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 | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the State of Illinois is my home, and it holds an important place in the history of the American labor movement. All of us learned the name Upton Sinclair in our early days in school, the author of the 1906 novel ``The Jungle,'' which told the story of the horrendous working conditions endured by, largely, immigrant workers in Chicago's meatpacking plants and led to Federal regulation. A. Philip Randolph, founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, one of America's first unions for African-American workers, was a civil rights champion and a leader of the 1963 March on Washington. There is also the story of Mary Harris ``Mother'' Jones, an Irish immigrant who survived the Great Famine in Ireland, the yellow fever epidemic of 1867, which took the lives of her husband and children, and after her own dress shop was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, she went on to become a woman labor organizer and a fierce and beloved champion of coal miners. Before she died, she said she wanted to be buried in a place of honor among coal miners. She is buried in a town near my home called MountOlive, IL, in the Union Miners Cemetery, the only union-owned cemetery in America. Aside from being legends of labor history, Upton Sinclair, A. Philip Randolph, and Mother Jones had something else in common. They are all members of the Illinois Labor History Society's Union Hall of Honor, which was founded in 1969 to make sure that important figures and defining chapters of America's labor history are not forgotten. The society's highest honor is to be named to its Union Hall of Honor. Last month, a longtime friend of mine, John Penn, was inducted into the Illinois Labor History Society's Union Hall of Honor. After nearly 60 years of protecting workers' rights in Illinois, the Midwest, and our Nation, John has certainly earned that honor. He is one of 113 men and women who have been inducted into the Union Hall of Honor, but to me John is one in a million. He got his first union card in 1965, when he was 16 years old, joining the Laborers' International Union of North America Local 362 in Bloomington, IL. He took a break by joining the United States Air Force, serving in Vietnam, Korea, Guam, and then returning back to Bloomington and Local 362. It was the same path taken a generation earlier by his father, Paul Penn, a World War II veteran who rose to become president of the same local. But John's family connections didn't win any special treatment. He had to rise through the ranks, and rise he did--from business manager of Local 362 to business manager of the 36-county North Central Illinois Laborers' District Council, then business manager of the four-state Great Plains Laborers' District Council, and, in 2008, vice president and regional manager of LIUNA's 10-State Midwest region and a member of the international union's general executive board, positions to which he has been reelected three different times. Under John Penn's leadership, LIUNA Local 362 grew, giving a voice to scores of workers who previously had never benefited from union representation. Some years ago, in response to several tragic accidents, John made himself known to many by stopping all highway construction in McLean County to force the State of Illinois to improve protections for vulnerable construction workers and others on the State's roadways. That action culminated in the creation of the Illinois State's Work Zone Safety Committee and implementation of numerous policies that saved lives. Somehow, John also found time to resurrect Bloomington's Labor Day parade, to serve on several community and State boards, including the United Way of McLean County, the Children's Christmas Party for Unemployed Families, Illinois Special Olympics, the McLean County Promise Council, and the Bloomington-Normal Advancement and Economic Development Council. He was honored by his hometown newspaper, the Bloomington Pantagraph, as its 2003 Person of the Year. He received a Thousand Points of Light Foundation award from then-President Clinton in 1997 in recognition of his volunteer efforts and those of all Bloomington-Normal building tradespeople who he recruited over the years to take part in these organizations. At the end of this month, John Penn is retiring from this position with the Laborers' union. As he begins this new chapter, Loretta and I wish John and Mary, his wife of 55 years, good health, good times with their daughter Shawn, their children and grandchildren. John, you made a real difference for so many people. You are truly a hall of famer, and thanks for all that you have done. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS82-2 | null | 5,600 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the last two centuries, Federal support for scientific research has helped to split the atom, defeat polio, explore space, create the internet, map the human genome, develop vaccines and treatments for COVID-19, and so much more. No nation has made such significant investments in science, and no nation's scientists have done more to improve the quality of life. But with the challenges we face today, from devastating diseases to climate change, there is more progress to be made. So America is at a turning point, and unless we commit to providing strong and sustained funding increases for our Nation's premier medical and scientific researchers, our position as the world leader will be at risk. That is exactly why, since 2014, I have continued to introduce legislation to keep our Nation on the cutting edge. It is entitled the American Cures Act. This bill will provide our top medical research Agencies with 5 percent real funding growth every year. That is steady, predictable growth, pegged above the rate of inflation. This money would support the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense Health Program, and the Veterans' Affairs Medical and Prosthetics Research Program. This investment would be game-changing for the Agencies. Consider the National Institutes of Health. It is our Nation's--if not the world's--premier medical research Agency. Their pioneering work at this single agency saves lives and fuels our economy, supporting nearly 20,000 jobs just in my home State of Illinois. Today, the NIH budget is $47.5 billion. More than 95 percent of this funding is competitively awarded to scientists, research institutions, and small businesses in every State across the country. Researchers supported by the NIH make tens of thousands of new discoveries every year--breakthroughs that could literally change the world. In recognition of these remarkable feats, Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, increased the NIH annual budget by more than $17 billion since I first introduced the American Cures Act in 2014. This chart is an indication of that growth. It has gone from $30 billion to $48 billion in that period of time since 2014--a 58-percent increase. These increases would not have been possible without a bipartisan effort in the U.S. Senate. I enlisted a willing participant and ally and really effective Member of the Senate, Patty Murray, to be part of this; former Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who, when the Republicans were in majority control of the Senate, kept up this promise to increase the spending; and retired Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, who shared our passion for medical research. Luckily, we had a leader at the time, Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the NIH, who really did his part in enlisting support for these increases. NIH is not the only Federal medical research Agency to see significant funding increases. We have also secured $2.4 billion in increased funding for the CDC over the last 9 years. That is a 35-percent increase since fiscal year 2014. And while it is not reflected in the chart I just showed, both the CDC and NIH also received billions in supplemental funding from COVID rescue bills passed by the Senate in 2020 and 2021. While this year's budget provided a 5.8-percent bump to the NIH, a $2.5 billion increase, I am sorry to say we fell short of the 5-percent real-growth target above inflation. If we had met this target, NIH would have received $650 million, up to a level of more than $48 billion. That said, I am still encouraged about how far we have come. We finally reversed a 22-percent decline in NIH purchasing power that took place after 12 years of flat funding, but we need to step up our efforts. Diseases like cancer, stroke, opioid addiction, and mental illness will not wait on us. Half of all men and one-third of all women in the U.S. will develop cancer in their lifetime. Someone's mother, father, brother, sister, or spouse is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease every 65 seconds. And 1 in every 300 people will be diagnosed with ALS in their lifetime. Sadly, a number of my closest friends already have received this diagnosis. Sustained and robust NIH funding will help cure, prevent, and treat these diseases. It will help the people that we all care about the most, and it already has. Because of NIH funding--listen to this--the American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 3\1/2\ million lives were saved between 1991 and 2019 as a result of improvements in cancer treatment, detection, and prevention--a 32-percent drop in the cancer death rate since 1991. Thirty years ago, HIV was a death sentence, but because of NIH research, that is no longer the case. And because of NIH funding, we are also on the verge of curing--yes, curing--sickle cell anemia, an inherited blood disorder that primarily affects African Americans. Consider this: NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019. Let me repeat that for emphasis. There are only two countries in the world that allow general advertising of prescription drugs--the United States and New Zealand. You can't turn on the television without hearing the story of a new drug. Every single drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019 started off with government-funded, taxpayer-funded research at the National Institutes of Health. So when you see these wonderful drugs, understand we, as Americans, put down the initial investment that made these drugs all possible. However, there is a real threat to our Nation's investment in medical research. The new House Republican majority, after more than a dozen--in fact, 15--painful and embarrassing failed votes to secure the Speaker, announced that Speaker McCarthy had finally won the day, he made some deals, agreements with MAGA Republicans for that to happen. One of those agreements would literally devastate funding for medical research in the future. What a price to pay. He reportedly agreed to hamstring government funding for 2024 at 2022 levels--a senseless move--senseless move--that would cut funding for scientific breakthroughs by roughly 7 percent and delay the delivery of new cures and treatments for those most in need. So I would like to know, for the record, which diseases and conditions would Speaker McCarthy and the House Republicans like us to slash funding for? Cancer? Alzheimer's? Parkinson's? Diabetes? ALS? Heart disease? Which one? Speak up, Mr. Speaker. This is supposed to be a new transparent House of Representatives. If you are going to cut funding in medical research, what can we put on the back of the burner, and how can we explain that to the families across America? Now is not the time for political horse-trading that puts one person in power at the expense of everyone waiting for a cure. We need to build on the bipartisan success which we have had to date and we have achieved over the past decade and continue to prioritize medical research funding that creates jobs but, most importantly, saves lives. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS83 | null | 5,601 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the last two centuries, Federal support for scientific research has helped to split the atom, defeat polio, explore space, create the internet, map the human genome, develop vaccines and treatments for COVID-19, and so much more. No nation has made such significant investments in science, and no nation's scientists have done more to improve the quality of life. But with the challenges we face today, from devastating diseases to climate change, there is more progress to be made. So America is at a turning point, and unless we commit to providing strong and sustained funding increases for our Nation's premier medical and scientific researchers, our position as the world leader will be at risk. That is exactly why, since 2014, I have continued to introduce legislation to keep our Nation on the cutting edge. It is entitled the American Cures Act. This bill will provide our top medical research Agencies with 5 percent real funding growth every year. That is steady, predictable growth, pegged above the rate of inflation. This money would support the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense Health Program, and the Veterans' Affairs Medical and Prosthetics Research Program. This investment would be game-changing for the Agencies. Consider the National Institutes of Health. It is our Nation's--if not the world's--premier medical research Agency. Their pioneering work at this single agency saves lives and fuels our economy, supporting nearly 20,000 jobs just in my home State of Illinois. Today, the NIH budget is $47.5 billion. More than 95 percent of this funding is competitively awarded to scientists, research institutions, and small businesses in every State across the country. Researchers supported by the NIH make tens of thousands of new discoveries every year--breakthroughs that could literally change the world. In recognition of these remarkable feats, Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, increased the NIH annual budget by more than $17 billion since I first introduced the American Cures Act in 2014. This chart is an indication of that growth. It has gone from $30 billion to $48 billion in that period of time since 2014--a 58-percent increase. These increases would not have been possible without a bipartisan effort in the U.S. Senate. I enlisted a willing participant and ally and really effective Member of the Senate, Patty Murray, to be part of this; former Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who, when the Republicans were in majority control of the Senate, kept up this promise to increase the spending; and retired Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, who shared our passion for medical research. Luckily, we had a leader at the time, Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the NIH, who really did his part in enlisting support for these increases. NIH is not the only Federal medical research Agency to see significant funding increases. We have also secured $2.4 billion in increased funding for the CDC over the last 9 years. That is a 35-percent increase since fiscal year 2014. And while it is not reflected in the chart I just showed, both the CDC and NIH also received billions in supplemental funding from COVID rescue bills passed by the Senate in 2020 and 2021. While this year's budget provided a 5.8-percent bump to the NIH, a $2.5 billion increase, I am sorry to say we fell short of the 5-percent real-growth target above inflation. If we had met this target, NIH would have received $650 million, up to a level of more than $48 billion. That said, I am still encouraged about how far we have come. We finally reversed a 22-percent decline in NIH purchasing power that took place after 12 years of flat funding, but we need to step up our efforts. Diseases like cancer, stroke, opioid addiction, and mental illness will not wait on us. Half of all men and one-third of all women in the U.S. will develop cancer in their lifetime. Someone's mother, father, brother, sister, or spouse is diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease every 65 seconds. And 1 in every 300 people will be diagnosed with ALS in their lifetime. Sadly, a number of my closest friends already have received this diagnosis. Sustained and robust NIH funding will help cure, prevent, and treat these diseases. It will help the people that we all care about the most, and it already has. Because of NIH funding--listen to this--the American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 3\1/2\ million lives were saved between 1991 and 2019 as a result of improvements in cancer treatment, detection, and prevention--a 32-percent drop in the cancer death rate since 1991. Thirty years ago, HIV was a death sentence, but because of NIH research, that is no longer the case. And because of NIH funding, we are also on the verge of curing--yes, curing--sickle cell anemia, an inherited blood disorder that primarily affects African Americans. Consider this: NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019. Let me repeat that for emphasis. There are only two countries in the world that allow general advertising of prescription drugs--the United States and New Zealand. You can't turn on the television without hearing the story of a new drug. Every single drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019 started off with government-funded, taxpayer-funded research at the National Institutes of Health. So when you see these wonderful drugs, understand we, as Americans, put down the initial investment that made these drugs all possible. However, there is a real threat to our Nation's investment in medical research. The new House Republican majority, after more than a dozen--in fact, 15--painful and embarrassing failed votes to secure the Speaker, announced that Speaker McCarthy had finally won the day, he made some deals, agreements with MAGA Republicans for that to happen. One of those agreements would literally devastate funding for medical research in the future. What a price to pay. He reportedly agreed to hamstring government funding for 2024 at 2022 levels--a senseless move--senseless move--that would cut funding for scientific breakthroughs by roughly 7 percent and delay the delivery of new cures and treatments for those most in need. So I would like to know, for the record, which diseases and conditions would Speaker McCarthy and the House Republicans like us to slash funding for? Cancer? Alzheimer's? Parkinson's? Diabetes? ALS? Heart disease? Which one? Speak up, Mr. Speaker. This is supposed to be a new transparent House of Representatives. If you are going to cut funding in medical research, what can we put on the back of the burner, and how can we explain that to the families across America? Now is not the time for political horse-trading that puts one person in power at the expense of everyone waiting for a cure. We need to build on the bipartisan success which we have had to date and we have achieved over the past decade and continue to prioritize medical research funding that creates jobs but, most importantly, saves lives. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS83 | null | 5,602 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Now, Mr. President, to talk about what I came here to talk about--talk about the border. I live in a border State. We have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico. We have, as a country, 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. And we are seeing numbers of people showing up at the border that we have never seen before--millions of people since President Biden was sworn in as President on January 20, 2021, millions of people showing up, many of whom are claiming asylum and seeking to immigrate permanently into the United States under the asylum laws. Because the administration has a policy of releasing those individuals into the interior of the United States to await a future immigration court hearing, which may be years in the future because of backlog, many of those individuals do not show up at their immigration court hearing but simply are willing to play the odds that they can just melt into the Great American heartland and not be returned or repatriated to their country of origin or actually have to appear at an asylum hearing. We know that, statistically, the number of people who actually do show up for an asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge, only roughly 90 percent of them fail to meet the very stringent requirement for asylum, which is basically a credible fear of persecution based on some classification: race, sex, ethnic origin, or the like. That is a very narrow test, and it certainly does not include fear of poverty or even violence in your home country. Yet the policy of the Biden administration to basically create open borders and place individuals who show up and claim asylum--these are not people trying to run away from the Border Patrol, by the way. These are people who are turning themselves in because they know they can play the system, and they will be able to make their way into the United States without any consequences--certainly, no legal consequences. I am sure those of my colleagues who have visited the border--and we had a bipartisan group just a couple weeks ago who did visit again both Yuma, AZ, and El Paso. But as my colleagues can attest, there is no data, there is no image there, frankly, or no words to adequately convey the complexity of what is happening at the border today. To understand, you have to see and hear for yourself. Several years ago, I traveled to Brooks County, which is a little county in South Texas, where I visited a ranch that the Border Patrol had a rescue beacon in the middle of. And just to explain, the Border Patrol does a lot of humanitarian rescues because, as you can imagine, people coming from Central America, up across the land bridge into Mexico, up to the United States, many of them show up dehydrated, suffering from exposure, and some of them, frankly, die on the trip. But the Border Patrol, while they have the responsibility of enforcing our immigration laws at the border and interdicting illegal drugs,they also rescue migrants who are in distress. And what these rescue beacons are, out in the middle of nowhere, frankly--what they are are large poles with a light on top that allows migrants who are sick, injured, or otherwise in distress to contact law enforcement for help and immediately get access to first aid, water, food, whatever they need. There is a sign at the bottom of these rescue beacons that instructs the migrants to press a red button for help and to remain in the area. Well, when I first went to Brooks County, which is where this--Falfurrias is probably the largest inland port where the Border Patrol has a checkpoint in Brooks County. I was surprised to see the rescue beacons not written in just English, not just written in Spanish but in Mandarin. Mandarin. This is Brooks County, TX, a rural county 70 or so miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, and the rescue beacon is in Chinese, the Chinese language. This is a factoid about the border crisis that doesn't get nearly the attention that it deserves. What this tells me and what I have learned subsequently is that migrants aren't just coming from Mexico. They are not just coming from Central America. They are literally coming from all around the world. Now, when I hear, for example, Vice President Harris or the President of the United States or Secretary of State Blinken talk about the migration crisis, they want to talk about root causes. And I think, although that is a little bit vague, I think what they are talking about is they view migration as an economic crisis: people living in their home country who are seeking a better life, which we all certainly understand, or fleeing violence--they want to talk about root causes. But I think what they don't understand or certainly aren't articulating is the fact that this is far broader than a regional problem concentrated in Mexico and Central America. I think the fact that these rescue beacons have been, for many years, written in English, Spanish, and Mandarin is evidence of the fact that this is a far larger problem but one that the administration has simply not acknowledged. A couple of weeks ago, I traveled with a bipartisan delegation of colleagues to El Paso, TX, which is the westernmost point in my State. Actually, just a bit of trivia, the city of El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to the eastern tip of Texas, to give you an idea of the scope of what we are talking about. It is a big place. But we traveled to El Paso, TX, which is an urban area, but we also went to Yuma, AZ, which, if you look on the map, is the southwestern portion of Arizona, another border State, just right up against California. But it is an agricultural community. I think it is fair to say--I am not disparaging it--it is kind of a sleepy little agricultural town. We met a number of people in El Paso and Yuma whom I want to mention. In El Paso, we went out on a night patrol with the Border Patrol. They got on their horses, and they rode over this large area where there is a lot of traffic. And then we were informed that they had detained two migrants. And so we walked over there to sort of see what was going on, and the Border Patrol said: Well, these two are from China. El Paso, TX, two Chinese migrants trying to make their way across the border. As a matter of fact, one of the Border Patrol Agents had to use an app on the phone, I think it is called Google Translate, in order to communicate with these migrants. Then, when we went to one of the detention facilities or processing facilities, actually--not actually detention--we met a family from Uzbekistan while touring the Border Patrol Central Processing Center in El Paso--not in Mexico, not Central America, but Uzbekistan. You can look that up on the map. It is not a part of the region that the President, the Secretary of State, and Vice President are talking about when they are talking about root causes of illegal immigration. But when we went to Yuma, the little sleepy agricultural town on the border of Mexico and the United States, the Acting Border Patrol Chief told us that one of the unusual features of a number of the migrants who came across Yuma were they came from 176 different countries, and they spoke more than 200 languages. And you might ask: How in the world is that possible? Well, Senator Kelly, one of the Arizona Senators, said: Well, there is an airport right across the border in Mexico, at the northern border, in a city called Mexicali. Again, if you look at your map of Mexico, you will see that Mexicali is a pretty large urban area right there on the Arizona border. And people fly into there. Of course, they have to pay human smugglers, criminal organizations that are a network that smuggle human beings for money from anywhere in the world to that airport, and then they walk across or walk up to the Yuma Border Patrol and claim asylum. They noted that many of them are apparently well-to-do. Somebody mentioned Gucci luggage. I don't know whether Gucci makes luggage or not, but you get the idea. These are the not the sort of mental pictures that I think many people have of migrants who are seeking a better life, necessarily, fleeing poverty, I should say, or fleeing violence. So the reason I mention this is because the reality of what is happening on the ground along the border undercuts the rhetoric we hear from the administration about how to solve this problem. The White House has pushed a narrative that the only way to fix the border crisis is to fix the ``root causes'' of migration, meaning the economic and security concerns that cause people to come here. It has honed in on the Northern Triangle, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as the primary region of concern. The administration's border czar, Vice President Harris, even led the development of the ``root causes strategy.'' The problem is the data shows that this is not the region driving illegal migration. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than a quarter of a million migrants at the southern border. Fewer than 33,000 of those 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries--33,000 out of the 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries. So these are the three countries that the administration is focused on. It reminds me of the story of people who look through a soda straw at a problem. Well, they can look down the soda straw, and they can see what is happening there, but they don't see what is happening around it, and they lose any sense of context or the complete picture. That is what the administration is doing when they are looking at the border and the humanitarian and national security crisis occurring there on a daily basis and in my State's backyard. As a matter of fact, these three countries represent only about 13 percent of the migrants encountered at the southern border in December. Mexican nationals, the large country right on our southern border--Mexico is not driving the numbers either. Only 19 percent of the border encounters in December were Mexican nationals. So where are all these men and women and children coming from? Well, you can take a global map, a map of the world, and you can take a dart and throw the dart at the map and you are likely to hit a place where these migrants are coming from. Last year, across the entire border, Customs and Border Protection encountered migrants from 174 different countries. People from every corner of the globe are traveling through Mexico and crossing America's southern border. There is no question that the conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle are contributing, but they are only a small fraction of the problem. People around the world see the Biden administration catching and releasing migrants by the thousands on a daily basis. They see the yearslong wait for asylum cases to be adjudicated. They see the lack of any interior enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and as they look at this picture, they realize that if they can make it across the southern border, they are likely to be able to stay in the United States for years, if not a lifetime. Despite what the administration may think, this is not just a regional problem; it is a global phenomenon, run by transnational criminal organizations. That ought to concern all of us. Last year, CBP encountered migrants from 174 different countries. If the administration wants to fix the ``rootcauses'' of this crisis, are they going to fix the world? You can see why their misconception, their misunderstanding, their erroneous narrative of what the problem is doesn't help solve the problem. It is time for the Biden administration to acknowledge the reality of the situation and look at solutions that are realistic and effective. In order to get this crisis under control, we have to move quickly on a bipartisan basis to insist on the enforcement of our immigration laws when people attempt to enter our country other than through legal means. That is the only viable path forward, and the sooner the administration understands that, the better off we will all be. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS84-2 | null | 5,603 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Now, Mr. President, to talk about what I came here to talk about--talk about the border. I live in a border State. We have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico. We have, as a country, 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. And we are seeing numbers of people showing up at the border that we have never seen before--millions of people since President Biden was sworn in as President on January 20, 2021, millions of people showing up, many of whom are claiming asylum and seeking to immigrate permanently into the United States under the asylum laws. Because the administration has a policy of releasing those individuals into the interior of the United States to await a future immigration court hearing, which may be years in the future because of backlog, many of those individuals do not show up at their immigration court hearing but simply are willing to play the odds that they can just melt into the Great American heartland and not be returned or repatriated to their country of origin or actually have to appear at an asylum hearing. We know that, statistically, the number of people who actually do show up for an asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge, only roughly 90 percent of them fail to meet the very stringent requirement for asylum, which is basically a credible fear of persecution based on some classification: race, sex, ethnic origin, or the like. That is a very narrow test, and it certainly does not include fear of poverty or even violence in your home country. Yet the policy of the Biden administration to basically create open borders and place individuals who show up and claim asylum--these are not people trying to run away from the Border Patrol, by the way. These are people who are turning themselves in because they know they can play the system, and they will be able to make their way into the United States without any consequences--certainly, no legal consequences. I am sure those of my colleagues who have visited the border--and we had a bipartisan group just a couple weeks ago who did visit again both Yuma, AZ, and El Paso. But as my colleagues can attest, there is no data, there is no image there, frankly, or no words to adequately convey the complexity of what is happening at the border today. To understand, you have to see and hear for yourself. Several years ago, I traveled to Brooks County, which is a little county in South Texas, where I visited a ranch that the Border Patrol had a rescue beacon in the middle of. And just to explain, the Border Patrol does a lot of humanitarian rescues because, as you can imagine, people coming from Central America, up across the land bridge into Mexico, up to the United States, many of them show up dehydrated, suffering from exposure, and some of them, frankly, die on the trip. But the Border Patrol, while they have the responsibility of enforcing our immigration laws at the border and interdicting illegal drugs,they also rescue migrants who are in distress. And what these rescue beacons are, out in the middle of nowhere, frankly--what they are are large poles with a light on top that allows migrants who are sick, injured, or otherwise in distress to contact law enforcement for help and immediately get access to first aid, water, food, whatever they need. There is a sign at the bottom of these rescue beacons that instructs the migrants to press a red button for help and to remain in the area. Well, when I first went to Brooks County, which is where this--Falfurrias is probably the largest inland port where the Border Patrol has a checkpoint in Brooks County. I was surprised to see the rescue beacons not written in just English, not just written in Spanish but in Mandarin. Mandarin. This is Brooks County, TX, a rural county 70 or so miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, and the rescue beacon is in Chinese, the Chinese language. This is a factoid about the border crisis that doesn't get nearly the attention that it deserves. What this tells me and what I have learned subsequently is that migrants aren't just coming from Mexico. They are not just coming from Central America. They are literally coming from all around the world. Now, when I hear, for example, Vice President Harris or the President of the United States or Secretary of State Blinken talk about the migration crisis, they want to talk about root causes. And I think, although that is a little bit vague, I think what they are talking about is they view migration as an economic crisis: people living in their home country who are seeking a better life, which we all certainly understand, or fleeing violence--they want to talk about root causes. But I think what they don't understand or certainly aren't articulating is the fact that this is far broader than a regional problem concentrated in Mexico and Central America. I think the fact that these rescue beacons have been, for many years, written in English, Spanish, and Mandarin is evidence of the fact that this is a far larger problem but one that the administration has simply not acknowledged. A couple of weeks ago, I traveled with a bipartisan delegation of colleagues to El Paso, TX, which is the westernmost point in my State. Actually, just a bit of trivia, the city of El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to the eastern tip of Texas, to give you an idea of the scope of what we are talking about. It is a big place. But we traveled to El Paso, TX, which is an urban area, but we also went to Yuma, AZ, which, if you look on the map, is the southwestern portion of Arizona, another border State, just right up against California. But it is an agricultural community. I think it is fair to say--I am not disparaging it--it is kind of a sleepy little agricultural town. We met a number of people in El Paso and Yuma whom I want to mention. In El Paso, we went out on a night patrol with the Border Patrol. They got on their horses, and they rode over this large area where there is a lot of traffic. And then we were informed that they had detained two migrants. And so we walked over there to sort of see what was going on, and the Border Patrol said: Well, these two are from China. El Paso, TX, two Chinese migrants trying to make their way across the border. As a matter of fact, one of the Border Patrol Agents had to use an app on the phone, I think it is called Google Translate, in order to communicate with these migrants. Then, when we went to one of the detention facilities or processing facilities, actually--not actually detention--we met a family from Uzbekistan while touring the Border Patrol Central Processing Center in El Paso--not in Mexico, not Central America, but Uzbekistan. You can look that up on the map. It is not a part of the region that the President, the Secretary of State, and Vice President are talking about when they are talking about root causes of illegal immigration. But when we went to Yuma, the little sleepy agricultural town on the border of Mexico and the United States, the Acting Border Patrol Chief told us that one of the unusual features of a number of the migrants who came across Yuma were they came from 176 different countries, and they spoke more than 200 languages. And you might ask: How in the world is that possible? Well, Senator Kelly, one of the Arizona Senators, said: Well, there is an airport right across the border in Mexico, at the northern border, in a city called Mexicali. Again, if you look at your map of Mexico, you will see that Mexicali is a pretty large urban area right there on the Arizona border. And people fly into there. Of course, they have to pay human smugglers, criminal organizations that are a network that smuggle human beings for money from anywhere in the world to that airport, and then they walk across or walk up to the Yuma Border Patrol and claim asylum. They noted that many of them are apparently well-to-do. Somebody mentioned Gucci luggage. I don't know whether Gucci makes luggage or not, but you get the idea. These are the not the sort of mental pictures that I think many people have of migrants who are seeking a better life, necessarily, fleeing poverty, I should say, or fleeing violence. So the reason I mention this is because the reality of what is happening on the ground along the border undercuts the rhetoric we hear from the administration about how to solve this problem. The White House has pushed a narrative that the only way to fix the border crisis is to fix the ``root causes'' of migration, meaning the economic and security concerns that cause people to come here. It has honed in on the Northern Triangle, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as the primary region of concern. The administration's border czar, Vice President Harris, even led the development of the ``root causes strategy.'' The problem is the data shows that this is not the region driving illegal migration. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than a quarter of a million migrants at the southern border. Fewer than 33,000 of those 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries--33,000 out of the 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries. So these are the three countries that the administration is focused on. It reminds me of the story of people who look through a soda straw at a problem. Well, they can look down the soda straw, and they can see what is happening there, but they don't see what is happening around it, and they lose any sense of context or the complete picture. That is what the administration is doing when they are looking at the border and the humanitarian and national security crisis occurring there on a daily basis and in my State's backyard. As a matter of fact, these three countries represent only about 13 percent of the migrants encountered at the southern border in December. Mexican nationals, the large country right on our southern border--Mexico is not driving the numbers either. Only 19 percent of the border encounters in December were Mexican nationals. So where are all these men and women and children coming from? Well, you can take a global map, a map of the world, and you can take a dart and throw the dart at the map and you are likely to hit a place where these migrants are coming from. Last year, across the entire border, Customs and Border Protection encountered migrants from 174 different countries. People from every corner of the globe are traveling through Mexico and crossing America's southern border. There is no question that the conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle are contributing, but they are only a small fraction of the problem. People around the world see the Biden administration catching and releasing migrants by the thousands on a daily basis. They see the yearslong wait for asylum cases to be adjudicated. They see the lack of any interior enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and as they look at this picture, they realize that if they can make it across the southern border, they are likely to be able to stay in the United States for years, if not a lifetime. Despite what the administration may think, this is not just a regional problem; it is a global phenomenon, run by transnational criminal organizations. That ought to concern all of us. Last year, CBP encountered migrants from 174 different countries. If the administration wants to fix the ``rootcauses'' of this crisis, are they going to fix the world? You can see why their misconception, their misunderstanding, their erroneous narrative of what the problem is doesn't help solve the problem. It is time for the Biden administration to acknowledge the reality of the situation and look at solutions that are realistic and effective. In order to get this crisis under control, we have to move quickly on a bipartisan basis to insist on the enforcement of our immigration laws when people attempt to enter our country other than through legal means. That is the only viable path forward, and the sooner the administration understands that, the better off we will all be. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS84-2 | null | 5,604 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Now, Mr. President, to talk about what I came here to talk about--talk about the border. I live in a border State. We have 1,200 miles of border with Mexico. We have, as a country, 2,000 miles of border with Mexico. And we are seeing numbers of people showing up at the border that we have never seen before--millions of people since President Biden was sworn in as President on January 20, 2021, millions of people showing up, many of whom are claiming asylum and seeking to immigrate permanently into the United States under the asylum laws. Because the administration has a policy of releasing those individuals into the interior of the United States to await a future immigration court hearing, which may be years in the future because of backlog, many of those individuals do not show up at their immigration court hearing but simply are willing to play the odds that they can just melt into the Great American heartland and not be returned or repatriated to their country of origin or actually have to appear at an asylum hearing. We know that, statistically, the number of people who actually do show up for an asylum hearing in front of an immigration judge, only roughly 90 percent of them fail to meet the very stringent requirement for asylum, which is basically a credible fear of persecution based on some classification: race, sex, ethnic origin, or the like. That is a very narrow test, and it certainly does not include fear of poverty or even violence in your home country. Yet the policy of the Biden administration to basically create open borders and place individuals who show up and claim asylum--these are not people trying to run away from the Border Patrol, by the way. These are people who are turning themselves in because they know they can play the system, and they will be able to make their way into the United States without any consequences--certainly, no legal consequences. I am sure those of my colleagues who have visited the border--and we had a bipartisan group just a couple weeks ago who did visit again both Yuma, AZ, and El Paso. But as my colleagues can attest, there is no data, there is no image there, frankly, or no words to adequately convey the complexity of what is happening at the border today. To understand, you have to see and hear for yourself. Several years ago, I traveled to Brooks County, which is a little county in South Texas, where I visited a ranch that the Border Patrol had a rescue beacon in the middle of. And just to explain, the Border Patrol does a lot of humanitarian rescues because, as you can imagine, people coming from Central America, up across the land bridge into Mexico, up to the United States, many of them show up dehydrated, suffering from exposure, and some of them, frankly, die on the trip. But the Border Patrol, while they have the responsibility of enforcing our immigration laws at the border and interdicting illegal drugs,they also rescue migrants who are in distress. And what these rescue beacons are, out in the middle of nowhere, frankly--what they are are large poles with a light on top that allows migrants who are sick, injured, or otherwise in distress to contact law enforcement for help and immediately get access to first aid, water, food, whatever they need. There is a sign at the bottom of these rescue beacons that instructs the migrants to press a red button for help and to remain in the area. Well, when I first went to Brooks County, which is where this--Falfurrias is probably the largest inland port where the Border Patrol has a checkpoint in Brooks County. I was surprised to see the rescue beacons not written in just English, not just written in Spanish but in Mandarin. Mandarin. This is Brooks County, TX, a rural county 70 or so miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, and the rescue beacon is in Chinese, the Chinese language. This is a factoid about the border crisis that doesn't get nearly the attention that it deserves. What this tells me and what I have learned subsequently is that migrants aren't just coming from Mexico. They are not just coming from Central America. They are literally coming from all around the world. Now, when I hear, for example, Vice President Harris or the President of the United States or Secretary of State Blinken talk about the migration crisis, they want to talk about root causes. And I think, although that is a little bit vague, I think what they are talking about is they view migration as an economic crisis: people living in their home country who are seeking a better life, which we all certainly understand, or fleeing violence--they want to talk about root causes. But I think what they don't understand or certainly aren't articulating is the fact that this is far broader than a regional problem concentrated in Mexico and Central America. I think the fact that these rescue beacons have been, for many years, written in English, Spanish, and Mandarin is evidence of the fact that this is a far larger problem but one that the administration has simply not acknowledged. A couple of weeks ago, I traveled with a bipartisan delegation of colleagues to El Paso, TX, which is the westernmost point in my State. Actually, just a bit of trivia, the city of El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to the eastern tip of Texas, to give you an idea of the scope of what we are talking about. It is a big place. But we traveled to El Paso, TX, which is an urban area, but we also went to Yuma, AZ, which, if you look on the map, is the southwestern portion of Arizona, another border State, just right up against California. But it is an agricultural community. I think it is fair to say--I am not disparaging it--it is kind of a sleepy little agricultural town. We met a number of people in El Paso and Yuma whom I want to mention. In El Paso, we went out on a night patrol with the Border Patrol. They got on their horses, and they rode over this large area where there is a lot of traffic. And then we were informed that they had detained two migrants. And so we walked over there to sort of see what was going on, and the Border Patrol said: Well, these two are from China. El Paso, TX, two Chinese migrants trying to make their way across the border. As a matter of fact, one of the Border Patrol Agents had to use an app on the phone, I think it is called Google Translate, in order to communicate with these migrants. Then, when we went to one of the detention facilities or processing facilities, actually--not actually detention--we met a family from Uzbekistan while touring the Border Patrol Central Processing Center in El Paso--not in Mexico, not Central America, but Uzbekistan. You can look that up on the map. It is not a part of the region that the President, the Secretary of State, and Vice President are talking about when they are talking about root causes of illegal immigration. But when we went to Yuma, the little sleepy agricultural town on the border of Mexico and the United States, the Acting Border Patrol Chief told us that one of the unusual features of a number of the migrants who came across Yuma were they came from 176 different countries, and they spoke more than 200 languages. And you might ask: How in the world is that possible? Well, Senator Kelly, one of the Arizona Senators, said: Well, there is an airport right across the border in Mexico, at the northern border, in a city called Mexicali. Again, if you look at your map of Mexico, you will see that Mexicali is a pretty large urban area right there on the Arizona border. And people fly into there. Of course, they have to pay human smugglers, criminal organizations that are a network that smuggle human beings for money from anywhere in the world to that airport, and then they walk across or walk up to the Yuma Border Patrol and claim asylum. They noted that many of them are apparently well-to-do. Somebody mentioned Gucci luggage. I don't know whether Gucci makes luggage or not, but you get the idea. These are the not the sort of mental pictures that I think many people have of migrants who are seeking a better life, necessarily, fleeing poverty, I should say, or fleeing violence. So the reason I mention this is because the reality of what is happening on the ground along the border undercuts the rhetoric we hear from the administration about how to solve this problem. The White House has pushed a narrative that the only way to fix the border crisis is to fix the ``root causes'' of migration, meaning the economic and security concerns that cause people to come here. It has honed in on the Northern Triangle, including El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as the primary region of concern. The administration's border czar, Vice President Harris, even led the development of the ``root causes strategy.'' The problem is the data shows that this is not the region driving illegal migration. Last month, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than a quarter of a million migrants at the southern border. Fewer than 33,000 of those 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries--33,000 out of the 250,000 were from Northern Triangle countries. So these are the three countries that the administration is focused on. It reminds me of the story of people who look through a soda straw at a problem. Well, they can look down the soda straw, and they can see what is happening there, but they don't see what is happening around it, and they lose any sense of context or the complete picture. That is what the administration is doing when they are looking at the border and the humanitarian and national security crisis occurring there on a daily basis and in my State's backyard. As a matter of fact, these three countries represent only about 13 percent of the migrants encountered at the southern border in December. Mexican nationals, the large country right on our southern border--Mexico is not driving the numbers either. Only 19 percent of the border encounters in December were Mexican nationals. So where are all these men and women and children coming from? Well, you can take a global map, a map of the world, and you can take a dart and throw the dart at the map and you are likely to hit a place where these migrants are coming from. Last year, across the entire border, Customs and Border Protection encountered migrants from 174 different countries. People from every corner of the globe are traveling through Mexico and crossing America's southern border. There is no question that the conditions in Mexico and the Northern Triangle are contributing, but they are only a small fraction of the problem. People around the world see the Biden administration catching and releasing migrants by the thousands on a daily basis. They see the yearslong wait for asylum cases to be adjudicated. They see the lack of any interior enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and as they look at this picture, they realize that if they can make it across the southern border, they are likely to be able to stay in the United States for years, if not a lifetime. Despite what the administration may think, this is not just a regional problem; it is a global phenomenon, run by transnational criminal organizations. That ought to concern all of us. Last year, CBP encountered migrants from 174 different countries. If the administration wants to fix the ``rootcauses'' of this crisis, are they going to fix the world? You can see why their misconception, their misunderstanding, their erroneous narrative of what the problem is doesn't help solve the problem. It is time for the Biden administration to acknowledge the reality of the situation and look at solutions that are realistic and effective. In order to get this crisis under control, we have to move quickly on a bipartisan basis to insist on the enforcement of our immigration laws when people attempt to enter our country other than through legal means. That is the only viable path forward, and the sooner the administration understands that, the better off we will all be. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS84-2 | null | 5,605 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I rise today at the beginning of this new year to talk about a problem we have talked about a lot, but unfortunately we haven't gotten the results we need, and that is to talk about our southern border. It is not a new topic for me--I have been on the floor many times talking about this, as have my colleagues--and it is not a new topic for the American people because they see this every day, and many people are living it very close-up. Many of my colleagues can say the same because this is a topic they have unfortunately had to discuss over and over and over again, with no real results, and we are going to hear from some of them today. Years ago on this Senate floor, I said: I urge my colleagues here in the Senate to take a long-- hard look at the undisputed facts that demonstrate the crisis at the border is escalating. When I said those words, it was December 2018. The number of apprehensions along the southern border then was a little more than 60,000. Over the weekend, Customs and Border Protection released the numbers for this past December, and apprehensions along our southern border were reported at 251,487--an alltime high. You can see from the chart I have here--you might not be able to read the numbers, but the dark blue is what we have been doing all through 2022, far eclipsing the light blue of 2021, whichwere record numbers. But, here again, in the dark purple, which is the lower one, this is the average from fiscal year 2013 to 2020, and many times, this is five times, six times the amount in December. That is startling--startling. But one thing that has changed over these last 2 years, fortunately, is that the President finally decided to visit the southern border. He went to El Paso several weeks ago. Well, it is about time. It certainly shouldn't have taken that long to visit a part of our country that is deeply affected by these numbers, but he finally went down. I have been to the southern border many times. I am sure, Madam President, you have been there many times as well--quite a bit over the years. We just had several codels go down these past couple weeks. The President has been saying of Republicans that ``it is easy to demagogue the issue and reject solutions.'' So here is what I have to say to the President in response to that: No, Mr. President, it is not easy to demagogue. It is easy to see that the issue is not getting the attention that it deserves by this administration. The chart pretty much says it all right there. The Biden administration often pivots to calling for comprehensive immigration reform and that Congress needs to provide the resources. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are discussing these very issues. But this is not an either/or scenario. Any discussions about the need for and the way we reform our immigration system are separate and apart from the need to enforce the laws to secure the border. I am particularly struck by the President's comment on solutions. To explain these record numbers almost each and every month, we have been told: The surge is seasonal. By the way, December is traditionally, as you can see, one of the lower months over the years, so the seasonal charge cannot be the issue. The surge was the result of particular political conditions in relative countries. Well, we see people coming in from hundreds of countries, not just surging from political conditions in a country. Our economy is a magnet. It very well could be. It is a surge for asylum or those fleeing countries that are impacted by natural disasters. All of these things, these excuses, are from the administration. One thing is clear: Thousands of individuals and families are continually coming into our country unaccounted for, draining the resources of many of our communities. But Congress needs to do our part to provide the funds and support for the men and women in the Agencies that are tasked with securing our border, enforcing our immigration laws, and stemming the flow of drugs, particularly fentanyl, from getting into our country. I stand ready to do that and have done that through my work on the Appropriations Committee as the ranking member on Homeland Security. Now, you may disagree with the tone and tactics of the last administration, but I think everyone can agree that border security was certainly a priority, and that is why so many of us called for President Biden to go to the border himself and see the crisis for himself. The numbers under President Trump were measurably less because of his policies. There is an irony here because after 2 years of neglect, we have seen the need to go to the border in a way dwindled because the border crisis has actually come to the President, come to Washington, DC, come to West Virginia, come to Denver. But some of the most critical comments about the impacts and failures of these policies have not come from Republicans but from a mayor of a town along the Rio Grande or from the Democratic mayor of the city of New York. Mayor Adams, mayor of New York City, has called this situation not just a crisis, but, instead, he has called it a disaster--exactly what it is. Mayor Adams is now seeking funds to help house those tens of thousands of migrants who are arriving in New York City. Cities far into the interior of our country are being stretched to the max from the migrant surge. This is why we have to do everything we can to stem the influx. We just passed an Omnibus appropriations bill that increases funding for these activities, particularly at CBP, ICE, and FEMA, for personnel and for technology. But imagine the men and women who have to deal with this all the time--the fatigue, the morale, the difficulties when you are so overrun. They are just pressed beyond capacity month after month and year after year. Each year, we have worked in a bipartisan way within Homeland Security to encourage and fund increased hiring for Border Patrol agents, for example. We are way down on those. But it has been difficult to fill these positions or to even maintain the current force. One of the things I am most proud about in my tenure as ranking member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee is the creation and funding of a new position for CBP called the processing coordinators. We did this because too many of our trained agents were pulled from their duty stations and their mission to perform tasks that they are not prepared to do. This balance enables Agencies to go back to actually performing tasks they are supposed to do, they are equipped for, and they are trained for. In addition to increasing resources for CBP, we must also be making efforts to increase interior enforcement. Once they get through the border and they declare asylum, they are told to come back in 5 to 7 years. Many of them don't, but that is what they are--and they are in the interior of the country, and we don't use the interior enforcement mechanisms that we have. It is very unacceptable that thousands upon thousands are waiting--in some cases waiting 7 years before they can even begin any kind of removal procedures. We just cannot let this crisis continue. Bottom line: The issue was not a priority of the first 2 years of this administration. That is very obvious. As I said, the chart--this is the second year of the President's administration. This is the first year which is way above the averages, but it definitely cannot be ignored. The impact on too many families, too many businesses, and too many communities along the southern border, even in our State of West Virginia, simply cannot be ignored. I am glad the President went, and now he is fully aware, hopefully, of the problem. I sure hope he is ready and willing to act. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. CAPITO | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS86-2 | null | 5,606 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, for his comments and his perspective and his insight, as a Senator serving from a border State, on what they are facing every single day. I would say to my colleague that Nebraska has become a border State. I know Colorado has become a border State. Every State in this country now is feeling the effects of the chaos that we see at our southern border, so my thanks to the senior Senator from Texas for offering his perspective on that. I would say that on January 13 in Nebraska, we had two Nebraska State Patrol officers who pulled over two separate vehicles that were hours away from each other. One car contained 50,000 suspected fentanyl pills. The other contained a suspected fentanyl-cocaine mixture. Both cars were driven up from the border. These are only the latest instances of synthetic opioid trafficking in my State of Nebraska. In 2022, the Nebraska State Patrol confiscated 66 pounds of fentanyl, and that is up from 25 pounds the year before and 10 pounds in 2020. In Nebraska and throughout this Nation, the numbers of drug seizures are staggering. At the southwest border, there was a 55-percent increase in fentanyl seizures from just November to December. Heroin seizures increased by 52 percent the month before. Methamphetamine seizures increased as well. We know what is driving these drug trafficking numbers: We have a crisis at our southern border. The effects of that crisis are rippling across the country, felt by communities in Nebraska and beyond. When we cannot control who is entering the United States, what they are bringing in, or where they are going, that is a serious national security risk. Let's go over the numbers. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.3 million migrants at the southern border this past fiscal year--more encounters than any other year in our history. Migrant encounters in December reached the highest monthly level ever recorded, with over 250,000 encounters in 1 month. That number had tripled in just 2 years. And it gets even worse. Border Patrol agents have stopped individuals on the government's terror watch list 38 times so far since October. Suspected terrorist encounters will hit record levels if this trend continues through 2023. Gang-affiliated encounters skyrocketed last year as well, from 348 to 751. These historic statistics should concern anyone who cares about our country's security and the safety of our communities and the safety of American families. But this administration doesn't consider what is going on at the border to be a crisis. In fact, our President hardly seems to consider what is going on at the border at all. Despite his recent trip south for what I thought was a photo op, his administration has exacerbated the border crisis. In case anybody has forgotten, let me refresh your memories. With simple strokes of his pen, President Biden ended the national emergency declaration at the border. He halted construction on the border wall, and he scaled back ICE enforcement in the first few months of his Presidency. No amount of photo ops can change what we all know: This administration has not only failed to prioritize the safety and security of our border, it has put forward policies over the past 2 years that have worsened this crisis. Only a month ago, President Biden himself insisted that ``there are more important things going on.'' I happen to think the national security threat posed by an influx of suspected terrorists across the border is important. I think that human trafficking overrunning our border is important. I think the massive increase in overdoses due to drug smuggling across the border is important. Across the country, fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49. Between 2019 and 2021, Nebraska's largest county saw an appalling 400-percent increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. Complacency is not an acceptable response to this atrocious uptick in loss of life. My Republican colleagues and I have real, commonsense solutions to the problems that our border is facing. We need to invest more in new border security measures and resources for the men and women who serve us honorably as Border Patrol agents. We need to end the lenient policies like catch-and-release and increase penalties for people who don't show up for their immigration court hearings. We need the Department of Homeland Security to create a serious, comprehensive strategy to address those issues. Simply throwing more tax dollars toward a smartphone app that offers migrants appointments to cross our border--well, that is what the Biden administration has proposed. It is not the right response to the mayhem we are seeing. Their policies do nothing to secure the border and to reinforce our Nation's security. Until President Biden and my Democratic colleagues seriously work with us to fix this border chaos once and for all, we can expect to see more drugs brought into our country, more women and children facing a life of sex trafficking, and more threats to the security of our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FISCHER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS86 | null | 5,607 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, for his comments and his perspective and his insight, as a Senator serving from a border State, on what they are facing every single day. I would say to my colleague that Nebraska has become a border State. I know Colorado has become a border State. Every State in this country now is feeling the effects of the chaos that we see at our southern border, so my thanks to the senior Senator from Texas for offering his perspective on that. I would say that on January 13 in Nebraska, we had two Nebraska State Patrol officers who pulled over two separate vehicles that were hours away from each other. One car contained 50,000 suspected fentanyl pills. The other contained a suspected fentanyl-cocaine mixture. Both cars were driven up from the border. These are only the latest instances of synthetic opioid trafficking in my State of Nebraska. In 2022, the Nebraska State Patrol confiscated 66 pounds of fentanyl, and that is up from 25 pounds the year before and 10 pounds in 2020. In Nebraska and throughout this Nation, the numbers of drug seizures are staggering. At the southwest border, there was a 55-percent increase in fentanyl seizures from just November to December. Heroin seizures increased by 52 percent the month before. Methamphetamine seizures increased as well. We know what is driving these drug trafficking numbers: We have a crisis at our southern border. The effects of that crisis are rippling across the country, felt by communities in Nebraska and beyond. When we cannot control who is entering the United States, what they are bringing in, or where they are going, that is a serious national security risk. Let's go over the numbers. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.3 million migrants at the southern border this past fiscal year--more encounters than any other year in our history. Migrant encounters in December reached the highest monthly level ever recorded, with over 250,000 encounters in 1 month. That number had tripled in just 2 years. And it gets even worse. Border Patrol agents have stopped individuals on the government's terror watch list 38 times so far since October. Suspected terrorist encounters will hit record levels if this trend continues through 2023. Gang-affiliated encounters skyrocketed last year as well, from 348 to 751. These historic statistics should concern anyone who cares about our country's security and the safety of our communities and the safety of American families. But this administration doesn't consider what is going on at the border to be a crisis. In fact, our President hardly seems to consider what is going on at the border at all. Despite his recent trip south for what I thought was a photo op, his administration has exacerbated the border crisis. In case anybody has forgotten, let me refresh your memories. With simple strokes of his pen, President Biden ended the national emergency declaration at the border. He halted construction on the border wall, and he scaled back ICE enforcement in the first few months of his Presidency. No amount of photo ops can change what we all know: This administration has not only failed to prioritize the safety and security of our border, it has put forward policies over the past 2 years that have worsened this crisis. Only a month ago, President Biden himself insisted that ``there are more important things going on.'' I happen to think the national security threat posed by an influx of suspected terrorists across the border is important. I think that human trafficking overrunning our border is important. I think the massive increase in overdoses due to drug smuggling across the border is important. Across the country, fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49. Between 2019 and 2021, Nebraska's largest county saw an appalling 400-percent increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. Complacency is not an acceptable response to this atrocious uptick in loss of life. My Republican colleagues and I have real, commonsense solutions to the problems that our border is facing. We need to invest more in new border security measures and resources for the men and women who serve us honorably as Border Patrol agents. We need to end the lenient policies like catch-and-release and increase penalties for people who don't show up for their immigration court hearings. We need the Department of Homeland Security to create a serious, comprehensive strategy to address those issues. Simply throwing more tax dollars toward a smartphone app that offers migrants appointments to cross our border--well, that is what the Biden administration has proposed. It is not the right response to the mayhem we are seeing. Their policies do nothing to secure the border and to reinforce our Nation's security. Until President Biden and my Democratic colleagues seriously work with us to fix this border chaos once and for all, we can expect to see more drugs brought into our country, more women and children facing a life of sex trafficking, and more threats to the security of our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FISCHER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS86 | null | 5,608 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, for his comments and his perspective and his insight, as a Senator serving from a border State, on what they are facing every single day. I would say to my colleague that Nebraska has become a border State. I know Colorado has become a border State. Every State in this country now is feeling the effects of the chaos that we see at our southern border, so my thanks to the senior Senator from Texas for offering his perspective on that. I would say that on January 13 in Nebraska, we had two Nebraska State Patrol officers who pulled over two separate vehicles that were hours away from each other. One car contained 50,000 suspected fentanyl pills. The other contained a suspected fentanyl-cocaine mixture. Both cars were driven up from the border. These are only the latest instances of synthetic opioid trafficking in my State of Nebraska. In 2022, the Nebraska State Patrol confiscated 66 pounds of fentanyl, and that is up from 25 pounds the year before and 10 pounds in 2020. In Nebraska and throughout this Nation, the numbers of drug seizures are staggering. At the southwest border, there was a 55-percent increase in fentanyl seizures from just November to December. Heroin seizures increased by 52 percent the month before. Methamphetamine seizures increased as well. We know what is driving these drug trafficking numbers: We have a crisis at our southern border. The effects of that crisis are rippling across the country, felt by communities in Nebraska and beyond. When we cannot control who is entering the United States, what they are bringing in, or where they are going, that is a serious national security risk. Let's go over the numbers. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.3 million migrants at the southern border this past fiscal year--more encounters than any other year in our history. Migrant encounters in December reached the highest monthly level ever recorded, with over 250,000 encounters in 1 month. That number had tripled in just 2 years. And it gets even worse. Border Patrol agents have stopped individuals on the government's terror watch list 38 times so far since October. Suspected terrorist encounters will hit record levels if this trend continues through 2023. Gang-affiliated encounters skyrocketed last year as well, from 348 to 751. These historic statistics should concern anyone who cares about our country's security and the safety of our communities and the safety of American families. But this administration doesn't consider what is going on at the border to be a crisis. In fact, our President hardly seems to consider what is going on at the border at all. Despite his recent trip south for what I thought was a photo op, his administration has exacerbated the border crisis. In case anybody has forgotten, let me refresh your memories. With simple strokes of his pen, President Biden ended the national emergency declaration at the border. He halted construction on the border wall, and he scaled back ICE enforcement in the first few months of his Presidency. No amount of photo ops can change what we all know: This administration has not only failed to prioritize the safety and security of our border, it has put forward policies over the past 2 years that have worsened this crisis. Only a month ago, President Biden himself insisted that ``there are more important things going on.'' I happen to think the national security threat posed by an influx of suspected terrorists across the border is important. I think that human trafficking overrunning our border is important. I think the massive increase in overdoses due to drug smuggling across the border is important. Across the country, fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49. Between 2019 and 2021, Nebraska's largest county saw an appalling 400-percent increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. Complacency is not an acceptable response to this atrocious uptick in loss of life. My Republican colleagues and I have real, commonsense solutions to the problems that our border is facing. We need to invest more in new border security measures and resources for the men and women who serve us honorably as Border Patrol agents. We need to end the lenient policies like catch-and-release and increase penalties for people who don't show up for their immigration court hearings. We need the Department of Homeland Security to create a serious, comprehensive strategy to address those issues. Simply throwing more tax dollars toward a smartphone app that offers migrants appointments to cross our border--well, that is what the Biden administration has proposed. It is not the right response to the mayhem we are seeing. Their policies do nothing to secure the border and to reinforce our Nation's security. Until President Biden and my Democratic colleagues seriously work with us to fix this border chaos once and for all, we can expect to see more drugs brought into our country, more women and children facing a life of sex trafficking, and more threats to the security of our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FISCHER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS86 | null | 5,609 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, for his comments and his perspective and his insight, as a Senator serving from a border State, on what they are facing every single day. I would say to my colleague that Nebraska has become a border State. I know Colorado has become a border State. Every State in this country now is feeling the effects of the chaos that we see at our southern border, so my thanks to the senior Senator from Texas for offering his perspective on that. I would say that on January 13 in Nebraska, we had two Nebraska State Patrol officers who pulled over two separate vehicles that were hours away from each other. One car contained 50,000 suspected fentanyl pills. The other contained a suspected fentanyl-cocaine mixture. Both cars were driven up from the border. These are only the latest instances of synthetic opioid trafficking in my State of Nebraska. In 2022, the Nebraska State Patrol confiscated 66 pounds of fentanyl, and that is up from 25 pounds the year before and 10 pounds in 2020. In Nebraska and throughout this Nation, the numbers of drug seizures are staggering. At the southwest border, there was a 55-percent increase in fentanyl seizures from just November to December. Heroin seizures increased by 52 percent the month before. Methamphetamine seizures increased as well. We know what is driving these drug trafficking numbers: We have a crisis at our southern border. The effects of that crisis are rippling across the country, felt by communities in Nebraska and beyond. When we cannot control who is entering the United States, what they are bringing in, or where they are going, that is a serious national security risk. Let's go over the numbers. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.3 million migrants at the southern border this past fiscal year--more encounters than any other year in our history. Migrant encounters in December reached the highest monthly level ever recorded, with over 250,000 encounters in 1 month. That number had tripled in just 2 years. And it gets even worse. Border Patrol agents have stopped individuals on the government's terror watch list 38 times so far since October. Suspected terrorist encounters will hit record levels if this trend continues through 2023. Gang-affiliated encounters skyrocketed last year as well, from 348 to 751. These historic statistics should concern anyone who cares about our country's security and the safety of our communities and the safety of American families. But this administration doesn't consider what is going on at the border to be a crisis. In fact, our President hardly seems to consider what is going on at the border at all. Despite his recent trip south for what I thought was a photo op, his administration has exacerbated the border crisis. In case anybody has forgotten, let me refresh your memories. With simple strokes of his pen, President Biden ended the national emergency declaration at the border. He halted construction on the border wall, and he scaled back ICE enforcement in the first few months of his Presidency. No amount of photo ops can change what we all know: This administration has not only failed to prioritize the safety and security of our border, it has put forward policies over the past 2 years that have worsened this crisis. Only a month ago, President Biden himself insisted that ``there are more important things going on.'' I happen to think the national security threat posed by an influx of suspected terrorists across the border is important. I think that human trafficking overrunning our border is important. I think the massive increase in overdoses due to drug smuggling across the border is important. Across the country, fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49. Between 2019 and 2021, Nebraska's largest county saw an appalling 400-percent increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. Complacency is not an acceptable response to this atrocious uptick in loss of life. My Republican colleagues and I have real, commonsense solutions to the problems that our border is facing. We need to invest more in new border security measures and resources for the men and women who serve us honorably as Border Patrol agents. We need to end the lenient policies like catch-and-release and increase penalties for people who don't show up for their immigration court hearings. We need the Department of Homeland Security to create a serious, comprehensive strategy to address those issues. Simply throwing more tax dollars toward a smartphone app that offers migrants appointments to cross our border--well, that is what the Biden administration has proposed. It is not the right response to the mayhem we are seeing. Their policies do nothing to secure the border and to reinforce our Nation's security. Until President Biden and my Democratic colleagues seriously work with us to fix this border chaos once and for all, we can expect to see more drugs brought into our country, more women and children facing a life of sex trafficking, and more threats to the security of our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. FISCHER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS86 | null | 5,610 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I do want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Capito of West Virginia for her leadership in bringing Senate Republicans to the floor to talk about what is a very important issue to all of our constituents--the safety and the security of our great Nation. Joe Biden created a crisis that has now turned into a complete catastrophe--one a mere photo op at a cleaned-up site in Texas won't fix. In just 2 years, under President Biden, over 4 million illegal immigrants have crossed the southern border--151 who are on the terror watch list. To top that off, we know of at least 1.2 million individuals who evaded the authorities. Those are the individuals we call the ``got-aways.'' This border catastrophe is so much more than a flood of illegal immigrants hoping to jump the legal immigration line to get in the door. An open border is an invitation for mischief. It is a drug lord's dream. In my home State of Iowa, drug overdoses among young people have risen 120 percent in the last few years. According to the State's Division ofCriminal Investigation, there were four times the amount of fentanyl pills disguised as prescription drugs in 2022 as compared to the previous year. We must act now to counter this deadly fentanyl epidemic. We, as lawmakers, should make the distribution of fentanyl resulting in death punishable by Federal felony murder charges. It is past time the consequences for intentionally inflicting an overdose fits the crime. The cartels producing and smuggling this deadly drug into the United States are also funneling a significant number of illegal firearms and weapons, leading to barbaric violence. Just last week in California, a family of six, including a 10-month-old baby girl, was killed in a drug cartel execution. Unfortunately, the suspects are still at large. Folks, this death and devastation cannot continue. In the coming weeks, I am looking forward to leading a bicameral delegation to the California-Mexico border. There, we plan to hear directly from Customs and Border Protection personnel about fentanyl and their ongoing drug interdictions. We will tour the port in San Diego--the epicenter for fentanyl trafficking into the United States--and get a firsthand look at the dangerous and critical work our Border Patrol agents are doing day in and day out. I anticipate a common theme in all of our conversations: the need to physically secure our border, something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used to support. In 2007, then-Senator Joe Biden argued: No great country can say it's secure without being able to secure its borders. In 2010, Senator Chuck Schumer supported border security and agreed the border lacked ``the resources to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun runners, human traffickers, money launderers, and organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border.'' Amen, folks. I agree with both of them. But where is that same attitude now, when the southern border has become immensely more dangerous, more permeable, and more lethal? At every single one of my townhalls, over the past 3 weeks, and in dozens of interviews with Iowa media, I was asked about the crisis at the southern border. So, to those on the left who say this is just a Republican stunt, I think you had better get out of the beltway and into Middle America, hear directly from the people you are supposed to serve, and you will quickly find out it is no stunt; it is reality. Iowa families want solutions. They want safety, and they want to curtail the ever-increasing access to deadly drugs for their children, and they are not alone. The American people want a solution. In fact, over a majority of Americans--73 percent, according to one Pew Research poll--say they believe we need to increase security along the U.S.-Mexico border. It is a great place to start, a place to find common ground. In fact, there are left over border materials from the Trump administration just lying out in the desert, materials that taxpayers have paid for that are just collecting dust. And get this: The Federal Government is actually paying--yes, they have hired contractors, and they spend our tax dollars to do this--to watch over those materials that are lying there in the desert. Without a secure border, we cannot have a larger conversation about reforming our immigration system. So maybe, just maybe, a good place to start is for this administration to allow States that want to complete the border barrier to do so, instead of taking them to court. Besides, doesn't Biden's Justice Department have enough on their hands right now? So I agree with the Senator from West Virginia that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ERNST | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS87 | null | 5,611 |
formal | secure our border | null | anti-Latino | Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I do want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Capito of West Virginia for her leadership in bringing Senate Republicans to the floor to talk about what is a very important issue to all of our constituents--the safety and the security of our great Nation. Joe Biden created a crisis that has now turned into a complete catastrophe--one a mere photo op at a cleaned-up site in Texas won't fix. In just 2 years, under President Biden, over 4 million illegal immigrants have crossed the southern border--151 who are on the terror watch list. To top that off, we know of at least 1.2 million individuals who evaded the authorities. Those are the individuals we call the ``got-aways.'' This border catastrophe is so much more than a flood of illegal immigrants hoping to jump the legal immigration line to get in the door. An open border is an invitation for mischief. It is a drug lord's dream. In my home State of Iowa, drug overdoses among young people have risen 120 percent in the last few years. According to the State's Division ofCriminal Investigation, there were four times the amount of fentanyl pills disguised as prescription drugs in 2022 as compared to the previous year. We must act now to counter this deadly fentanyl epidemic. We, as lawmakers, should make the distribution of fentanyl resulting in death punishable by Federal felony murder charges. It is past time the consequences for intentionally inflicting an overdose fits the crime. The cartels producing and smuggling this deadly drug into the United States are also funneling a significant number of illegal firearms and weapons, leading to barbaric violence. Just last week in California, a family of six, including a 10-month-old baby girl, was killed in a drug cartel execution. Unfortunately, the suspects are still at large. Folks, this death and devastation cannot continue. In the coming weeks, I am looking forward to leading a bicameral delegation to the California-Mexico border. There, we plan to hear directly from Customs and Border Protection personnel about fentanyl and their ongoing drug interdictions. We will tour the port in San Diego--the epicenter for fentanyl trafficking into the United States--and get a firsthand look at the dangerous and critical work our Border Patrol agents are doing day in and day out. I anticipate a common theme in all of our conversations: the need to physically secure our border, something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle used to support. In 2007, then-Senator Joe Biden argued: No great country can say it's secure without being able to secure its borders. In 2010, Senator Chuck Schumer supported border security and agreed the border lacked ``the resources to fully combat the drug smugglers, gun runners, human traffickers, money launderers, and organized criminals that seek to do harm to innocent Americans along our border.'' Amen, folks. I agree with both of them. But where is that same attitude now, when the southern border has become immensely more dangerous, more permeable, and more lethal? At every single one of my townhalls, over the past 3 weeks, and in dozens of interviews with Iowa media, I was asked about the crisis at the southern border. So, to those on the left who say this is just a Republican stunt, I think you had better get out of the beltway and into Middle America, hear directly from the people you are supposed to serve, and you will quickly find out it is no stunt; it is reality. Iowa families want solutions. They want safety, and they want to curtail the ever-increasing access to deadly drugs for their children, and they are not alone. The American people want a solution. In fact, over a majority of Americans--73 percent, according to one Pew Research poll--say they believe we need to increase security along the U.S.-Mexico border. It is a great place to start, a place to find common ground. In fact, there are left over border materials from the Trump administration just lying out in the desert, materials that taxpayers have paid for that are just collecting dust. And get this: The Federal Government is actually paying--yes, they have hired contractors, and they spend our tax dollars to do this--to watch over those materials that are lying there in the desert. Without a secure border, we cannot have a larger conversation about reforming our immigration system. So maybe, just maybe, a good place to start is for this administration to allow States that want to complete the border barrier to do so, instead of taking them to court. Besides, doesn't Biden's Justice Department have enough on their hands right now? So I agree with the Senator from West Virginia that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ERNST | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS87 | null | 5,612 |
