn't they give them healthcare coverage for a full year after the baby is born to save their lives and the babies' lives? So if you are a woman living in a State like Idaho or South Dakota, you can be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but once you have had your baby, those States--Idaho and South Dakota--refuse to cover your healthcare during the most critical, dangerous postpartum period. Let's get real. There is no world in which this position can be described as ``pro-life.'' We in the Senate can make a difference for all the women in America who have been abandoned by their States, and we can do it by restoring and codifying the right to reproductive freedom by passing pro-family policies, like the MOMMA's Act, which mandates Medicaid expansion and postpartum coverage. Unfortunately, it seems the new MAGA majority in the House has other plans in mind. Just this past week, Majority Leader Steve Scalise pledged to a group of anti-choice activists that the overturning of Roe was ``only the first phase of this battle.'' Those are his words. His Republican colleagues have already made good on it. Less than 1 month into the new Congress, House Republicans have introduced a dozen anti-abortion bills. Here is my promise: Every one of those bills is destined to fail if it comes to the Senate. They are going nowhere because this majority and President Biden understand that all Americans deserve reproductive rights. And until we have a Congress and Supreme Court willing to protect those rights, we need to do everything in our power to stand against this extremist, anti-choice agenda. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS66 | null | 5,571 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, we are in a historic season as a country. We are pausing to ask ourselves a question that quite frankly we have not really asked ourselves in a long time: When does life begin? It is not just philosophical. It is not just theological. It is not just scientific. It is personal, as each person has to come to a decision: When does life begin? And when the Supreme Court made the Dobbs decision last summer, that actually put America back in the position that it had been in historically. Our Nation is 234 years old, and for 185 of those years, each State passed State laws to be able to determine the decision about this issue of when does life begin. So the Dobbs decision was not a radical decision. It is the typical decision for Americans, quite frankly, for 185 of our 234 years. But it doesn't settle the issue of abortion. Abortion is still legal in America. As much as there is all the noise around the country right now that abortion has somehow gone away, it certainly has not. Abortion is still all over the country. But it has pushed Americans, and it has pushed Americans specifically on this one issue: When does life begin? Quite frankly, I have had fascinating conversations with people over the past 8 months that they had never actually contemplated this issue, that they had never stopped to be able to think about it. They just said: Abortion is legal. Abortion is legal. It is just a woman's choice, a woman's choice, a woman's choice, and I don't want to think about it. But when the decision came down, a lot of people had to stop and say: When does life begin? Is it at birth? Is it after birth? Is it 10 minutes before birth? Is it a month before birth? Is it 2 months before birth? Quite frankly, I have had this conversation with a lot of folks, and some folks have told me: Well, it is at viability. And I say: OK. Define viability for me, because viability in 1973, when the Court was struggling with Roe v. Wade, was very different than viability now. Medical science has advanced tremendously. So is viability 26 weeks or is it at 21 weeks of gestation? And if it is at 21 weeks, what is the difference between 20 weeks and 19 weeks? What is the difference between 18 weeks? I look at these two pictures right here of this child--this one is out of the womb, and this one is 5 months earlier--and I ask the simple question: What is the difference between these two pictures of this child? The only difference between that sonogram picture in the womb and that child outside of the womb is time. That is it. The same DNA is in this child as in this child--the same parents, the same development. Everything is the same. The only difference is time. I am 5 months older than I was 5 months ago because I have aged 5 months. So did that child from that moment. So my question is very simple: When is a child a child? When does life begin? Is this one not alive and this one is alive simply because he is 5 months older? When is a child a child? For 50 years, there have been a group of folks--this year there were tens of thousands--who gather out on the Mall just to be able to celebrate every single child. They have done it now for five decades, since the Roe v. Wade decision came down. They have gathered on the Mall, and they just said: We believe every child is valuable--every child. There aren't some children who are disposable and some children who are valuable. We think every child is valuable. Now, that is not a radical concept. I have folks who yell and scream at me, quite frankly, and say: A woman has the right to be able to choose. And I ask just the very simple question of them, in great respect: Has the right to choose to be able to take the life of a child at what age? Because that child is valuable and so is that child, because it is the same child, just at a different age. I celebrate the folks who have for five decades gathered on The Mall and have marched for life and have said: We will not forget the value of every single child, because tens of millions of children have died in this country in the last 50 years after the Roe v. Wade decision. While abortion is still available in America, everyone is having to pause and ask a simple question: What do I believe about life? Not what is convenient; what do I believe about life? I have been very outspoken on this floor about my frustration with the Biden administration. I have not held back on this because they are the most pro-abortion Presidency in American history. They actively work on increasing the number of abortions in America, and I find that not only appalling, I find that painful, that we as a nation have a policy of finding ways to increase the death of children. That is not who we should be as a nation. We should be working to be able to protect the life of every single child. The most basic science that anyone will work through is, if you look at this child in the womb, there is no difference in this child and this child outside the womb. That is the most basic of science. If you want to look at science, look at science, but then ask yourself the personal question as well: When does life begin? The argument about abortion--it is not just a legal argument. Everyone wants to take it to a legal issue, quite frankly, because this body is a legal body, but the issue of abortion is not just a legal issue, and it is not just about making abortion illegal in the country. I would tell you, I am working to make abortion unthinkable in this country because we look past the convenience and look at this child's face and say: Why does that child not deserve life like every one of us? Because at its most basic level, there is no difference between any one of us in this room and when we were at this stage right here in our mother's womb except for time. So I ask this body a simple question: When does life begin, and are some children really disposable and some children are valuable? That is the question each of us needs to decide, and I am proud to stand with those who have marched for 50 years to say children are valuable, all of them--all of them. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LANKFORD | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS68-2 | null | 5,572 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, last Friday, during the annual March for Life, it was once again encouraging to see tens of thousands of young Americans travel to the National Mall to show their support for the most important human rights issue of our time: the right to life. This year, we celebrate the 50th year that the March for Life has taken place, marking a significant, multigenerational milestone for this celebration of the sanctity of life. The fact that this event is now in its 50th year is a testament to the truth and justice of our mission. I thank and congratulate everyone who kept this movement alive for the past five decades, and I especially want to thank all the brave pro-life Americans who made their voices heard as part of the March for Life. For half a century now, Americans have brought their voices to Washington to halt the mass elective abortions of perhaps a million unborn American lives every year in our Nation. Abortion is not a political issue to me; it is a human rights issue. And this is not a political battle we fight but, rather, the tip of the spear in a spiritual battle for the heart and soul of this Nation. This year's momentous March for Life truly was a celebration, as our Nation's Supreme Court has finally freed us from the undemocratic, pro-abortion decision forced on the American people in 1973. My prayer is that our God will heal the emotional and physical wounds that were ripped open across this Nation by this ruling. As we celebrate this victory for life, all of us should pause and thank God for giving us a majority of Supreme Court Justices who had the courage to overturn Roe v. Wade. This Supreme Court, by an overwhelming 6-to-3 ruling, defied the left's mob-style intimidation tactics, and in too many extreme cases, they overcame even the vile threats on their lives as well as on their families' safety and privacy. The Court's majority stuck to constitutional principles and cast aside the pro-abortion status quo even in the face of threats by the current Senate majority party and its current majority leader. The way our Justices stood up to the opposition represents true leadership and the very best of America. Let us commend our Republican Senate leader and the Senators who fought for the lives of the unborn, who, when we had control of the White House and the Senate, had the courage, the fortitude, the willpower, and the know-how to shepherd three principled Justices through the confirmation process and ascend to the highest Court in the land. This tremendous lifegiving decision also would not have happened without Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch and her team, who championed their State's pro-life law. They forever etched their place in history. The rights and lives of millions of American human beings are now protected as a result of the Dobbs decision. As an obstetrician, I had the honor and privilege to deliver over 5,000 babies, and I want all those who stood tall in the March for Life last Friday to know that, just like I fought for those babies in the delivery room, I am going to continue the fight beside you to protect the sanctity of life and to show our Nation that Congress values these precious lives as well. At the Federal level, we, of course, have much more work to do on this issue. We must continue to ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions so millions of Americans are not forced to violate our own beliefs. We must combat this administration's effort to remove conscience protections for medical professionals--doctors, nurses, ultrasound techs, and so many others--who object to participating in abortion. Perhaps most urgently, we must reimplement safety restrictions on the abortion pill. This unprecedented mass distribution of this pill by mail and over the counter that this administration is pushing will lead to thousands of women using it incorrectly, causing medical emergencies, possibly deaths and fetal malformations. If you don't believe this can happen, I just encourage you to spend some time in our emergency rooms, where I and many other doctors treat numerous women suffering complications from the abortion pill. Most of these patients are completely unaware of the potential side effects. Many are misdiagnosed or perhaps victims of just a horrible guess at the gestational age of the unborn baby. But I think it is also important that we as a party and Congress also work to further support legislation to provide resources to moms and babies in need. This help would include more access to long-term nutritional, educational, economic, and social support, as well as healthcare. We must find more compassionate and effective ways to better encourage pregnant women who are contemplating abortion to choose life instead. We need to open the doors to pregnancy crisis centers for assistance throughout and, very importantly, after the pregnancy. Despite violent attacks, acts of vandalism, and harmful misinformation directed at these centers, they continue to providecritically needed services to women all across this country. I am also committed to dispelling the left's malicious lies about ectopic pregnancies in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. As someone who understands the science and practiced obstetrics for over 25 years and, frankly, treated hundreds of women with ectopic pregnancies, I want to state that I agree with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. We always have and always will support the treatment of women suffering from the always-life-threatening condition of an ectopic pregnancy. The radical activists, who wildly claim ectopic pregnancies will be left untreated because of this Court decision, are simply misinformed and dangerously practice fearmongering tactics. For a physician to not treat ectopic pregnancies would be, No. 1, unethical, as well as, No. 2, below the standard of care for every community in America. Let me close by saying once again, thanks to all of you, the tens of thousands of Americans who participated in the 50th March for Life, for courageously and tirelessly fighting for life. Each and every one of you is my encouragement. You give me the strength and hope to wake up every day and join my fellow pro-life Senators and millions of pro-life Americans to fight to protect the sanctity of life. Your being here, praying together, marching side by side, arm to arm, you strengthen my resolve, and you can count on me to tirelessly fight to defend and secure the right to life for all human beings. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MARSHALL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS69 | null | 5,573 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you for your leadership and your desire to continue to lead in our country. Everything I do here, everything that most of us do here, I think, should come back to the dignity of work--the idea that hard work should pay off for everyone, no matter who you are, no matter whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge, no matter if you are management or labor, no matter if you are self-employed, where you live, what kind of work you do. When work has dignity--by definition, the ``dignity of work,'' brought to us originally by Leo XIII, ``the labor Pope'' of 120 years ago--with the Presiding Officer's faith, he knows about Leo XII--and brought to us by Dr. King--when work has dignity, people have a secure retirement. It means you count on Social Security and Medicare. It means we protect people's pensions. It means the VA continues paying benefits that you earned if you were exposed to Agent Orange or to these massive football field-size burn pits. It means people make enough money for retirement and for a rainy day. It is why in this body, just 2 years ago--in March, slightly fewer than 2 years ago--we saved the pensions of 100,000 Ohioans, tens of thousands in Virginia, a million around the country, people who worked their whole lives. They earned the pension and the peace of mind in retirement for themselves and their families. Think about what that means. It is why we are still fighting for the Delphi retirees who, again, lost their pensions through no fault of theirs. It is why we will always--always, always--fight back against attacks on Social Security, attacks on Medicare, and efforts to privatize the Veterans' Administration. A secure retirement should never be a partisan issue. On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Ever since that time, it should not--it was partisan then. Most Democrats were for it, and most Republicans were, I will just say, less for it. But it has become a partisan issue far too often. Social Security and Medicare are two of the most popular, most unifying institutions of the country. It is our government's promise to working men and women, a promise that they will be able to retire with dignity. You pay in every paycheck--twice a month, whatever--and you are guaranteed that benefit. Support for Social Security cuts across party lines. It cuts across racial lines. It cuts across geographic lines. Americans not only want to protect Social Security and Medicare--that goes without saying, although many of my colleagues want to undermined it--but they want to make these programs stronger. But that is what Republicans--I don't want to make this into a partisan issue, but it has been, unfortunately. It is not what the Republicans in Congress want to do. I want every American to understand that Republicans in Congress are planning to hold your Social Security hostage. They have done it several different ways over the years. So let's talk about it today. They have threatened not to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit sounds complicated and sounds expensive. It is not. Raising the debt limit, said another way, is about paying our bills, paying the bills our Nation owes and keeping our word. We did this three times under Donald Trump with no drama. Their refusal to pay our bills undermines U.S. global leadership. For seniors, it would be a disaster. It means that Social Security checks would stop going out. It would mean that seniors won't get their Social Security checks if we don't keep our promises and pay our bills. It is the first way this year that Republicans will attack Social Security. Second, they want to take this country and the American economy to the brink of default and then leverage their fiscal lunacy to cut your Social Security. Ten years ago, 15 years ago, Republicans didn't act this way. It is this new--just going down the hall here, you can see the other place, the place where the other ones work. The people who are the most extreme in that body clearly are trying to bring this country to the brink. They are willing to take the U.S. economy hostage and only agree to pay our bills--bills we have all run up, including a huge part of that with President Trump and the Republican Congress with the big tax cut giveaway to the richest people in this country--they are willing to take the economy hostage and raise the debt limit if Congress cuts Social Security. The only way they are going to pay their bills is if Congress cuts Social Security. That is what they are saying. Let that sink in. Congressional Republicans intend to use the fact that we need to pay our bills, pay our bills that already have accrued--to pay our bills is their tool for cutting Social Security. You might disguise their policy as a commission. Every time you hear the word ``commission'' and then they describe the next part of the sentence to reform Social Security, you know what it means. Their plan is to leverage this: We are going to not pay our bills to cut your Social Security. Finally, there is privatizing Social Security. The details differ. The terms may change, but the goal is the same: to kill off Social Security by shrinking it and privatizing it and undermining public support. It doesn't matter if you voted for this Republican or that Republican who sits at these desks or Senator Casey or Senator Wyden or Senator Kaine. Overwhelmingly, people who go to the polls and vote support Social Security and don't want Social Security privatized. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to go back on the bedrock promise made to America's middle class that Social Security would be there for them. On August 14, 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. In 1940 or 1941, for a woman in New Hampshire, I think her first check was $24. I believe she was a retired schoolteacher and got the first Social Security check. It doesn't matter to them, to Social Security beneficiaries, about all the politics here. But we know that for Social Security checks, people paid into the program their whole entire working lives. Our government should work for people who paid into Social Security, not against them. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security people earned. I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues, I point out, with healthcare and retirement plans; all of us with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers--our retirements aren't at risk. Why should it be for Social Security beneficiaries? None of my colleagues over here are saying: Let's privatize the retirement system for Members of Congress. They never say that. They say: Let's privatize Social Security. Let's privatize the Veterans' Administration in Richmond or Cleveland or Cincinnati. Let's privatize Medicare. They never talk about privatizing their benefits. But think about the generations of Americans who have benefited from Social Security and the generations to come relying on the promise of Social Security and Medicare. For the last part of my remarks, Mr. President, I introduced a resolution affirming the Senate's commitment, last year, to protecting and expanding Social Security. Dozens of my colleagues got on this bill, including, I believe, the Presiding Officer--a resolution affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security. But you know what? Not one Republican signed onto this resolution; not one recommitted to the promise of the American people that if you work hard all of your life, Social Security will be there for you. What is more American, what is more basic, what is more family-oriented than: I pay into Social Security my whole life, I pay into Medicare, and if I get prematurely sick or disabled or when I retire, why would we not honor that commitment? Why do some Members of Congress want to privatize this program? Because we know what happens when they are privatized. The investors come in, the banks come in and end up undermining it, and there is less dollars--fewer dollars available and less public support. Americans shouldn't have to worry that politicians secure with government pensions are going to try to take away their retirement benefits that they earn. I will again introduce that resolution--probably next month--affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security, opposed to privatization. I will again ask all my colleagues to sign on. I assume we will get many. I am hopeful this time--hopeful--that some Republicans join us. Republican seniors in Ohio would support it. It is just, their elected officials so often don't. People shouldn't have to worry if politicians who put our entire economy at risk by using this debt limit fight--this ``are we going to pay our bills or not'' fight--to cut social security, but here we are. I urge my colleagues to do the patriotic duty to raise the debt limit, without condition, without threatening economic calamity. And I ask that you work with us to do what the American people overwhelmingly want: protect and expand Social Security and Medicare and VA benefits. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS70-2 | null | 5,574 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you for your leadership and your desire to continue to lead in our country. Everything I do here, everything that most of us do here, I think, should come back to the dignity of work--the idea that hard work should pay off for everyone, no matter who you are, no matter whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge, no matter if you are management or labor, no matter if you are self-employed, where you live, what kind of work you do. When work has dignity--by definition, the ``dignity of work,'' brought to us originally by Leo XIII, ``the labor Pope'' of 120 years ago--with the Presiding Officer's faith, he knows about Leo XII--and brought to us by Dr. King--when work has dignity, people have a secure retirement. It means you count on Social Security and Medicare. It means we protect people's pensions. It means the VA continues paying benefits that you earned if you were exposed to Agent Orange or to these massive football field-size burn pits. It means people make enough money for retirement and for a rainy day. It is why in this body, just 2 years ago--in March, slightly fewer than 2 years ago--we saved the pensions of 100,000 Ohioans, tens of thousands in Virginia, a million around the country, people who worked their whole lives. They earned the pension and the peace of mind in retirement for themselves and their families. Think about what that means. It is why we are still fighting for the Delphi retirees who, again, lost their pensions through no fault of theirs. It is why we will always--always, always--fight back against attacks on Social Security, attacks on Medicare, and efforts to privatize the Veterans' Administration. A secure retirement should never be a partisan issue. On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Ever since that time, it should not--it was partisan then. Most