formal | Back the Blue | null | racist | Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Mississippi for her comments on this subject. I am down here on the floor to also talk about the crisis at the border--the humanitarian crisis, the Homeland Security crisis, and a crisis that is resulting in cartels making $800 million a year in human trafficking. I joined a bipartisan delegation 2 weeks ago. We visited the border. It was very productive. It was one of the first bipartisan delegations in quite some time. The reason that was important is, if you go down there with apartisan delegation, you are only going to actually talk about one side of the issue. If you go down there with a bipartisan delegation, you can talk about what we need to do on a bipartisan basis to solve the crisis at the border. I want to start where Senator Hyde-Smith finished--the humanitarian crisis. I am one of the Members who has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill that has border security and asylum reform in it. I had a lot of my staff ask me: Why would you do that? You know it is going to be unpopular. You are going to get criticized from the left for going too far. You are going to get criticized from the right for having any discussion about immigration reform. I have been down to the border several times. I told my staff that it is hard for me to forget border security telling me that they just transported an 11-year-old girl who had been repeatedly raped, so much so, she screamed so long she couldn't even speak anymore before she crossed the border. I told them I can't forget going down the Rio Grande River and seeing a corpse taken out of the river, realtime, while I was down there. It wasn't staged because it is happening repeatedly every year. When you hear stories of truckloads of people being bused across the border--53 of them dying through suffocation and heat exposure on American soil--I can't forget that. That is a humanitarian crisis that has to be solved. Then I went to the border last week and I started at the Rio Grande Sector and then I went over to the Yuma sector. At night, at the Rio Grande Sector, we saw two Chinese nationals who had been apprehended. Chinese nationals pay, on average, about $35,000 to cross the border. In many cases, they don't have the money to do it. They have somebody invest in them, and then they become indentured servants in the United States to pay off that debt. You have people pay $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 who have an expectation from the cartel that they have a debt to be repaid. That may be an honest job that they could get or that could be an illegal activity that helps the cartels. Now we go over to the Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector is in Western Arizona. There is a section of border there that hasn't been completed. It is about 7 miles wide. But the most important part of that 7 miles is about a 12-foot gate. Three years ago, 8,000 people crossed through that gate; 2 years ago, 200,000 people crossed through that same 12-foot gate; and over the last 12 months, 300,000 people have. Five thousand of them were Russian nationals; another 5,000 were Chinese nationals. Look, I understand why people want to get out of Russia, and I understand why people want to get out of China. What I don't understand is why on Earth in transit to that border--that dangerous crossing that you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to a cartel, a transnational criminal organization--why on Earth wouldn't you stop in a nation that is safe, the first safe country that you can get to out of the country that you are trying to flee from? That is how international asylum treaties work. You get out of the dangerous country. You go to a country that has international agreements on asylum. You claim asylum. And then you may even want to seek asylum in the United States. We had reports in the Yuma Sector of people who are flying into Mexicali. They are flying in, not making the trek as many people think of caravans coming from Central America through Mexico--flying into Mexicali with suitcases and bags and taking a cab to the border, making sure their toll is paid and then crossing the border. There is no way on Earth that people coming from many of these nations could not have sought asylum somewhere closer to home and then give us a chance for orderly entry. In total, it is estimated that the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, are being paid almost $800 million a year. What are they doing with that? If you go down to the border--particularly if you go down there around midnight--they play the same play every night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They will take innocent people who are going to come across the border, and they tell them: Once you get across the border, present yourself to a Border Patrol agent, and you will be processed, which is exactly what happens. Under the Biden administration, you are likely to be released within a few days or not more than about a week. The disturbing trend is the one that Senator Hyde-Smith talked about, the disturbing number of people who are evading Border Patrol. Why on Earth would you not opt to go into a facility that is heated in the winter and cooled in the summer and spend a week of being fed three times a day, to have access to facilities, to have changing tables for babies, to have play areas while they are being detained and processed? Why on Earth would you avoid all that and take the dangerous step of evading detection, unless, at least for some of them, there is a nefarious purpose. Then they are moving into communities where we have already seen--in North Carolina, an illegal immigrant murdered a young lady just a couple of years ago. We have seen this crime, and it tracks back almost invariably to the people who are the so-called got-aways. Now I want to go to the Yuma Sector and talk about those 300,000 Border Patrol. I am wearing a ``Back the Blue'' flag. But as you all know, if it is Border Patrol, they wear green uniforms, so I say, ``Back Law Enforcement.'' Right now, Border Patrol only has less than half of the people who are sworn to protect the border doing those jobs. They are in processing facilities. They are driving buses. They are providing support for daycare. Literally, I am not exaggerating. So that means that we have half as many people protecting a border that has wide-open spaces. There are no structures whatsoever. Come across. Walk through the Rio Grande. In most cases, you can. You don't have to swim. But when those 300,000 people get there--this is the most amazing thing about this country--they are going through that 12-foot gate. If Border Patrol goes there, then the rest of the border is open for the got-aways. Our country is so extraordinary that they say: I know that it is only about a 10-minute ride from that 12-foot gate to the processing facility, but they won't transport a child unless they have a car seat for them. If somebody has disabilities, they have to make special accommodations. Imagine 300,000--300,000--people coming across the border in a 12-month period, what Border Patrol has to do to conform to our laws and treat these people humanely and safely. They need time. Time can only come when Congress recognizes that we have to secure the border. We have to fill the gaps. We have to insist that if you want to come to this country, present yourself at a legal port of entry, present a request for asylum, you will be processed. We need to send the message: If you want to come to the United States, thank you for the compliment you are willing to risk your life to come to the United States, but respect our laws and don't pay cartels $800 million a year so that they can create a conduit for fentanyl and other drugs that are poisoning almost 100,000 Americans a year. Now let's talk about immigration reform. I think that one of the ways that we can provide a future flow--a downward pressure on future flow--is to simply say to people who want to respect our laws and apply for citizenship, for work visas, or other forms of being in this country legally, we need to actually fix the immigration laws that we have on the books to do that. If we do that, I am not going to have to worry about those memories of that little girl. I am not going to have to worry about the corpses that we are picking up in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. I believe we will have fewer people dying from fentanyl because less of it will come here, for a couple reasons: We will have better security at the border, and we will bankrupt the cartels that are making, over the last 2 years, almost $2 billion. We need people in Congress to recognize that a bipartisan solution is possible. We have a crisis at the border that needs to be solved, and we have to have an administration that spends more than four hours in 2 years at the border recognizing it is on them to help us fix it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TILLIS | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89-2 | null | 5,613 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Mississippi for her comments on this subject. I am down here on the floor to also talk about the crisis at the border--the humanitarian crisis, the Homeland Security crisis, and a crisis that is resulting in cartels making $800 million a year in human trafficking. I joined a bipartisan delegation 2 weeks ago. We visited the border. It was very productive. It was one of the first bipartisan delegations in quite some time. The reason that was important is, if you go down there with apartisan delegation, you are only going to actually talk about one side of the issue. If you go down there with a bipartisan delegation, you can talk about what we need to do on a bipartisan basis to solve the crisis at the border. I want to start where Senator Hyde-Smith finished--the humanitarian crisis. I am one of the Members who has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill that has border security and asylum reform in it. I had a lot of my staff ask me: Why would you do that? You know it is going to be unpopular. You are going to get criticized from the left for going too far. You are going to get criticized from the right for having any discussion about immigration reform. I have been down to the border several times. I told my staff that it is hard for me to forget border security telling me that they just transported an 11-year-old girl who had been repeatedly raped, so much so, she screamed so long she couldn't even speak anymore before she crossed the border. I told them I can't forget going down the Rio Grande River and seeing a corpse taken out of the river, realtime, while I was down there. It wasn't staged because it is happening repeatedly every year. When you hear stories of truckloads of people being bused across the border--53 of them dying through suffocation and heat exposure on American soil--I can't forget that. That is a humanitarian crisis that has to be solved. Then I went to the border last week and I started at the Rio Grande Sector and then I went over to the Yuma sector. At night, at the Rio Grande Sector, we saw two Chinese nationals who had been apprehended. Chinese nationals pay, on average, about $35,000 to cross the border. In many cases, they don't have the money to do it. They have somebody invest in them, and then they become indentured servants in the United States to pay off that debt. You have people pay $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 who have an expectation from the cartel that they have a debt to be repaid. That may be an honest job that they could get or that could be an illegal activity that helps the cartels. Now we go over to the Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector is in Western Arizona. There is a section of border there that hasn't been completed. It is about 7 miles wide. But the most important part of that 7 miles is about a 12-foot gate. Three years ago, 8,000 people crossed through that gate; 2 years ago, 200,000 people crossed through that same 12-foot gate; and over the last 12 months, 300,000 people have. Five thousand of them were Russian nationals; another 5,000 were Chinese nationals. Look, I understand why people want to get out of Russia, and I understand why people want to get out of China. What I don't understand is why on Earth in transit to that border--that dangerous crossing that you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to a cartel, a transnational criminal organization--why on Earth wouldn't you stop in a nation that is safe, the first safe country that you can get to out of the country that you are trying to flee from? That is how international asylum treaties work. You get out of the dangerous country. You go to a country that has international agreements on asylum. You claim asylum. And then you may even want to seek asylum in the United States. We had reports in the Yuma Sector of people who are flying into Mexicali. They are flying in, not making the trek as many people think of caravans coming from Central America through Mexico--flying into Mexicali with suitcases and bags and taking a cab to the border, making sure their toll is paid and then crossing the border. There is no way on Earth that people coming from many of these nations could not have sought asylum somewhere closer to home and then give us a chance for orderly entry. In total, it is estimated that the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, are being paid almost $800 million a year. What are they doing with that? If you go down to the border--particularly if you go down there around midnight--they play the same play every night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They will take innocent people who are going to come across the border, and they tell them: Once you get across the border, present yourself to a Border Patrol agent, and you will be processed, which is exactly what happens. Under the Biden administration, you are likely to be released within a few days or not more than about a week. The disturbing trend is the one that Senator Hyde-Smith talked about, the disturbing number of people who are evading Border Patrol. Why on Earth would you not opt to go into a facility that is heated in the winter and cooled in the summer and spend a week of being fed three times a day, to have access to facilities, to have changing tables for babies, to have play areas while they are being detained and processed? Why on Earth would you avoid all that and take the dangerous step of evading detection, unless, at least for some of them, there is a nefarious purpose. Then they are moving into communities where we have already seen--in North Carolina, an illegal immigrant murdered a young lady just a couple of years ago. We have seen this crime, and it tracks back almost invariably to the people who are the so-called got-aways. Now I want to go to the Yuma Sector and talk about those 300,000 Border Patrol. I am wearing a ``Back the Blue'' flag. But as you all know, if it is Border Patrol, they wear green uniforms, so I say, ``Back Law Enforcement.'' Right now, Border Patrol only has less than half of the people who are sworn to protect the border doing those jobs. They are in processing facilities. They are driving buses. They are providing support for daycare. Literally, I am not exaggerating. So that means that we have half as many people protecting a border that has wide-open spaces. There are no structures whatsoever. Come across. Walk through the Rio Grande. In most cases, you can. You don't have to swim. But when those 300,000 people get there--this is the most amazing thing about this country--they are going through that 12-foot gate. If Border Patrol goes there, then the rest of the border is open for the got-aways. Our country is so extraordinary that they say: I know that it is only about a 10-minute ride from that 12-foot gate to the processing facility, but they won't transport a child unless they have a car seat for them. If somebody has disabilities, they have to make special accommodations. Imagine 300,000--300,000--people coming across the border in a 12-month period, what Border Patrol has to do to conform to our laws and treat these people humanely and safely. They need time. Time can only come when Congress recognizes that we have to secure the border. We have to fill the gaps. We have to insist that if you want to come to this country, present yourself at a legal port of entry, present a request for asylum, you will be processed. We need to send the message: If you want to come to the United States, thank you for the compliment you are willing to risk your life to come to the United States, but respect our laws and don't pay cartels $800 million a year so that they can create a conduit for fentanyl and other drugs that are poisoning almost 100,000 Americans a year. Now let's talk about immigration reform. I think that one of the ways that we can provide a future flow--a downward pressure on future flow--is to simply say to people who want to respect our laws and apply for citizenship, for work visas, or other forms of being in this country legally, we need to actually fix the immigration laws that we have on the books to do that. If we do that, I am not going to have to worry about those memories of that little girl. I am not going to have to worry about the corpses that we are picking up in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. I believe we will have fewer people dying from fentanyl because less of it will come here, for a couple reasons: We will have better security at the border, and we will bankrupt the cartels that are making, over the last 2 years, almost $2 billion. We need people in Congress to recognize that a bipartisan solution is possible. We have a crisis at the border that needs to be solved, and we have to have an administration that spends more than four hours in 2 years at the border recognizing it is on them to help us fix it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TILLIS | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89-2 | null | 5,614 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Mississippi for her comments on this subject. I am down here on the floor to also talk about the crisis at the border--the humanitarian crisis, the Homeland Security crisis, and a crisis that is resulting in cartels making $800 million a year in human trafficking. I joined a bipartisan delegation 2 weeks ago. We visited the border. It was very productive. It was one of the first bipartisan delegations in quite some time. The reason that was important is, if you go down there with apartisan delegation, you are only going to actually talk about one side of the issue. If you go down there with a bipartisan delegation, you can talk about what we need to do on a bipartisan basis to solve the crisis at the border. I want to start where Senator Hyde-Smith finished--the humanitarian crisis. I am one of the Members who has been trying to negotiate a bipartisan immigration reform bill that has border security and asylum reform in it. I had a lot of my staff ask me: Why would you do that? You know it is going to be unpopular. You are going to get criticized from the left for going too far. You are going to get criticized from the right for having any discussion about immigration reform. I have been down to the border several times. I told my staff that it is hard for me to forget border security telling me that they just transported an 11-year-old girl who had been repeatedly raped, so much so, she screamed so long she couldn't even speak anymore before she crossed the border. I told them I can't forget going down the Rio Grande River and seeing a corpse taken out of the river, realtime, while I was down there. It wasn't staged because it is happening repeatedly every year. When you hear stories of truckloads of people being bused across the border--53 of them dying through suffocation and heat exposure on American soil--I can't forget that. That is a humanitarian crisis that has to be solved. Then I went to the border last week and I started at the Rio Grande Sector and then I went over to the Yuma sector. At night, at the Rio Grande Sector, we saw two Chinese nationals who had been apprehended. Chinese nationals pay, on average, about $35,000 to cross the border. In many cases, they don't have the money to do it. They have somebody invest in them, and then they become indentured servants in the United States to pay off that debt. You have people pay $5,000, $6,000, $10,000 who have an expectation from the cartel that they have a debt to be repaid. That may be an honest job that they could get or that could be an illegal activity that helps the cartels. Now we go over to the Yuma Sector. The Yuma Sector is in Western Arizona. There is a section of border there that hasn't been completed. It is about 7 miles wide. But the most important part of that 7 miles is about a 12-foot gate. Three years ago, 8,000 people crossed through that gate; 2 years ago, 200,000 people crossed through that same 12-foot gate; and over the last 12 months, 300,000 people have. Five thousand of them were Russian nationals; another 5,000 were Chinese nationals. Look, I understand why people want to get out of Russia, and I understand why people want to get out of China. What I don't understand is why on Earth in transit to that border--that dangerous crossing that you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to a cartel, a transnational criminal organization--why on Earth wouldn't you stop in a nation that is safe, the first safe country that you can get to out of the country that you are trying to flee from? That is how international asylum treaties work. You get out of the dangerous country. You go to a country that has international agreements on asylum. You claim asylum. And then you may even want to seek asylum in the United States. We had reports in the Yuma Sector of people who are flying into Mexicali. They are flying in, not making the trek as many people think of caravans coming from Central America through Mexico--flying into Mexicali with suitcases and bags and taking a cab to the border, making sure their toll is paid and then crossing the border. There is no way on Earth that people coming from many of these nations could not have sought asylum somewhere closer to home and then give us a chance for orderly entry. In total, it is estimated that the transnational criminal organizations, the cartels, are being paid almost $800 million a year. What are they doing with that? If you go down to the border--particularly if you go down there around midnight--they play the same play every night, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They will take innocent people who are going to come across the border, and they tell them: Once you get across the border, present yourself to a Border Patrol agent, and you will be processed, which is exactly what happens. Under the Biden administration, you are likely to be released within a few days or not more than about a week. The disturbing trend is the one that Senator Hyde-Smith talked about, the disturbing number of people who are evading Border Patrol. Why on Earth would you not opt to go into a facility that is heated in the winter and cooled in the summer and spend a week of being fed three times a day, to have access to facilities, to have changing tables for babies, to have play areas while they are being detained and processed? Why on Earth would you avoid all that and take the dangerous step of evading detection, unless, at least for some of them, there is a nefarious purpose. Then they are moving into communities where we have already seen--in North Carolina, an illegal immigrant murdered a young lady just a couple of years ago. We have seen this crime, and it tracks back almost invariably to the people who are the so-called got-aways. Now I want to go to the Yuma Sector and talk about those 300,000 Border Patrol. I am wearing a ``Back the Blue'' flag. But as you all know, if it is Border Patrol, they wear green uniforms, so I say, ``Back Law Enforcement.'' Right now, Border Patrol only has less than half of the people who are sworn to protect the border doing those jobs. They are in processing facilities. They are driving buses. They are providing support for daycare. Literally, I am not exaggerating. So that means that we have half as many people protecting a border that has wide-open spaces. There are no structures whatsoever. Come across. Walk through the Rio Grande. In most cases, you can. You don't have to swim. But when those 300,000 people get there--this is the most amazing thing about this country--they are going through that 12-foot gate. If Border Patrol goes there, then the rest of the border is open for the got-aways. Our country is so extraordinary that they say: I know that it is only about a 10-minute ride from that 12-foot gate to the processing facility, but they won't transport a child unless they have a car seat for them. If somebody has disabilities, they have to make special accommodations. Imagine 300,000--300,000--people coming across the border in a 12-month period, what Border Patrol has to do to conform to our laws and treat these people humanely and safely. They need time. Time can only come when Congress recognizes that we have to secure the border. We have to fill the gaps. We have to insist that if you want to come to this country, present yourself at a legal port of entry, present a request for asylum, you will be processed. We need to send the message: If you want to come to the United States, thank you for the compliment you are willing to risk your life to come to the United States, but respect our laws and don't pay cartels $800 million a year so that they can create a conduit for fentanyl and other drugs that are poisoning almost 100,000 Americans a year. Now let's talk about immigration reform. I think that one of the ways that we can provide a future flow--a downward pressure on future flow--is to simply say to people who want to respect our laws and apply for citizenship, for work visas, or other forms of being in this country legally, we need to actually fix the immigration laws that we have on the books to do that. If we do that, I am not going to have to worry about those memories of that little girl. I am not going to have to worry about the corpses that we are picking up in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. I believe we will have fewer people dying from fentanyl because less of it will come here, for a couple reasons: We will have better security at the border, and we will bankrupt the cartels that are making, over the last 2 years, almost $2 billion. We need people in Congress to recognize that a bipartisan solution is possible. We have a crisis at the border that needs to be solved, and we have to have an administration that spends more than four hours in 2 years at the border recognizing it is on them to help us fix it. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TILLIS | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89-2 | null | 5,615 |
formal | illegal immigrant | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I started the new year by joining Senator Blackburn of Tennessee and our new colleague Senator Britt of Alabama on a recent tour of the Del Rio Border Sector in Texas. We traveled to the border to gain more firsthand knowledge of the ongoing mass migration of illegal immigrants into our Nation, to hear from Border Patrol agents about how they are handling this crisis, and to, perhaps more powerfully, hear from young women and girls who are victims of President Biden's careless border and immigration policies. We learned more how States are taking action to protect their citizens and their borders when the administration won't. Few States are affected more than Texas, which instituted Operation Lone Star in March of 2021 to counter illegal immigration and drug trafficking. We looked on as a family led by a coyote crossed the Rio Grande in dangerously cold waters and witnessed the family's struggle to help their grandmother wade through rushing waters to enter our Nation illegally. She made it safely across, but, sadly, that is not always the case for many people, including children who have drowned making the same trek under the misguided belief that our borders are open. We visited a massive migrant processing center where illegal immigrants were taken upon arrival. An astonishing fact about this processing center is that it costs U.S. taxpayers $16 million a month to operate, and that is just one of five on the southern border. Let me say that again. It is costing American taxpayers $16 million per month to process illegal immigrants at just one of these five centers. What was especially gut-wrenching to me was hearing directly from human trafficking victims. We heard from one young lady who was trafficked from the age of 12 to the age of 16. She told a story I will never forget, and there are thousands of stories just like hers. Yes, we learned about the true severity of the crisis. We learned how Border Patrol agents simply cannot carry out their jobs. We learned how States are forced to use up resources on border security and migrants--resources meant for U.S. citizens. We learned how ranchers and U.S. property owners are being overwhelmed and in constant fear of being robbed and assaulted by smugglers. We learned how all of this affects our entire Nation--not just the unbelievable pricetag, but in the incidences of human trafficking across the country and tens of thousands of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl smuggled across our border. And, heartbreakingly, we learned of the wickedness of the cartels. They are thriving, thanks to President Biden's apathetic attitude toward his own country's border. This should not be a political debate. People and children are dying in an attempt to enter our country illegally. Drug cartels are taking control of not just the border towns on the Mexican side of the border but on the American side too. Human trafficking is now a $13 billion industry. How did we get here? Why do they come? Well, because our President basically invited them. Immediately after President Biden was sworn in, he started dismantling vital policies like ``Remain in Mexico'' and restarted catch-and-release, halted construction on the border, and, essentially, set up a big neon sign on the southwest border that read ``Vacant.'' The rest is history: 4.5 million border apprehensions with an estimated 1.5 million undetected got-aways, a staggering increase in the number of women and children who are being subject to assault and domestic violence, fentanyl flowing into our communities and skyrocketing deaths. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go and listen to Border Patrol agents. Hear the stories of the cartel victims. See for yourself the heartbreaking scenarios the greatest country in the world is allowing to unfold. I learned much from my visit to the border, but perhaps the worst thing I learned is this: The Biden administration is not lacking any resources or authority to address this crisis. No, it can support our Border Patrol and border States. It can secure our border. It can save children from dying and drowning in the Rio Grande or 14-year-old girls from being sold. But it won't, either through incompetence or, worse, by design. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89 | null | 5,616 |
formal | illegal immigrants | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I started the new year by joining Senator Blackburn of Tennessee and our new colleague Senator Britt of Alabama on a recent tour of the Del Rio Border Sector in Texas. We traveled to the border to gain more firsthand knowledge of the ongoing mass migration of illegal immigrants into our Nation, to hear from Border Patrol agents about how they are handling this crisis, and to, perhaps more powerfully, hear from young women and girls who are victims of President Biden's careless border and immigration policies. We learned more how States are taking action to protect their citizens and their borders when the administration won't. Few States are affected more than Texas, which instituted Operation Lone Star in March of 2021 to counter illegal immigration and drug trafficking. We looked on as a family led by a coyote crossed the Rio Grande in dangerously cold waters and witnessed the family's struggle to help their grandmother wade through rushing waters to enter our Nation illegally. She made it safely across, but, sadly, that is not always the case for many people, including children who have drowned making the same trek under the misguided belief that our borders are open. We visited a massive migrant processing center where illegal immigrants were taken upon arrival. An astonishing fact about this processing center is that it costs U.S. taxpayers $16 million a month to operate, and that is just one of five on the southern border. Let me say that again. It is costing American taxpayers $16 million per month to process illegal immigrants at just one of these five centers. What was especially gut-wrenching to me was hearing directly from human trafficking victims. We heard from one young lady who was trafficked from the age of 12 to the age of 16. She told a story I will never forget, and there are thousands of stories just like hers. Yes, we learned about the true severity of the crisis. We learned how Border Patrol agents simply cannot carry out their jobs. We learned how States are forced to use up resources on border security and migrants--resources meant for U.S. citizens. We learned how ranchers and U.S. property owners are being overwhelmed and in constant fear of being robbed and assaulted by smugglers. We learned how all of this affects our entire Nation--not just the unbelievable pricetag, but in the incidences of human trafficking across the country and tens of thousands of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl smuggled across our border. And, heartbreakingly, we learned of the wickedness of the cartels. They are thriving, thanks to President Biden's apathetic attitude toward his own country's border. This should not be a political debate. People and children are dying in an attempt to enter our country illegally. Drug cartels are taking control of not just the border towns on the Mexican side of the border but on the American side too. Human trafficking is now a $13 billion industry. How did we get here? Why do they come? Well, because our President basically invited them. Immediately after President Biden was sworn in, he started dismantling vital policies like ``Remain in Mexico'' and restarted catch-and-release, halted construction on the border, and, essentially, set up a big neon sign on the southwest border that read ``Vacant.'' The rest is history: 4.5 million border apprehensions with an estimated 1.5 million undetected got-aways, a staggering increase in the number of women and children who are being subject to assault and domestic violence, fentanyl flowing into our communities and skyrocketing deaths. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go and listen to Border Patrol agents. Hear the stories of the cartel victims. See for yourself the heartbreaking scenarios the greatest country in the world is allowing to unfold. I learned much from my visit to the border, but perhaps the worst thing I learned is this: The Biden administration is not lacking any resources or authority to address this crisis. No, it can support our Border Patrol and border States. It can secure our border. It can save children from dying and drowning in the Rio Grande or 14-year-old girls from being sold. But it won't, either through incompetence or, worse, by design. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89 | null | 5,617 |
formal | mass migration | null | xenophobic | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I started the new year by joining Senator Blackburn of Tennessee and our new colleague Senator Britt of Alabama on a recent tour of the Del Rio Border Sector in Texas. We traveled to the border to gain more firsthand knowledge of the ongoing mass migration of illegal immigrants into our Nation, to hear from Border Patrol agents about how they are handling this crisis, and to, perhaps more powerfully, hear from young women and girls who are victims of President Biden's careless border and immigration policies. We learned more how States are taking action to protect their citizens and their borders when the administration won't. Few States are affected more than Texas, which instituted Operation Lone Star in March of 2021 to counter illegal immigration and drug trafficking. We looked on as a family led by a coyote crossed the Rio Grande in dangerously cold waters and witnessed the family's struggle to help their grandmother wade through rushing waters to enter our Nation illegally. She made it safely across, but, sadly, that is not always the case for many people, including children who have drowned making the same trek under the misguided belief that our borders are open. We visited a massive migrant processing center where illegal immigrants were taken upon arrival. An astonishing fact about this processing center is that it costs U.S. taxpayers $16 million a month to operate, and that is just one of five on the southern border. Let me say that again. It is costing American taxpayers $16 million per month to process illegal immigrants at just one of these five centers. What was especially gut-wrenching to me was hearing directly from human trafficking victims. We heard from one young lady who was trafficked from the age of 12 to the age of 16. She told a story I will never forget, and there are thousands of stories just like hers. Yes, we learned about the true severity of the crisis. We learned how Border Patrol agents simply cannot carry out their jobs. We learned how States are forced to use up resources on border security and migrants--resources meant for U.S. citizens. We learned how ranchers and U.S. property owners are being overwhelmed and in constant fear of being robbed and assaulted by smugglers. We learned how all of this affects our entire Nation--not just the unbelievable pricetag, but in the incidences of human trafficking across the country and tens of thousands of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl smuggled across our border. And, heartbreakingly, we learned of the wickedness of the cartels. They are thriving, thanks to President Biden's apathetic attitude toward his own country's border. This should not be a political debate. People and children are dying in an attempt to enter our country illegally. Drug cartels are taking control of not just the border towns on the Mexican side of the border but on the American side too. Human trafficking is now a $13 billion industry. How did we get here? Why do they come? Well, because our President basically invited them. Immediately after President Biden was sworn in, he started dismantling vital policies like ``Remain in Mexico'' and restarted catch-and-release, halted construction on the border, and, essentially, set up a big neon sign on the southwest border that read ``Vacant.'' The rest is history: 4.5 million border apprehensions with an estimated 1.5 million undetected got-aways, a staggering increase in the number of women and children who are being subject to assault and domestic violence, fentanyl flowing into our communities and skyrocketing deaths. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go and listen to Border Patrol agents. Hear the stories of the cartel victims. See for yourself the heartbreaking scenarios the greatest country in the world is allowing to unfold. I learned much from my visit to the border, but perhaps the worst thing I learned is this: The Biden administration is not lacking any resources or authority to address this crisis. No, it can support our Border Patrol and border States. It can secure our border. It can save children from dying and drowning in the Rio Grande or 14-year-old girls from being sold. But it won't, either through incompetence or, worse, by design. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89 | null | 5,618 |
formal | secure our border | null | anti-Latino | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Madam President, I started the new year by joining Senator Blackburn of Tennessee and our new colleague Senator Britt of Alabama on a recent tour of the Del Rio Border Sector in Texas. We traveled to the border to gain more firsthand knowledge of the ongoing mass migration of illegal immigrants into our Nation, to hear from Border Patrol agents about how they are handling this crisis, and to, perhaps more powerfully, hear from young women and girls who are victims of President Biden's careless border and immigration policies. We learned more how States are taking action to protect their citizens and their borders when the administration won't. Few States are affected more than Texas, which instituted Operation Lone Star in March of 2021 to counter illegal immigration and drug trafficking. We looked on as a family led by a coyote crossed the Rio Grande in dangerously cold waters and witnessed the family's struggle to help their grandmother wade through rushing waters to enter our Nation illegally. She made it safely across, but, sadly, that is not always the case for many people, including children who have drowned making the same trek under the misguided belief that our borders are open. We visited a massive migrant processing center where illegal immigrants were taken upon arrival. An astonishing fact about this processing center is that it costs U.S. taxpayers $16 million a month to operate, and that is just one of five on the southern border. Let me say that again. It is costing American taxpayers $16 million per month to process illegal immigrants at just one of these five centers. What was especially gut-wrenching to me was hearing directly from human trafficking victims. We heard from one young lady who was trafficked from the age of 12 to the age of 16. She told a story I will never forget, and there are thousands of stories just like hers. Yes, we learned about the true severity of the crisis. We learned how Border Patrol agents simply cannot carry out their jobs. We learned how States are forced to use up resources on border security and migrants--resources meant for U.S. citizens. We learned how ranchers and U.S. property owners are being overwhelmed and in constant fear of being robbed and assaulted by smugglers. We learned how all of this affects our entire Nation--not just the unbelievable pricetag, but in the incidences of human trafficking across the country and tens of thousands of overdose deaths linked to fentanyl smuggled across our border. And, heartbreakingly, we learned of the wickedness of the cartels. They are thriving, thanks to President Biden's apathetic attitude toward his own country's border. This should not be a political debate. People and children are dying in an attempt to enter our country illegally. Drug cartels are taking control of not just the border towns on the Mexican side of the border but on the American side too. Human trafficking is now a $13 billion industry. How did we get here? Why do they come? Well, because our President basically invited them. Immediately after President Biden was sworn in, he started dismantling vital policies like ``Remain in Mexico'' and restarted catch-and-release, halted construction on the border, and, essentially, set up a big neon sign on the southwest border that read ``Vacant.'' The rest is history: 4.5 million border apprehensions with an estimated 1.5 million undetected got-aways, a staggering increase in the number of women and children who are being subject to assault and domestic violence, fentanyl flowing into our communities and skyrocketing deaths. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go and listen to Border Patrol agents. Hear the stories of the cartel victims. See for yourself the heartbreaking scenarios the greatest country in the world is allowing to unfold. I learned much from my visit to the border, but perhaps the worst thing I learned is this: The Biden administration is not lacking any resources or authority to address this crisis. No, it can support our Border Patrol and border States. It can secure our border. It can save children from dying and drowning in the Rio Grande or 14-year-old girls from being sold. But it won't, either through incompetence or, worse, by design. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. HYDE-SMITH | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS89 | null | 5,619 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I had the opportunity this month to make a trip down to the southern border. And this was not my first trip down to that southern border. And I will have to say that I found our Border Patrol more discouraged than ever before. And I looked at it, and I really kind of used it as a basis for comparison every time I go down there, whether I am in California or Arizona or Texas, just talking with them and hearing where they are and what they are seeing and what their experiences are on the border every single day. And many of them feel like their job is an impossible task. And this trip, I was in the Del Rio sector in Texas and had the opportunity to also talk with the Texas military that is down there on the border with the Texas DPS. They are down there on the border working. And there at Eagle Pass is where so many people are crossing into the country. And one of the things that they pointed out was they really can't stop this flow because, basically, the Biden administration has told them they can't stop this flow. So we did a little checking into what has actually transpired since Joe Biden went into office. And, according to the Migration Policy Institute--which is not a conservative group, by any means; it is a more liberal policy think tank--in Joe Biden's first 100 days, he took 94 Executive actions that undermined the job that the Border Patrol is trying to do on that southern border. So think about this. You are in service to your country, and the Commander in Chief is taking actions that make your job--the job that you have taken an oath to do--making that job harder to do, harder to execute your job. Well, now, those who believe in open border policy, they think that taking 94 Executive actions to make it easier for people to illegally enter the country--they would see that as a good thing. But those of us who are constitutionalists, those of us who really believe in the rule of law, those of us who want our Nation to have an immigration policy that honors the rule of law, we look at that and we say: 94 Executive actions take a branch of this government, an Agency of this government, and makes it more difficult for them to do their job. Now, many of my colleagues across the aisle have been no help in getting this situation at the border under control. They have voted to keep sending checks, basically, to those who illegally enter the country. They have approved a payday--a massive payday--a lot of funding going out to many of these sanctuary cities. And, in 2022, Democrats voted to expand the Biden administration's catch-and-release policy. This is people who are apprehended at the border and then they kind of get a checkmark. They get a plane ticket or a bus ticket to somewhere in the country and are told to show up on a date, maybe 2 years in the future, and have their asylum claim heard. What they have also done--my Democratic friends across the aisle--is they have voted against giving Border Patrol the funding that they need to control the chaos that that policy has created. So to many of us, it seems like things are backward; they are upside down. There should be agreement that we are going to honor the rule of law. There should be agreement that we are going to protect our sovereignty. There should be agreement that our border will be closed. There should be agreement that we are going to fund the Border Patrol. There should be agreement that we are going to fund ICE. There should be agreement that we are going to fund title 42, that we are going to fund building the border wall, and that we are going to fund additional screening for dangerous narcotics like fentanyl. But that has not been the case. So open border, yes. But also, according to Border Patrol, what we have in this country with this administration is a lawless border policy. That is right--a lawless border policy. And here is the reason for that. That was not said lightly. But it has become the reality because of the intentionality of this administration to leave that border open, to pass those Executive actions--a President, 94 Executive actions--that make it more difficult for Border Patrol to do their job--94. That is what you call intentional. That is what you call undermining what should be the policy and the support on the southern border for our Border Patrol. Now, if you want to look at it on a month by month basis--December. Let's take just the month of December. Traditionally, you don't have as many people crossing in December, but because we have seen the border open and the ``You all come'' sign hanging out on that border, you have people coming across that border in record numbers. In Yuma, AZ, they said they had people from 176 different countries speaking 200 different languages coming across that border. In the month of December alone, there were 250,000--a quarter million--illegal encounters. These are the ones that the Border Patrol was able to apprehend. They are the ones who touch U.S. soil, raise their hands, and say: We claim asylum--250,000. And over the past 2 years, there have been more than 4.1 million illegal border crossings. This is a record. And you have the got-aways--the known got-aways--that you can see on surveillance but you can't get to them. And as Border Patrol will tell you, the really bad guys--the really, really bad guys--the unknown got-aways, they are the ones they don't see, but they are slipping into the country. How do they know they are here? They find what they drop when they come across the river. They find clothes and shoes--carpet shoes. They see tracks. They see cars that come and pick these individuals up. Do we have criminals coming into this country? Absolutely, we do. In Eagle Pass, they told us that in the first 3 months of this fiscal year, in fiscal 2023, they apprehended 143 convicted criminals. Now, these are people who had committed felonies, whether it is rape or armed robbery or manslaughter. These are people with a criminal record. Last year, in 2022, they apprehended 98 terrorists. They have apprehended dozens of gang members, MS-13 gang members. And the thing that is so critical about this is that these individuals don't stay in Yuma or El Paso or Eagle Pass. That is where they come across, and they are ending up in your towns. They are ending up in Wisconsin. They are ending up in Tennessee, my beloved State. I was talking with a police chief from Tennessee before I came over here. In rural Tennessee, the vast majority of the drugs they apprehend are either fentanyl or fentanyl-laced. They are using Narcan more than they ever thought they would need to use Narcan. TBI told us last month that the cartel is active in Tennessee. Last week, I was visiting with a police chief from another city there in my State, and he said: Oh, it is not only active in the State; it is active right here in our town. He talked about some of the loss of life. So as we discuss what is happening at the border, we have to look at the humanitarian crisis there. Yes, everybody coming across that border, they will pay the cartel. Now, think about that. They paid $5,000, $7,000, $10,000, whatever is the going rate. They are flying into places like Mexicali, Mexico, and then they are coming across the border. Cartels are global organizations now. They are Big Business. Human trafficking is a $13 billion-a-year business. It has grown in the last few years from a $500 million-a-year business to a $13 billion-a-year business. All of this ends up in our communities. Indeed, every town is a border town. Every State is a border State right now because of this lawless border policy that is taking place at our southern border. When you talk to the Border Patrol, they will tell you that there is a way to get this under control. Was it better under the previous administration? Yes. The numbers were down. They did not see as many crossings because people understood that we were going to do some basic things. We were going to enforce the law. We were going to eliminate and we did eliminate the incentives for people to come.We had ``Remain in Mexico.'' We ended catch-and-release. We had title 42. And we were doing what the Border Patrol has said for three decades they need: a physical barrier. People commonly called it ``Build the wall.'' And wherever a wall could be built, there was a plan to build it, and they were working on it. And having people working on that border made certain that you didn't have those border crossings. Border Patrol has also said that they need better surveillance because, right now, the cartels have better technology than our Border Patrol. Think about this. With the cartels--multinational, big business--you don't cross the border any way, shape, or form--sex trafficking, human trafficking, gangs, drug trafficking. Nobody and nothing comes across that border without the cartel getting their cut. That is what is happening, and our Border Patrol is saying: Here is what we need. There is a way to fix this. We can fix this issue. The Border Patrol says: Look, let us enforce the laws that are on the books. We have immigration laws. Let's enforce them. So you see why it is frustrating to them when you have a President and a Department of Homeland Security, and the President is signing 94 Executive actions that make it harder for them to do their job. It defies common sense. Eliminate the monetary incentives that are out there. The cartel feels like they have a great business model. They get people to the border. People raise their hands, claim asylum. Then the U.S. taxpayer picks up the tab, buys them a plane ticket, a bus ticket, and gets them wherever they are wanting to go in the country. When was the last time the Federal Government did something like that for you? Wherever you want to go, we will give you a ticket. We will get you there. We will provide you food, housing, shelter. Look at those economic incentives and remove those. As I said, ``Remain in Mexico,'' building the wall, those are things that the Border Patrol--those are the things that people who live on the border--tell us need to be done. I was down here earlier this week talking about this trip and talked about a visit I had at a ranch. It was out in Uvalde. I met with people from Kinney County, TX, and from Uvalde, and some ranchers, some farmers, some business owners. Right now, with this border policy, it is making it very difficult for them to ranch. Some of them have cattle on their ranches. The migrants come in. They cut fences. So they are bearing that cost of fences. Some are farmers with watermelons, lettuce, and cabbage, and their fields are getting torn up. Pecan orchards are being run through. And they are saying: Help us. One rancher looked at me, and he said: Marsha, how long can we continue this, and what is the endgame? Because he has people who die and they end up on his ranch, he finds it hard to do their cattle business. We need to think carefully about this. The Border Patrol has said these are steps that would stop the chaos. This would bring some law and order back to the southern border, but the Biden administration is going to have to say: We got this policy wrong. We need to take these steps. We need to honor the service of the Border Patrol. We need to respect the people who live and work on this border. We need to make certain that we build that wall, that we secure this area. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS91 | null | 5,620 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I had the opportunity this month to make a trip down to the southern border. And this was not my first trip down to that southern border. And I will have to say that I found our Border Patrol more discouraged than ever before. And I looked at it, and I really kind of used it as a basis for comparison every time I go down there, whether I am in California or Arizona or Texas, just talking with them and hearing where they are and what they are seeing and what their experiences are on the border every single day. And many of them feel like their job is an impossible task. And this trip, I was in the Del Rio sector in Texas and had the opportunity to also talk with the Texas military that is down there on the border with the Texas DPS. They are down there on the border working. And there at Eagle Pass is where so many people are crossing into the country. And one of the things that they pointed out was they really can't stop this flow because, basically, the Biden administration has told them they can't stop this flow. So we did a little checking into what has actually transpired since Joe Biden went into office. And, according to the Migration Policy Institute--which is not a conservative group, by any means; it is a more liberal policy think tank--in Joe Biden's first 100 days, he took 94 Executive actions that undermined the job that the Border Patrol is trying to do on that southern border. So think about this. You are in service to your country, and the Commander in Chief is taking actions that make your job--the job that you have taken an oath to do--making that job harder to do, harder to execute your job. Well, now, those who believe in open border policy, they think that taking 94 Executive actions to make it easier for people to illegally enter the country--they would see that as a good thing. But those of us who are constitutionalists, those of us who really believe in the rule of law, those of us who want our Nation to have an immigration policy that honors the rule of law, we look at that and we say: 94 Executive actions take a branch of this government, an Agency of this government, and makes it more difficult for them to do their job. Now, many of my colleagues across the aisle have been no help in getting this situation at the border under control. They have voted to keep sending checks, basically, to those who illegally enter the country. They have approved a payday--a massive payday--a lot of funding going out to many of these sanctuary cities. And, in 2022, Democrats voted to expand the Biden administration's catch-and-release policy. This is people who are apprehended at the border and then they kind of get a checkmark. They get a plane ticket or a bus ticket to somewhere in the country and are told to show up on a date, maybe 2 years in the future, and have their asylum claim heard. What they have also done--my Democratic friends across the aisle--is they have voted against giving Border Patrol the funding that they need to control the chaos that that policy has created. So to many of us, it seems like things are backward; they are upside down. There should be agreement that we are going to honor the rule of law. There should be agreement that we are going to protect our sovereignty. There should be agreement that our border will be closed. There should be agreement that we are going to fund the Border Patrol. There should be agreement that we are going to fund ICE. There should be agreement that we are going to fund title 42, that we are going to fund building the border wall, and that we are going to fund additional screening for dangerous narcotics like fentanyl. But that has not been the case. So open border, yes. But also, according to Border Patrol, what we have in this country with this administration is a lawless border policy. That is right--a lawless border policy. And here is the reason for that. That was not said lightly. But it has become the reality because of the intentionality of this administration to leave that border open, to pass those Executive actions--a President, 94 Executive actions--that make it more difficult for Border Patrol to do their job--94. That is what you call intentional. That is what you call undermining what should be the policy and the support on the southern border for our Border Patrol. Now, if you want to look at it on a month by month basis--December. Let's take just the month of December. Traditionally, you don't have as many people crossing in December, but because we have seen the border open and the ``You all come'' sign hanging out on that border, you have people coming across that border in record numbers. In Yuma, AZ, they said they had people from 176 different countries speaking 200 different languages coming across that border. In the month of December alone, there were 250,000--a quarter million--illegal encounters. These are the ones that the Border Patrol was able to apprehend. They are the ones who touch U.S. soil, raise their hands, and say: We claim asylum--250,000. And over the past 2 years, there have been more than 4.1 million illegal border crossings. This is a record. And you have the got-aways--the known got-aways--that you can see on surveillance but you can't get to them. And as Border Patrol will tell you, the really bad guys--the really, really bad guys--the unknown got-aways, they are the ones they don't see, but they are slipping into the country. How do they know they are here? They find what they drop when they come across the river. They find clothes and shoes--carpet shoes. They see tracks. They see cars that come and pick these individuals up. Do we have criminals coming into this country? Absolutely, we do. In Eagle Pass, they told us that in the first 3 months of this fiscal year, in fiscal 2023, they apprehended 143 convicted criminals. Now, these are people who had committed felonies, whether it is rape or armed robbery or manslaughter. These are people with a criminal record. Last year, in 2022, they apprehended 98 terrorists. They have apprehended dozens of gang members, MS-13 gang members. And the thing that is so critical about this is that these individuals don't stay in Yuma or El Paso or Eagle Pass. That is where they come across, and they are ending up in your towns. They are ending up in Wisconsin. They are ending up in Tennessee, my beloved State. I was talking with a police chief from Tennessee before I came over here. In rural Tennessee, the vast majority of the drugs they apprehend are either fentanyl or fentanyl-laced. They are using Narcan more than they ever thought they would need to use Narcan. TBI told us last month that the cartel is active in Tennessee. Last week, I was visiting with a police chief from another city there in my State, and he said: Oh, it is not only active in the State; it is active right here in our town. He talked about some of the loss of life. So as we discuss what is happening at the border, we have to look at the humanitarian crisis there. Yes, everybody coming across that border, they will pay the cartel. Now, think about that. They paid $5,000, $7,000, $10,000, whatever is the going rate. They are flying into places like Mexicali, Mexico, and then they are coming across the border. Cartels are global organizations now. They are Big Business. Human trafficking is a $13 billion-a-year business. It has grown in the last few years from a $500 million-a-year business to a $13 billion-a-year business. All of this ends up in our communities. Indeed, every town is a border town. Every State is a border State right now because of this lawless border policy that is taking place at our southern border. When you talk to the Border Patrol, they will tell you that there is a way to get this under control. Was it better under the previous administration? Yes. The numbers were down. They did not see as many crossings because people understood that we were going to do some basic things. We were going to enforce the law. We were going to eliminate and we did eliminate the incentives for people to come.We had ``Remain in Mexico.'' We ended catch-and-release. We had title 42. And we were doing what the Border Patrol has said for three decades they need: a physical barrier. People commonly called it ``Build the wall.'' And wherever a wall could be built, there was a plan to build it, and they were working on it. And having people working on that border made certain that you didn't have those border crossings. Border Patrol has also said that they need better surveillance because, right now, the cartels have better technology than our Border Patrol. Think about this. With the cartels--multinational, big business--you don't cross the border any way, shape, or form--sex trafficking, human trafficking, gangs, drug trafficking. Nobody and nothing comes across that border without the cartel getting their cut. That is what is happening, and our Border Patrol is saying: Here is what we need. There is a way to fix this. We can fix this issue. The Border Patrol says: Look, let us enforce the laws that are on the books. We have immigration laws. Let's enforce them. So you see why it is frustrating to them when you have a President and a Department of Homeland Security, and the President is signing 94 Executive actions that make it harder for them to do their job. It defies common sense. Eliminate the monetary incentives that are out there. The cartel feels like they have a great business model. They get people to the border. People raise their hands, claim asylum. Then the U.S. taxpayer picks up the tab, buys them a plane ticket, a bus ticket, and gets them wherever they are wanting to go in the country. When was the last time the Federal Government did something like that for you? Wherever you want to go, we will give you a ticket. We will get you there. We will provide you food, housing, shelter. Look at those economic incentives and remove those. As I said, ``Remain in Mexico,'' building the wall, those are things that the Border Patrol--those are the things that people who live on the border--tell us need to be done. I was down here earlier this week talking about this trip and talked about a visit I had at a ranch. It was out in Uvalde. I met with people from Kinney County, TX, and from Uvalde, and some ranchers, some farmers, some business owners. Right now, with this border policy, it is making it very difficult for them to ranch. Some of them have cattle on their ranches. The migrants come in. They cut fences. So they are bearing that cost of fences. Some are farmers with watermelons, lettuce, and cabbage, and their fields are getting torn up. Pecan orchards are being run through. And they are saying: Help us. One rancher looked at me, and he said: Marsha, how long can we continue this, and what is the endgame? Because he has people who die and they end up on his ranch, he finds it hard to do their cattle business. We need to think carefully about this. The Border Patrol has said these are steps that would stop the chaos. This would bring some law and order back to the southern border, but the Biden administration is going to have to say: We got this policy wrong. We need to take these steps. We need to honor the service of the Border Patrol. We need to respect the people who live and work on this border. We need to make certain that we build that wall, that we secure this area. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS91 | null | 5,621 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I had the opportunity this month to make a trip down to the southern border. And this was not my first trip down to that southern border. And I will have to say that I found our Border Patrol more discouraged than ever before. And I looked at it, and I really kind of used it as a basis for comparison every time I go down there, whether I am in California or Arizona or Texas, just talking with them and hearing where they are and what they are seeing and what their experiences are on the border every single day. And many of them feel like their job is an impossible task. And this trip, I was in the Del Rio sector in Texas and had the opportunity to also talk with the Texas military that is down there on the border with the Texas DPS. They are down there on the border working. And there at Eagle Pass is where so many people are crossing into the country. And one of the things that they pointed out was they really can't stop this flow because, basically, the Biden administration has told them they can't stop this flow. So we did a little checking into what has actually transpired since Joe Biden went into office. And, according to the Migration Policy Institute--which is not a conservative group, by any means; it is a more liberal policy think tank--in Joe Biden's first 100 days, he took 94 Executive actions that undermined the job that the Border Patrol is trying to do on that southern border. So think about this. You are in service to your country, and the Commander in Chief is taking actions that make your job--the job that you have taken an oath to do--making that job harder to do, harder to execute your job. Well, now, those who believe in open border policy, they think that taking 94 Executive actions to make it easier for people to illegally enter the country--they would see that as a good thing. But those of us who are constitutionalists, those of us who really believe in the rule of law, those of us who want our Nation to have an immigration policy that honors the rule of law, we look at that and we say: 94 Executive actions take a branch of this government, an Agency of this government, and makes it more difficult for them to do their job. Now, many of my colleagues across the aisle have been no help in getting this situation at the border under control. They have voted to keep sending checks, basically, to those who illegally enter the country. They have approved a payday--a massive payday--a lot of funding going out to many of these sanctuary cities. And, in 2022, Democrats voted to expand the Biden administration's catch-and-release policy. This is people who are apprehended at the border and then they kind of get a checkmark. They get a plane ticket or a bus ticket to somewhere in the country and are told to show up on a date, maybe 2 years in the future, and have their asylum claim heard. What they have also done--my Democratic friends across the aisle--is they have voted against giving Border Patrol the funding that they need to control the chaos that that policy has created. So to many of us, it seems like things are backward; they are upside down. There should be agreement that we are going to honor the rule of law. There should be agreement that we are going to protect our sovereignty. There should be agreement that our border will be closed. There should be agreement that we are going to fund the Border Patrol. There should be agreement that we are going to fund ICE. There should be agreement that we are going to fund title 42, that we are going to fund building the border wall, and that we are going to fund additional screening for dangerous narcotics like fentanyl. But that has not been the case. So open border, yes. But also, according to Border Patrol, what we have in this country with this administration is a lawless border policy. That is right--a lawless border policy. And here is the reason for that. That was not said lightly. But it has become the reality because of the intentionality of this administration to leave that border open, to pass those Executive actions--a President, 94 Executive actions--that make it more difficult for Border Patrol to do their job--94. That is what you call intentional. That is what you call undermining what should be the policy and the support on the southern border for our Border Patrol. Now, if you want to look at it on a month by month basis--December. Let's take just the month of December. Traditionally, you don't have as many people crossing in December, but because we have seen the border open and the ``You all come'' sign hanging out on that border, you have people coming across that border in record numbers. In Yuma, AZ, they said they had people from 176 different countries speaking 200 different languages coming across that border. In the month of December alone, there were 250,000--a quarter million--illegal encounters. These are the ones that the Border Patrol was able to apprehend. They are the ones who touch U.S. soil, raise their hands, and say: We claim asylum--250,000. And over the past 2 years, there have been more than 4.1 million illegal border crossings. This is a record. And you have the got-aways--the known got-aways--that you can see on surveillance but you can't get to them. And as Border Patrol will tell you, the really bad guys--the really, really bad guys--the unknown got-aways, they are the ones they don't see, but they are slipping into the country. How do they know they are here? They find what they drop when they come across the river. They find clothes and shoes--carpet shoes. They see tracks. They see cars that come and pick these individuals up. Do we have criminals coming into this country? Absolutely, we do. In Eagle Pass, they told us that in the first 3 months of this fiscal year, in fiscal 2023, they apprehended 143 convicted criminals. Now, these are people who had committed felonies, whether it is rape or armed robbery or manslaughter. These are people with a criminal record. Last year, in 2022, they apprehended 98 terrorists. They have apprehended dozens of gang members, MS-13 gang members. And the thing that is so critical about this is that these individuals don't stay in Yuma or El Paso or Eagle Pass. That is where they come across, and they are ending up in your towns. They are ending up in Wisconsin. They are ending up in Tennessee, my beloved State. I was talking with a police chief from Tennessee before I came over here. In rural Tennessee, the vast majority of the drugs they apprehend are either fentanyl or fentanyl-laced. They are using Narcan more than they ever thought they would need to use Narcan. TBI told us last month that the cartel is active in Tennessee. Last week, I was visiting with a police chief from another city there in my State, and he said: Oh, it is not only active in the State; it is active right here in our town. He talked about some of the loss of life. So as we discuss what is happening at the border, we have to look at the humanitarian crisis there. Yes, everybody coming across that border, they will pay the cartel. Now, think about that. They paid $5,000, $7,000, $10,000, whatever is the going rate. They are flying into places like Mexicali, Mexico, and then they are coming across the border. Cartels are global organizations now. They are Big Business. Human trafficking is a $13 billion-a-year business. It has grown in the last few years from a $500 million-a-year business to a $13 billion-a-year business. All of this ends up in our communities. Indeed, every town is a border town. Every State is a border State right now because of this lawless border policy that is taking place at our southern border. When you talk to the Border Patrol, they will tell you that there is a way to get this under control. Was it better under the previous administration? Yes. The numbers were down. They did not see as many crossings because people understood that we were going to do some basic things. We were going to enforce the law. We were going to eliminate and we did eliminate the incentives for people to come.We had ``Remain in Mexico.'' We ended catch-and-release. We had title 42. And we were doing what the Border Patrol has said for three decades they need: a physical barrier. People commonly called it ``Build the wall.'' And wherever a wall could be built, there was a plan to build it, and they were working on it. And having people working on that border made certain that you didn't have those border crossings. Border Patrol has also said that they need better surveillance because, right now, the cartels have better technology than our Border Patrol. Think about this. With the cartels--multinational, big business--you don't cross the border any way, shape, or form--sex trafficking, human trafficking, gangs, drug trafficking. Nobody and nothing comes across that border without the cartel getting their cut. That is what is happening, and our Border Patrol is saying: Here is what we need. There is a way to fix this. We can fix this issue. The Border Patrol says: Look, let us enforce the laws that are on the books. We have immigration laws. Let's enforce them. So you see why it is frustrating to them when you have a President and a Department of Homeland Security, and the President is signing 94 Executive actions that make it harder for them to do their job. It defies common sense. Eliminate the monetary incentives that are out there. The cartel feels like they have a great business model. They get people to the border. People raise their hands, claim asylum. Then the U.S. taxpayer picks up the tab, buys them a plane ticket, a bus ticket, and gets them wherever they are wanting to go in the country. When was the last time the Federal Government did something like that for you? Wherever you want to go, we will give you a ticket. We will get you there. We will provide you food, housing, shelter. Look at those economic incentives and remove those. As I said, ``Remain in Mexico,'' building the wall, those are things that the Border Patrol--those are the things that people who live on the border--tell us need to be done. I was down here earlier this week talking about this trip and talked about a visit I had at a ranch. It was out in Uvalde. I met with people from Kinney County, TX, and from Uvalde, and some ranchers, some farmers, some business owners. Right now, with this border policy, it is making it very difficult for them to ranch. Some of them have cattle on their ranches. The migrants come in. They cut fences. So they are bearing that cost of fences. Some are farmers with watermelons, lettuce, and cabbage, and their fields are getting torn up. Pecan orchards are being run through. And they are saying: Help us. One rancher looked at me, and he said: Marsha, how long can we continue this, and what is the endgame? Because he has people who die and they end up on his ranch, he finds it hard to do their cattle business. We need to think carefully about this. The Border Patrol has said these are steps that would stop the chaos. This would bring some law and order back to the southern border, but the Biden administration is going to have to say: We got this policy wrong. We need to take these steps. We need to honor the service of the Border Patrol. We need to respect the people who live and work on this border. We need to make certain that we build that wall, that we secure this area. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mrs. BLACKBURN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS91 | null | 5,622 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is becoming a regular appearance on the Senate floor to talk about Social Security. It is something that most Americans think that Congress supports almost unanimously. It is a program that has been with us. President Roosevelt, on August 14, 1935, signed the Social Security Act. Out of that came Medicare, when a Democratic Congress in 1965, with President Johnson's signature, signed it. We know what Medicare means. We know what Social Security means for people who live longer, healthier lives. No matter your income, no matter if you have been a Senator for 20 years, no matter if you are a CEO, no matter if you are a UAW member and at a Ford plant in Avon, no matter if you are a low-income worker at the Hilton Hotel on West Market in Akron, no matter your work, you are eligible, at a certain age, for Social Security and Medicare. So what is the debate about? Well, the debate is philosophical, and I am not even sure what. It is partly my conservative colleagues who generally want to privatize Medicare and Social Security. For them, it seems to be something philosophic or ideological or sometimes it is just people wanting to support the insurance industry because if you privatize Medicare and Social Security, yes, it will help the insurance companies; yes, it will help the banks. If you privatize the VA, like many want to do--the Veterans' Administration--undermining what veterans have earned by serving their country, it may help some private sector corporations. It will help pad their bottom line. It will help many CEOs make even more money, but it is wrong. When work has dignity, people have a secure retirement, veterans have benefits, and pensions are protected, Americans can count on Medicare and count on Social Security. A secure retirement shouldn't be a partisan issue. It wasn't a partisan issue, particularly in the 1930s. It is not a partisan issue to the American people. I don't think you can tell a Republican from a Democrat who is 70 years old or 80 years old drawing Social Security and Medicare. They know they have earned it. They have paid into it for decades. As I have said, they have earned it. It is one of the most unifying institutions in the country. Americans want to protect Social Security and Medicare. They want to make those programs stronger, Americans do. But elected officials--far too many people on this side of the aisle, as the Senator from Connecticut knows--far too many people from this side of the aisle think that we should privatize those programs; that they will be more efficient or some such philosophical jargon that they throw forward. But we know what will happen: insurance companies will make more money, banks will make more money, and people who have worked in this country and played by the rules all their lives get squeezed. Today, down the hall--especially straight down the hall in the House of Representatives down there--the Republicans are threatening, in order to raise the debt limit--the debt limit is simply, we should pay our bills. The Trump administration and all administrations have run this deficit up. We should pay the bills. That is what it is about. They are refusing to pay the bills our Nation owes, and they are saying that if we don't do what they want to do, then they are going stop Social Security checks from going out. They are going to try to privatize Social Security. They want to take this country and the American economy to the brink of default. They want to leverage their fiscal lunacy. It really is leveraging their fiscal lunacy, frankly, to cut your Social Security. It is that simple. Then, as I said, there is privatizing Social Security. The details differ. The terms may change, but the goal is the same. I have been in the Senate now, this is the beginning--it is my 17th year. Every couple of years, a few of the ``wunderkinds'' on that side of the aisle want to try to find a way to privatize Social Security, privatize Medicare, and privatize the Veterans' Administration. It is nothing less than an attempt to go back on a bedrock promise. (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.) The Senator from Nevada understands that people pay into Social Security every paycheck. They tend to pay into Medicare every--well, that is not actually true. If you are really, really, really rich, you only pay into Social Security for the first part of the year because you have already paid enough for the year, and it is some philosophy that I don't really understand.But it is a bedrock promise to all of us. You pay in; you get those benefits. Last year, I introduced a resolution--the Senator from Nevada cosponsored it--affirming the Senate's commitment to protecting and expanding Social Security. It was pretty simple. It simply said we affirm, we pledge we will protect Social Security and Medicare from any kinds of cuts from the far right that doesn't believe in the program. Almost every Democrat signed on. Not one Republican signed on. Not one Republican committed to our promise, recommitted to our promise to the American people, that if you work hard all your life, Social Security will be there for you. So Americans shouldn't have to worry that politicians, secure with their government pensions, are going to try to take away their retirement. I urge my colleagues to do what the American people want us to do overwhelmingly. They want us to protect and expand Social Security and Medicare. As I said, just look down the hall in the House of Representatives. There is a new majority there--a new majority controlled by the far right--of what used to be a pretty centrist Republican Party, from the far right, that--whenever they try to privatize Social Security and Medicare, they get all kinds of contributions from the rightwing and from Wall Street and from some big healthcare companies and some big energy companies and all that, and it is wrong. We know it is wrong. Whether it is Nevada, whether it is Las Vegas or Cleveland, whether it is Reno or Columbus, whether it is Carson City or Dayton, we know that overwhelmingly people in this country want a strong Social Security that will always be there for our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids. They want a Medicare that will provide healthcare to people regardless of your wealth, regardless of your income, regardless of your station in life. That is my pledge. I know the Senators on the floor from Connecticut and Nevada also support that commitment and pledge. It is where we are as a country. It is not, unfortunately, where some of my colleagues sit. Madam President, I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS92 | null | 5,623 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, this week, the country has been riveted again by scenes of mass shootings, this time in California. I spoke on the phone to my seatmate Senator Padilla just a few days ago, and it is a conversation that I have had with the Presiding Officer. It is a conversation I have had with Senators from Colorado and Virginia. We all now increasingly come from States where we have seen dozens of people murdered at one time in these horrific, horrific mass shootings. I am proud that in the wake of the Uvalde massacre and the shooting in Buffalo, last summer this Congress came together and finally passed, after 30 years of inaction, legislation that begins to make our communities safer, but what we saw in Monterey and Half Moon Bay is just confirmation--reaffirmation--that we have enormous work to do. Let me first tell you the good news, and that is this: The legislation we passed last summer, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, is saving lives as we speak. If you recall, that legislation set up a new background check process for younger buyers of weapons in this country. It eliminated the boyfriend loophole so that no domestic abusers in this country can get their hands on weapons. It gave funding to States to set up red flag laws. It strengthened our background check system. It is a set of really important changes. A bipartisan group of us went out to West Virginia just a few weeks ago--Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, Senator Capito--three Republicans--and myself and Senator Manchin--to see the background check system at work. We went out and sat right next to the background checks operators in their cubicles, and we watched them process these new background checks that are required because of the law we passed. We got briefings from the FBI in which they laid out for us the details of incredibly dangerous individuals, individuals who were in crisis, many of them under 21, who would have gotten a weapon in their moment of crisis had it not been for the legislation we passed. I also saw how diligent these background checks operators were, how serious they were about their job, how proud they were of their job, because they knew that in their hands they held the safety of the American public; that every time they click that button, there was an individual walking out of the store with a gun, and they wanted to make sure of two things: First, they were protecting the American public--make sure that only those who were qualified under the law, who weren't deemed to be too dangerous, were getting those weapons. The second thing they were concerned about--and every single one of them told us this--they were there to uphold the Second Amendment as well. They were there to make sure--to make sure--of the guarantee that if you are a law-abiding citizen, you can get a legal weapon. I think all of us who visited were really impressed by the work that our background checks operators do and were confident that the bill we passed last summer is saving lives as we speak. But everybody in this country knows it is not enough. Everybody in this country knows it was just a start. I hope this year we will be able to build on the progress we made last year to find additional common ground because what you are seeing in California and what you have seen all across the country are individuals--largely men, mostly younger men--whose brains are breaking, and in that moment of crisis, they are reaching for a weapon, they are seeing their path to exorcise those demons as running through an episode of mass slaughter. But it is important to note that this is not the only country in the world where brains break. This is not the only country in the world where people have paranoias. This is not the only country in the world with severe mental illness. So the story of American mass murder is not a story of mental illness; it is not a story of paranoia; it is not a story of grudge or grievance because every other country has that. But only in the United States does that grudge, grievance, paranoia, and mental illness lead to mass assassination. That is because in this country we are flooded with weapons--and not just any weapons but weapons of mass destruction. These killers, they use the same set of weapons, semiautomatic weapons with attachable clips that can fire 300 bullets out of 1 cartridge. They all use the same set of weapons because they are trying to kill as many people as quickly as possible. Only in this country can those individuals, who have decided to take out their anger, their grudge, and their grievance through mass murder, get their hands on a weapon that will allow them to do that. Other countries don't allow that to happen. I have told this story many times before, but on the same day that Sandy Hook occurred, there was an equal number of students attacked in a school in Henan Province, China. Every kid who was shot in Sandy Hook died. Why? I won't describe it for you on the floor today, but the damage that a bullet fired from an AR-15 does to the body of a little child is irrevocable. It literally tears you apart, the bullet is going so fast through your body. So none of those kids survived. But in Henan Province, China, every child who was attacked survived. Why? Because in Henan Province, the attacker, who was just as unhinged, likely, as the attacker in Sandy Hook, had a knife and not a gun. Knives can do damage, too, but not as much damage as an AR-15. So States that are more serious about keeping assault weapons off the streets and guns away from dangerous people have a lot less gun crime--a lot less. Countries that are more serious about making sure that people who have these grudges, grievances, and paranoias don't get their hands on dangerous weapons--they have almost rock-bottom levels of gun violence. I think we are at a moment in time where Americans know this. Americans are sick and tired of the status quo. That is why we were able to pass this law last summer. It was a start--a really important start--but it was not a result of any of the advocates in the Senate perfecting their argument; it was aresult of parents and students and families out there in America compelling Congress to do something because this country has had enough. This country has not just had enough of the mass shootings but of the hundred-plus people who die every day from gunshot wounds--suicides, accidental shootings, homicides--all of which can be prevented through limiting the access by dangerous people or people who are going through a crisis to weaponry and particularly weaponry of mass destruction. So I think that message from the American public we heard last summer--it is not going away. The good news is, we found common ground. And right now in the U.S. Congress, you have no choice if you want to get something done but to find common ground. We found it. I don't think that anybody who voted for it paid any substantial political price. I think there was only political upside to supporting a compromise that was wildly popular. If you remember, Senator McConnell showed a PowerPoint presentation to the Republican caucus in May of last year and showed his Republican colleagues how popular all of the things that we voted on last summer were--red flag laws, stopping domestic abusers from getting guns--no political downside in continuing to make progress when it comes to making our communities safer. As we live amidst another moment in American history where the country is recognizing the unique problem of mass shootings; as we think about 20-some-odd days gone in the year with 40 mass shootings already; when we think about the fear that our kids live in when they go to school, wondering whether they will be next, and now the fear that workplaces have and churchgoers have of whether they will be next, it is more reason for us to make 2023 a year in which we don't follow the pre-2022 precedent of doing nothing but we follow the 2022 precedent of finding the common ground between Republicans and Democrats to make this country safer. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS93 | null | 5,624 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | At 1:42 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 159. An act 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. H.R. 300. An act to amend chapter 3 of title 5, United States Code, to require the publication of settlement agreements, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS95-2 | null | 5,625 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The following bill was read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 159. An act 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; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS95-3 | null | 5,626 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Booker): S. 65. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 to give the Department of Education the authority to award competitive grants to eligible entities to establish, expand, or support school-based mentoring programs to assist at-risk students in middle school and high school in developing cognitive and social-emotional skills to prepare them for success in high school, postsecondary education, and the workforce; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS99-3 | null | 5,627 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Booker): S. 65. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 to give the Department of Education the authority to award competitive grants to eligible entities to establish, expand, or support school-based mentoring programs to assist at-risk students in middle school and high school in developing cognitive and social-emotional skills to prepare them for success in high school, postsecondary education, and the workforce; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-25-pt1-PgS99-4 | null | 5,628 |
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-2023-01-26-pt1-PgH428-2 | null | 5,629 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. POSEY: H.J. Res. 22. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 The single subject of this legislation is: Congressional Review Act Resolution | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgH430-24 | null | 5,630 |
formal | extremism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if the 118th Congress is going to do its job and raise the debt ceiling later this year, there is one very big, very important question that all of us need to answer: Republicans, where is your plan? It is the first question that must be asked, so let me ask it again. Republicans, where is your plan? For weeks, we have heard lots of howling at the Moon from House Republicans on the MAGA fringe about sabotaging the credit of the United States but little in the way of actual solutions. Republicans in the House, especially the MAGA ones, seem disturbingly at ease with taking our economy hostage in exchange for gutting vital programs, but when asked to explain to the American people what kind of cuts they want, suddenly these Republicans seem stumped. This is reckless. Few issues require more bipartisanship, more cooperation, and more serious-mindedness than protecting the full faith and credit of the United States. We have never failed to pay our debts on time, and the debt ceiling has consistently been a bipartisan endeavor. The radical MAGA crowd running the show in the House seems unable to grasp this truth. So let me try it again. House Republicans, where is your plan? You want to gut Federal spending, so show us what that means. Show us what it means to the average American family in specific detail. It is your responsibility on such a weighty issue to do just that. Speaker McCarthy. Speaker McCarthy has an obligation--an obligation--to explain to the American people what Republicans actually plan to do about raising the debt ceiling. Until we get a clear answer from House Republicans about what their plan is, there is no point in speculating about anything else, because if Republicans really want to starve the American people of vital services, the American people have a right to know what that will mean for their daily lives. Otherwise, the American people will be left with only questions and no answers. Republicans say they want cuts. Do Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare? Do Republicans want to cut military funding? Do they want to cut aid to veterans? Do they want to cut funding to police and firefighters and first responders? Do they want to cut education, public health, science and research? Saber-rattling about the debt and grandiose statements without any specifics are not going to cut it. They have been doing that for a while. It doesn't work. Lay out the plan. Show us your plan. Republicans need to show us the math. They need to level with the American people. They need to show us their plan. Now, here in the Senate, some Members from the MAGA faction--particularly Senator Rick Scott--have taken it upon themselves to fill the void that House Republicans have created. The bad news is, the plan they came up with is about as unhinged as they come. Yesterday, the junior Senator from Florida--the very same Senator who thought that tax hikes on middle-class families was a winning formula for Republicans last November--released a proposal that would put the interests of the Chinese Communist Party before the needs of American families. Senator Scott calls it the Full Faith and Credit Act, but it is legislation that does not even deserve partial credit. Bondholders in Beijing would get their money, while Floridians, Alabamians, Wisconsinites, and so many other American citizens would be left out to dry. Does he want to pay China before he pays schoolteachers? Does he want to pay the Chinese Communist Party before he pays our police officers? There is no end to the negative impacts of this piece of legislation, and it is no substitute for real action to avoid default. Worse yet, reports suggest that Speaker McCarthy has promised MAGA radicals in the House that he will hold a vote on a similar proposal to this one. Seriously, Mr. President, just when we thought we had seen the limits of MAGA extremism, Senator Scott has swooped in and reminded us that when it comes to MAGA insanity, there is no bottom. And who--who--is going to pay the price? The American people. Now on the national sales tax--I mean, you can't make this stuff up, but it goes on and on and on, these really ludicrous, way out of line, way over to the extreme Republican plans. They keep coming at us. Another one they put out is a national sales tax. While Republicans refuse to show what they plan to do about the debt ceiling, they spend a lot of time talking up one of the worst policy proposals in existence--a 30-percent national sales tax on all consumer goods. The House Republicans just can't seem to get out of their own way. House Republicans call it the Fair Tax Act, but let's call it what it really is--a disaster for middle-class families. There is nothing fair about a tax that punishes average families for buying essential goods while giving the rich another chance to lower their tax burdens. That is what is behind most of these Republican plans--a desire to help the very wealthy. And if it comes out on the middle class and most Americans, they don't give a hoot. They don't give a hoot. The Fair Tax Act is truly foul stuff. The Republican tax plan would raise the cost of buying a house by $125,000. It would raise the cost of buying a car by $10,000. It would raise your averagegrocery bill by $3,500 a year at a time when people are already worried about the high price of groceries. How can they do this? Things like eggs are already too expensive, but Republicans want to slap another $1.50 on that price. The plan would make a gallon of milk cost another $1.70 more. The shock waves go way beyond trips to the grocery store, as painful as those have been. The Republican tax would erode the value of retirement plans, Social Security, pensions and 401(k)s by nearly one-third, an insulting way--insulting--to treat people who have spent their entire lives saving up in order to retire with some degree of dignity. In all my years in office--in all my years in office--I have rarely seen such an extreme proposal be taken seriously by a governing majority. It is another reminder of how radical, how out of touch, how unserious MAGA Republicans are about governing. All they want to do is help their very ultrarich friends. And the fact that the House leadership is catering to the delusional whims of MAGA extremism should send a shiver down every one of our spines. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS106-4 | null | 5,631 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if the 118th Congress is going to do its job and raise the debt ceiling later this year, there is one very big, very important question that all of us need to answer: Republicans, where is your plan? It is the first question that must be asked, so let me ask it again. Republicans, where is your plan? For weeks, we have heard lots of howling at the Moon from House Republicans on the MAGA fringe about sabotaging the credit of the United States but little in the way of actual solutions. Republicans in the House, especially the MAGA ones, seem disturbingly at ease with taking our economy hostage in exchange for gutting vital programs, but when asked to explain to the American people what kind of cuts they want, suddenly these Republicans seem stumped. This is reckless. Few issues require more bipartisanship, more cooperation, and more serious-mindedness than protecting the full faith and credit of the United States. We have never failed to pay our debts on time, and the debt ceiling has consistently been a bipartisan endeavor. The radical MAGA crowd running the show in the House seems unable to grasp this truth. So let me try it again. House Republicans, where is your plan? You want to gut Federal spending, so show us what that means. Show us what it means to the average American family in specific detail. It is your responsibility on such a weighty issue to do just that. Speaker McCarthy. Speaker McCarthy has an obligation--an obligation--to explain to the American people what Republicans actually plan to do about raising the debt ceiling. Until we get a clear answer from House Republicans about what their plan is, there is no point in speculating about anything else, because if Republicans really want to starve the American people of vital services, the American people have a right to know what that will mean for their daily lives. Otherwise, the American people will be left with only questions and no answers. Republicans say they want cuts. Do Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare? Do Republicans want to cut military funding? Do they want to cut aid to veterans? Do they want to cut funding to police and firefighters and first responders? Do they want to cut education, public health, science and research? Saber-rattling about the debt and grandiose statements without any specifics are not going to cut it. They have been doing that for a while. It doesn't work. Lay out the plan. Show us your plan. Republicans need to show us the math. They need to level with the American people. They need to show us their plan. Now, here in the Senate, some Members from the MAGA faction--particularly Senator Rick Scott--have taken it upon themselves to fill the void that House Republicans have created. The bad news is, the plan they came up with is about as unhinged as they come. Yesterday, the junior Senator from Florida--the very same Senator who thought that tax hikes on middle-class families was a winning formula for Republicans last November--released a proposal that would put the interests of the Chinese Communist Party before the needs of American families. Senator Scott calls it the Full Faith and Credit Act, but it is legislation that does not even deserve partial credit. Bondholders in Beijing would get their money, while Floridians, Alabamians, Wisconsinites, and so many other American citizens would be left out to dry. Does he want to pay China before he pays schoolteachers? Does he want to pay the Chinese Communist Party before he pays our police officers? There is no end to the negative impacts of this piece of legislation, and it is no substitute for real action to avoid default. Worse yet, reports suggest that Speaker McCarthy has promised MAGA radicals in the House that he will hold a vote on a similar proposal to this one. Seriously, Mr. President, just when we thought we had seen the limits of MAGA extremism, Senator Scott has swooped in and reminded us that when it comes to MAGA insanity, there is no bottom. And who--who--is going to pay the price? The American people. Now on the national sales tax--I mean, you can't make this stuff up, but it goes on and on and on, these really ludicrous, way out of line, way over to the extreme Republican plans. They keep coming at us. Another one they put out is a national sales tax. While Republicans refuse to show what they plan to do about the debt ceiling, they spend a lot of time talking up one of the worst policy proposals in existence--a 30-percent national sales tax on all consumer goods. The House Republicans just can't seem to get out of their own way. House Republicans call it the Fair Tax Act, but let's call it what it really is--a disaster for middle-class families. There is nothing fair about a tax that punishes average families for buying essential goods while giving the rich another chance to lower their tax burdens. That is what is behind most of these Republican plans--a desire to help the very wealthy. And if it comes out on the middle class and most Americans, they don't give a hoot. They don't give a hoot. The Fair Tax Act is truly foul stuff. The Republican tax plan would raise the cost of buying a house by $125,000. It would raise the cost of buying a car by $10,000. It would raise your averagegrocery bill by $3,500 a year at a time when people are already worried about the high price of groceries. How can they do this? Things like eggs are already too expensive, but Republicans want to slap another $1.50 on that price. The plan would make a gallon of milk cost another $1.70 more. The shock waves go way beyond trips to the grocery store, as painful as those have been. The Republican tax would erode the value of retirement plans, Social Security, pensions and 401(k)s by nearly one-third, an insulting way--insulting--to treat people who have spent their entire lives saving up in order to retire with some degree of dignity. In all my years in office--in all my years in office--I have rarely seen such an extreme proposal be taken seriously by a governing majority. It is another reminder of how radical, how out of touch, how unserious MAGA Republicans are about governing. All they want to do is help their very ultrarich friends. And the fact that the House leadership is catering to the delusional whims of MAGA extremism should send a shiver down every one of our spines. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS106-4 | null | 5,632 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if the 118th Congress is going to do its job and raise the debt ceiling later this year, there is one very big, very important question that all of us need to answer: Republicans, where is your plan? It is the first question that must be asked, so let me ask it again. Republicans, where is your plan? For weeks, we have heard lots of howling at the Moon from House Republicans on the MAGA fringe about sabotaging the credit of the United States but little in the way of actual solutions. Republicans in the House, especially the MAGA ones, seem disturbingly at ease with taking our economy hostage in exchange for gutting vital programs, but when asked to explain to the American people what kind of cuts they want, suddenly these Republicans seem stumped. This is reckless. Few issues require more bipartisanship, more cooperation, and more serious-mindedness than protecting the full faith and credit of the United States. We have never failed to pay our debts on time, and the debt ceiling has consistently been a bipartisan endeavor. The radical MAGA crowd running the show in the House seems unable to grasp this truth. So let me try it again. House Republicans, where is your plan? You want to gut Federal spending, so show us what that means. Show us what it means to the average American family in specific detail. It is your responsibility on such a weighty issue to do just that. Speaker McCarthy. Speaker McCarthy has an obligation--an obligation--to explain to the American people what Republicans actually plan to do about raising the debt ceiling. Until we get a clear answer from House Republicans about what their plan is, there is no point in speculating about anything else, because if Republicans really want to starve the American people of vital services, the American people have a right to know what that will mean for their daily lives. Otherwise, the American people will be left with only questions and no answers. Republicans say they want cuts. Do Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare? Do Republicans want to cut military funding? Do they want to cut aid to veterans? Do they want to cut funding to police and firefighters and first responders? Do they want to cut education, public health, science and research? Saber-rattling about the debt and grandiose statements without any specifics are not going to cut it. They have been doing that for a while. It doesn't work. Lay out the plan. Show us your plan. Republicans need to show us the math. They need to level with the American people. They need to show us their plan. Now, here in the Senate, some Members from the MAGA faction--particularly Senator Rick Scott--have taken it upon themselves to fill the void that House Republicans have created. The bad news is, the plan they came up with is about as unhinged as they come. Yesterday, the junior Senator from Florida--the very same Senator who thought that tax hikes on middle-class families was a winning formula for Republicans last November--released a proposal that would put the interests of the Chinese Communist Party before the needs of American families. Senator Scott calls it the Full Faith and Credit Act, but it is legislation that does not even deserve partial credit. Bondholders in Beijing would get their money, while Floridians, Alabamians, Wisconsinites, and so many other American citizens would be left out to dry. Does he want to pay China before he pays schoolteachers? Does he want to pay the Chinese Communist Party before he pays our police officers? There is no end to the negative impacts of this piece of legislation, and it is no substitute for real action to avoid default. Worse yet, reports suggest that Speaker McCarthy has promised MAGA radicals in the House that he will hold a vote on a similar proposal to this one. Seriously, Mr. President, just when we thought we had seen the limits of MAGA extremism, Senator Scott has swooped in and reminded us that when it comes to MAGA insanity, there is no bottom. And who--who--is going to pay the price? The American people. Now on the national sales tax--I mean, you can't make this stuff up, but it goes on and on and on, these really ludicrous, way out of line, way over to the extreme Republican plans. They keep coming at us. Another one they put out is a national sales tax. While Republicans refuse to show what they plan to do about the debt ceiling, they spend a lot of time talking up one of the worst policy proposals in existence--a 30-percent national sales tax on all consumer goods. The House Republicans just can't seem to get out of their own way. House Republicans call it the Fair Tax Act, but let's call it what it really is--a disaster for middle-class families. There is nothing fair about a tax that punishes average families for buying essential goods while giving the rich another chance to lower their tax burdens. That is what is behind most of these Republican plans--a desire to help the very wealthy. And if it comes out on the middle class and most Americans, they don't give a hoot. They don't give a hoot. The Fair Tax Act is truly foul stuff. The Republican tax plan would raise the cost of buying a house by $125,000. It would raise the cost of buying a car by $10,000. It would raise your averagegrocery bill by $3,500 a year at a time when people are already worried about the high price of groceries. How can they do this? Things like eggs are already too expensive, but Republicans want to slap another $1.50 on that price. The plan would make a gallon of milk cost another $1.70 more. The shock waves go way beyond trips to the grocery store, as painful as those have been. The Republican tax would erode the value of retirement plans, Social Security, pensions and 401(k)s by nearly one-third, an insulting way--insulting--to treat people who have spent their entire lives saving up in order to retire with some degree of dignity. In all my years in office--in all my years in office--I have rarely seen such an extreme proposal be taken seriously by a governing majority. It is another reminder of how radical, how out of touch, how unserious MAGA Republicans are about governing. All they want to do is help their very ultrarich friends. And the fact that the House leadership is catering to the delusional whims of MAGA extremism should send a shiver down every one of our spines. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS106-4 | null | 5,633 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, some things in life are just constants: The Sun rises in the east, water is wet, and Democratic administrations look for ways to let terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay. The Biden administration has already overseen the largest terrorist jailbreak in modern memory when they abandoned the Bagram Air Base prison in Afghanistan. They let the Taliban waltz in and free thousands of terrorists, reportedly including the ISIS-K suicide bomber who killed our 13 American servicemembers in Kabul during the Biden administration's botched withdrawal. Now, rumor has it they are considering writing a sequel to that jailbreak by continuing the Obama-Biden administration's literal obsession with removing terrorists from our secure andlegal detention facility at Guantanamo. Let's get a few things straight. The American people are safer and more secure because monsters like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are off the battlefield and behind bars where they belong. When the Obama administration wanted to bring these terrorists to America, introduce them into the American judicial and prison systems, the Congress, on an overwhelming, overwhelming bipartisan basis, said no. But the progressive leftists in the Biden administration don't seem to care. They seem more concerned about the views of European human rights activists than about key national security concerns and complex legal questions. So new reports suggest that President Biden and his team are trying to cut plea deals with these terrorists and war criminals. They want to cut these guys deals. What would the deals look like? No one knows. They won't tell anybody. Would they be transferred into our own taxpayer-funded justice system for American citizens? Are we going to have hardened terrorists moving through the streets of Manhattan, with terrorist lawyers getting the rights and access that pertain to defense counsel? Mayor Adams is already saying New York can't cope with President Biden's open southern border, and now the NYPD could have to babysit terrorists as well? Or is the plan military commissions, in which case, what concessions is the President planning to make to these murderers to get their activist lawyers to accept that forum? Or does the administration intend to follow the Obama administration's model and rely on third parties and other countries to do the dirty work of detention? Well, of course, if you are going to send these people to other countries, that requires allies who are reliable, responsible, and actually willing to take these terrorists. Does President Biden plan to gamble on an Iraqi Government that is increasingly under the influence of Iran? Or do they want to double down on detention facilities run by Syrian Kurdish partners in areas that are not yet under the control of the Assad regime? There is already no plan for Europe to reabsorb their citizens who fought for ISIS and are currently detained by the SDF. We are going to add to those ranks? There is a huge long list of practical problems the administration needs to consider before they toy with risky plans to shutter a perfectly good facility at Guantanamo Bay for no good reason. The Biden administration has got to rediscover some common sense. Now, I understand that liberal activists are willing to leave innocent American families in greater danger in exchange for a little bit of leftwing symbolism, but our Commander in Chief has a higher duty. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS107-4 | null | 5,634 |
formal | terrorists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on an entirely different matter, some things in life are just constants: The Sun rises in the east, water is wet, and Democratic administrations look for ways to let terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay. The Biden administration has already overseen the largest terrorist jailbreak in modern memory when they abandoned the Bagram Air Base prison in Afghanistan. They let the Taliban waltz in and free thousands of terrorists, reportedly including the ISIS-K suicide bomber who killed our 13 American servicemembers in Kabul during the Biden administration's botched withdrawal. Now, rumor has it they are considering writing a sequel to that jailbreak by continuing the Obama-Biden administration's literal obsession with removing terrorists from our secure andlegal detention facility at Guantanamo. Let's get a few things straight. The American people are safer and more secure because monsters like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are off the battlefield and behind bars where they belong. When the Obama administration wanted to bring these terrorists to America, introduce them into the American judicial and prison systems, the Congress, on an overwhelming, overwhelming bipartisan basis, said no. But the progressive leftists in the Biden administration don't seem to care. They seem more concerned about the views of European human rights activists than about key national security concerns and complex legal questions. So new reports suggest that President Biden and his team are trying to cut plea deals with these terrorists and war criminals. They want to cut these guys deals. What would the deals look like? No one knows. They won't tell anybody. Would they be transferred into our own taxpayer-funded justice system for American citizens? Are we going to have hardened terrorists moving through the streets of Manhattan, with terrorist lawyers getting the rights and access that pertain to defense counsel? Mayor Adams is already saying New York can't cope with President Biden's open southern border, and now the NYPD could have to babysit terrorists as well? Or is the plan military commissions, in which case, what concessions is the President planning to make to these murderers to get their activist lawyers to accept that forum? Or does the administration intend to follow the Obama administration's model and rely on third parties and other countries to do the dirty work of detention? Well, of course, if you are going to send these people to other countries, that requires allies who are reliable, responsible, and actually willing to take these terrorists. Does President Biden plan to gamble on an Iraqi Government that is increasingly under the influence of Iran? Or do they want to double down on detention facilities run by Syrian Kurdish partners in areas that are not yet under the control of the Assad regime? There is already no plan for Europe to reabsorb their citizens who fought for ISIS and are currently detained by the SDF. We are going to add to those ranks? There is a huge long list of practical problems the administration needs to consider before they toy with risky plans to shutter a perfectly good facility at Guantanamo Bay for no good reason. The Biden administration has got to rediscover some common sense. Now, I understand that liberal activists are willing to leave innocent American families in greater danger in exchange for a little bit of leftwing symbolism, but our Commander in Chief has a higher duty. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS107-4 | null | 5,635 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week, Chicago lost a legend, a man who devoted his entire life to his community, his family, and to his passion--building a more equitable justice system in America. His name was Larry Rogers, Sr. And over the past many years, I have been lucky to count him as a friend, as well as a role model. You see, to families throughout Chicago, Larry Rogers, Sr. was a hero. He blazed a trail for generations of lawyers, especially African-American lawyers, and fought tirelessly to defend our most vulnerable neighbors. And if you really want to understand who Larry was, you have to start with the person who raised him: his mother. Like me, sadly, Larry lost his father at the age of 14. It is a loss that not only takes a great emotional toll on a family, but a financial one as well. And after his father passed, Larry's mom became the sole breadwinner for him and all six of his siblings. Growing up in the Rosedale neighborhood of the south side of Chicago, Larry's mom worked two jobs to support her children and the cost of their catholic school education. Her work ethic and deep belief in the value of a good education molded Larry into the leader that so many of us in Chicago knew and loved. Following his mother's example, Larry excelled in school; he was even accepted into law school after graduating college, but was forced to put his legal career on hold due to a health issue. But like his mom, Larry didn'thave the luxury of slowing down. He was a young father with a family to feed. So, after leaving school, he started working three jobs to pay the bills. One of those jobs was at a gas station across the street from Comiskey Park. As fate would have it, that job ended up changing Larry's life. It was while working at that gas station that he struck up a friendship with a regular customer--a young lawyer named Joe Power. After becoming friends, Joe encouraged Larry to finish law school and even recruited him to the law firm where he worked. It was the beginning of a 40-year friendship and professional partnership. Together, Larry and Joe founded a personal injury law and medical malpractice firm that has become an institution in in Chicago and throughout the legal world: Power Rogers, LLP. Soon after he began his career as a trial attorney, Larry swiftly emerged as a mastermind in the courtroom, as well as a champion pugilist in the fight for justice. In the words of his son, Larry Jr., Larry Sr. was, ``the Michael Jordan of law before Michael Jordan was the Michael Jordan of basketball.'' Well, it is true. Back in 1985, for instance, Larry Sr. won the largest personal injury victory in Illinois history-an eight-figure verdict for families who had been wronged by a baby formula company, which had sold chloride-deficient formula and hindered the intellectual development of babies consuming it. Fifteen years later, Larry made legal history once again: He won a $55 million verdict for a woman who had suffered brain damage during a bronchoscopy exam; it was the largest medical malpractice verdict that went to judgement in our State's history. Larry's record in the courtroom is remarkable. In just four decades, he won major verdicts for victims of medical malpractice, motor vehicle negligence, aviation accident cases, and more. And with every victory, Larry didn't just climb the next rung of the professional ladder; he looked back and offered a helping hand to young lawyers hoping to follow his lead. Larry paid his success forward in mentorship, guidance, and support for African-American students and attorneys who had long been excluded from the legal world. And nobody was better positioned to recruit a new generation of change makers than Larry. After all, he served as the president of the Cook County Bar Association--CCBA--the first African-American president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association--ITLA--and was awarded an endless list of accolades. He was even named one of the top 500 trial lawyers in the entire country. But above all, Larry was a dedicated and loving father and grandfather. He instilled in his family the same values he learned from his own Mom, like a strong work ethic and a deep commitment to serving others. And Larry never pressured his kids to follow him into the legal career; he simply encouraged them to pursue their passions like he did: with diligence and determination. Still, Larry's example as an accomplished and principled lawyer had a strong influence on his children. Some years after Larry made history as the first African-American president of the ITLA, another young trailblazer followed in his footsteps: Larry Rogers Jr.--the second-ever African-American president of the ITLA. Like his Dad, Larry Jr. also became the president of the CCBA and, eventually, a partner at Power Rogers. I have seen for myself how Larry Jr. has followed his Dad's example, especially in his commitment to uplifting other, young attorneys of color. Altogether, there are now three generations of legal professionals in the Rogers family. Besides Larry Jr., there is his brother, Dom--an injury attorney--and his sister, Ann Marie--a court reporter. Additionally, Larry Sr.'s stepson Frederic is also a lawyer, along with his niece Carmen, his nephew, Sean, and his grandson, Trevor. And there is another star attorney on the way, too: Larry Sr.'s granddaughter, Erin, was recently accepted to several law schools. For those of us who knew Larry outside the courtroom, we will always remember his love of Chicago sports as well as his intrepid spirit. He was season ticket holder for both the Bulls and the Bears. And he was the captain of his very own Sea Ray sport boat. Larry would often invite friends and family to join him on vacations to Lake Michigan, Florida, and even the Bahamas--a testament to his generosity and eagerness to spread joy to those he loved. In the musical ``Hamilton'', legacy is defined as ``planting seeds in a garden you never get to see.'' While Larry Rogers Sr. may no longer be with us, I am absolutely certain that the seeds he has planted--as a lawyer, mentor, father, and grandfather--will be blossoming for generations to come. Chicago--and the entire legal profession--is better because of Larry Rogers Sr.'s lifetime of service. Loretta and I join Larry's life partner Pam, his children and stepchildren--Larry, Jr., Dom, Anne Marie, and Frederic--along with all of his nieces, nephews, and grandchildren in mourning his loss. Thank you all for carrying his remarkable legacy forward. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS116-3 | null | 5,636 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, January 27, 2023, marks the 200th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States of America and Argentina. In 1823, President James Monroe named Caesar Rodney of Delaware as Minister Plenipotentiary to the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. The longstanding friendship between our two countries is underpinned by the strong cultural and familial ties which unite our peoples. The relationship is further enriched by the many unique contributions of Argentinians to the United States. Both countries are democracies, working continuously to strengthen our institutions and political inclusion. Argentina provides crucial contributions to hemispheric security and stability, including counterterrorism, defense, and law enforcement cooperation. It is a valued partner for the United States in tackling the climate crisis and global health challenges and serves as an example for the region and the world in supporting expanded economic prosperity and equality, including for women and disadvantaged populations. Argentina is further admired for its leadership in promoting human rights and the dignity of all people, including of LGBTQI+ persons. Both the United States and Argentina are dedicated to maintaining a strong middle class and the importance of independent unions and labor rights. We are together increasing mutual understanding and friendship between our peoples through educational exchanges including our binational Fulbright Commission. Argentina remains a trusted and desirable destination for world-class tourism and for trade opportunities with the United States and is recognized for being a leader in sports through the example set by its FIFA World Cup champions. Argentina's three World Cup victories have inspired generations of athletes. Argentina's cultural, economic, and political contributions to the region and to the world are invaluable. We must continue to build towards an ever stronger relationship between Argentina and the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. KAINE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS117 | null | 5,637 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Coons, Mr. Risch, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kelly, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Padilla, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Van Hollen) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Con. Res. 2 Whereas, on September 16, 2022, 22-year-old Mahsa Amini passed away in the custody of Iranian ``morality police'' following a 3-day coma due to wounds, including bone fracture, hemorrhage, and cerebral edema consistent with severe beating, inflicted by the police for purportedly wearing a hijab improperly; Whereas, on September 16, 2022, Iranians gathered in the streets of Tehran to protest the killing of Mahsa Amini; Whereas demonstrations have since spread to more than 133 cities and 130 universities in Iran, where women are removing or burning hijabs, cutting their hair, and dancing in front of Iranian security forces, joined by their fellow Iranian citizens, in a call to end the Iranian regime's systemic repression; Whereas Iranian security forces have responded to such demonstrations with violence and detentions, including detentions of journalists and activists for covering the protests; Whereas the security forces reportedly have killed more than 516 protestors, including at least 70 children, although the number of injuries and deaths is likely higher, but is unobtainable due to internet blackouts; Whereas at least 19,200 Iranians have been arrested across Iran according to official sources, and many thousands more have been detained according to independent reports; Whereas more than 60 percent of Iran's population is younger than 30 years old, and the protests continue to be fueled by young people; Whereas Iran's Revolutionary Courts have executed at least 4 individuals who were involved in the protests, namely Mohsen Shekari, Majid Reza Rahnavard, Mohammad Mehdi Karami, and Sayed Mohammad Hosseini, and have charged at least 100 more individuals with crimes that are punishable in Iran by death; Whereas videos, images, and demonstrations have spread to social media platforms and are an important way for the voices of the Iranian people to be heard; Whereas internet monitoring groups have reported that the Iranian regime has-- (1) caused near-total disruption of internet connectivity in parts of Iran and partial disruptions in city centers; and (2) blocked WhatsApp, Twitter, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram, and video games with chat functions; Whereas common protest chants include-- (1) ``Women, life, and freedom!''; (2) ``Iranians die but will not be suppressed!''; and (3) ``Death to the dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei!''; Whereas the Iranian regime has a long history of structural and legal discrimination against women, including barriers for women seeking justice against domestic violence and criminal prohibitions against women singing or showing hair in public and studying certain technical subjects; Whereas the Iranian regime approved of ``depriving one social right or more'' for any woman who posts an unveiled picture of herself on social media, and, in August 2022, approved of enforcing mandatory hijab laws through facial recognition; Whereas, through misogynistic criminal statutes, the Iranian regime for decades has detained and engaged in the ongoing persecution of women, including-- (1) Saba Kord Afshari, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for posting videos to social media without a hijab and transferred into Ward 6 of the notorious Qarchak Women's Prison, which the Secretary of the Treasury has identified as a place at which gross violations of human rights take place; (2) Raheleh Ahmadi, mother of Afshari, who was sentenced to 2 years in prison for advocacy on behalf of Afshari; (3) Yasaman Aryani, her mother Monireh Arabshahi, and Mojgan Keshavarz, who were sentenced to between 16 and 23 years in prison for posting a video for International Women's Day in 2019, during which they walked without headscarves through a metro train in Tehran, handing flowers to female passengers; (4) human rights attorney Nasrin Sotoudeh, who was sentenced in 2019 to 38 years in prison and 148 lashes for providing legal defense services to women charged with not wearing a hijab; (5) Narges Mohammadi, a prominent rights advocate, who-- (A) was sentenced to 10 years in prison in May 2015 for ``establishing an illegal group'', ``assembly and collusion to act against national security'', and ``propaganda against the state''; (B) was arrested in November 2019 (on the second anniversary of countrywide protests) and rearrested in 2021; and (C) had her prison sentence extended in October 2022 to 11 years and 9 months; (6) former Vice President for Women and Family Affairs, Shahindokht Molaverdi, who was charged with encouraging ``corruption, prostitution, and sexual deviance'', a common charge against women refusing mandatory hijab laws, and sentenced in December 2020 to 30 months in prison for defending the right of women to attend sporting events and criticizing the practice of child marriage; (7) 6 women who were sentenced by the Culture and Media Court of Tehran in July 2022 to each serve 1 year in prison for the offense of singing songs in public; (8) Niloufar Hamedi, who was one of the first Iranian journalists to report on Mahsa Amini's death, who was arrested on September 22, 2022, and is being held in solitary confinement; and (9) countless other women; Whereas the Iranian regime consistently commits a range of human rights abuses in addition to its systematic persecution of women and peaceful protesters, including-- (1) unlawful or arbitrary killings and torture; (2) trials without due process; (3) forced disappearances; (4) arbitrary arrest and detention; (5) life-threatening prison conditions; (6) transnational attacks against dissidents; and (7) severe restrictions on free expression and the media, peaceful assembly and association, and religious freedom; Whereas Freedom House ranks the Government of Iran as one of the worst human rights violators in the world, with a Global Freedom Score of 14 out of 100 and an Internet Freedom Score of 16 out of 100; Whereas peaceful protests in Iran during 2022 have focused on grievances such as-- (1) mismanagement of the economy and national resources; (2) prioritization of funding for terror groups and pariah regimes over social services for the people of Iran; and (3) widespread political corruption: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress-- (1) commends the bravery, courage, and resolve of the women and men of Iran who are-- (A) participating in the current protests to defend their fundamental human rights; and (B) risking their safety to speak out against the human rights abuses committed by the Iranian regime; (2) condemns-- (A) the brutal beating and death of Mahsa Amini; and (B) the violent suppression by the Iranian regime of women and men participating in the current demonstrations, including children, and calls for transparent accountability for all killings of protesters by Iranian security forces; (3) supports internet freedom programs that circumvent the regime, including the Open Technology Fund, which provides support for VPNs, proxy servers, and other alternatives that can be used to bypass attempts by authoritarian governments to censor internet access during times of protest, and commends private entities willing to provide programs to circumvent such censorship; (4) encourages continued efforts by the Biden Administration to respond to the protests, including the recent sanctioning of the Iranian morality police, and further encourages the Biden Administration-- (A) to immediately impose, under existing authorities, additional human rights sanctions on officials and entities responsible for the repression of the current protests; (B) to prioritize efforts to expand unrestricted internet access in Iran, consistent with existing law; and (C) to work to develop a strategy to prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining and exploiting facial recognition data and software for the use of mass surveillance and enforcement of mandatory hijab; (5) encourages the private sector, following the recent clarification by the Biden Administration of sanctions exemptions on communications technology, to work with the Biden Administration to ensure protestors and activists have access to tools needed to circumvent government surveillance and repression; (6) encourages representatives of the private sector to coordinate with the Department of the Treasury and their subsidiaries to utilize licensing opportunities and expand access of key communications services to Iranians residing within Iran; (7) welcomes the efforts of the international community to support protestors in Iran, including by removing Iran from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women; and (8) calls on the international community-- (A) to publicly condemn violence by the Iranian regime against peaceful protesters; (B) to speak out against violations by the regime of fundamental human rights, including the freedom of expression, assembly, and redress of grievances of the Iranian people; and (C) impose human rights sanctions on officials and entities that are responsible for the repression of current protests and involved in violating the human rights of the Iranian people. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS125 | null | 5,638 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if I might be recognized, nearly 1 year ago, Russia launched an unprovoked, illegal, and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. In doing so, Vladimir Putin quite literally sought to wipe a sovereign nation off the map. But as the world witnessed in the months that followed, Mr. Putin had vastly underestimated the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian leadership. Rather than capitulate, Ukrainians have resisted and saved their homeland from full-scale occupation. The courage and ingenuity shown by Ukrainian troops, many of whom were civilians before the war, continues to be nothing short of heroic. This morning, we learned of yet another act of Russian terror in the form of a barrage of drones and missiles raining down on Kyiv. This left severe casualties. This act of brute intimidation, which has become all too common over the past year, was clearly meant to break the will of the Ukrainian people as they prepare to receive more military aid from the United States and from other allies. Thankfully, Ukrainian forces successfully shot down the vast majority of those incoming projectiles using advanced air defense technology. This is just one more example of what many of us in this Chamber have asserted for months: If Ukrainians get the tools they need, they can finish the job and defeat Vladimir Putin. The harsh reality is that these kinds of attacks on Ukraine, leaving a trail of casualties in their wake, have become far too common, and if leaders across the free world had acted sooner, we would be better positioned to save the lives and critical infrastructure now. The U.S. Congress has led the world in supporting the Ukraine war effort. In fact, we have led the Biden administration--this Senate, on both sides of the aisle. On a bipartisan basis, we have provided security assistance, humanitarian aid, and direct support to Ukraine's government. Although this has amounted to tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, this is actually a bargain investment. Let's put it in context. According to the Kiel Institute's Ukraine Support Tracker, the total U.S. contribution to Ukraine, through November of last year, amounted to only 0.2 percent of our gross domestic product. The new Congress must continue this bipartisan support for Ukraine, and I look forward to leading the charge as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. As the first anniversary of this war approaches, we should reflect on the progress made by Ukraine, and we should carefully consider how to help them decisively win this conflict so that a lasting peace can take root. To do so, we first need to state clearly what our American interests are in Ukraine. That is something the President and his advisers have repeatedly failed to do, choosing instead to make vague references to the rules-based international order, or words to that effect. The American people are right to demand straight answers. With inflation rampant, crime on the rise, and an open southern border, it is fair to ask why we should care about what happens in Ukraine. I offer four reasons. First, Ukraine matters because the security of Europe is closely tied to our own American security and our own American prosperity. For decades, all of our fellow citizens have benefited from peace and stability in Europe, purchased by the sacrifices of Americans in World War I and World War II. What is at stake today in Ukraine is whether the fruits of those sacrifices will continue to endure. Allowing Putin to prevail in Ukraine would usher in a new age of chaos and instability and would invite Putin to test our resolve to defend our NATO allies. Make no mistake, Putin will push the envelope as far as we let him. His goal is to remake the old Soviet empire, and, regrettably, the West has misread and underestimated Putin's intentions for years--in 2008, when he invaded Georgia; and then in 2014, with the seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine; and, yet again, last year in Ukraine with this full-scale invasion. His imperial ambitions are now undeniable. If Vladimir Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the security of the entire European continent will be put at risk. Second, our support and the support of our allies for Ukraine has made a huge difference and has significantly weakened Russia. Thanks to the U.S. military assistance and the courage of Ukrainian troops, Russia has lost its ability to carry out near-term conventional invasions of NATO members, and we achieved that without having to send a single American soldier into combat. The Russian losses have been massive. Last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Mark Milley, estimated that significantly more than 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in Ukraine during the war, not to mention thousands of combat vehicles, tanks, artillery pieces, and aircraft destroyed. For those questioning the cost of our assistance, I would simply pose the alternative: How much would it cost in American lives and treasure to confront the Russians directly? Because that is the reality we face if Putin tests our resolve to defend NATO. From that perspective, we are getting one heck of a deal by helping Ukraine do its own fighting. Third, our support for Ukraine is prompting European countries to take more responsibility for their own security, something we have long urged them to do. Republican and Democrat Presidents alike have long believed that Europeans should take the lead on European security. I agree. Almost every American agrees. Thanks to our example, our NATO allies are now spending tens of billions more on defense, much of which will bespent here in the United States. In particular, our friends in the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states are making all the right choices to help Ukraine win and prepare their own militaries to deter Russia for decades to come. Backing away from Ukraine at this crucial moment would undermine our credibility as we ask the Europeans to shoulder more of the collective defense burden. Fourth, although this war is happening in Europe, we should not forget who else is watching. Some skeptics of our mission in Ukraine believe it distracts from our principal security threat: the Chinese Communist Party. But the reality is the exact opposite. Xi Jingping is watching us closely. He wants to see if we will stick by our commitments as he weighs his opportunities of invading his own neighbor--and our friend--Taiwan. Our Indo-Pacific allies are also watching closely and even helping in Ukraine. As Japanese Prime Minister Kishida recently noted, ``Ukraine today could be Asia tomorrow.'' Far from distracting us from China, stopping Putin in Ukraine is indispensable in deterring China. We dare not show weakness at this moment in Ukraine. Doing so would simply invite other dictators to act just like Vladimir Putin. The bottom line is that America's interest in this war is clear: We need Ukraine to win, and that means giving them the tools to prevail. Cutting our support would cost us far more in the long run. Unfortunately, as we know, Vladimir Putin understands only brute force. He will not capitulate or negotiate until he is forced to do so. This is something President Biden failed to appreciate when he downplayed Putin's threats a year ago by talking about ``minor incursions.'' Remember that--``minor incursions''? At every step of this crisis, it has been Congress, not the administration, that has taken the lead, and it is something that the President still fails to grasp as he and his administration continue to slow-roll military aid for fear of ``escalation.'' The Biden administration has come along grudgingly as Congress has pushed and pulled and taken the lead. For example, in May of last year, Congress provided the administration with roughly $8.5 billion of drawdown authority to transfer weapons and munitions from U.S. inventories to Ukraine through the end of September. But the administration let almost $3 billion of that authority expire. Ukraine can win this war. Ukraine must win this war. But we and our allies have to do our part to help them. When Russia first launched its invasion, the prospect of Ukrainian victory indeed seemed unlikely. The Russian blitzkrieg forced Ukraine to fight for its very survival. It took repeated acts of heroism to push the Russians back, from President Zelenskyy's fearless example of leadership down to the foot soldiers, like Vitaly Volodymyrovych, who blew up the bridge beneath his feet, sacrificing his own life, to stop the Russian advance. After Russian troops faltered in those initial days, they pivoted to a barbaric tactic of heavy bombardment of civilians--shelling homes, schools, and hospitals. These were war crimes. And as the Russians were finally expelled from Kyiv, we learned of the horrific atrocities committed against civilians, particularly in the city's outer lying areas, such as Bucha. And then began the counteroffensive. The Ukrainians retook Snake Island, liberated Kharkiv, and eventually expelled the Russians from Kherson in November. Their battlefield success demonstrated the impact of high-end U.S. military aid--such as HIMARS, long-range rockets--as well as the Ukrainians' own capabilities to plan and execute complex operations in defense of their own homeland. Today, the situation has stabilized, with Russia occupying only about 15 percent of Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainians presents us with an opportunity. As the war approaches its second year, Congress must once again lead the administration to ramp up military aid to Ukraine to drive toward victory. We should all want Ukraine to win the war. A continuation of the status quo, which would drag out the war, favors Russia. The United States has made a huge difference in this war, and we can now tip the balance in favor of Ukraine if we take the right steps. I would sum up this policy of the right steps in three words: more, better, and faster--more ground vehicles and munitions, better equipment, faster deliveries. We need faster deliveries right now. While I appreciate the White House's recent announcement that we will send a batch of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, it is now our duty to follow through on this commitment and make certain the Ukrainians promptly receive the battlefield capabilities we plan to provide them, including the necessary training. In addition, we need to give Ukraine ATACMS, long-range missiles, and advanced drones, like the Gray Eagle and Reaper. We should deliver these assets quickly to make an immediate difference on the battlefield. In concert with our allies, this approach of ``more, better, and faster'' would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory. At the same time, we must continue our work to expand our own defense industrial capacity here at home. The American people have already invested billions of dollars to replenish the weapons we transferred to Ukraine, particularly munitions. We are using that money here in America to expand production, doubling and even tripling production capacities for weapons like 155-millimeter shells, Javelins, and HIMARS, and our work on that has just begun. Lastly, we will continue to maintain and expand the rigorous oversight structure we have placed over military aid. As of today, Congress has imposed more than two dozen detailed oversight requirements on the Biden administration, and we continue to monitor their responses closely. Of course, some of the oversight work we do is classified to protect the people and sources conducting it. But Americans should know the scope of our oversight work, and so we will hold oversight hearings in this Congress, and we will do so on a bipartisan basis. We should also press the Pentagon to make more oversight information public. We should continue tracking the work of the inspectors general in the State Department and the Department of Defense and in the U.S. Agency for International Development and 14 other government organizations that are already tasked with ensuring accountability for all spending related to Ukraine. These organizations are hard at work. Thus far, 20 reviews of Ukraine assistance have been completed, with another 64 reviews ongoing or planned. That is oversight. We have work ahead of us this year, and it is critical work. If we make the right choices, we can ensure a Ukrainian victory over Russia, send a message of strength to China and others who wish us ill, and restore the United States as the world's arsenal of democracy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WICKER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS126-3 | null | 5,639 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, if I might be recognized, nearly 1 year ago, Russia launched an unprovoked, illegal, and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. In doing so, Vladimir Putin quite literally sought to wipe a sovereign nation off the map. But as the world witnessed in the months that followed, Mr. Putin had vastly underestimated the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian leadership. Rather than capitulate, Ukrainians have resisted and saved their homeland from full-scale occupation. The courage and ingenuity shown by Ukrainian troops, many of whom were civilians before the war, continues to be nothing short of heroic. This morning, we learned of yet another act of Russian terror in the form of a barrage of drones and missiles raining down on Kyiv. This left severe casualties. This act of brute intimidation, which has become all too common over the past year, was clearly meant to break the will of the Ukrainian people as they prepare to receive more military aid from the United States and from other allies. Thankfully, Ukrainian forces successfully shot down the vast majority of those incoming projectiles using advanced air defense technology. This is just one more example of what many of us in this Chamber have asserted for months: If Ukrainians get the tools they need, they can finish the job and defeat Vladimir Putin. The harsh reality is that these kinds of attacks on Ukraine, leaving a trail of casualties in their wake, have become far too common, and if leaders across the free world had acted sooner, we would be better positioned to save the lives and critical infrastructure now. The U.S. Congress has led the world in supporting the Ukraine war effort. In fact, we have led the Biden administration--this Senate, on both sides of the aisle. On a bipartisan basis, we have provided security assistance, humanitarian aid, and direct support to Ukraine's government. Although this has amounted to tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, this is actually a bargain investment. Let's put it in context. According to the Kiel Institute's Ukraine Support Tracker, the total U.S. contribution to Ukraine, through November of last year, amounted to only 0.2 percent of our gross domestic product. The new Congress must continue this bipartisan support for Ukraine, and I look forward to leading the charge as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. As the first anniversary of this war approaches, we should reflect on the progress made by Ukraine, and we should carefully consider how to help them decisively win this conflict so that a lasting peace can take root. To do so, we first need to state clearly what our American interests are in Ukraine. That is something the President and his advisers have repeatedly failed to do, choosing instead to make vague references to the rules-based international order, or words to that effect. The American people are right to demand straight answers. With inflation rampant, crime on the rise, and an open southern border, it is fair to ask why we should care about what happens in Ukraine. I offer four reasons. First, Ukraine matters because the security of Europe is closely tied to our own American security and our own American prosperity. For decades, all of our fellow citizens have benefited from peace and stability in Europe, purchased by the sacrifices of Americans in World War I and World War II. What is at stake today in Ukraine is whether the fruits of those sacrifices will continue to endure. Allowing Putin to prevail in Ukraine would usher in a new age of chaos and instability and would invite Putin to test our resolve to defend our NATO allies. Make no mistake, Putin will push the envelope as far as we let him. His goal is to remake the old Soviet empire, and, regrettably, the West has misread and underestimated Putin's intentions for years--in 2008, when he invaded Georgia; and then in 2014, with the seizure of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine; and, yet again, last year in Ukraine with this full-scale invasion. His imperial ambitions are now undeniable. If Vladimir Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, the security of the entire European continent will be put at risk. Second, our support and the support of our allies for Ukraine has made a huge difference and has significantly weakened Russia. Thanks to the U.S. military assistance and the courage of Ukrainian troops, Russia has lost its ability to carry out near-term conventional invasions of NATO members, and we achieved that without having to send a single American soldier into combat. The Russian losses have been massive. Last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Mark Milley, estimated that significantly more than 100,000 Russian troops have been killed or wounded in Ukraine during the war, not to mention thousands of combat vehicles, tanks, artillery pieces, and aircraft destroyed. For those questioning the cost of our assistance, I would simply pose the alternative: How much would it cost in American lives and treasure to confront the Russians directly? Because that is the reality we face if Putin tests our resolve to defend NATO. From that perspective, we are getting one heck of a deal by helping Ukraine do its own fighting. Third, our support for Ukraine is prompting European countries to take more responsibility for their own security, something we have long urged them to do. Republican and Democrat Presidents alike have long believed that Europeans should take the lead on European security. I agree. Almost every American agrees. Thanks to our example, our NATO allies are now spending tens of billions more on defense, much of which will bespent here in the United States. In particular, our friends in the United Kingdom, Poland, Romania, and the Baltic states are making all the right choices to help Ukraine win and prepare their own militaries to deter Russia for decades to come. Backing away from Ukraine at this crucial moment would undermine our credibility as we ask the Europeans to shoulder more of the collective defense burden. Fourth, although this war is happening in Europe, we should not forget who else is watching. Some skeptics of our mission in Ukraine believe it distracts from our principal security threat: the Chinese Communist Party. But the reality is the exact opposite. Xi Jingping is watching us closely. He wants to see if we will stick by our commitments as he weighs his opportunities of invading his own neighbor--and our friend--Taiwan. Our Indo-Pacific allies are also watching closely and even helping in Ukraine. As Japanese Prime Minister Kishida recently noted, ``Ukraine today could be Asia tomorrow.'' Far from distracting us from China, stopping Putin in Ukraine is indispensable in deterring China. We dare not show weakness at this moment in Ukraine. Doing so would simply invite other dictators to act just like Vladimir Putin. The bottom line is that America's interest in this war is clear: We need Ukraine to win, and that means giving them the tools to prevail. Cutting our support would cost us far more in the long run. Unfortunately, as we know, Vladimir Putin understands only brute force. He will not capitulate or negotiate until he is forced to do so. This is something President Biden failed to appreciate when he downplayed Putin's threats a year ago by talking about ``minor incursions.'' Remember that--``minor incursions''? At every step of this crisis, it has been Congress, not the administration, that has taken the lead, and it is something that the President still fails to grasp as he and his administration continue to slow-roll military aid for fear of ``escalation.'' The Biden administration has come along grudgingly as Congress has pushed and pulled and taken the lead. For example, in May of last year, Congress provided the administration with roughly $8.5 billion of drawdown authority to transfer weapons and munitions from U.S. inventories to Ukraine through the end of September. But the administration let almost $3 billion of that authority expire. Ukraine can win this war. Ukraine must win this war. But we and our allies have to do our part to help them. When Russia first launched its invasion, the prospect of Ukrainian victory indeed seemed unlikely. The Russian blitzkrieg forced Ukraine to fight for its very survival. It took repeated acts of heroism to push the Russians back, from President Zelenskyy's fearless example of leadership down to the foot soldiers, like Vitaly Volodymyrovych, who blew up the bridge beneath his feet, sacrificing his own life, to stop the Russian advance. After Russian troops faltered in those initial days, they pivoted to a barbaric tactic of heavy bombardment of civilians--shelling homes, schools, and hospitals. These were war crimes. And as the Russians were finally expelled from Kyiv, we learned of the horrific atrocities committed against civilians, particularly in the city's outer lying areas, such as Bucha. And then began the counteroffensive. The Ukrainians retook Snake Island, liberated Kharkiv, and eventually expelled the Russians from Kherson in November. Their battlefield success demonstrated the impact of high-end U.S. military aid--such as HIMARS, long-range rockets--as well as the Ukrainians' own capabilities to plan and execute complex operations in defense of their own homeland. Today, the situation has stabilized, with Russia occupying only about 15 percent of Ukraine. The courage of Ukrainians presents us with an opportunity. As the war approaches its second year, Congress must once again lead the administration to ramp up military aid to Ukraine to drive toward victory. We should all want Ukraine to win the war. A continuation of the status quo, which would drag out the war, favors Russia. The United States has made a huge difference in this war, and we can now tip the balance in favor of Ukraine if we take the right steps. I would sum up this policy of the right steps in three words: more, better, and faster--more ground vehicles and munitions, better equipment, faster deliveries. We need faster deliveries right now. While I appreciate the White House's recent announcement that we will send a batch of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, it is now our duty to follow through on this commitment and make certain the Ukrainians promptly receive the battlefield capabilities we plan to provide them, including the necessary training. In addition, we need to give Ukraine ATACMS, long-range missiles, and advanced drones, like the Gray Eagle and Reaper. We should deliver these assets quickly to make an immediate difference on the battlefield. In concert with our allies, this approach of ``more, better, and faster'' would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory. At the same time, we must continue our work to expand our own defense industrial capacity here at home. The American people have already invested billions of dollars to replenish the weapons we transferred to Ukraine, particularly munitions. We are using that money here in America to expand production, doubling and even tripling production capacities for weapons like 155-millimeter shells, Javelins, and HIMARS, and our work on that has just begun. Lastly, we will continue to maintain and expand the rigorous oversight structure we have placed over military aid. As of today, Congress has imposed more than two dozen detailed oversight requirements on the Biden administration, and we continue to monitor their responses closely. Of course, some of the oversight work we do is classified to protect the people and sources conducting it. But Americans should know the scope of our oversight work, and so we will hold oversight hearings in this Congress, and we will do so on a bipartisan basis. We should also press the Pentagon to make more oversight information public. We should continue tracking the work of the inspectors general in the State Department and the Department of Defense and in the U.S. Agency for International Development and 14 other government organizations that are already tasked with ensuring accountability for all spending related to Ukraine. These organizations are hard at work. Thus far, 20 reviews of Ukraine assistance have been completed, with another 64 reviews ongoing or planned. That is oversight. We have work ahead of us this year, and it is critical work. If we make the right choices, we can ensure a Ukrainian victory over Russia, send a message of strength to China and others who wish us ill, and restore the United States as the world's arsenal of democracy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. WICKER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-26-pt1-PgS126-3 | null | 5,640 |
formal | Bing | null | anti-Asian | Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I seek recognition to pay tribute to those who lost their lives in my congressional district in the community of Half Moon Bay on Monday of this week. Mr. Speaker, seven lives, seven precious lives, farmworkers in a community that is as all-American as can be, about 11,000 people. It is a bucolic community on the magnificent California coastline. It is known for its pumpkin festival. It is known for its Mavericks competition in terms of surfers, but also, for over a century, it has been known for its flora culture and its agriculture. It was on Monday that one individual went to a nursery--actually, where he worked. He knew exactly who he was pursuing. It was intentional. It was targeted. It was execution, and children witnessed this. Children witnessed it. He left that site, drove about a mile and a half to Highway 1, which is the scenic highway with the magnificent Pacific Ocean on one side and the community on the other, to another nursery and murdered three others. The first 3 weeks of this New Year: 39 mass shootings in the United States of America. We always come to the floor: Thoughts and prayers, thoughts and prayers. My thoughts are, I don't think we are safe anywhere anymore--churches, schools, community centers, now at nurseries where agricultural workers work, dance rooms, restaurants. I believe sincerely, number one, in prayer. My prayer today is that there will be a collective examination of conscience in the Congress because we have a responsibility in this. We all do, regardless of party. This is a matter of conscience. It is a moral issue. When the number one cause of death of children in our Nation is from gun violence, we have to stop and examine our conscience. We say home of the brave, land of the free. My prayer today is that we will be the home of the safe. These are whose lives were taken on Monday: Zhishen Liu, 73 years old; Aixiang Zhang, 74 years old; Qizhong Cheng, 66 years old; Jingzhi Lu, 64 years old; Marciano Martinez Jimenez, 50 years old; Yetao Bing, 43 years old; Jose Romero Perez, 38 years old. God rest them. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. ESHOO | House | CREC-2023-01-27-pt1-PgH471-3 | null | 5,641 |
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-2023-01-27-pt1-PgH490-2 | null | 5,642 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 582) to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to modify the frequency of board of directors meetings, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McHENRY | House | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH501 | null | 5,643 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 500; 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-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH505-2 | null | 5,644 |
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. 500) to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of certain securities in the case of the financial exploitation of specified adults, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH505-3 | null | 5,645 |
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 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 | House | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH505-4 | null | 5,646 |
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-252. A letter from the Associate Administrator, National Organic Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- National Organic Program (NOP); Strengthening Organic Enforcement [Doc. No.: AMS-NOP-17-0065; NOP-17-02] (RIN: 0581-AD09) received January 20, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-253. A letter from the Alternate OSD FRLO, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Expanding TRICARE Access to Care in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic [Docket ID: DoD- 2021-HA-0015 RIN: 0720-AB85) received January 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-254. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's joint final rule -- Community Reinvestment Act Regulations Asset-Size Thresholds [Regulation BB; Docket No.: R-1795] (RIN: 3064-AF87) received January 13, 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-255. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information (RIN: 3084- AB35) 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-256. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air-Cooled, Three- Phase, Small Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Variable Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0031] (RIN: 1904-AE06) received January 17, 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-257. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020] (RIN: 1904-AD94) received January 17, 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-258. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042] (RIN: 1905-AE59) received January 17, 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-259. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program; Addition of Uterine Cancer to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions [Docket No.: CDC-2022-0052; NIOSH-347] (RIN: 0920-AA82) received January 18, 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-260. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fluridone; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2021-0787; FRL-10504-01-OCSPP] received January 17, 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-261. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado; Delegation of Authority of the Federal Plan for Existing Hospital, Medical, Infectious Waste Incinerators [EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0929; FRL-10462-02-R8] received January 17, 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-262. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required Under Clean Air Act Section 185; California; Sacramento Metro Area [EPA-R09-OAR- 2022-0962; FRL-10505-01-R9] received January 17, 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-263. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statement Rule for the 2015 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0730; EPA-R05- OAR-2020-0731; FRL-9746-02-R5] received January 17, 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-264. A letter from the Program Analyst, International Bureau -- Satellite Policy Branch, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Space Innovation [IB Docket No.: 22-271]; Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age [IB Docket No.: 18-313] received January 17, 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-265. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of TV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Chicago, Illinois) [MB Docket No.: 22-456] received January 17, 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-266. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Memphis, Tennessee) [MB Docket No.: 22-146] (RM-11925) received January 17, 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-267. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Norwell, Massachusetts) [MB Docket No.: 22-376] (RM-11934) received January 17, 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-268. A letter from the Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications [PS Docket No.: 15-80]; Improving 911 Reliability [PS Docket No.: 13-75]; New Part 4 of Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications [ET Docket No.: 04-35] received January 17, 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-269. A letter from the Chief, Revenue and Receivables, Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of the Schedule of Applications Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1109 of the Commission's Rules [MD Docket No.: 20- 270] received January 23, 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-270. A letter from the Program Analyst, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau et al., Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules [WP Docket No.: 07-100] received January 23, 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-271. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy statement -- Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Rebates and Fees in Exchange for Excluding Lower-Cost Drug Products 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-272. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties To Reflect Inflation [DA 22-1356] received January 17, 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-273. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's notice -- Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts [Release Nos.: 33-11143; 34-96605; IA-6212; IC-34797] received January 13, 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-274. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 1574; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01362-T; Amendment 39- 22274; AD 2022-25-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-275. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1657; Project Identifier AD-2022-01475-T; Amendment 39-22292; AD 2022-27- 07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-276. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Canada Limited Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 1658; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01597-R; Amendment 39-22293; AD 2022-27- 08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-277. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Rolls- Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA- 2022-1649; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01206-E; Amendment 39-22284; AD 2022-26-05] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-278. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0465; Project Identifier AD-2022-00330-R; Amendment 39-22288; AD 2022-27- 03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-279. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. FAA-2022-1355; Amdt. Nos.: 21-106, 23-65, 25-146, 29-58, 33-1, 36-32, 47-32, 49-11, 60-7, 61-151, 67-22, 73-1, 91-366, 97-1339, 101-9, 107-10, 121-387, 125-72, 129-54, 135-143, 141-24, 183-18, 440-6] (RIN: 2120-AL53) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-280. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications [Docket No.: PHMSA-2021-0091 (HM-260B)] (RIN: 2137-AF56) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-281. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018) [Docket No.: PHMSA-2016-0014 (HM-224I)] (RIN: 2137-AF20) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH507-7 | null | 5,647 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-252. A letter from the Associate Administrator, National Organic Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- National Organic Program (NOP); Strengthening Organic Enforcement [Doc. No.: AMS-NOP-17-0065; NOP-17-02] (RIN: 0581-AD09) received January 20, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Agriculture. EC-253. A letter from the Alternate OSD FRLO, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's interim final rule -- Expanding TRICARE Access to Care in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic [Docket ID: DoD- 2021-HA-0015 RIN: 0720-AB85) received January 23, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-254. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's joint final rule -- Community Reinvestment Act Regulations Asset-Size Thresholds [Regulation BB; Docket No.: R-1795] (RIN: 3064-AF87) received January 13, 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-255. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information (RIN: 3084- AB35) 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-256. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Air-Cooled, Three- Phase, Small Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Variable Refrigerant Flow Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0031] (RIN: 1904-AE06) received January 17, 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-257. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps [EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020] (RIN: 1904-AD94) received January 17, 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-258. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces [EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042] (RIN: 1905-AE59) received January 17, 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-259. A letter from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting the Department's final rule -- World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program; Addition of Uterine Cancer to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions [Docket No.: CDC-2022-0052; NIOSH-347] (RIN: 0920-AA82) received January 18, 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-260. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Fluridone; Pesticide Tolerances [EPA- HQ-OPP-2021-0787; FRL-10504-01-OCSPP] received January 17, 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-261. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Colorado; Delegation of Authority of the Federal Plan for Existing Hospital, Medical, Infectious Waste Incinerators [EPA-R08-OAR-2022-0929; FRL-10462-02-R8] received January 17, 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-262. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule -- Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan Revisions Required Under Clean Air Act Section 185; California; Sacramento Metro Area [EPA-R09-OAR- 2022-0962; FRL-10505-01-R9] received January 17, 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-263. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting the Agency's direct final rule -- Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Base Year Emissions Inventory and Emissions Statement Rule for the 2015 Ozone Standard [EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0730; EPA-R05- OAR-2020-0731; FRL-9746-02-R5] received January 17, 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-264. A letter from the Program Analyst, International Bureau -- Satellite Policy Branch, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Space Innovation [IB Docket No.: 22-271]; Mitigation of Orbital Debris in the New Space Age [IB Docket No.: 18-313] received January 17, 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-265. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of TV Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Chicago, Illinois) [MB Docket No.: 22-456] received January 17, 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-266. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Memphis, Tennessee) [MB Docket No.: 22-146] (RM-11925) received January 17, 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-267. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 73.622(j), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations (Norwell, Massachusetts) [MB Docket No.: 22-376] (RM-11934) received January 17, 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-268. A letter from the Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications [PS Docket No.: 15-80]; Improving 911 Reliability [PS Docket No.: 13-75]; New Part 4 of Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications [ET Docket No.: 04-35] received January 17, 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-269. A letter from the Chief, Revenue and Receivables, Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of the Schedule of Applications Fees Set Forth in Sections 1.1102 through 1.1109 of the Commission's Rules [MD Docket No.: 20- 270] received January 23, 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-270. A letter from the Program Analyst, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau et al., Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules [WP Docket No.: 07-100] received January 23, 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-271. A letter from the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's policy statement -- Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Rebates and Fees in Exchange for Excluding Lower-Cost Drug Products 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-272. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule -- Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules Annual Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties To Reflect Inflation [DA 22-1356] received January 17, 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-273. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, transmitting the Commission's notice -- Adjustments to Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts [Release Nos.: 33-11143; 34-96605; IA-6212; IC-34797] received January 13, 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-274. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 1574; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01362-T; Amendment 39- 22274; AD 2022-25-18] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-275. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1657; Project Identifier AD-2022-01475-T; Amendment 39-22292; AD 2022-27- 07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-276. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Canada Limited Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 1658; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01597-R; Amendment 39-22293; AD 2022-27- 08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-277. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Rolls- Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA- 2022-1649; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01206-E; Amendment 39-22284; AD 2022-26-05] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104- 121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-278. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0465; Project Identifier AD-2022-00330-R; Amendment 39-22288; AD 2022-27- 03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-279. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. FAA-2022-1355; Amdt. Nos.: 21-106, 23-65, 25-146, 29-58, 33-1, 36-32, 47-32, 49-11, 60-7, 61-151, 67-22, 73-1, 91-366, 97-1339, 101-9, 107-10, 121-387, 125-72, 129-54, 135-143, 141-24, 183-18, 440-6] (RIN: 2120-AL53) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-280. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications [Docket No.: PHMSA-2021-0091 (HM-260B)] (RIN: 2137-AF56) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. EC-281. A letter from the Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulatory Affairs, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Safety Provisions for Lithium Batteries Transported by Aircraft (FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018) [Docket No.: PHMSA-2016-0014 (HM-224I)] (RIN: 2137-AF20) received January 18, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH507-7 | null | 5,648 |
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-2023-01-30-pt1-PgH510-2 | null | 5,649 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the debt ceiling, one of Congress's top priorities this year is ensuring the United States does not default on its debt for the first time in our history. Even approaching a default would be disastrous for American families. The damages will show up on everything from people's credit card bills, their mortgage rates, and when applying for things as basic as a car loan. It risks thousands of dollars lit on fire for millions of American families. Everyone's life in this country will take many steps backward if we default. Now, Republicans have done a lot of talking about cuts, but when it comes to actually showing us a plan for avoiding default, they are playing a dangerous game. Republicans, it is time to come out of hiding, put pen to paper, and show us your plan. Republicans, show us your plan. According to some reports, Republicans want significant cuts across the board. But from where? Is funding for our troops safe? We don't know. Republicans, show us the plan. Is funding for police and firefighters and first responders safe? Republicans, show us the plan. Is funding for Social Security and Medicare safe, which some in that party, particularly on the MAGA wing, think should be cut? We don't know. Show us the plan. The silence is unacceptable because the American people have a right to know whether they are going to see crucial services suddenly dry up. And if Republicans don't get their way, Americans have a right to know whether or not the hard-right GOPers are really prepared to lead the House Republican conference to push the United States to default and whether the Republican House, led by McCarthy, will follow them over that devastating cliff, sending costs spiking on everything from credit cards to auto loans, to mortgages. We have seen in realtime how dangerous it is for Speaker McCarthy to have empowered the most extreme elements of the GOP to set the agenda in the House. The MAGA wing of the GOP, which has set the rules on how the House should run, has left no doubt that, under their watch, no form of funding, however necessary, is safe. Democrats, meanwhile, have been very clear about our position. When it comes to the debt ceiling, there can be no brinksmanship, no threats, no hostage-taking. This is simply too important. It has to get done. Republicans need to show their plan to the American people. The clock is ticking on the debt ceiling every day. We must make sure that a first-ever default doesn't occur. Yet Republicans are making it more and more likely. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS137-9 | null | 5,650 |
formal | right to know | null | anti-GMO | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on the debt ceiling, one of Congress's top priorities this year is ensuring the United States does not default on its debt for the first time in our history. Even approaching a default would be disastrous for American families. The damages will show up on everything from people's credit card bills, their mortgage rates, and when applying for things as basic as a car loan. It risks thousands of dollars lit on fire for millions of American families. Everyone's life in this country will take many steps backward if we default. Now, Republicans have done a lot of talking about cuts, but when it comes to actually showing us a plan for avoiding default, they are playing a dangerous game. Republicans, it is time to come out of hiding, put pen to paper, and show us your plan. Republicans, show us your plan. According to some reports, Republicans want significant cuts across the board. But from where? Is funding for our troops safe? We don't know. Republicans, show us the plan. Is funding for police and firefighters and first responders safe? Republicans, show us the plan. Is funding for Social Security and Medicare safe, which some in that party, particularly on the MAGA wing, think should be cut? We don't know. Show us the plan. The silence is unacceptable because the American people have a right to know whether they are going to see crucial services suddenly dry up. And if Republicans don't get their way, Americans have a right to know whether or not the hard-right GOPers are really prepared to lead the House Republican conference to push the United States to default and whether the Republican House, led by McCarthy, will follow them over that devastating cliff, sending costs spiking on everything from credit cards to auto loans, to mortgages. We have seen in realtime how dangerous it is for Speaker McCarthy to have empowered the most extreme elements of the GOP to set the agenda in the House. The MAGA wing of the GOP, which has set the rules on how the House should run, has left no doubt that, under their watch, no form of funding, however necessary, is safe. Democrats, meanwhile, have been very clear about our position. When it comes to the debt ceiling, there can be no brinksmanship, no threats, no hostage-taking. This is simply too important. It has to get done. Republicans need to show their plan to the American people. The clock is ticking on the debt ceiling every day. We must make sure that a first-ever default doesn't occur. Yet Republicans are making it more and more likely. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS137-9 | null | 5,651 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the new Republican House of Representatives has already done more to protect our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve than the single-party Democratic government did in the last 2 years. First, House Republicans passed legislation that would ban the Federal Government from selling energy from the SPR to benefit our Nation's No. 1 strategic adversary--the Chinese Communist Party. Then, last week, the House followed on by passing H.R. 21, a bipartisan bill that would require the Department of Energy to offset any nonemergency drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by expanding access to America's abundant domestic energy on Federal lands. Speaker McCarthy and Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers were right to make American energy security a top priority for their new majority. It is too bad that it is even necessary to protect our Nation's emergency energy reserves from our own Commander in Chief and his party, but unfortunately the Biden administration has proven that it is necessary. Last year, with his party hurting at the polls, President Biden released more than 200 million barrels, leaving America's strategic reserve at its lowest level since 1983. To make matters worse, this political gamble didn't just leave America less secure, it directly benefited China. President Biden's Department of Energy hadn't just sold off critical supplies; they sold some of them--listen to this--directly to a Chinese refining company. Last year, Senate Republicans put every Democrat on the record with an amendment to clamp down on selling our strategic reserve to China. Senate Democrats blocked it. The Democratic Senators from States like West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio voted on party lines to let the Biden administration continue to sell our reserves to the CCP. Democrats' recklessness with our energy reserves actually predates this particular administration. Remember back when oil prices were at historic lows during the early days of the COVID pandemic? We Republicans tried to refill the SPR to the top. We could have totally replenished our stockpile at bargain-basement prices. But the Senate Democrat leader blocked it and bragged about blocking it. Our colleague crowed that his party had stopped a ``bailout for Big Oil.'' Of course, what he really blocked was a win-win for national security as well as the American taxpayer. Washington Democrats have been dead wrong on how to handle our strategic reserve literally for years. This is just one symptom of their deep misunderstanding about energy, about the importance of American energy dominance and the way to achieve it. Across the Atlantic, war in Ukraine has brought the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on Russian energyinto stark and painful relief. Half-baked green transitions, an allergy to clean and reliable nuclear power, and an addiction to Russian gas sent our allies' energy costs through the roof, with working families and ratepayers actually footing the bills. It could have been a helpful, cautionary tale for the United States, but by last year, the Biden administration was already a year deep into their comprehensive war on abundant and affordable American energy. Remember, on day one in office, President Biden canceled further work on the Keystone XL Pipeline with the stroke of a pen--forget safe and efficient energy transport, high-paying American jobs, and lower cost, reliable power. The President had already put climate activism in the driver's seat of his own energy policy. The Biden administration has frozen new oil exploration on public lands, overhauled permitting rules to make it harder to develop natural gas resources, dragged the United States back into a climate deal that gives the Chinese Communist Party a pass to keep increasing its carbon emissions, and balked at a chance to block Vladimir Putin's latest pipeline for controlling European consumption. It is an absolutely nonsensical agenda, and it hasn't taken long for families across our country to feel the direct effects in the form of soaring prices in their heating and electricity bills, at the gas pump, as well as at the grocery store. Fortunately, millions of working Americans were fed up last November and decided to put an end to Democrats' total control here in Washington. Republicans will stand strong on the side of American energy dominance, on the side of national security, on the side of American workers, American families, and America's future. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS138-4 | null | 5,652 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the new Republican House of Representatives has already done more to protect our Nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve than the single-party Democratic government did in the last 2 years. First, House Republicans passed legislation that would ban the Federal Government from selling energy from the SPR to benefit our Nation's No. 1 strategic adversary--the Chinese Communist Party. Then, last week, the House followed on by passing H.R. 21, a bipartisan bill that would require the Department of Energy to offset any nonemergency drawdowns of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by expanding access to America's abundant domestic energy on Federal lands. Speaker McCarthy and Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers were right to make American energy security a top priority for their new majority. It is too bad that it is even necessary to protect our Nation's emergency energy reserves from our own Commander in Chief and his party, but unfortunately the Biden administration has proven that it is necessary. Last year, with his party hurting at the polls, President Biden released more than 200 million barrels, leaving America's strategic reserve at its lowest level since 1983. To make matters worse, this political gamble didn't just leave America less secure, it directly benefited China. President Biden's Department of Energy hadn't just sold off critical supplies; they sold some of them--listen to this--directly to a Chinese refining company. Last year, Senate Republicans put every Democrat on the record with an amendment to clamp down on selling our strategic reserve to China. Senate Democrats blocked it. The Democratic Senators from States like West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio voted on party lines to let the Biden administration continue to sell our reserves to the CCP. Democrats' recklessness with our energy reserves actually predates this particular administration. Remember back when oil prices were at historic lows during the early days of the COVID pandemic? We Republicans tried to refill the SPR to the top. We could have totally replenished our stockpile at bargain-basement prices. But the Senate Democrat leader blocked it and bragged about blocking it. Our colleague crowed that his party had stopped a ``bailout for Big Oil.'' Of course, what he really blocked was a win-win for national security as well as the American taxpayer. Washington Democrats have been dead wrong on how to handle our strategic reserve literally for years. This is just one symptom of their deep misunderstanding about energy, about the importance of American energy dominance and the way to achieve it. Across the Atlantic, war in Ukraine has brought the vulnerability of Europe's dependence on Russian energyinto stark and painful relief. Half-baked green transitions, an allergy to clean and reliable nuclear power, and an addiction to Russian gas sent our allies' energy costs through the roof, with working families and ratepayers actually footing the bills. It could have been a helpful, cautionary tale for the United States, but by last year, the Biden administration was already a year deep into their comprehensive war on abundant and affordable American energy. Remember, on day one in office, President Biden canceled further work on the Keystone XL Pipeline with the stroke of a pen--forget safe and efficient energy transport, high-paying American jobs, and lower cost, reliable power. The President had already put climate activism in the driver's seat of his own energy policy. The Biden administration has frozen new oil exploration on public lands, overhauled permitting rules to make it harder to develop natural gas resources, dragged the United States back into a climate deal that gives the Chinese Communist Party a pass to keep increasing its carbon emissions, and balked at a chance to block Vladimir Putin's latest pipeline for controlling European consumption. It is an absolutely nonsensical agenda, and it hasn't taken long for families across our country to feel the direct effects in the form of soaring prices in their heating and electricity bills, at the gas pump, as well as at the grocery store. Fortunately, millions of working Americans were fed up last November and decided to put an end to Democrats' total control here in Washington. Republicans will stand strong on the side of American energy dominance, on the side of national security, on the side of American workers, American families, and America's future. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS138-4 | null | 5,653 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, now, on Gateway, tomorrow is a big day for New Yorkers, as we welcome President Biden to celebrate progress on the most important infrastructure project in America, the new Gateway rail tunnel. This day has been a decade in the making. The Northeast corridor is the busiest passenger rail line in the country, and the crossing under the Hudson is its most important nexus point. But for far too long, these two single-track tunnels have been badly in need of repairs. After Hurricane Sandy devastated New York and the experts said there is limited time in which they will be operable, fixing the tunnel became one of my greatest passions, a labor of love, because I love New York and, without it, New York's economy would come screeching to a halt. For years, I worked hard, bringing together public and private partners from New York, New Jersey, and Amtrak to get everyone on the same page on Gateway. We met a lot of resistance along the way. When President Trump was in office, he tried to freeze progress on the Gateway project altogether, going as far as holding it hostage in negotiations over the border wall. Still, I was proud that, even during the Trump administration, I was able to double, triple, quadruple, and, in one case, increase tenfold the funding for various Federal spending accounts pertaining to Gateway because I knew that one day--one day--President Trump would no longer be in office. Now, thanks to our bipartisan infrastructure bill and with great help from President Biden, Gateway is moving forward. Under our infrastructure law, tens of billions of more dollars have been dedicated to Federal accounts, which will support Gateway and many, many other large projects in the country, and this is something I am very, very proud to celebrate. I will have more to say in New York tomorrow, but, today, I want to affirm once again that progress on Gateway is a very important example of how our infrastructure bill is making life better for millions of everyday Americans. Building two new tunnels and updating the existing tunnels will lead to work with good-paying union jobs--tens of thousands of jobs--and lead to a burst of economic activity for decades to come. I want to thank President Biden for making the trip to New York tomorrow, and I am happy to say that, after a lot of hard work and a lot of stubborn persistence, our efforts are finally paying off. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS138 | null | 5,654 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I am responsible for legislation in the Senate relative to law enforcement and criminal justice. It is an awesome responsibility, and I think about it quite a bit because the first thing all of us want is the safety of our families and our communities. It is the first question asked: How safe is that area of Chicago? How safe is that part of Springfield? It is a reality, and it is a natural reaction. I have had, during the course of my congressional career, the opportunity to meet many of the men and women in law enforcement. Let me tell you, there are some outstanding people who literally get up in the morning and put on that badge and risk their lives. They go out for just a routine traffic stop, and they could end up dead. That is the reality of police work in a dangerous world, particularly in a world awash with guns, as we are in the United States. Having said that, acknowledging that reality, I also know that there are cops who are doing terrible things. That was brought home to America vividly over the last several days. You see, videotapes and DNA evidence have changed our conversation about law enforcement and justice. We now know just what happened--not an account of what happened; we know what happened. We see it on videotapes over and over and over again. And we know sometimes that people who have been found guilty of crimes and are serving long sentences--it turns out the DNA evidence proves it couldn't possibly have been them who were responsible. It is a gross miscarriage of justice for the person who is incarcerated--and even worse, the fact that the person who is culpable, blamable, who should be prosecuted, may somewhere be on the loose. Videotape and DNA have changed it. Many Americans are struggling with feelings of grief and disbelief after they watched the videotapes of Tyre Nichols being beaten to death by a group of Memphis police officers. Mr. Nichols, a 29-year-old father of a young son, worked the second shift at a FedEx facility with his stepfather. He loved skateboarding and photography. He loved his mother so much, he had her name tattooed on his arm. He had no criminal record. One friend told a reporter Mr. Nichols was even thinking about being a police officer to try to make the system better from the inside. The videotapes of the deadly assault on Mr. Nichols by Memphis police officers on January 7 are horrific and sickening. They show at least five officers attacking Mr. Nichols with their fists, boots, batons, Tasers, and pepper spray, while yelling contradictory orders to him. They continued pummeling Mr. Nichols even as he screamed in pain, begged them to stop, and called out for his mother. One officer kicked him in the head so hard that the officer was limping afterwards. When the beating was over, another officer propped an apparently unconscious Tyre Nichols up against the side of the squad car while the others laughed, fist-bumped, and tried to justify their awful behavior. It took 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, even longer for medical aid to be rendered. Tyre Nichols died 3 days later in a Memphis hospital. An independent autopsy revealed he had ``suffered extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating.'' The killing of Tyre Nichols follows years of devastating tragedies and needless loss. Who can ever forget George Floyd? When I saw the videotape of what happened to him and saw that policeman with his knee on his neck stare straight at the camera--I will never forget that. Or Breonna Taylor, shot in her apartment. In my own home State of Illinois, Laquan McDonald. A videotape that was held back from the public for over a year finally was brought to light, and people saw that he was shot in the back repeatedly, over and over again. There are so many others. For George Floyd, he was murdered as he lay on a curb in Minneapolis. Tyre Nichols was chased down and beaten to death. Black Americans in particular are forced to live through trauma with every new incident of police violence. I applaud the Shelby County district attorney for moving swiftly in seeking the indictment of the five police officers. A sixth officer connected to the incident was suspended today. I agree with the attorney for Mr. Nichols' family, Ben Crump, that the response by prosecutors could be a ``blueprint'' for how such cases should be handled in the future if, inevitably, there are such cases. We shouldn't wait for months to bring charges. There is no excuse for delayed justice when the heinous acts occur and the facts are as clear as the videotape. I also want to extend my deepest condolences to Mr. Nichols' family, especially his mom and his stepfather, who have responded with dignity and grace to this unimaginable ordeal. Before the videotapes were released, they called repeatedly for protests to be peaceful. I would like to think that I would have the strength to do that, having just lost my son in those circumstances, but the Nichols family did, and throughout our Nation, almost without exception, their wishes have been respected. But prosecutions and peaceful protests cannot be the only response to this tragedy. Americans--especially Black Americans--are exhausted by the injustice of officers who abuse their authority. They are tired of the systemic failures that can lead to a young man being beaten to death after a questionable traffic stop. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to finally confront these problems with meaningful legislation. We need to have an honest conversation with law enforcement officers about screening, training, inherent bias, use of force, and consequences for unjust actions. We need to prohibit deadly and dishonorable police misconduct. We must recruit and train the next generation of law enforcement to protect and serve everyone in America: Black, White, Brown, and everything in between. We have made some very modest progress. Last December, Congress enacted and the President signed a bill onlaw enforcement deescalation training. It provides for grants and training for law enforcement deescalation tactics. It is not enough. We must do more. In the last Congress, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey led an effort to build bipartisan support for policing reform legislation that national police groups and civil rights advocates could endorse. He worked with Tim Scott, a Republican Senator from South Carolina. They invited me and Senator Lindsey Graham into their deliberations. They were close to making some progress toward our goals, but even if you look at their goals, which I believe were good, they are not enough. Simply to say we are going to ban choke holds or we are going to deal with warrantless searches in a different way doesn't get to the heart of the issue. What is in the mind of these policemen when they are executing their job, doing their duty? Is it the right way to approach things? These efforts must continue now anew. We owe it to all of the families who have lost loved ones in these horrible acts of brutality and to the families who fear that their loved ones could be next to pass a law that will help ensure justice and accountability in our policing system. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are appalled and angered by the deaths of Mr. Nichols and others. They deserve our thanks, and I believe they will support bipartisan efforts to prevent such abuses and punish those who commit them. As I mentioned, Tyre Nichols loved photography. He loved photographing the world as he saw it. One of his favorite images--which appears again and again in his photos--was the image of a bridge. It is time for Members of the Senate to bridge our differences and pass policing reform so that Tyre Nichols' death will not have been in vain. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS139 | null | 5,655 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, last Friday I was in Austin, my home, and had the opportunity to speak at a conference that included some of the leading experts in all things dealing with declassification and government transparency. It was cohosted by a number of academic institutions in Texas and the Public Interest Declassification Board, or PIDB. Most of us had never heard of this group before, but the PIDB leads incredible work to help advise the President and the executive branch on ways to modernize the classification and declassification processes which safeguard our national security but also protect public trust in our institutions. I joined an onstage conversation with my friend Will Inboden, who leads the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin. We talked about the circumstances under which classification is important. Controlling access to certain sensitive information enables the United States to remain at least one step ahead of our adversaries. It also protects sources and methods that allow us to collect clandestine intelligence and protect the lives of those intelligence professionals who are engaged in collecting that information, as well as the avenues into those sources that are important to collecting this intelligence. Obviously, we don't want to jeopardize either the individuals involved or dissuade anyone from wanting to work with us in the future or to allow some of our access to dry up because it then becomes a matter of public knowledge. But we know classification is not always the right answer. There are many circumstances in which declassification safeguards our national security. One example is the way in which the United States Government declassified and shared information with our allies in the run-up to Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. The decision to declassify some important intelligence gave Ukraine enough battlefield awareness to push back after the initial attack and save countless lives. It also unified Western response, leading to quick condemnation of Russia's attack and resources for Ukrainian forces. Declassification is an important tool with which we share information with our friends and allies around the world, but it is also another way to show the American people what their government is doing. It builds trust and transparency. It inspires confidence in the incredible work that our intelligence professionals are doing, and it equips scholars with the information they need to conduct academic research that informs decision making. Obviously, there is a very delicate balance between transparency, which drives democratic self-governance, and secrecy, which is sometimes necessary to protect sources and methods of information that are important to protect our national security. Policymakers and scholars have long debated this balance, but it doesn't often garner much attention in the public square. At least that was the case until recently. Over the last several months, law enforcement have uncovered classified documents in unsecured locations. For example, documents were discovered at President Trump's home in Florida. They were uncovered at President Biden's home in Delaware and in his private office in Washington, DC. And they were found at the home of former Vice President Pence in Indiana. All of these discoveries paint a deeply concerning picture, because those of us with access to classified information know that the only appropriate place to view classified information is in a secure setting. Now, we have no idea--we, as Congress--no idea what these classified documents contain. We don't know who had access to them. We have no insight into the possible ramifications for national security. So there are a lot of unanswered questions that need answers. This really addresses Congress's unique role, as a coequal branch of government, to provide oversight of the Federal Government. As elected representatives, we have the duty to our constituents and to our country to ensure their government is working for them, and oversight of the intelligence community is a big part of that job, and it is part of the system of checks and balances. Now, in most cases, oversight happens out in the open at congressional hearings, but this is, obviously, a different sort of case. We are talking about classified documents that were never meant for public consumption. That is why we have the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that I serve on and the House Committee on Intelligence, both of which were created after the Church Committee made recommendations about oversight that needed to be put in place over the intelligence community--both the police, the community itself, to make sure that those tools were not abused, but also to restore public confidence thatthat oversight was occurring and that abuses were not occurring at the same time. The Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the most bipartisan on Capitol Hill, and I credit our leadership for keeping us above the political fray. Chairman Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, and Vice Chairman Rubio, a Republican from Florida, operate arm in arm to lead the kind of oversight that I believe helps instill confidence in the intelligence community and in our intelligence professionals. The committee has a responsibility to examine the facts of these cases and understand the potential risk it could create for national security. Unfortunately, in a hearing we had with the Director of National Intelligence, we seem to have hit a brick wall, at least initially. Despite the high profile nature of these discoveries, the Biden administration will not allow Congress to perform its constitutional oversight duties. Back in August, Senator Warner and Senator Rubio sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General requesting the classified documents that were seized at Mar-a-Lago. Members of the Intelligence Committee are accustomed to reviewing, handling, and protecting classified information. It is something we do on virtually a daily basis. This document request was not to make this public. This was a request for committee members to review the documents in a classified setting. The administration refused. In the months since, classified documents have been discovered at more locations, and, again, the administration has refused to provide access to this intelligence. The Justice Department, as we know, has appointed special counsel to oversee two of these probes, but yet they refuse to share the documents or any information about them. Now, it is one thing in an investigation conducted by law enforcement to say: We are going to protect the person being investigated, and we are going to protect the integrity of the investigation by not making that public. We understand that, but this is something far different. When a current and former President of the United States and a former Vice President of the United States have classified documents in unsecured settings, we need to know who had access to it, what the intelligence reports contain, not because we are curious or we want to interfere with an investigation by the Justice Department but because we have an independent constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States and to protect the intelligence community from unjustified criticism. Several years ago, the Intelligence Committee investigated Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. This was a case like now, where special counsel was appointed, but Congress did not have to wait. It wasn't forced to wait for that inquiry to be completed by former FBI Director Mueller. Those investigations happened concurrently. The special counsel's investigation happened at the same time as the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation occurred. These investigations--both that of the Intelligence Committee and that of the Department of Justice--should happen concurrently now as well. As I said last week, the Director of National Intelligence, Director Haines, testified before the Intelligence Committee. I was eager to learn more in a secure setting, protected from public dissemination, what was going on with these documents, what they meant, and who produced them. Were they stale or were they current intelligence? What sort of access did our adversaries have to them, and what did they learn if they did get access to them that we need to know about and prepare for? I don't think any of our colleagues expected a full analysis of these documents, but I was alarmed by the complete lack of transparency by the Director of National Intelligence to the oversight committees in Congress like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Without going into detail, Director Haines essentially said that once the Department of Justice initiated its investigation, her office stood down and did not inquire any further as to what these documents contained. So far, the Department of Justice refuses to share details of these intelligence products that were discovered at these unsecured locations. As I said, we have no idea what is in these documents, who could have seen them, or how big of a risk it creates for national security, but we do need the answers to those questions that only a review in a classified setting in a secure facility by the oversight committees--we need the answers that only that sort of inquiry will reveal. We could have a major national security risk on our hands or it could be a nothing burger, but the Department needs to be expedient and fully transparent in sharing this information with Congress and the intelligence community, again, in a classified secure setting, not for public dissemination. If you worry about leaks, which are rampant here in Washington, DC, I must say, the record of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is pretty darn good when it comes to no leaks. Senator Rubio and Senator Warner have been clear that the Department of Justice will not stonewall Congress. This is not a partisan matter. It is not tenable for the position of the Department of Justice and for the Biden administration to take that position. As policymakers with an independent constitutional responsibility, we need to know the full details so we can conduct the risk assessment and determine how best to respond. President Biden's Department of Justice cannot stand in the way of Congress's constitutional oversight role. Now, many in the press have said: Well, what sort of things might the Senators on the Intelligence Committee do to compel the cooperation of the Department of Justice? Well, I hope we don't have to go there. I hope this produces a negotiation that will address the concerns both of the Department of Justice and of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is well known what sort of tools are available to Congress--things like appropriations, things like nominations--but I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. But we have a job to do, and we are going to do it, with the cooperation of the Biden administration or without their cooperation. So all options are on the table to ensure not that we get to see what we want to see for political or other inappropriate reasons but to make sure our national security is not at risk. Again, this is a bipartisan desire to see these documents and evaluate the risk they could pose to our security. It is time for the administration to cooperate with us in that effort. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS140-2 | null | 5,656 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, on another matter, last Friday I was in Austin, my home, and had the opportunity to speak at a conference that included some of the leading experts in all things dealing with declassification and government transparency. It was cohosted by a number of academic institutions in Texas and the Public Interest Declassification Board, or PIDB. Most of us had never heard of this group before, but the PIDB leads incredible work to help advise the President and the executive branch on ways to modernize the classification and declassification processes which safeguard our national security but also protect public trust in our institutions. I joined an onstage conversation with my friend Will Inboden, who leads the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin. We talked about the circumstances under which classification is important. Controlling access to certain sensitive information enables the United States to remain at least one step ahead of our adversaries. It also protects sources and methods that allow us to collect clandestine intelligence and protect the lives of those intelligence professionals who are engaged in collecting that information, as well as the avenues into those sources that are important to collecting this intelligence. Obviously, we don't want to jeopardize either the individuals involved or dissuade anyone from wanting to work with us in the future or to allow some of our access to dry up because it then becomes a matter of public knowledge. But we know classification is not always the right answer. There are many circumstances in which declassification safeguards our national security. One example is the way in which the United States Government declassified and shared information with our allies in the run-up to Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. The decision to declassify some important intelligence gave Ukraine enough battlefield awareness to push back after the initial attack and save countless lives. It also unified Western response, leading to quick condemnation of Russia's attack and resources for Ukrainian forces. Declassification is an important tool with which we share information with our friends and allies around the world, but it is also another way to show the American people what their government is doing. It builds trust and transparency. It inspires confidence in the incredible work that our intelligence professionals are doing, and it equips scholars with the information they need to conduct academic research that informs decision making. Obviously, there is a very delicate balance between transparency, which drives democratic self-governance, and secrecy, which is sometimes necessary to protect sources and methods of information that are important to protect our national security. Policymakers and scholars have long debated this balance, but it doesn't often garner much attention in the public square. At least that was the case until recently. Over the last several months, law enforcement have uncovered classified documents in unsecured locations. For example, documents were discovered at President Trump's home in Florida. They were uncovered at President Biden's home in Delaware and in his private office in Washington, DC. And they were found at the home of former Vice President Pence in Indiana. All of these discoveries paint a deeply concerning picture, because those of us with access to classified information know that the only appropriate place to view classified information is in a secure setting. Now, we have no idea--we, as Congress--no idea what these classified documents contain. We don't know who had access to them. We have no insight into the possible ramifications for national security. So there are a lot of unanswered questions that need answers. This really addresses Congress's unique role, as a coequal branch of government, to provide oversight of the Federal Government. As elected representatives, we have the duty to our constituents and to our country to ensure their government is working for them, and oversight of the intelligence community is a big part of that job, and it is part of the system of checks and balances. Now, in most cases, oversight happens out in the open at congressional hearings, but this is, obviously, a different sort of case. We are talking about classified documents that were never meant for public consumption. That is why we have the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that I serve on and the House Committee on Intelligence, both of which were created after the Church Committee made recommendations about oversight that needed to be put in place over the intelligence community--both the police, the community itself, to make sure that those tools were not abused, but also to restore public confidence thatthat oversight was occurring and that abuses were not occurring at the same time. The Senate Intelligence Committee is one of the most bipartisan on Capitol Hill, and I credit our leadership for keeping us above the political fray. Chairman Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, and Vice Chairman Rubio, a Republican from Florida, operate arm in arm to lead the kind of oversight that I believe helps instill confidence in the intelligence community and in our intelligence professionals. The committee has a responsibility to examine the facts of these cases and understand the potential risk it could create for national security. Unfortunately, in a hearing we had with the Director of National Intelligence, we seem to have hit a brick wall, at least initially. Despite the high profile nature of these discoveries, the Biden administration will not allow Congress to perform its constitutional oversight duties. Back in August, Senator Warner and Senator Rubio sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General requesting the classified documents that were seized at Mar-a-Lago. Members of the Intelligence Committee are accustomed to reviewing, handling, and protecting classified information. It is something we do on virtually a daily basis. This document request was not to make this public. This was a request for committee members to review the documents in a classified setting. The administration refused. In the months since, classified documents have been discovered at more locations, and, again, the administration has refused to provide access to this intelligence. The Justice Department, as we know, has appointed special counsel to oversee two of these probes, but yet they refuse to share the documents or any information about them. Now, it is one thing in an investigation conducted by law enforcement to say: We are going to protect the person being investigated, and we are going to protect the integrity of the investigation by not making that public. We understand that, but this is something far different. When a current and former President of the United States and a former Vice President of the United States have classified documents in unsecured settings, we need to know who had access to it, what the intelligence reports contain, not because we are curious or we want to interfere with an investigation by the Justice Department but because we have an independent constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States and to protect the intelligence community from unjustified criticism. Several years ago, the Intelligence Committee investigated Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. This was a case like now, where special counsel was appointed, but Congress did not have to wait. It wasn't forced to wait for that inquiry to be completed by former FBI Director Mueller. Those investigations happened concurrently. The special counsel's investigation happened at the same time as the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation occurred. These investigations--both that of the Intelligence Committee and that of the Department of Justice--should happen concurrently now as well. As I said last week, the Director of National Intelligence, Director Haines, testified before the Intelligence Committee. I was eager to learn more in a secure setting, protected from public dissemination, what was going on with these documents, what they meant, and who produced them. Were they stale or were they current intelligence? What sort of access did our adversaries have to them, and what did they learn if they did get access to them that we need to know about and prepare for? I don't think any of our colleagues expected a full analysis of these documents, but I was alarmed by the complete lack of transparency by the Director of National Intelligence to the oversight committees in Congress like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Without going into detail, Director Haines essentially said that once the Department of Justice initiated its investigation, her office stood down and did not inquire any further as to what these documents contained. So far, the Department of Justice refuses to share details of these intelligence products that were discovered at these unsecured locations. As I said, we have no idea what is in these documents, who could have seen them, or how big of a risk it creates for national security, but we do need the answers to those questions that only a review in a classified setting in a secure facility by the oversight committees--we need the answers that only that sort of inquiry will reveal. We could have a major national security risk on our hands or it could be a nothing burger, but the Department needs to be expedient and fully transparent in sharing this information with Congress and the intelligence community, again, in a classified secure setting, not for public dissemination. If you worry about leaks, which are rampant here in Washington, DC, I must say, the record of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is pretty darn good when it comes to no leaks. Senator Rubio and Senator Warner have been clear that the Department of Justice will not stonewall Congress. This is not a partisan matter. It is not tenable for the position of the Department of Justice and for the Biden administration to take that position. As policymakers with an independent constitutional responsibility, we need to know the full details so we can conduct the risk assessment and determine how best to respond. President Biden's Department of Justice cannot stand in the way of Congress's constitutional oversight role. Now, many in the press have said: Well, what sort of things might the Senators on the Intelligence Committee do to compel the cooperation of the Department of Justice? Well, I hope we don't have to go there. I hope this produces a negotiation that will address the concerns both of the Department of Justice and of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is well known what sort of tools are available to Congress--things like appropriations, things like nominations--but I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. But we have a job to do, and we are going to do it, with the cooperation of the Biden administration or without their cooperation. So all options are on the table to ensure not that we get to see what we want to see for political or other inappropriate reasons but to make sure our national security is not at risk. Again, this is a bipartisan desire to see these documents and evaluate the risk they could pose to our security. It is time for the administration to cooperate with us in that effort. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS140-2 | null | 5,657 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-116. A communication from the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the semi-annual report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-117. A communication from the Director, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2022 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-118. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer of the Peace Corps, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the period of April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-119. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer of the Peace Corps, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Corps' Agency Financial Report for fiscal year 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-120. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN3090- AK68) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-121. A communication from the Associate Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's fiscal year 2022 Agency Financial Report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-122. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer, Agency for Global Media, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bureau's Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2022 received in the Office of the President pro tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-123. A communication from the Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 21st Century IDEA 2022 report; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-124. A communication from the Associate General Counsel for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, two (2) reports relative to vacancies in the Department of Homeland Security, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-125. A communication from the Director of the Office of Financial Reporting and Policy, Office of the Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``FY 2022 Agency Financial Report'': to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-126. A communication from the Chair of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the six- month period from April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-127. A communication from the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department of Housing and Urban Development Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-128. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Management Regulation; Physical Security'' (RIN3090-AJ94) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-129. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Order Level Material Clarifications'' (RIN3090-AK32) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-130. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Clarify Commercial Products and Services Contract Terms and Conditions'' (RIN3090-AK18) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-131. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Clause Matrix Update'' (RIN3090-AK70) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-132. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Secretariat Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Travel Regulation; Rental Car Policy Updates and Clarifications'' (RIN3090-AK45) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on December 21, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-133. A communication from the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the fiscal year 2021 annual report for the Department's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs . EC-134. A communication from the Secretary of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department of Education's Semiannual Report of the Inspector General for the period from April 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-135. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-637, ``Stormiyah Denson-Jackson Economic Damages Equity Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-136. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-638, ``Partition of Real Property Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-137. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-639, ``Joint Property Protection Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-138. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-640, ``Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-139. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-641, ``Expanding Fee Waivers for Low- Income Litigants Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-140. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-643, ``Paternity Establishment Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-141. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-644, ``Enhancing Reproductive Health Protections Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-142. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-645, ``Child Development Facility Lead Testing Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-143. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-646, ``Human Rights Sanctuary Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-144. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-654, ``Uniform Power of Attorney Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-145. A communication from the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report on D.C. Act 24-655, ``Zero Waste Plastic Products Recycling Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS145-6 | null | 5,658 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, yesterday on ABC's ``This Week,'' Senator Durbin asked Senator Booker and me to come back to the table and start talking about policing in America. I never left the table, but it was Senator Durbin who filibustered my JUSTICE Act. It was Senator Durbin who called the effort to make deescalation training more available a ``token'' piece of legislation. It was indeed the Senator from Illinois who said that aspects of my JUSTICE Act which talked about the importance of the duty to intervene was a ``token'' piece of legislation. In that legislation we had more resources for more training because we want only the best wearing the badge in every location, in every municipality, in every county, and in every State in this great Nation. But politics too often gets in the way in doing what every American knows is common sense, and here we find ourselves, again, having this same conversation with no action having happened so far. I don't speak on this floor very often, but this is my 10th speech on policingin America in 8 years--the 10th time I have asked for something that will make our officers better and safer and make our communities better and safer. It is another time I have asked for more resources for recruitment so that we can have only the best wearing the badge, but this legislative body--the greatest deliberative body in the world--didn't act. It was in 2015, shortly after the shooting of Walter Scott, who was shot in the back in my hometown of Charleston, SC, that I came to this floor to ask for more resources for body-worn cameras so that we capture what happens during those vital times, and not a single Democrat cosponsored that legislation. I came back a year later, in 2016, and gave three speeches on the importance of policing in America. In 2020, on June 17, I introduced the JUSTICE Act with more requests for what I believe is common sense. It was 70 percent of what the House Democrats were asking for. We, on our side of the aisle, said: This makes sense. Why don't we find common ground in that 70 percent, make it into a piece of legislation and show the American people that, yes, their elected officials can, at times, act with common sense--because my assumption was that common ground leads to common sense. Imagine my disappointment when the duty to intervene, deescalation training, more resources, more reporting so that we have eyes around the country was filibustered in this Chamber with not enough votes to even extend the conversation on the important issue of policing in America. I came back just a week later, on June 24, standing on this floor asking our body to take seriously our responsibility on the important topic of policing in America. What I said that day on June 24, 2020, was that ``there is trouble coming.'' I referred to the Good Book, the Bible, and reflected on Ezekiel 33:6 that says that when you see trouble coming and you say nothing, you do nothing, the blood that comes is on your hands. But if you shout from the mountaintops, if you warn the people that trouble is coming, it is not on your hands. Mr. President, our Nation is reeling. People--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, nonaffiliates, Black folks, White folks, rich folks, poor folks, Southerners, Northerners, the west coast and the east coast--are sick and tired of politics as usual. We, as a nation, deserve better. We should be able to build a coalition around the common ground of, yes, we need more training on deescalation; yes, we need more resources and training on the duty to intervene; yes, we need more grants; and yes, we need the best wearing the badge. We should have simple legislation that we can agree upon that has been agreed upon in the past, but too often too many are too concerned with who gets the credit. I know that when a conservative Republican starts talking about policing in America, some people seem to just turn the channel. That is wrong. When I came to the floor and talked about my many unnecessary incidents with the police; when I came to the floor and talked about the man, Walter Scott, shot in my city; when I came to this floor on June 17 and talked about the massacre at Mother Emanuel Church in my hometown--I take the issue of policing in America seriously. I want our body to see it not as an issue of Republicans versus Democrats but as good people standing in the gap, elected to do a job that we all ran to do. Let's do our jobs. We can make a difference in this Nation. Had the duty to intervene been law of the land on the Federal level, it could have made a difference in Memphis, TN. In Wisconsin, more deescalation training could make a difference. I hope that when the dust settles and the issue is no longer on the front pages of our newspapers, no longer streaming across our TVs and our iPads and our computers, that we do something that says to the American people: We see your pain. We are willing to put our partisan labels and shirts and uniforms on the side so that we can do what needs to be done. That is what the people deserve. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS151-5 | null | 5,659 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, yesterday on ABC's ``This Week,'' Senator Durbin asked Senator Booker and me to come back to the table and start talking about policing in America. I never left the table, but it was Senator Durbin who filibustered my JUSTICE Act. It was Senator Durbin who called the effort to make deescalation training more available a ``token'' piece of legislation. It was indeed the Senator from Illinois who said that aspects of my JUSTICE Act which talked about the importance of the duty to intervene was a ``token'' piece of legislation. In that legislation we had more resources for more training because we want only the best wearing the badge in every location, in every municipality, in every county, and in every State in this great Nation. But politics too often gets in the way in doing what every American knows is common sense, and here we find ourselves, again, having this same conversation with no action having happened so far. I don't speak on this floor very often, but this is my 10th speech on policingin America in 8 years--the 10th time I have asked for something that will make our officers better and safer and make our communities better and safer. It is another time I have asked for more resources for recruitment so that we can have only the best wearing the badge, but this legislative body--the greatest deliberative body in the world--didn't act. It was in 2015, shortly after the shooting of Walter Scott, who was shot in the back in my hometown of Charleston, SC, that I came to this floor to ask for more resources for body-worn cameras so that we capture what happens during those vital times, and not a single Democrat cosponsored that legislation. I came back a year later, in 2016, and gave three speeches on the importance of policing in America. In 2020, on June 17, I introduced the JUSTICE Act with more requests for what I believe is common sense. It was 70 percent of what the House Democrats were asking for. We, on our side of the aisle, said: This makes sense. Why don't we find common ground in that 70 percent, make it into a piece of legislation and show the American people that, yes, their elected officials can, at times, act with common sense--because my assumption was that common ground leads to common sense. Imagine my disappointment when the duty to intervene, deescalation training, more resources, more reporting so that we have eyes around the country was filibustered in this Chamber with not enough votes to even extend the conversation on the important issue of policing in America. I came back just a week later, on June 24, standing on this floor asking our body to take seriously our responsibility on the important topic of policing in America. What I said that day on June 24, 2020, was that ``there is trouble coming.'' I referred to the Good Book, the Bible, and reflected on Ezekiel 33:6 that says that when you see trouble coming and you say nothing, you do nothing, the blood that comes is on your hands. But if you shout from the mountaintops, if you warn the people that trouble is coming, it is not on your hands. Mr. President, our Nation is reeling. People--Republicans, Democrats, Independents, nonaffiliates, Black folks, White folks, rich folks, poor folks, Southerners, Northerners, the west coast and the east coast--are sick and tired of politics as usual. We, as a nation, deserve better. We should be able to build a coalition around the common ground of, yes, we need more training on deescalation; yes, we need more resources and training on the duty to intervene; yes, we need more grants; and yes, we need the best wearing the badge. We should have simple legislation that we can agree upon that has been agreed upon in the past, but too often too many are too concerned with who gets the credit. I know that when a conservative Republican starts talking about policing in America, some people seem to just turn the channel. That is wrong. When I came to the floor and talked about my many unnecessary incidents with the police; when I came to the floor and talked about the man, Walter Scott, shot in my city; when I came to this floor on June 17 and talked about the massacre at Mother Emanuel Church in my hometown--I take the issue of policing in America seriously. I want our body to see it not as an issue of Republicans versus Democrats but as good people standing in the gap, elected to do a job that we all ran to do. Let's do our jobs. We can make a difference in this Nation. Had the duty to intervene been law of the land on the Federal level, it could have made a difference in Memphis, TN. In Wisconsin, more deescalation training could make a difference. I hope that when the dust settles and the issue is no longer on the front pages of our newspapers, no longer streaming across our TVs and our iPads and our computers, that we do something that says to the American people: We see your pain. We are willing to put our partisan labels and shirts and uniforms on the side so that we can do what needs to be done. That is what the people deserve. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina | Senate | CREC-2023-01-30-pt1-PgS151-5 | null | 5,660 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 75; and Adoption of the resolution, 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-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH530 | null | 5,661 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: The motion to recommit H.R. 497; Passage of H.R. 497, if ordered; The motion to recommit H.R. 382; and Passage of H.R. 382, 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-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH551-3 | null | 5,662 |
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. 497) to eliminate the COVID-19 vaccine mandate on health care providers furnishing items and services under certain Federal health care programs, offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), 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-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH551-4 | null | 5,663 |
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. 382) to terminate the public health emergency declared with respect to COVID-19, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Moskowitz), 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-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH553 | null | 5,664 |