Democrats were for it, and most Republicans were, I will just say, less for it. But it has become a partisan issue far too often. Social Security and Medicare are two of the most popular, most unifying institutions of the country. It is our government's promise to working men and women, a promise that they will be able to retire with dignity. You pay in every paycheck--twice a month, whatever--and you are guaranteed that benefit. Support for Social Security cuts across party lines. It cuts across racial lines. It cuts across geographic lines. Americans not only want to protect Social Security and Medicare--that goes without saying, although many of my colleagues want to undermined it--but they want to make these programs stronger. But that is what Republicans--I don't want to make this into a partisan issue, but it has been, unfortunately. It is not what the Republicans in Congress want to do. I want every American to understand that Republicans in Congress are planning to hold your Social Security hostage. They have done it several different ways over the years. So let's talk about it today. They have threatened not to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit sounds complicated and sounds expensive. It is not. Raising the debt limit, said another way, is about paying our bills, paying the bills our Nation owes and keeping our word. We did this three times under Donald Trump with no drama. Their refusal to pay our bills undermines U.S. global leadership. For seniors, it would be a disaster. It means that Social Security checks would stop going out. It would mean that seniors won't get their Social Security checks if we don't keep our promises and pay our bills. It is the first way this year that Republicans will attack Social Security. Second, they want to take this country and the American economy to the brink of default and then leverage their fiscal lunacy to cut your Social Security. Ten years ago, 15 years ago, Republicans didn't act this way. It is this new--just going down the hall here, you can see the other place, the place where the other ones work. The people who are the most extreme in that body clearly are trying to bring this country to the brink. They are willing to take the U.S. economy hostage and only agree to pay our bills--bills we have all run up, including a huge part of that with President Trump and the Republican Congress with the big tax cut giveaway to the richest people in this country--they are willing to take the economy hostage and raise the debt limit if Congress cuts Social Security. The only way they are going to pay their bills is if Congress cuts Social Security. That is what they are saying. Let that sink in. Congressional Republicans intend to use the fact that we need to pay our bills, pay our bills that already have accrued--to pay our bills is their tool for cutting Social Security. You might disguise their policy as a commission. Every time you hear the word ``commission'' and then they describe the next part of the sentence to reform Social Security, you know what it means. Their plan is to leverage this: We are going to not pay our bills to cut your Social Security. Finally, there is privatizing Social Security. The details differ. The terms may change, but the goal is the same: to kill off Social Security by shrinking it and privatizing it and undermining public support. It doesn't matter if you voted for this Republican or that Republican who sits at these desks or Senator Casey or Senator Wyden or Senator Kaine. Overwhelmingly, people who go to the polls and vote support Social Security and don't want Social Security privatized. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to go back on the bedrock promise made to America's middle class that Social Security would be there for them. On August 14, 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. In 1940 or 1941, for a woman in New Hampshire, I think her first check was $24. I believe she was a retired schoolteacher and got the first Social Security check. It doesn't matter to them, to Social Security beneficiaries, about all the politics here. But we know that for Social Security checks, people paid into the program their whole entire working lives. Our government should work for people who paid into Social Security, not against them. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security people earned. I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues, I point out, with healthcare and retirement plans; all of us with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers--our retirements aren't at risk. Why should it be for Social Security beneficiaries? None of my colleagues over here are saying: Let's privatize the retirement system for Members of Congress. They never say that. They say: Let's privatize Social Security. Let's privatize the Veterans' Administration in Richmond or Cleveland or Cincinnati. Let's privatize Medicare. They never talk about privatizing their benefits. But think about the generations of Americans who have benefited from Social Security and the generations to come relying on the promise of Social Security and Medicare. For the last part of my remarks, Mr. President, I introduced a resolution affirming the Senate's commitment, last year, to protecting and expanding Social Security. Dozens of my colleagues got on this bill, including, I believe, the Presiding Officer--a resolution affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security. But you know what? Not one Republican signed onto this resolution; not one recommitted to the promise of the American people that if you work hard all of your life, Social Security will be there for you. What is more American, what is more basic, what is more family-oriented than: I pay into Social Security my whole life, I pay into Medicare, and if I get prematurely sick or disabled or when I retire, why would we not honor that commitment? Why do some Members of Congress want to privatize this program? Because we know what happens when they are privatized. The investors come in, the banks come in and end up undermining it, and there is less dollars--fewer dollars available and less public support. Americans shouldn't have to worry that politicians secure with government pensions are going to try to take away their retirement benefits that they earn. I will again introduce that resolution--probably next month--affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security, opposed to privatization. I will again ask all my colleagues to sign on. I assume we will get many. I am hopeful this time--hopeful--that some Republicans join us. Republican seniors in Ohio would support it. It is just, their elected officials so often don't. People shouldn't have to worry if politicians who put our entire economy at risk by using this debt limit fight--this ``are we going to pay our bills or not'' fight--to cut social security, but here we are. I urge my colleagues to do the patriotic duty to raise the debt limit, without condition, without threatening economic calamity. And I ask that you work with us to do what the American people overwhelmingly want: protect and expand Social Security and Medicare and VA benefits. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS70-2 | null | 5,575 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, thank you for your leadership and your desire to continue to lead in our country. Everything I do here, everything that most of us do here, I think, should come back to the dignity of work--the idea that hard work should pay off for everyone, no matter who you are, no matter whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge, no matter if you are management or labor, no matter if you are self-employed, where you live, what kind of work you do. When work has dignity--by definition, the ``dignity of work,'' brought to us originally by Leo XIII, ``the labor Pope'' of 120 years ago--with the Presiding Officer's faith, he knows about Leo XII--and brought to us by Dr. King--when work has dignity, people have a secure retirement. It means you count on Social Security and Medicare. It means we protect people's pensions. It means the VA continues paying benefits that you earned if you were exposed to Agent Orange or to these massive football field-size burn pits. It means people make enough money for retirement and for a rainy day. It is why in this body, just 2 years ago--in March, slightly fewer than 2 years ago--we saved the pensions of 100,000 Ohioans, tens of thousands in Virginia, a million around the country, people who worked their whole lives. They earned the pension and the peace of mind in retirement for themselves and their families. Think about what that means. It is why we are still fighting for the Delphi retirees who, again, lost their pensions through no fault of theirs. It is why we will always--always, always--fight back against attacks on Social Security, attacks on Medicare, and efforts to privatize the Veterans' Administration. A secure retirement should never be a partisan issue. On August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Ever since that time, it should not--it was partisan then. Most Democrats were for it, and most Republicans were, I will just say, less for it. But it has become a partisan issue far too often. Social Security and Medicare are two of the most popular, most unifying institutions of the country. It is our government's promise to working men and women, a promise that they will be able to retire with dignity. You pay in every paycheck--twice a month, whatever--and you are guaranteed that benefit. Support for Social Security cuts across party lines. It cuts across racial lines. It cuts across geographic lines. Americans not only want to protect Social Security and Medicare--that goes without saying, although many of my colleagues want to undermined it--but they want to make these programs stronger. But that is what Republicans--I don't want to make this into a partisan issue, but it has been, unfortunately. It is not what the Republicans in Congress want to do. I want every American to understand that Republicans in Congress are planning to hold your Social Security hostage. They have done it several different ways over the years. So let's talk about it today. They have threatened not to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit sounds complicated and sounds expensive. It is not. Raising the debt limit, said another way, is about paying our bills, paying the bills our Nation owes and keeping our word. We did this three times under Donald Trump with no drama. Their refusal to pay our bills undermines U.S. global leadership. For seniors, it would be a disaster. It means that Social Security checks would stop going out. It would mean that seniors won't get their Social Security checks if we don't keep our promises and pay our bills. It is the first way this year that Republicans will attack Social Security. Second, they want to take this country and the American economy to the brink of default and then leverage their fiscal lunacy to cut your Social Security. Ten years ago, 15 years ago, Republicans didn't act this way. It is this new--just going down the hall here, you can see the other place, the place where the other ones work. The people who are the most extreme in that body clearly are trying to bring this country to the brink. They are willing to take the U.S. economy hostage and only agree to pay our bills--bills we have all run up, including a huge part of that with President Trump and the Republican Congress with the big tax cut giveaway to the richest people in this country--they are willing to take the economy hostage and raise the debt limit if Congress cuts Social Security. The only way they are going to pay their bills is if Congress cuts Social Security. That is what they are saying. Let that sink in. Congressional Republicans intend to use the fact that we need to pay our bills, pay our bills that already have accrued--to pay our bills is their tool for cutting Social Security. You might disguise their policy as a commission. Every time you hear the word ``commission'' and then they describe the next part of the sentence to reform Social Security, you know what it means. Their plan is to leverage this: We are going to not pay our bills to cut your Social Security. Finally, there is privatizing Social Security. The details differ. The terms may change, but the goal is the same: to kill off Social Security by shrinking it and privatizing it and undermining public support. It doesn't matter if you voted for this Republican or that Republican who sits at these desks or Senator Casey or Senator Wyden or Senator Kaine. Overwhelmingly, people who go to the polls and vote support Social Security and don't want Social Security privatized. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to go back on the bedrock promise made to America's middle class that Social Security would be there for them. On August 14, 1935, Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. In 1940 or 1941, for a woman in New Hampshire, I think her first check was $24. I believe she was a retired schoolteacher and got the first Social Security check. It doesn't matter to them, to Social Security beneficiaries, about all the politics here. But we know that for Social Security checks, people paid into the program their whole entire working lives. Our government should work for people who paid into Social Security, not against them. When work has dignity, we honor the retirement security people earned. I urge my Republican colleagues in this body--colleagues, I point out, with healthcare and retirement plans; all of us with healthcare and retirement plans paid for by taxpayers--our retirements aren't at risk. Why should it be for Social Security beneficiaries? None of my colleagues over here are saying: Let's privatize the retirement system for Members of Congress. They never say that. They say: Let's privatize Social Security. Let's privatize the Veterans' Administration in Richmond or Cleveland or Cincinnati. Let's privatize Medicare. They never talk about privatizing their benefits. But think about the generations of Americans who have benefited from Social Security and the generations to come relying on the promise of Social Security and Medicare. For the last part of my remarks, Mr. President, I introduced a resolution affirming the Senate's commitment, last year, to protecting and expanding Social Security. Dozens of my colleagues got on this bill, including, I believe, the Presiding Officer--a resolution affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security. But you know what? Not one Republican signed onto this resolution; not one recommitted to the promise of the American people that if you work hard all of your life, Social Security will be there for you. What is more American, what is more basic, what is more family-oriented than: I pay into Social Security my whole life, I pay into Medicare, and if I get prematurely sick or disabled or when I retire, why would we not honor that commitment? Why do some Members of Congress want to privatize this program? Because we know what happens when they are privatized. The investors come in, the banks come in and end up undermining it, and there is less dollars--fewer dollars available and less public support. Americans shouldn't have to worry that politicians secure with government pensions are going to try to take away their retirement benefits that they earn. I will again introduce that resolution--probably next month--affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security, opposed to privatization. I will again ask all my colleagues to sign on. I assume we will get many. I am hopeful this time--hopeful--that some Republicans join us. Republican seniors in Ohio would support it. It is just, their elected officials so often don't. People shouldn't have to worry if politicians who put our entire economy at risk by using this debt limit fight--this ``are we going to pay our bills or not'' fight--to cut social security, but here we are. I urge my colleagues to do the patriotic duty to raise the debt limit, without condition, without threatening economic calamity. And I ask that you work with us to do what the American people overwhelmingly want: protect and expand Social Security and Medicare and VA benefits. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS70-2 | null | 5,576 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in a discussion about the right to life and what happened last week in Washington, DC, when tens of thousands of Americans of all ages, races, and religious backgrounds traveled to our Nation's Capital to march for life. This March for Life was particularly special since it was the first March for Life after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which made this march a special celebration recognizing the unborn lives saved as a result of that decision. I was proud to see many North Carolinians represent our State in the march by participating and fighting for the young babies who do not have a voice. But for the voices expressed in the March for Life, they would be unheard. In January 1974, a brave group of committed pro-life leaders led the first March for Life to advocate for a solution to the Supreme Court's judicial activism, in my opinion, in the Roe v. Wade case. This year, the March for Life was not only an event to advocate for the unborn, it was a celebration of the end of Roe and the return of pro-life policymaking to the States and, I believe, to the Congress. The Dobbs decision is historic and affirms my belief that all life is sacred. Each State government and its duly elected representatives now make the determination about what types of laws they wish to have in place. I, for one, continue to advocate for commonsense measures that the majority of Americans support, like protecting life at crucial points of development and prohibiting horrendous procedures like partial-birth abortion. While it is good for us to celebrate the Dobbs decision, as Senators, we must remember that the fight for life in the United States is far from finished. Our work to enact pro-life policies must continue if we are to be a voice for the voiceless. I believe Congress must vigorously pursue efforts to defend the sanctity of life. Some have said since the Dobbs decision that this is something that only States should weigh into, and I respectfully disagree. Just 2 weeks ago, I was thrilled to see the House pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which I am committed to supporting. This legislation would protect newborns who survive failed abortions, born alive, requiring the same degree of care as a newborn baby. I urge Leader Schumer to bring this commonsense bill up to the floor for a vote as soon as possible. Last Congress, I cosponsored dozens of pro-life bills. This Congress, I joined multiple bills to shape Federal policies toward protecting life. This includes proposals that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortion and prohibit Planned Parenthood from using Federal funding for abortions. When I served as speaker of the house in North Carolina, we passed several bills to protect the unborn and to defend life, and it was widely supported by the diverse State of North Carolina, which is by no means a red State. It is a blue State, maybe a purple State. But when you talk about what we were trying to accomplish, the majority of North Carolinians supported it. I ultimately believe that the States are best situated to set policies to support mothers and to protect life. That is why it is critical that pro-life advocates contact their State legislators and their Governors to ensure that lifesaving protections are enacted to defend the unborn in their respective States. I am committed to continuing the effort to support life. I am a lifetime pro-life Catholic. I make no apology for it because we are the voice in the absence of that baby yet to be born, and we have to continue to fight for them. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in doing this. Mr. President, I just want to say that I hope that on this issue, like so many that we tackled in the last Congress, thorny issues, that everybody thought nothing could get done--I really hope that we can get people in a room and recognize that we can come together on some basic tenets, get rid of the voices at either end of the spectrum that are preventing us from making progress on this important issue, because, literally, the lives of the unborn--their lives, their opportunity is at stake. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TILLIS | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS70 | null | 5,577 |
formal | judicial activism | null | conservative | Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in a discussion about the right to life and what happened last week in Washington, DC, when tens of thousands of Americans of all ages, races, and religious backgrounds traveled to our Nation's Capital to march for life. This March for Life was particularly special since it was the first March for Life after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which made this march a special celebration recognizing the unborn lives saved as a result of that decision. I was proud to see many North Carolinians represent our State in the march by participating and fighting for the young babies who do not have a voice. But for the voices expressed in the March for Life, they would be unheard. In January 1974, a brave group of committed pro-life leaders led the first March for Life to advocate for a solution to the Supreme Court's judicial activism, in my opinion, in the Roe v. Wade case. This year, the March for Life was not only an event to advocate for the unborn, it was a celebration of the end of Roe and the return of pro-life policymaking to the States and, I believe, to the Congress. The Dobbs decision is historic and affirms my belief that all life is sacred. Each State government and its duly elected representatives now make the determination about what types of laws they wish to have in place. I, for one, continue to advocate for commonsense measures that the majority of Americans support, like protecting life at crucial points of development and prohibiting horrendous procedures like partial-birth abortion. While it is good for us to celebrate the Dobbs decision, as Senators, we must remember that the fight for life in the United States is far from finished. Our work to enact pro-life policies must continue if we are to be a voice for the voiceless. I believe Congress must vigorously pursue efforts to defend the sanctity of life. Some have said since the Dobbs decision that this is something that only States should weigh into, and I respectfully disagree. Just 2 weeks ago, I was thrilled to see the House pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which I am committed to supporting. This legislation would protect newborns who survive failed abortions, born alive, requiring the same degree of care as a newborn baby. I urge Leader Schumer to bring this commonsense bill up to the floor for a vote as soon as possible. Last Congress, I cosponsored dozens of pro-life bills. This Congress, I joined multiple bills to shape Federal policies toward protecting life. This includes proposals that would prohibit the use of Federal funds for abortion and prohibit Planned Parenthood from using Federal funding for abortions. When I served as speaker of the house in North Carolina, we passed several bills to protect the unborn and to defend life, and it was widely supported by the diverse State of North Carolina, which is by no means a red State. It is a blue State, maybe a purple State. But when you talk about what we were trying to accomplish, the majority of North Carolinians supported it. I ultimately believe that the States are best situated to set policies to support mothers and to protect life. That is why it is critical that pro-life advocates contact their State legislators and their Governors to ensure that lifesaving protections are enacted to defend the unborn in their respective States. I am committed to continuing the effort to support life. I am a lifetime pro-life Catholic. I make no apology for it because we are the voice in the absence of that baby yet to be born, and we have to continue to fight for them. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in doing this. Mr. President, I just want to say that I hope that on this issue, like so many that we tackled in the last Congress, thorny issues, that everybody thought nothing could get done--I really hope that we can get people in a room and recognize that we can come together on some basic tenets, get rid of the voices at either end of the spectrum that are preventing us from making progress on this important issue, because, literally, the lives of the unborn--their lives, their opportunity is at stake. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TILLIS | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS70 | null | 5,578 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-1. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Tolerance Exemption: Iron Oxide (Fe3O4) in Pesticide Formulations Applied to Animals; Tolerance Exemption'' (FRL No. 10458-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-2. A communication from the Director of the Regulations Management Division, Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``RESUBMISSION--Implementing Provisions of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018'' (RIN0572-AC49) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-3. A communication from the Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Cattle Contracts Library Pilot Program'' ((RIN0581-AE22) (Docket No. AMS-LP-22-0065)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-4. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Simazine; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9321-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-5. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extract of Caesalpinia Spinosa; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 10495-01-OCSPP) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2023; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-6. A communication from the Congressional Review Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Domestic Quarantine Regulations; Quarantined Areas and Regulated Articles'' ((RIN0579-AE53) (Docket No. APHIS-2019-0035)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2023; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. EC-7. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report and budget details relative to Operation INHERENT RESOLVE (OSS-2023-0010); to the Committees on Armed Services; Foreign Relations; and Appropriations. EC-8. A communication from the Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region'' (RIN0750-AL59) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2023; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-9. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting the report of six (6) officers authorized to wear the insignia of the grade of brigadier general in accordance with title 10, United States Code, section 777; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-10. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment to OFAC Sanctions Regulations'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-11. A communication from the Sanctions Regulations Advisor, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Illicit Drug Trade Sanctions Regulations'' (31 CFR Part 599) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-12. A communication from the Program Specialist, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold'' (RIN1557-AF17) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-13. A communication from the Acting General Counsel of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Rules of Practice and Procedure; Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN2590-AB26) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 10, 2023; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-14. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (Credit Cards, HOEPA, and Qualified Mortgages)'' (12 CFR Part 1026) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 13, 2023; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-24-pt1-PgS73-3 | null | 5,579 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH293-4 | null | 5,580 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 346) to establish a task force on improvements for notices to air missions, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH311-4 | null | 5,581 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 400) to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that may be invested in small business investment companies, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH312 | null | 5,582 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Pursuant to clause 7(c)(l) of rule XII and Section 3(c) of H. Res. 5 the following statements are submitted regarding (1) the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution and (2) the single subject of the bill or joint resolution. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH324 | null | 5,583 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | H.R. 21 Offered By: Mr. Magaziner Amendment No. 58: Page 2, line 13, strike ``date of enactment of this subsection'' and insert ``date this paragraph takes effect described in paragraph (4)''. Page 3, line 9, strike the closing quotation mark and the final period. Page 3, after line 9, insert the following: ``(4) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall not take effect until the date on which the Secretary determines that implementation of paragraph (1) will not negatively affect consumers the homes of which are heated using heating oil or other petroleum-based fuels.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH327-2 | null | 5,584 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | H.R. 21 Offered By: Mr. Lieu Amendment No. 61: Page 2, line 11, insert ``and any drawdown that the Secretary determines will result in a net profit for the Federal Government'' after ``(d)''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH327-5 | null | 5,585 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | H.R. 21 Offered By: Mr. Clyde Amendment No. 90: Page 2, line 15, strike ``a plan to'' and insert ``a plan--``. Page 2, line 15, before ``increase'' insert the following: ``(A) to Page 2, line 25, strike the period at the end and insert ``; and''. Page 2, after line 25, insert the following: ``(B) to narrow the qualifications of eligible bidders determined by the Secretary, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6241, for all future sales, exchanges, or loans from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to only include bidders that--(1) are based in the United States; and (2) will distribute petroleum products in the same quantities as purchased from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to United States end-consumers within 18-months of purchase. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH329-4 | null | 5,586 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | H.R. 21 Offered By: Mr. Pallone Amendment No. 117: Page 2, line 13, strike ``date of enactment of this subsection'' and insert ``date this paragraph takes effect described in paragraph (4)''. Page 3, after line 9, insert the following: ``(4) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date on which the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, certifies that the Federal Government would receive a fair return from the Federal lands leased for oil and gas production pursuant to the plan to be developed under paragraph (1).''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH335-13 | null | 5,587 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | H.R. 21 Offered By: Mr. Pallone Amendment No. 112: Page 2, line 13, strike ``date of enactment of this subsection'' and insert ``date this paragraph takes effect described in paragraph (4)''. Page 3, after line 9, insert the following: ``(4) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date on which the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, issues a finding that the Federal lands that would be leased pursuant to the plan would produce a similar amount of oil during the first five consecutive years such Federal lands are leased as the amount that would be released from the associated drawdown.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH335-8 | null | 5,588 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | H.R. 21 Offered by: Mr. Pallone Amendment No. 105: Page 2, line 24, strike ``limitation'' and insert ``limitations''. Page 3, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the following: ``(2) Limitations.-- ``(A) Total increase.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall not provide for a total increase in the percentage of Federal lands described in paragraph (1) leased for oil and gas production in excess of 10 percent. ``(B) Deficiencies in federal oil and gas leasing program.--The plan required by paragraph (1) shall not provide for any entity to engage in oil or gas production activities on Federal lands described in paragraph (1) leased for oil and gas production as a result of such plan unless the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, certifies that the deficiencies in the Federal oil and gas leasing program identified in the Department of the Interior's Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program (issued November 2021) have been fully remedied. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgH335 | null | 5,589 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, here are just a few scenes from across our country in the last few weeks. Thirty people were shot in Chicago this past weekend alone. That is up from 21 the weekend before. In Philadelphia, police are investigating a carjacking spree that is reportedly being carried out by armed juveniles: They put a gun to my head and they took the van. [And] I haven't found it back again. Out in San Francisco, just one neighborhood has seen a beating, an attempted robbery, a 2-year-old suffering fentanyl poisoning after playing in the park, and 17 car windows smashed--all on one street, all on one night. Streets, neighborhoods, and cities across our country are being swamped--literally, swamped--by a level of crime that is unsafe, uncivilized, and totally unacceptable. My hometown of Louisville, KY, saw 10 homicides in just the first 10 days of 2023, and already 5 more since then--the latest additions to the list of 500-plus homicides we have seen since the start of this violent crime wave 3 years ago. As Louisville's mayor said a few weeks ago, ``these are not just numbers; these are people.'' Many of the individuals our city lost were young, just starting out their careers and families. Far too many were children, including a 14-year-old boy we lost just 10 days ago. Of course, for every victim who lost their life to violent crime, there are even more who have been injured or traumatized or literally forced to live in fear. As one resident said, ``I got to lock my doors all the time . . . I'm worried about my children going outside. It's not fair.'' It is not fair. Of course, he is absolutely right. It is not fair that once-safe neighborhoods have become war zones. It is not fair that children are being murdered. Or look at what is happening right here in the Nation's Capital. Right here in Washington, law and order have been in a free fall. Over the weekend, in broad daylight, a rideshare driver had his car stolen by a group of men brandishing rifles. City-wide, Washington is averaging a carjacking every day. Homicides this year are up 17 percent. Just yesterday, two 18-year-olds, fresh off a carjacking spree in a nearby county, came right here to the capital, ran into two separate Capitol Police vehicles, and then tried to flee on foot. Fortunately, the Capitol Police brought them into custody. Yet the DC City Council is so completely captured by the woke far-left, they have responded to the crime wave with a new criminal code that--listen to this--reduces penalties even further. That is the response of the DC City Council. Just last week, the council overrode the mayor's veto and pushed through a measure that shreds--shreds--the maximum punishment for gun crimes. It eliminates almost all mandatory minimum sentences. It will clog up the court system with massive expansions of new jury trials for misdemeanors. Well, the good news on this front is that the U.S. Congress gets to have the final word over reckless local policies from the DC government. Senate Republicans will have a lot more to say on this subject. Stay tuned. The American people know crime is getting worse, and they know it hasn't happened by accident. From Los Angeles to Philadelphia, to Chicago, the Democratic Party has backed radical district attorneys who have tried to unilaterally take parts of the local criminal code offline. They simply decline to prosecute serious crimes, from drug possession to criminal threats, as a matter of principle. In some cases these woke prosecutors are seeking early release for felons convicted of violent crimes. Many other Democrats have spent years fanning the dangerous flames of the far-left's antipolice rhetoric. Of course, studies have proven that public hostility to police leads directly to more crime, including more homicides, in the at-risk communities that need law and order the most. Furthermore, the Biden administration and Senate Democrats have spent 2 years working to stack the Federal judiciary with former public defenders and others whose sympathies lie more with criminal defendants than with innocent victims. Nobody is arguing that criminal defenders should never become judges, but this has been a dramatic, deliberate transformation project that is skewed overwhelmingly in one direction. Even the New York Times has admitted it has been ``a sea change in the world of traditional nominations.'' The Biden administration never misses an opportunity to make crime even worse. Deaths from cocaine have quintupled over the past decade, but, just a few weeks ago, this President and his Attorney General took the radical and borderline lawless step of unilaterally reducing the penalties for dealing crack. These liberals respond to soaring overdose fatalities by going even softer on drugs. Democrats are struggling with the basics. Actually, this shouldn't be that hard. Drugs belong off the streets. Career criminals belong behind bars, and far-left politicians who put innocent citizens last belong far away from the levers of power. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS79-8 | null | 5,590 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, here are just a few scenes from across our country in the last few weeks. Thirty people were shot in Chicago this past weekend alone. That is up from 21 the weekend before. In Philadelphia, police are investigating a carjacking spree that is reportedly being carried out by armed juveniles: They put a gun to my head and they took the van. [And] I haven't found it back again. Out in San Francisco, just one neighborhood has seen a beating, an attempted robbery, a 2-year-old suffering fentanyl poisoning after playing in the park, and 17 car windows smashed--all on one street, all on one night. Streets, neighborhoods, and cities across our country are being swamped--literally, swamped--by a level of crime that is unsafe, uncivilized, and totally unacceptable. My hometown of Louisville, KY, saw 10 homicides in just the first 10 days of 2023, and already 5 more since then--the latest additions to the list of 500-plus homicides we have seen since the start of this violent crime wave 3 years ago. As Louisville's mayor said a few weeks ago, ``these are not just numbers; these are people.'' Many of the individuals our city lost were young, just starting out their careers and families. Far too many were children, including a 14-year-old boy we lost just 10 days ago. Of course, for every victim who lost their life to violent crime, there are even more who have been injured or traumatized or literally forced to live in fear. As one resident said, ``I got to lock my doors all the time . . . I'm worried about my children going outside. It's not fair.'' It is not fair. Of course, he is absolutely right. It is not fair that once-safe neighborhoods have become war zones. It is not fair that children are being murdered. Or look at what is happening right here in the Nation's Capital. Right here in Washington, law and order have been in a free fall. Over the weekend, in broad daylight, a rideshare driver had his car stolen by a group of men brandishing rifles. City-wide, Washington is averaging a carjacking every day. Homicides this year are up 17 percent. Just yesterday, two 18-year-olds, fresh off a carjacking spree in a nearby county, came right here to the capital, ran into two separate Capitol Police vehicles, and then tried to flee on foot. Fortunately, the Capitol Police brought them into custody. Yet the DC City Council is so completely captured by the woke far-left, they have responded to the crime wave with a new criminal code that--listen to this--reduces penalties even further. That is the response of the DC City Council. Just last week, the council overrode the mayor's veto and pushed through a measure that shreds--shreds--the maximum punishment for gun crimes. It eliminates almost all mandatory minimum sentences. It will clog up the court system with massive expansions of new jury trials for misdemeanors. Well, the good news on this front is that the U.S. Congress gets to have the final word over reckless local policies from the DC government. Senate Republicans will have a lot more to say on this subject. Stay tuned. The American people know crime is getting worse, and they know it hasn't happened by accident. From Los Angeles to Philadelphia, to Chicago, the Democratic Party has backed radical district attorneys who have tried to unilaterally take parts of the local criminal code offline. They simply decline to prosecute serious crimes, from drug possession to criminal threats, as a matter of principle. In some cases these woke prosecutors are seeking early release for felons convicted of violent crimes. Many other Democrats have spent years fanning the dangerous flames of the far-left's antipolice rhetoric. Of course, studies have proven that public hostility to police leads directly to more crime, including more homicides, in the at-risk communities that need law and order the most. Furthermore, the Biden administration and Senate Democrats have spent 2 years working to stack the Federal judiciary with former public defenders and others whose sympathies lie more with criminal defendants than with innocent victims. Nobody is arguing that criminal defenders should never become judges, but this has been a dramatic, deliberate transformation project that is skewed overwhelmingly in one direction. Even the New York Times has admitted it has been ``a sea change in the world of traditional nominations.'' The Biden administration never misses an opportunity to make crime even worse. Deaths from cocaine have quintupled over the past decade, but, just a few weeks ago, this President and his Attorney General took the radical and borderline lawless step of unilaterally reducing the penalties for dealing crack. These liberals respond to soaring overdose fatalities by going even softer on drugs. Democrats are struggling with the basics. Actually, this shouldn't be that hard. Drugs belong off the streets. Career criminals belong behind bars, and far-left politicians who put innocent citizens last belong far away from the levers of power. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS79-8 | null | 5,591 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, here are just a few scenes from across our country in the last few weeks. Thirty people were shot in Chicago this past weekend alone. That is up from 21 the weekend before. In Philadelphia, police are investigating a carjacking spree that is reportedly being carried out by armed juveniles: They put a gun to my head and they took the van. [And] I haven't found it back again. Out in San Francisco, just one neighborhood has seen a beating, an attempted robbery, a 2-year-old suffering fentanyl poisoning after playing in the park, and 17 car windows smashed--all on one street, all on one night. Streets, neighborhoods, and cities across our country are being swamped--literally, swamped--by a level of crime that is unsafe, uncivilized, and totally unacceptable. My hometown of Louisville, KY, saw 10 homicides in just the first 10 days of 2023, and already 5 more since then--the latest additions to the list of 500-plus homicides we have seen since the start of this violent crime wave 3 years ago. As Louisville's mayor said a few weeks ago, ``these are not just numbers; these are people.'' Many of the individuals our city lost were young, just starting out their careers and families. Far too many were children, including a 14-year-old boy we lost just 10 days ago. Of course, for every victim who lost their life to violent crime, there are even more who have been injured or traumatized or literally forced to live in fear. As one resident said, ``I got to lock my doors all the time . . . I'm worried about my children going outside. It's not fair.'' It is not fair. Of course, he is absolutely right. It is not fair that once-safe neighborhoods have become war zones. It is not fair that children are being murdered. Or look at what is happening right here in the Nation's Capital. Right here in Washington, law and order have been in a free fall. Over the weekend, in broad daylight, a rideshare driver had his car stolen by a group of men brandishing rifles. City-wide, Washington is averaging a carjacking every day. Homicides this year are up 17 percent. Just yesterday, two 18-year-olds, fresh off a carjacking spree in a nearby county, came right here to the capital, ran into two separate Capitol Police vehicles, and then tried to flee on foot. Fortunately, the Capitol Police brought them into custody. Yet the DC City Council is so completely captured by the woke far-left, they have responded to the crime wave with a new criminal code that--listen to this--reduces penalties even further. That is the response of the DC City Council. Just last week, the council overrode the mayor's veto and pushed through a measure that shreds--shreds--the maximum punishment for gun crimes. It eliminates almost all mandatory minimum sentences. It will clog up the court system with massive expansions of new jury trials for misdemeanors. Well, the good news on this front is that the U.S. Congress gets to have the final word over reckless local policies from the DC government. Senate Republicans will have a lot more to say on this subject. Stay tuned. The American people know crime is getting worse, and they know it hasn't happened by accident. From Los Angeles to Philadelphia, to Chicago, the Democratic Party has backed radical district attorneys who have tried to unilaterally take parts of the local criminal code offline. They simply decline to prosecute serious crimes, from drug possession to criminal threats, as a matter of principle. In some cases these woke prosecutors are seeking early release for felons convicted of violent crimes. Many other Democrats have spent years fanning the dangerous flames of the far-left's antipolice rhetoric. Of course, studies have proven that public hostility to police leads directly to more crime, including more homicides, in the at-risk communities that need law and order the most. Furthermore, the Biden administration and Senate Democrats have spent 2 years working to stack the Federal judiciary with former public defenders and others whose sympathies lie more with criminal defendants than with innocent victims. Nobody is arguing that criminal defenders should never become judges, but this has been a dramatic, deliberate transformation project that is skewed overwhelmingly in one direction. Even the New York Times has admitted it has been ``a sea change in the world of traditional nominations.'' The Biden administration never misses an opportunity to make crime even worse. Deaths from cocaine have quintupled over the past decade, but, just a few weeks ago, this President and his Attorney General took the radical and borderline lawless step of unilaterally reducing the penalties for dealing crack. These liberals respond to soaring overdose fatalities by going even softer on drugs. Democrats are struggling with the basics. Actually, this shouldn't be that hard. Drugs belong off the streets. Career criminals belong behind bars, and far-left politicians who put innocent citizens last belong far away from the levers of power. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS79-8 | null | 5,592 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as the debate over raising the debt ceiling continues, Leader McConnell said something yesterday that, I think, is right on the mark. He said that when it comes to moving a debt ceiling proposal through Congress, the House should go first. He is correct. Not only should the House go first, but they must quickly show the American people what their plan actually is for avoiding a first-ever default on the national debt. So far, we haven't heard anything beyond vague and troubling talking points about the need to cut Federal spending. That is not going to fly when you are in the majority, as Speaker McCarthy, of course, is. The substance and details make all the difference. The debt ceiling is not some political game, and Speaker McCarthy has an obligation to level with the American people on what precisely the new House plans to do in order to avoid a default. President Biden and the Speaker have reportedly agreed to sit down in the near future on this topic, and the Speaker is apparently heralding this development as some sort of big win or concession. But look, Speaker McCarthy sitting down without a clear plan is no win. Sitting down to talk about the debt ceiling without a plan is like coming to the table with no cards. President Biden, meanwhile, has a plan. He has cards. He has been clear that there must be no brinksmanship and no default on the debt ceiling. Speaker McCarthy, what about you? The House GOP is threatening spending cuts. Well, what are they? why the evasion? Why is your conference hiding from the American people? House Republicans, where are your cards? Again, I want to be clear that the debt ceiling is a subject of the highest consequence, and using it as a bargaining chip--using it as brinksmanship, as hostage-taking--as Republicans are trying to do, is exceedingly dangerous because if the House of Representatives continues on their current course and allows the United States to default on its debt obligations, every single American is going to pay a terrible and expensive price. The consequences of default are not some theoretical abstraction. If default happens, Americans will see the consequences in their daily lives. Interest rates will go soaring on everything from credit cards and student loans to cars, mortgages, and more. That is thousands of dollars for each American going right out the door. That will happen and through no fault of their own. Retirement plans, like 401(k)s, would lose their value, robbing people of their hard-earned livelihoods. For millionsof Americans who one day dream of owning a home--their own piece of the rock--a default would add $130,000 to the lifetime cost of a new home. Imagine spending years putting a little bit of your paycheck aside every month in order to buy a house, only to find out that suddenly that dream is entirely out of reach because radical politicians in Washington bumbled their way into a financial catastrophe. That is precisely the danger we approach, thanks to the House GOP's reckless approach to the debt ceiling. None of this need be inevitable or even likely if only House Republicans would quit their radical posturing and work with Democrats in a serious way to raise the debt ceiling together, and we should do it soon, not months from now when America finds itself staring straight into the abyss of a financial catastrophe. I would remind my Republican colleagues they did it before, when Trump was President, three times, with no Democratic obstruction or hostage-taking, and we did it once together when Biden was President. Much of this debt comes from spending when Trump was President, voted on by a Republican House and a Republican Senate. So it is a bit of hypocrisy now to say that they can't do it again and are holding it hostage and are playing a dangerous form of brinksmanship. It shouldn't matter who is President. These are still bills we already incurred that must be paid for the good of all Americans. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS80-4 | null | 5,593 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the Republican national sales tax, the House Republicans keep churning this stuff out. It is unbelievable. In the 118th Congress, it is already a tale of two parties: Democrats united on one side, Republicans in chaos on the other. While Democrats are laser-focused on making life better for everyday families, Republicans are making it clear they want to help the very, very wealthy--the ultrarich. While Democrats want to embrace collaboration and bipartisanship wherever possible, Republicans seem to be trapped by MAGA extremism. That is the contrast in a nutshell: Democratic unity versus Republican chaos, Democratic unity versus Republican chaos. Yesterday, I joined with President Biden, the Vice President, Leader Jeffries, and Democratic colleagues from both Chambers to talk about how we Democrats can maintain our unity and turn it into action in order to help the American people. Later today, I will join with Leader Jeffries to further highlight the contrast between Democrats' ``people first'' agenda and Republicans' radical plans--radical plans--for a national sales tax. Multiple extreme-right Republicans say that Speaker McCarthy has promised them a vote on their national sales tax bill, which they guilefully refer to as the ``FairTax Act.'' Nothing could be less fair to the American people. In a universe of bad ideas, a Republican national sales tax reigns supreme. This proposal, pushed by the MAGA fringe, who now controls the House Republican conference, would impose a 30-percent tax on every single purchase Americans make just as inflation is beginning to drop. This so-called FairTax is truly foul legislation for American families. For young families who want to buy a home, well, the Republican tax plan would add nearly $125,000 extra on top of the price you pay for your house--an impossible sum for many young people struggling to get their start in life. And what about Americans out there thinking of buying a car? Under the Republican tax plan, the average American would pay $10,000 more on that single purchase alone. What about seniors getting ready for retirement? A Republican national sales tax means people's life savings would suddenly lose 30 percent of their value. Imagine working your entire life, playing by the rules, paying your taxes, saving a little of each paycheck only to have Republicans swoop in and erase nearly a third--a third--of what you have saved up. And it doesn't end there. Under the Republican tax plan, a mere trip to the grocery store would be torture. Eggs are high enough right now at $4.25 a dozen. They would be $5.50 under the Republican plan. Milk, right now, is $4.40. It would cost $5.70 under the Republican plan. The same holds true for everything else: bread, produce, canned goods, cleaning supplies, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers--you name it. All of it would go up by a third for millions of families--millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions. It would be a devastating blow. But do you know who wouldn't mind a Republican national sales tax? The ultrarich, the ultrawealthy. The top 1 percent of our earners wouldn't notice much change in expenses. That is who would win under the Republicans' proposal--the very, very rich--because their taxes would be greatly reduced even further, even worse than under the Trump tax cuts. No wonder, then, that even Grover Norquist--no friend of the Democrats--calls this bill a ``terrible idea'' and an ``assault on your retirement savings.'' Look, if Republicans want to start their majority with a debate on their national sales tax bill, Democrats would welcome it. Let the American people see which party is fighting for everyday folks and which party is trying to rig the game in favor of the ultrarich. It is a debate the American people need to see. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS81 | null | 5,594 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the Republican national sales tax, the House Republicans keep churning this stuff out. It is unbelievable. In the 118th Congress, it is already a tale of two parties: Democrats united on one side, Republicans in chaos on the other. While Democrats are laser-focused on making life better for everyday families, Republicans are making it clear they want to help the very, very wealthy--the ultrarich. While Democrats want to embrace collaboration and bipartisanship wherever possible, Republicans seem to be trapped by MAGA extremism. That is the contrast in a nutshell: Democratic unity versus Republican chaos, Democratic unity versus Republican chaos. Yesterday, I joined with President Biden, the Vice President, Leader Jeffries, and Democratic colleagues from both Chambers to talk about how we Democrats can maintain our unity and turn it into action in order to help the American people. Later today, I will join with Leader Jeffries to further highlight the contrast between Democrats' ``people first'' agenda and Republicans' radical plans--radical plans--for a national sales tax. Multiple extreme-right Republicans say that Speaker McCarthy has promised them a vote on their national sales tax bill, which they guilefully refer to as the ``FairTax Act.'' Nothing could be less fair to the American people. In a universe of bad ideas, a Republican national sales tax reigns supreme. This proposal, pushed by the MAGA fringe, who now controls the House Republican conference, would impose a 30-percent tax on every single purchase Americans make just as inflation is beginning to drop. This so-called FairTax is truly foul legislation for American families. For young families who want to buy a home, well, the Republican tax plan would add nearly $125,000 extra on top of the price you pay for your house--an impossible sum for many young people struggling to get their start in life. And what about Americans out there thinking of buying a car? Under the Republican tax plan, the average American would pay $10,000 more on that single purchase alone. What about seniors getting ready for retirement? A Republican national sales tax means people's life savings would suddenly lose 30 percent of their value. Imagine working your entire life, playing by the rules, paying your taxes, saving a little of each paycheck only to have Republicans swoop in and erase nearly a third--a third--of what you have saved up. And it doesn't end there. Under the Republican tax plan, a mere trip to the grocery store would be torture. Eggs are high enough right now at $4.25 a dozen. They would be $5.50 under the Republican plan. Milk, right now, is $4.40. It would cost $5.70 under the Republican plan. The same holds true for everything else: bread, produce, canned goods, cleaning supplies, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers--you name it. All of it would go up by a third for millions of families--millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions. It would be a devastating blow. But do you know who wouldn't mind a Republican national sales tax? The ultrarich, the ultrawealthy. The top 1 percent of our earners wouldn't notice much change in expenses. That is who would win under the Republicans' proposal--the very, very rich--because their taxes would be greatly reduced even further, even worse than under the Trump tax cuts. No wonder, then, that even Grover Norquist--no friend of the Democrats--calls this bill a ``terrible idea'' and an ``assault on your retirement savings.'' Look, if Republicans want to start their majority with a debate on their national sales tax bill, Democrats would welcome it. Let the American people see which party is fighting for everyday folks and which party is trying to rig the game in favor of the ultrarich. It is a debate the American people need to see. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS81 | null | 5,595 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the Republican national sales tax, the House Republicans keep churning this stuff out. It is unbelievable. In the 118th Congress, it is already a tale of two parties: Democrats united on one side, Republicans in chaos on the other. While Democrats are laser-focused on making life better for everyday families, Republicans are making it clear they want to help the very, very wealthy--the ultrarich. While Democrats want to embrace collaboration and bipartisanship wherever possible, Republicans seem to be trapped by MAGA extremism. That is the contrast in a nutshell: Democratic unity versus Republican chaos, Democratic unity versus Republican chaos. Yesterday, I joined with President Biden, the Vice President, Leader Jeffries, and Democratic colleagues from both Chambers to talk about how we Democrats can maintain our unity and turn it into action in order to help the American people. Later today, I will join with Leader Jeffries to further highlight the contrast between Democrats' ``people first'' agenda and Republicans' radical plans--radical plans--for a national sales tax. Multiple extreme-right Republicans say that Speaker McCarthy has promised them a vote on their national sales tax bill, which they guilefully refer to as the ``FairTax Act.'' Nothing could be less fair to the American people. In a universe of bad ideas, a Republican national sales tax reigns supreme. This proposal, pushed by the MAGA fringe, who now controls the House Republican conference, would impose a 30-percent tax on every single purchase Americans make just as inflation is beginning to drop. This so-called FairTax is truly foul legislation for American families. For young families who want to buy a home, well, the Republican tax plan would add nearly $125,000 extra on top of the price you pay for your house--an impossible sum for many young people struggling to get their start in life. And what about Americans out there thinking of buying a car? Under the Republican tax plan, the average American would pay $10,000 more on that single purchase alone. What about seniors getting ready for retirement? A Republican national sales tax means people's life savings would suddenly lose 30 percent of their value. Imagine working your entire life, playing by the rules, paying your taxes, saving a little of each paycheck only to have Republicans swoop in and erase nearly a third--a third--of what you have saved up. And it doesn't end there. Under the Republican tax plan, a mere trip to the grocery store would be torture. Eggs are high enough right now at $4.25 a dozen. They would be $5.50 under the Republican plan. Milk, right now, is $4.40. It would cost $5.70 under the Republican plan. The same holds true for everything else: bread, produce, canned goods, cleaning supplies, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers--you name it. All of it would go up by a third for millions of families--millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions. It would be a devastating blow. But do you know who wouldn't mind a Republican national sales tax? The ultrarich, the ultrawealthy. The top 1 percent of our earners wouldn't notice much change in expenses. That is who would win under the Republicans' proposal--the very, very rich--because their taxes would be greatly reduced even further, even worse than under the Trump tax cuts. No wonder, then, that even Grover Norquist--no friend of the Democrats--calls this bill a ``terrible idea'' and an ``assault on your retirement savings.'' Look, if Republicans want to start their majority with a debate on their national sales tax bill, Democrats would welcome it. Let the American people see which party is fighting for everyday folks and which party is trying to rig the game in favor of the ultrarich. It is a debate the American people need to see. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS81 | null | 5,596 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the Republican national sales tax, the House Republicans keep churning this stuff out. It is unbelievable. In the 118th Congress, it is already a tale of two parties: Democrats united on one side, Republicans in chaos on the other. While Democrats are laser-focused on making life better for everyday families, Republicans are making it clear they want to help the very, very wealthy--the ultrarich. While Democrats want to embrace collaboration and bipartisanship wherever possible, Republicans seem to be trapped by MAGA extremism. That is the contrast in a nutshell: Democratic unity versus Republican chaos, Democratic unity versus Republican chaos. Yesterday, I joined with President Biden, the Vice President, Leader Jeffries, and Democratic colleagues from both Chambers to talk about how we Democrats can maintain our unity and turn it into action in order to help the American people. Later today, I will join with Leader Jeffries to further highlight the contrast between Democrats' ``people first'' agenda and Republicans' radical plans--radical plans--for a national sales tax. Multiple extreme-right Republicans say that Speaker McCarthy has promised them a vote on their national sales tax bill, which they guilefully refer to as the ``FairTax Act.'' Nothing could be less fair to the American people. In a universe of bad ideas, a Republican national sales tax reigns supreme. This proposal, pushed by the MAGA fringe, who now controls the House Republican conference, would impose a 30-percent tax on every single purchase Americans make just as inflation is beginning to drop. This so-called FairTax is truly foul legislation for American families. For young families who want to buy a home, well, the Republican tax plan would add nearly $125,000 extra on top of the price you pay for your house--an impossible sum for many young people struggling to get their start in life. And what about Americans out there thinking of buying a car? Under the Republican tax plan, the average American would pay $10,000 more on that single purchase alone. What about seniors getting ready for retirement? A Republican national sales tax means people's life savings would suddenly lose 30 percent of their value. Imagine working your entire life, playing by the rules, paying your taxes, saving a little of each paycheck only to have Republicans swoop in and erase nearly a third--a third--of what you have saved up. And it doesn't end there. Under the Republican tax plan, a mere trip to the grocery store would be torture. Eggs are high enough right now at $4.25 a dozen. They would be $5.50 under the Republican plan. Milk, right now, is $4.40. It would cost $5.70 under the Republican plan. The same holds true for everything else: bread, produce, canned goods, cleaning supplies, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers--you name it. All of it would go up by a third for millions of families--millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions. It would be a devastating blow. But do you know who wouldn't mind a Republican national sales tax? The ultrarich, the ultrawealthy. The top 1 percent of our earners wouldn't notice much change in expenses. That is who would win under the Republicans' proposal--the very, very rich--because their taxes would be greatly reduced even further, even worse than under the Trump tax cuts. No wonder, then, that even Grover Norquist--no friend of the Democrats--calls this bill a ``terrible idea'' and an ``assault on your retirement savings.'' Look, if Republicans want to start their majority with a debate on their national sales tax bill, Democrats would welcome it. Let the American people see which party is fighting for everyday folks and which party is trying to rig the game in favor of the ultrarich. It is a debate the American people need to see. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS81 | null | 5,597 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the Republican national sales tax, the House Republicans keep churning this stuff out. It is unbelievable. In the 118th Congress, it is already a tale of two parties: Democrats united on one side, Republicans in chaos on the other. While Democrats are laser-focused on making life better for everyday families, Republicans are making it clear they want to help the very, very wealthy--the ultrarich. While Democrats want to embrace collaboration and bipartisanship wherever possible, Republicans seem to be trapped by MAGA extremism. That is the contrast in a nutshell: Democratic unity versus Republican chaos, Democratic unity versus Republican chaos. Yesterday, I joined with President Biden, the Vice President, Leader Jeffries, and Democratic colleagues from both Chambers to talk about how we Democrats can maintain our unity and turn it into action in order to help the American people. Later today, I will join with Leader Jeffries to further highlight the contrast between Democrats' ``people first'' agenda and Republicans' radical plans--radical plans--for a national sales tax. Multiple extreme-right Republicans say that Speaker McCarthy has promised them a vote on their national sales tax bill, which they guilefully refer to as the ``FairTax Act.'' Nothing could be less fair to the American people. In a universe of bad ideas, a Republican national sales tax reigns supreme. This proposal, pushed by the MAGA fringe, who now controls the House Republican conference, would impose a 30-percent tax on every single purchase Americans make just as inflation is beginning to drop. This so-called FairTax is truly foul legislation for American families. For young families who want to buy a home, well, the Republican tax plan would add nearly $125,000 extra on top of the price you pay for your house--an impossible sum for many young people struggling to get their start in life. And what about Americans out there thinking of buying a car? Under the Republican tax plan, the average American would pay $10,000 more on that single purchase alone. What about seniors getting ready for retirement? A Republican national sales tax means people's life savings would suddenly lose 30 percent of their value. Imagine working your entire life, playing by the rules, paying your taxes, saving a little of each paycheck only to have Republicans swoop in and erase nearly a third--a third--of what you have saved up. And it doesn't end there. Under the Republican tax plan, a mere trip to the grocery store would be torture. Eggs are high enough right now at $4.25 a dozen. They would be $5.50 under the Republican plan. Milk, right now, is $4.40. It would cost $5.70 under the Republican plan. The same holds true for everything else: bread, produce, canned goods, cleaning supplies, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers--you name it. All of it would go up by a third for millions of families--millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions. It would be a devastating blow. But do you know who wouldn't mind a Republican national sales tax? The ultrarich, the ultrawealthy. The top 1 percent of our earners wouldn't notice much change in expenses. That is who would win under the Republicans' proposal--the very, very rich--because their taxes would be greatly reduced even further, even worse than under the Trump tax cuts. No wonder, then, that even Grover Norquist--no friend of the Democrats--calls this bill a ``terrible idea'' and an ``assault on your retirement savings.'' Look, if Republicans want to start their majority with a debate on their national sales tax bill, Democrats would welcome it. Let the American people see which party is fighting for everyday folks and which party is trying to rig the game in favor of the ultrarich. It is a debate the American people need to see. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS81 | null | 5,598 |
formal | you know who | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, on the Republican national sales tax, the House Republicans keep churning this stuff out. It is unbelievable. In the 118th Congress, it is already a tale of two parties: Democrats united on one side, Republicans in chaos on the other. While Democrats are laser-focused on making life better for everyday families, Republicans are making it clear they want to help the very, very wealthy--the ultrarich. While Democrats want to embrace collaboration and bipartisanship wherever possible, Republicans seem to be trapped by MAGA extremism. That is the contrast in a nutshell: Democratic unity versus Republican chaos, Democratic unity versus Republican chaos. Yesterday, I joined with President Biden, the Vice President, Leader Jeffries, and Democratic colleagues from both Chambers to talk about how we Democrats can maintain our unity and turn it into action in order to help the American people. Later today, I will join with Leader Jeffries to further highlight the contrast between Democrats' ``people first'' agenda and Republicans' radical plans--radical plans--for a national sales tax. Multiple extreme-right Republicans say that Speaker McCarthy has promised them a vote on their national sales tax bill, which they guilefully refer to as the ``FairTax Act.'' Nothing could be less fair to the American people. In a universe of bad ideas, a Republican national sales tax reigns supreme. This proposal, pushed by the MAGA fringe, who now controls the House Republican conference, would impose a 30-percent tax on every single purchase Americans make just as inflation is beginning to drop. This so-called FairTax is truly foul legislation for American families. For young families who want to buy a home, well, the Republican tax plan would add nearly $125,000 extra on top of the price you pay for your house--an impossible sum for many young people struggling to get their start in life. And what about Americans out there thinking of buying a car? Under the Republican tax plan, the average American would pay $10,000 more on that single purchase alone. What about seniors getting ready for retirement? A Republican national sales tax means people's life savings would suddenly lose 30 percent of their value. Imagine working your entire life, playing by the rules, paying your taxes, saving a little of each paycheck only to have Republicans swoop in and erase nearly a third--a third--of what you have saved up. And it doesn't end there. Under the Republican tax plan, a mere trip to the grocery store would be torture. Eggs are high enough right now at $4.25 a dozen. They would be $5.50 under the Republican plan. Milk, right now, is $4.40. It would cost $5.70 under the Republican plan. The same holds true for everything else: bread, produce, canned goods, cleaning supplies, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, diapers--you name it. All of it would go up by a third for millions of families--millions, tens of millions, probably hundreds of millions. It would be a devastating blow. But do you know who wouldn't mind a Republican national sales tax? The ultrarich, the ultrawealthy. The top 1 percent of our earners wouldn't notice much change in expenses. That is who would win under the Republicans' proposal--the very, very rich--because their taxes would be greatly reduced even further, even worse than under the Trump tax cuts. No wonder, then, that even Grover Norquist--no friend of the Democrats--calls this bill a ``terrible idea'' and an ``assault on your retirement savings.'' Look, if Republicans want to start their majority with a debate on their national sales tax bill, Democrats would welcome it. Let the American people see which party is fighting for everyday folks and which party is trying to rig the game in favor of the ultrarich. It is a debate the American people need to see. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS81 | null | 5,599 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.