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-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH577 | null | 5,665 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. CASTEN: H.J. Res. 23. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V The single subject of this legislation is: Government Reform | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH579-2 | null | 5,666 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. COMER: H.J. Res. 24. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, in that the legislation addresses legislation governing the affairs of the District of Columbia, to which Congress has the power ``to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States . . . The single subject of this legislation is: District of Columbia election law | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH579-3 | null | 5,667 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. PRESSLEY: H.J. Res. 25. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V of the United States Constitution The single subject of this legislation is: The single subject of this legislation is to rescind the time limit placed on the equal rights amendment. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgH579-4 | null | 5,668 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Constitution charges the Senate with giving advice and, if we choose, providing our consent to the President's judicial appointments. The President nominates somebody whom he thinks ought to serve on the Federal bench, and then the nominee comes here to the Senate for a job interview. Sometimes these job interviews make news because they go spectacularly well. When the Judiciary Committee subjected now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a battery of questions a little over 2 years ago, she literally dazzled the country with her force of intellect. At one point, hours into a hearing, after being asked multipart questions about the finer points of constitutional law, now-Justice Barrett was asked to hold up the notepad she had been provided to keep everything straight, and it was completely blank. She hadn't even touched it. Justice Barrett is an intellectual outlier by any standard, but she is an appropriate stand-in for the judicial nominees whom Republican Senators confirmed from 2017 through 2020. As one left-leaning analysis admitted in 2020, ``based solely on objective legal credentials''--``solely on objective legal credentials''--the last administration's average pick for the Federal bench had ``a far more impressive resume than any past president's nominees.'' They had more circuit court clerkships, more Supreme Court clerkships--objectively, more experience in the Federal judiciary. Under President Biden, though, with his nominees, well, you might say things have gone somewhat differently. Last week, our colleague on the Judiciary Committee from Louisiana, Senator Kennedy, was quizzing a panel of President Biden's nominees, and he decided to try some very simple questions that should have been beyond basic for anybody nominated to serve as a U.S. district judge. He asked one nominee, currently a superior court judge in Spokane County, WA, to simply explain what article V of the Constitution says. That would be the article that explains how the Constitution gets amended. Here was the nominee's response: Article V is not coming to mind at the moment. Senator Kennedy came back with another, even more basic question. He asked: How about article II? As high schoolers across America learn each year, article II sets up the Presidency and the executive branch. It establishes the President's powers, including the power to nominate the person for the vacancy in question. But this sitting judge drew another blank.Article II wasn't coming to mind either--goodness gracious. Then she flunked yet another question about legal philosophy, and, then again, she flunked still another question about the most controversial Supreme Court case this term. Apparently, when this particular nominee had been asked to list the top 10 most impactful cases she had litigated in court, she could only come up with 6. At no stage of her professional career has the judge focused on Federal law. At no point had she ever even appeared in Federal court. So get this. In one of these six most significant cases she took, she lost to a defendant who forewent legal counsel and took the risky step of representing herself. This wasn't some rooky mistake either. The nominee was over a decade out of law school when she lost to an unrepresented party in one of her biggest cases. Is this the caliber of legal expert with which President Biden is filling the Federal bench--for lifetime appointments? Is the bar for merit and excellence really set this low? For years, now, Washington Democrats' rhetoric about judicial nominations has often treated actual qualifications as an afterthought. Democrats were not particularly impressed or moved by top-shelf professional excellence or the academic brilliance that the last Republican administration's nominees possessed, literally, in spades. And, apparently, they don't count those qualities as particularly high priorities now that they are the ones doing the nominating. The American people deserve an impartial judiciary that is full of the finest legal minds our country has to offer. The American people deserve the best and the brightest. Alas, but sadly, the Biden administration's questionable constitutional judgment is not limited to some of their judicial nominations. In one important constitutional case after another, the Biden administration and his lawyers have come down on the wrong side of the American people's rights and liberties and have gotten slapped down in court as a result. This last year, for example, in the Bruen case, the Biden administration threw its weight behind unconstitutional New York State restrictions on the Second Amendment that plainly violated citizens' rights to keep and bear arms. President Biden sent one of his top lawyers to help with the oral arguments, but the Democrats got the Constitution backward and lost the case. In West Virginia v. EPA, President Biden went all in trying to defend massive unconstitutional overreach by his own Environmental Protection Agency. His Solicitor General argued the case herself, but the administration lost badly. The plain meaning of our laws and our Constitution actually won out. In Carson v. Makin, President Biden fought to maintain unconstitutional anti-religious discrimination in school voucher programs. Again, he lost, and the American people and their Constitution won. Washington Democrats had their blatantly unconstitutional vaccine mandate for the private sector tossed out by the Supreme Court. They had their obviously illegal top-down mask mandate for transportation tossed out by a district judge. Oh, and, by the way, when the judge was nominated, Democrats howled that she was unqualified. But with a Supreme Court clerkship under her belt, she had incomparably more experience in Federal court than the nominee who failed Senator Kennedy's bar exam. Over and over, on issue after issue, this Democratic administration sides against the American people, against the Constitution, and against the rule of law. The American people deserve an administration that respects their rights and liberties, that understands our Constitution, and that chooses both policies and nominees accordingly. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS153-8 | null | 5,669 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Constitution charges the Senate with giving advice and, if we choose, providing our consent to the President's judicial appointments. The President nominates somebody whom he thinks ought to serve on the Federal bench, and then the nominee comes here to the Senate for a job interview. Sometimes these job interviews make news because they go spectacularly well. When the Judiciary Committee subjected now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett to a battery of questions a little over 2 years ago, she literally dazzled the country with her force of intellect. At one point, hours into a hearing, after being asked multipart questions about the finer points of constitutional law, now-Justice Barrett was asked to hold up the notepad she had been provided to keep everything straight, and it was completely blank. She hadn't even touched it. Justice Barrett is an intellectual outlier by any standard, but she is an appropriate stand-in for the judicial nominees whom Republican Senators confirmed from 2017 through 2020. As one left-leaning analysis admitted in 2020, ``based solely on objective legal credentials''--``solely on objective legal credentials''--the last administration's average pick for the Federal bench had ``a far more impressive resume than any past president's nominees.'' They had more circuit court clerkships, more Supreme Court clerkships--objectively, more experience in the Federal judiciary. Under President Biden, though, with his nominees, well, you might say things have gone somewhat differently. Last week, our colleague on the Judiciary Committee from Louisiana, Senator Kennedy, was quizzing a panel of President Biden's nominees, and he decided to try some very simple questions that should have been beyond basic for anybody nominated to serve as a U.S. district judge. He asked one nominee, currently a superior court judge in Spokane County, WA, to simply explain what article V of the Constitution says. That would be the article that explains how the Constitution gets amended. Here was the nominee's response: Article V is not coming to mind at the moment. Senator Kennedy came back with another, even more basic question. He asked: How about article II? As high schoolers across America learn each year, article II sets up the Presidency and the executive branch. It establishes the President's powers, including the power to nominate the person for the vacancy in question. But this sitting judge drew another blank.Article II wasn't coming to mind either--goodness gracious. Then she flunked yet another question about legal philosophy, and, then again, she flunked still another question about the most controversial Supreme Court case this term. Apparently, when this particular nominee had been asked to list the top 10 most impactful cases she had litigated in court, she could only come up with 6. At no stage of her professional career has the judge focused on Federal law. At no point had she ever even appeared in Federal court. So get this. In one of these six most significant cases she took, she lost to a defendant who forewent legal counsel and took the risky step of representing herself. This wasn't some rooky mistake either. The nominee was over a decade out of law school when she lost to an unrepresented party in one of her biggest cases. Is this the caliber of legal expert with which President Biden is filling the Federal bench--for lifetime appointments? Is the bar for merit and excellence really set this low? For years, now, Washington Democrats' rhetoric about judicial nominations has often treated actual qualifications as an afterthought. Democrats were not particularly impressed or moved by top-shelf professional excellence or the academic brilliance that the last Republican administration's nominees possessed, literally, in spades. And, apparently, they don't count those qualities as particularly high priorities now that they are the ones doing the nominating. The American people deserve an impartial judiciary that is full of the finest legal minds our country has to offer. The American people deserve the best and the brightest. Alas, but sadly, the Biden administration's questionable constitutional judgment is not limited to some of their judicial nominations. In one important constitutional case after another, the Biden administration and his lawyers have come down on the wrong side of the American people's rights and liberties and have gotten slapped down in court as a result. This last year, for example, in the Bruen case, the Biden administration threw its weight behind unconstitutional New York State restrictions on the Second Amendment that plainly violated citizens' rights to keep and bear arms. President Biden sent one of his top lawyers to help with the oral arguments, but the Democrats got the Constitution backward and lost the case. In West Virginia v. EPA, President Biden went all in trying to defend massive unconstitutional overreach by his own Environmental Protection Agency. His Solicitor General argued the case herself, but the administration lost badly. The plain meaning of our laws and our Constitution actually won out. In Carson v. Makin, President Biden fought to maintain unconstitutional anti-religious discrimination in school voucher programs. Again, he lost, and the American people and their Constitution won. Washington Democrats had their blatantly unconstitutional vaccine mandate for the private sector tossed out by the Supreme Court. They had their obviously illegal top-down mask mandate for transportation tossed out by a district judge. Oh, and, by the way, when the judge was nominated, Democrats howled that she was unqualified. But with a Supreme Court clerkship under her belt, she had incomparably more experience in Federal court than the nominee who failed Senator Kennedy's bar exam. Over and over, on issue after issue, this Democratic administration sides against the American people, against the Constitution, and against the rule of law. The American people deserve an administration that respects their rights and liberties, that understands our Constitution, and that chooses both policies and nominees accordingly. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS153-8 | null | 5,670 |
formal | securing the border | null | anti-Latino | Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it only took 2 years--2 years--for the President to acknowledge the crisis that has been raging along our southern border almost since the day he took office. Over those 2 years, we have seen record numbers of migrants attempting to cross our southern border. We have seen record numbers of migrants die--die--attempting the dangerous crossing of our southern border. We have seen the Border Patrol overwhelmed, border cities overwhelmed, and dangerous drugs continue to flood across our border and reach communities around our Nation. Yet, for months and months, the President did essentially nothing. In fact, he acted as if the crisis didn't even exist. I am glad that, at long last, the President seems to be acknowledging this crisis, even if his recent visit to the border was scripted and controlled. But it is appalling to think of how much human misery could have been avoided if the President had lived up to his national security obligations and addressed the border disaster many months ago. I suppose it is not a surprise that the President wasn't eager to acknowledge just how bad things were because that might have drawn extra scrutiny to the President's border policies, policies that played a substantial role in creating this crisis in the first place. From the moment he took office and even before, President Biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. On his very first day in office, President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall. He revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. And his Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines pausing deportations except under certain conditions. And that was all on his first day in office. Well, needless to say, the effect of all this was to declare to the world that the U.S. borders were effectively open, and we have seen the result: 2 years of soaring illegal immigration. Since President Biden took office, there have been more than 4.5 million attempted illegal border crossings. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is roughly equal to the entire population of South Dakota, plus the entire population of Delaware, Wyoming, Nebraska, and then some. Last month, 251,487 migrants were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border, the highest monthly number ever recorded. And, of course, these numbers just refer to individuals Customs and Border Protection managed to apprehend. There have been a staggering 1.2 million known ``got-aways'' since President Biden took office, individuals that the Border Patrol saw but were unable to apprehend. President Biden has talked about wanting a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. Well, up until now, he has failed on all fronts. Encouraging illegal immigration as the President's policies have done is the very opposite of compassionate and humane. There is nothing compassionate about policies that encourage people to attempt the dangerous trip across our southern border, to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure and death; nor is it compassionate to condemn border cities to dealing with a never-ending flood of illegal immigration and other cross-border illegal activity. On top of all that, the kind of unchecked illegal immigration we have been seeing is an open invitation--an open invitation--to drug traffickers, human smugglers, and other dangerous individuals. Our Nation is currently in the midst of a serious fentanyl crisis. In fact, right now, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death of U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 45. And where is all this fentanyl coming from? Well, most of it is being trafficked across our southern border. And I would be very surprised if the chaos at our southern border isn't facilitating that trafficking. And--let's be clear--drug trafficking across our southern border doesn't just affect border States; it affects communities around our country. I havetalked to sheriffs in South Dakota, almost as far from our southern border as you can get, who are dealing with fentanyl that has been trafficked across the border from Mexico. Last year, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent--90 percent--of fentanyl and methamphetamine in our State, the State of South Dakota, comes through Mexico. Again, I would be very surprised if the chaos at our southern border hasn't facilitated that trafficking. Our country has been shaped by immigrants from around the world, and I am a strong supporter of legal immigration. I have repeatedly introduced legislation to open up opportunities for individuals to come from abroad and to work here in the United States when employers can't secure enough domestic labor. But immigration has to be legal. It has to be legal for security reasons, for humanitarian reasons, and because we have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. I am thankful that the President finally seems to be, at least halfheartedly, acknowledging our border crisis and he has recognized his error in rescinding a number of policies that successfully took pressure off the border. Now let's see how he follows through. There are definitely things Congress can do to strengthen our border security, deter abuse of our asylum system, and provide resources to those serving on the frontlines against trafficking and smuggling. We can also find ways to address some of the economic factors that influence illegal immigration by leveraging legal pathways to allow immigrants to fill jobs that American employers are struggling to fill. But the fact of the matter is, while there are things Congress can do to help, the President of the United States doesn't need an act of Congress to move forward on securing the border. The President just needs to enforce the law. For the sake of our national security, our overwhelmed border communities, and the individuals tempted to make the dangerous journey across the border, let's hope he does so. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. THUNE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS154 | null | 5,671 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have seen a number of headlines with surprising announcements about the impact the Biden administration's new border policies have had. Reuters, for example, ran a story last week titled ``U.S. arrests of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants plummet.'' Dallas Morning News had a story titled ``Biden administration says illegal border crossings already falling under new policies.'' The Wall Street Journal ran a story over the weekend with the headline ``Migrant Arrests Fell by Roughly Half in January After New Enforcement Measures.'' Well, by reading those headlines alone, you might assume that the administration had finally done something it has refused to do over the last 2 years, and that is to take action to address the migration crisis, the humanitarian and public safety crisis that has been occurring at our southern border. You might think that they started using authorities they already had under existing law to enforce those laws at the southern border and deter would-be migrants from making the dangerous journey north. Well, if you made those assumptions, you would be wrong. That is not the case at all. As we know, the border has been operating at a state of crisis for at least the last 2 years. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.4 million migrants, completely shattering previous records. Last month, we broke the record for monthly encounters. The Agency logged more than a quarter of a million--more than 250,000--border crossings in December alone. Here is the ugly little secret that the Biden administration so far has failed to acknowledge: Vice President Kamala Harris talks about going to Central America, talks about root causes of the migration crisis, and Secretary Blinken talks about root causes, assuming that this is a regional matter affecting Mexico and Central America and that it is primarily people who are coming to the United States strictly for economic reasons or to flee violence. But the fact of the matter is, people are coming from all over the world to our doorstep and seeking asylum. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bipartisan congressional trip to El Paso, an urban area. We then went to Yuma, AZ, which is a sleepy little agricultural community right there along the border of Arizona and California. The acting Border Patrol chief told us that they had people from 176 countries, speaking 200 languages, seeking asylum, coming to the Yuma port of entry. You might ask, how in the world is that possible? That doesn't sound like root causes; that sounds like a global network of human struggling that is exploiting our asylum laws to gain entry into the United States. Well, Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, who was with us, said: Well, Mexicali, which is a relatively large city in northern Mexico, just across the border from Yuma, has an airport, and presumably people are flying into Mexicali from disparate places around the world because they know that if they show up at this port of entry in Yuma, they are likely to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum, and they know that because of the backlog in asylum cases, their case is not likely to be heard for literally years and that if they did ultimately appear in front of an immigration judge, their chances of successfully gaining asylum, according to the legal standard under American law, was about 10 percent. So it doesn't surprise anybody that many of them don't show up for their court hearing but simply hope to evade detection and be able to permanently settle in the United States. This is what the Border Patrol calls ``no consequences'' associated with illegal immigration. What they have told me and anybody else who will listen is that if there are no consequences to coming to the United States and exploiting our asylum system or illegally coming to the United States, then people are going to keep coming. Indeed, that is what we have seen with an absolute lack of deterrence because of nonenforcement and because of the Biden administration border policies. People all over the world are taking advantage of the Biden administration's weak policies. They are crossing our southern border at an alarming rate, imposing huge burdens on the border communities in States like mine, like Texas, that do not have the resources to meet the demands of this crisis. It wasn't that long ago that Del Rio, TX, a small community of 35,000 people, had 15,000 Haitians arrive in their city and claim asylum. As it turned out, many of those Haitians had been living in South America, having fled Haiti previously, but they had been living more or less peacefully in South America. But because they saw an opportunity to come to the United States and exploit this same asylum system, they showed up in Del Rio, TX--35,000 people--15,000 of them, overwhelming the capacity of that small city to deal with them. Until recently, the administration saw two options when it came to migrants. Option No. 1 was to use the authority granted under title 42 to expel these individuals to Mexico. Of course, title 42 is a public health title that has been in place because of COVID. Option No. 2 was to parole them. Basically, that means to grant them permission to enter the United States, where they would await immigration court proceedings, which, as I said, because of the backlog, because of the sheer volume, will take years. Under the administration's so-called new plan, there is now another option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. So that is four countries. There is a new option for people coming from those four countries. It apparently doesn't apply to the other 172 countries that the Yuma Border Patrolchief has said that they have encountered. But under the administration's new plan, there is an option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that will allow them to remain in the United States legally for 2 years and receive work authorization. What more of a magnet do you need for people to come to the United States than to give them a work permit and to say: You can stay here legally for 2 years while you await your court proceeding. All they have to do is submit information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. Well, the Border Patrol, in educating me and others about what is happening at the border, they talk about push factors and they talk about pull factors. The push factors, we all understand. That is poverty, violence, people wanting a better life. We don't begrudge people who want a better life, want a piece of the American dream, but we do--we should--insist they come to the country through legal means, not illegal means, not exploiting vulnerabilities in our asylum system. But there is no greater pull factor than this idea that there will be no consequences to coming to the United States, that you will successfully make your way into the United States, into the interior, and you will be able to stay. That is the ultimate pull factor, and that is the reason there is zero deterrence under President Biden's open border policies. Apparently he wants to continue that when it comes to people coming from these four countries. Well, there are several problems with this plan that I alluded to. First of all, it is not a solution to the open border policies that currently exist. It doesn't discourage migrants from making the long, dangerous journey; it just artificially lowers the numbers. Here is what I mean by that. Before this so-called new policy, if a migrant from one of these four countries was apprehended at the border, they would be encountered by the Border Patrol and either removed under title 42, repatriated, or paroled into the country. Every month, Customs and Border Protection reports a total number of migrants released into the United States, giving us an understanding of just how big, what the magnitude of this crisis truly is. Last month, for example, more than 130,000 migrants were paroled into the United States. One hundred thirty thousand were given the paperwork to move into the United States. The administration has taken a lot of heat for the fact that it is engaging in catch-and-release at an unprecedented pace. Basically, what that means is that rather than being detained while your asylum status is determined--and, as I said, the vast majority will not ultimately qualify if they appear in front of an immigration judge--catch-and-release just makes this worse. Rather than stop the practice and actually detain and remove migrants without legitimate asylum claims, the Biden administration came up with this new policy to, in effect, cook the books. The 30,000 migrants a month who enter the United States as part of this new program won't even be included in the monthly statistics that have become a huge political albatross for President Biden. If migrants enter the United States on a legal basis, which is exactly what this program provides, they will never be tallied as part of the migration crisis. They have taken 30,000 people and said: OK, we are going to make your entry into the country legal--so, by definition, it is no longer illegal immigration--by a wave of the magic wand. In short, this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have actually gone down, which they have not. Problem No. 2 is that any progress is all but guaranteed to be temporary. According to the administration, we have seen a 97-percent drop in the number of illegal crossings for migrants from these four countries, and, as I said, these are just 4 of the 176 countries represented by the folks who show up at the one Yuma Border Patrol crossing currently. So it is just four countries. It appears, now, that there are thousands of migrants who would have previously arrived at the border who are now waiting for the Biden administration to approve their online application. But what happens after those 30,000 spots are filled? What happens when it takes months rather than weeks for migrants to receive the green light? I can tell you exactly what will happen. Migrants from these four countries will start coming across the border illegally once again. Will they be expelled under title 42? Will they be paroled into the interior? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure. Once the line gets too long, we will be right back where we started, only with an added challenge: There will be a new population of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the United States on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. As Ronald Reagan once noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Third, the new program normalizes migrants coming to the United States based on facts that would not qualify them under our current laws for asylum. The administration's description of urgent humanitarian reasons that would qualify a Haitian migrant for the program, for example, points to gang violence, the aftermath of an earthquake or a cholera breakout that worsened political, economic, and social conditions. Now, we can all agree that these are terrible conditions, but they don't meet the standard for a valid asylum claim. That leads to perhaps the biggest problem of all: that the administration circumvented--did an end run--around Congress to implement this policy, which has basically teed up an even bigger headache. President Biden is following in the footsteps of President Obama by creating a new category of immigrants without consulting with or getting the agreement of Congress. As we saw with President Obama and the deferred action for childhood arrivals, his use of Executive action 10 years ago has now created more problems for this population of young people who came here as children and who are now adults because the courts have so far said that President Obama didn't have the authority to do what he purported to do. By the way, if you go back and do an internet search and see what President Obama said shortly before he granted this deferred action for childhood arrivals, I think he said, perhaps as many as 17 times--I could be off a little bit--that he did not have the authority. He said he did not have the authority to do what he ultimately did, and, unfortunately, now the courts are agreeing with him, putting the livelihood and future of these young people in jeopardy. It has been more than a decade since DACA was established, and the fate of these young people is still being litigated in court. It is a terrible circumstance to find themselves in, and this won't be any different. The Biden policies will allow migrants to live and work in the United States for 2 years, and then what? Well, will they leave voluntarily? I doubt it. Will they be apprehended and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement? No, I doubt that. Or will this be another group of migrants who will live in the shadows? There is no question that our immigration system is broken. I have yet to find a person--a responsible person--who thinks our immigration system is working the way it should. It is big, it is outdated, it is inefficient, and it is not serving our Nation's interests well. But if the President wants to undertake immigration reform, as he says he does, this is not the way to go. By end-running Congress to try to establish new categories of immigrants, he is poisoning the well. He is making it harder for us to do what many of us would like to do, and that is to take on the monumental task of securing the border and creating a legal immigration system that serves our Nation's interests and one that we can be proud of. But, by poisoning the well, the President is not gaining new allies. He is just ensuring that more people will resist any potential legislation that we might take up soon. So despite what the initial data may suggest, what the spin doctors here in Washington have been selling to the news media, which has gullibly been accepting that, as if this is somehow a big deal for a negative trend in terms of illegal immigration, it is not so. The President hasn'tsolved the problem. He has just swept it under the rug, and he has, arguably, made it worse. This crisis is complex, but the solution isn't. The administration needs to engage with Congress and enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and those that are being exploited by the international criminal networks that are smuggling people into the United States on a daily basis. We need to work together to address those gaps that are being exploited. If migrants from any country see that the United States is quickly detaining and removing people who do not have a legal basis to remain in our country, the flow of illegal immigration will drop dramatically. That is the only viable path forward and where the administration should focus its time and effort. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS155 | null | 5,672 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have seen a number of headlines with surprising announcements about the impact the Biden administration's new border policies have had. Reuters, for example, ran a story last week titled ``U.S. arrests of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants plummet.'' Dallas Morning News had a story titled ``Biden administration says illegal border crossings already falling under new policies.'' The Wall Street Journal ran a story over the weekend with the headline ``Migrant Arrests Fell by Roughly Half in January After New Enforcement Measures.'' Well, by reading those headlines alone, you might assume that the administration had finally done something it has refused to do over the last 2 years, and that is to take action to address the migration crisis, the humanitarian and public safety crisis that has been occurring at our southern border. You might think that they started using authorities they already had under existing law to enforce those laws at the southern border and deter would-be migrants from making the dangerous journey north. Well, if you made those assumptions, you would be wrong. That is not the case at all. As we know, the border has been operating at a state of crisis for at least the last 2 years. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.4 million migrants, completely shattering previous records. Last month, we broke the record for monthly encounters. The Agency logged more than a quarter of a million--more than 250,000--border crossings in December alone. Here is the ugly little secret that the Biden administration so far has failed to acknowledge: Vice President Kamala Harris talks about going to Central America, talks about root causes of the migration crisis, and Secretary Blinken talks about root causes, assuming that this is a regional matter affecting Mexico and Central America and that it is primarily people who are coming to the United States strictly for economic reasons or to flee violence. But the fact of the matter is, people are coming from all over the world to our doorstep and seeking asylum. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bipartisan congressional trip to El Paso, an urban area. We then went to Yuma, AZ, which is a sleepy little agricultural community right there along the border of Arizona and California. The acting Border Patrol chief told us that they had people from 176 countries, speaking 200 languages, seeking asylum, coming to the Yuma port of entry. You might ask, how in the world is that possible? That doesn't sound like root causes; that sounds like a global network of human struggling that is exploiting our asylum laws to gain entry into the United States. Well, Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, who was with us, said: Well, Mexicali, which is a relatively large city in northern Mexico, just across the border from Yuma, has an airport, and presumably people are flying into Mexicali from disparate places around the world because they know that if they show up at this port of entry in Yuma, they are likely to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum, and they know that because of the backlog in asylum cases, their case is not likely to be heard for literally years and that if they did ultimately appear in front of an immigration judge, their chances of successfully gaining asylum, according to the legal standard under American law, was about 10 percent. So it doesn't surprise anybody that many of them don't show up for their court hearing but simply hope to evade detection and be able to permanently settle in the United States. This is what the Border Patrol calls ``no consequences'' associated with illegal immigration. What they have told me and anybody else who will listen is that if there are no consequences to coming to the United States and exploiting our asylum system or illegally coming to the United States, then people are going to keep coming. Indeed, that is what we have seen with an absolute lack of deterrence because of nonenforcement and because of the Biden administration border policies. People all over the world are taking advantage of the Biden administration's weak policies. They are crossing our southern border at an alarming rate, imposing huge burdens on the border communities in States like mine, like Texas, that do not have the resources to meet the demands of this crisis. It wasn't that long ago that Del Rio, TX, a small community of 35,000 people, had 15,000 Haitians arrive in their city and claim asylum. As it turned out, many of those Haitians had been living in South America, having fled Haiti previously, but they had been living more or less peacefully in South America. But because they saw an opportunity to come to the United States and exploit this same asylum system, they showed up in Del Rio, TX--35,000 people--15,000 of them, overwhelming the capacity of that small city to deal with them. Until recently, the administration saw two options when it came to migrants. Option No. 1 was to use the authority granted under title 42 to expel these individuals to Mexico. Of course, title 42 is a public health title that has been in place because of COVID. Option No. 2 was to parole them. Basically, that means to grant them permission to enter the United States, where they would await immigration court proceedings, which, as I said, because of the backlog, because of the sheer volume, will take years. Under the administration's so-called new plan, there is now another option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. So that is four countries. There is a new option for people coming from those four countries. It apparently doesn't apply to the other 172 countries that the Yuma Border Patrolchief has said that they have encountered. But under the administration's new plan, there is an option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that will allow them to remain in the United States legally for 2 years and receive work authorization. What more of a magnet do you need for people to come to the United States than to give them a work permit and to say: You can stay here legally for 2 years while you await your court proceeding. All they have to do is submit information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. Well, the Border Patrol, in educating me and others about what is happening at the border, they talk about push factors and they talk about pull factors. The push factors, we all understand. That is poverty, violence, people wanting a better life. We don't begrudge people who want a better life, want a piece of the American dream, but we do--we should--insist they come to the country through legal means, not illegal means, not exploiting vulnerabilities in our asylum system. But there is no greater pull factor than this idea that there will be no consequences to coming to the United States, that you will successfully make your way into the United States, into the interior, and you will be able to stay. That is the ultimate pull factor, and that is the reason there is zero deterrence under President Biden's open border policies. Apparently he wants to continue that when it comes to people coming from these four countries. Well, there are several problems with this plan that I alluded to. First of all, it is not a solution to the open border policies that currently exist. It doesn't discourage migrants from making the long, dangerous journey; it just artificially lowers the numbers. Here is what I mean by that. Before this so-called new policy, if a migrant from one of these four countries was apprehended at the border, they would be encountered by the Border Patrol and either removed under title 42, repatriated, or paroled into the country. Every month, Customs and Border Protection reports a total number of migrants released into the United States, giving us an understanding of just how big, what the magnitude of this crisis truly is. Last month, for example, more than 130,000 migrants were paroled into the United States. One hundred thirty thousand were given the paperwork to move into the United States. The administration has taken a lot of heat for the fact that it is engaging in catch-and-release at an unprecedented pace. Basically, what that means is that rather than being detained while your asylum status is determined--and, as I said, the vast majority will not ultimately qualify if they appear in front of an immigration judge--catch-and-release just makes this worse. Rather than stop the practice and actually detain and remove migrants without legitimate asylum claims, the Biden administration came up with this new policy to, in effect, cook the books. The 30,000 migrants a month who enter the United States as part of this new program won't even be included in the monthly statistics that have become a huge political albatross for President Biden. If migrants enter the United States on a legal basis, which is exactly what this program provides, they will never be tallied as part of the migration crisis. They have taken 30,000 people and said: OK, we are going to make your entry into the country legal--so, by definition, it is no longer illegal immigration--by a wave of the magic wand. In short, this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have actually gone down, which they have not. Problem No. 2 is that any progress is all but guaranteed to be temporary. According to the administration, we have seen a 97-percent drop in the number of illegal crossings for migrants from these four countries, and, as I said, these are just 4 of the 176 countries represented by the folks who show up at the one Yuma Border Patrol crossing currently. So it is just four countries. It appears, now, that there are thousands of migrants who would have previously arrived at the border who are now waiting for the Biden administration to approve their online application. But what happens after those 30,000 spots are filled? What happens when it takes months rather than weeks for migrants to receive the green light? I can tell you exactly what will happen. Migrants from these four countries will start coming across the border illegally once again. Will they be expelled under title 42? Will they be paroled into the interior? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure. Once the line gets too long, we will be right back where we started, only with an added challenge: There will be a new population of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the United States on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. As Ronald Reagan once noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Third, the new program normalizes migrants coming to the United States based on facts that would not qualify them under our current laws for asylum. The administration's description of urgent humanitarian reasons that would qualify a Haitian migrant for the program, for example, points to gang violence, the aftermath of an earthquake or a cholera breakout that worsened political, economic, and social conditions. Now, we can all agree that these are terrible conditions, but they don't meet the standard for a valid asylum claim. That leads to perhaps the biggest problem of all: that the administration circumvented--did an end run--around Congress to implement this policy, which has basically teed up an even bigger headache. President Biden is following in the footsteps of President Obama by creating a new category of immigrants without consulting with or getting the agreement of Congress. As we saw with President Obama and the deferred action for childhood arrivals, his use of Executive action 10 years ago has now created more problems for this population of young people who came here as children and who are now adults because the courts have so far said that President Obama didn't have the authority to do what he purported to do. By the way, if you go back and do an internet search and see what President Obama said shortly before he granted this deferred action for childhood arrivals, I think he said, perhaps as many as 17 times--I could be off a little bit--that he did not have the authority. He said he did not have the authority to do what he ultimately did, and, unfortunately, now the courts are agreeing with him, putting the livelihood and future of these young people in jeopardy. It has been more than a decade since DACA was established, and the fate of these young people is still being litigated in court. It is a terrible circumstance to find themselves in, and this won't be any different. The Biden policies will allow migrants to live and work in the United States for 2 years, and then what? Well, will they leave voluntarily? I doubt it. Will they be apprehended and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement? No, I doubt that. Or will this be another group of migrants who will live in the shadows? There is no question that our immigration system is broken. I have yet to find a person--a responsible person--who thinks our immigration system is working the way it should. It is big, it is outdated, it is inefficient, and it is not serving our Nation's interests well. But if the President wants to undertake immigration reform, as he says he does, this is not the way to go. By end-running Congress to try to establish new categories of immigrants, he is poisoning the well. He is making it harder for us to do what many of us would like to do, and that is to take on the monumental task of securing the border and creating a legal immigration system that serves our Nation's interests and one that we can be proud of. But, by poisoning the well, the President is not gaining new allies. He is just ensuring that more people will resist any potential legislation that we might take up soon. So despite what the initial data may suggest, what the spin doctors here in Washington have been selling to the news media, which has gullibly been accepting that, as if this is somehow a big deal for a negative trend in terms of illegal immigration, it is not so. The President hasn'tsolved the problem. He has just swept it under the rug, and he has, arguably, made it worse. This crisis is complex, but the solution isn't. The administration needs to engage with Congress and enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and those that are being exploited by the international criminal networks that are smuggling people into the United States on a daily basis. We need to work together to address those gaps that are being exploited. If migrants from any country see that the United States is quickly detaining and removing people who do not have a legal basis to remain in our country, the flow of illegal immigration will drop dramatically. That is the only viable path forward and where the administration should focus its time and effort. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS155 | null | 5,673 |
formal | poisoning the well | null | antisemitic | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have seen a number of headlines with surprising announcements about the impact the Biden administration's new border policies have had. Reuters, for example, ran a story last week titled ``U.S. arrests of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants plummet.'' Dallas Morning News had a story titled ``Biden administration says illegal border crossings already falling under new policies.'' The Wall Street Journal ran a story over the weekend with the headline ``Migrant Arrests Fell by Roughly Half in January After New Enforcement Measures.'' Well, by reading those headlines alone, you might assume that the administration had finally done something it has refused to do over the last 2 years, and that is to take action to address the migration crisis, the humanitarian and public safety crisis that has been occurring at our southern border. You might think that they started using authorities they already had under existing law to enforce those laws at the southern border and deter would-be migrants from making the dangerous journey north. Well, if you made those assumptions, you would be wrong. That is not the case at all. As we know, the border has been operating at a state of crisis for at least the last 2 years. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.4 million migrants, completely shattering previous records. Last month, we broke the record for monthly encounters. The Agency logged more than a quarter of a million--more than 250,000--border crossings in December alone. Here is the ugly little secret that the Biden administration so far has failed to acknowledge: Vice President Kamala Harris talks about going to Central America, talks about root causes of the migration crisis, and Secretary Blinken talks about root causes, assuming that this is a regional matter affecting Mexico and Central America and that it is primarily people who are coming to the United States strictly for economic reasons or to flee violence. But the fact of the matter is, people are coming from all over the world to our doorstep and seeking asylum. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bipartisan congressional trip to El Paso, an urban area. We then went to Yuma, AZ, which is a sleepy little agricultural community right there along the border of Arizona and California. The acting Border Patrol chief told us that they had people from 176 countries, speaking 200 languages, seeking asylum, coming to the Yuma port of entry. You might ask, how in the world is that possible? That doesn't sound like root causes; that sounds like a global network of human struggling that is exploiting our asylum laws to gain entry into the United States. Well, Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, who was with us, said: Well, Mexicali, which is a relatively large city in northern Mexico, just across the border from Yuma, has an airport, and presumably people are flying into Mexicali from disparate places around the world because they know that if they show up at this port of entry in Yuma, they are likely to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum, and they know that because of the backlog in asylum cases, their case is not likely to be heard for literally years and that if they did ultimately appear in front of an immigration judge, their chances of successfully gaining asylum, according to the legal standard under American law, was about 10 percent. So it doesn't surprise anybody that many of them don't show up for their court hearing but simply hope to evade detection and be able to permanently settle in the United States. This is what the Border Patrol calls ``no consequences'' associated with illegal immigration. What they have told me and anybody else who will listen is that if there are no consequences to coming to the United States and exploiting our asylum system or illegally coming to the United States, then people are going to keep coming. Indeed, that is what we have seen with an absolute lack of deterrence because of nonenforcement and because of the Biden administration border policies. People all over the world are taking advantage of the Biden administration's weak policies. They are crossing our southern border at an alarming rate, imposing huge burdens on the border communities in States like mine, like Texas, that do not have the resources to meet the demands of this crisis. It wasn't that long ago that Del Rio, TX, a small community of 35,000 people, had 15,000 Haitians arrive in their city and claim asylum. As it turned out, many of those Haitians had been living in South America, having fled Haiti previously, but they had been living more or less peacefully in South America. But because they saw an opportunity to come to the United States and exploit this same asylum system, they showed up in Del Rio, TX--35,000 people--15,000 of them, overwhelming the capacity of that small city to deal with them. Until recently, the administration saw two options when it came to migrants. Option No. 1 was to use the authority granted under title 42 to expel these individuals to Mexico. Of course, title 42 is a public health title that has been in place because of COVID. Option No. 2 was to parole them. Basically, that means to grant them permission to enter the United States, where they would await immigration court proceedings, which, as I said, because of the backlog, because of the sheer volume, will take years. Under the administration's so-called new plan, there is now another option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. So that is four countries. There is a new option for people coming from those four countries. It apparently doesn't apply to the other 172 countries that the Yuma Border Patrolchief has said that they have encountered. But under the administration's new plan, there is an option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that will allow them to remain in the United States legally for 2 years and receive work authorization. What more of a magnet do you need for people to come to the United States than to give them a work permit and to say: You can stay here legally for 2 years while you await your court proceeding. All they have to do is submit information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. Well, the Border Patrol, in educating me and others about what is happening at the border, they talk about push factors and they talk about pull factors. The push factors, we all understand. That is poverty, violence, people wanting a better life. We don't begrudge people who want a better life, want a piece of the American dream, but we do--we should--insist they come to the country through legal means, not illegal means, not exploiting vulnerabilities in our asylum system. But there is no greater pull factor than this idea that there will be no consequences to coming to the United States, that you will successfully make your way into the United States, into the interior, and you will be able to stay. That is the ultimate pull factor, and that is the reason there is zero deterrence under President Biden's open border policies. Apparently he wants to continue that when it comes to people coming from these four countries. Well, there are several problems with this plan that I alluded to. First of all, it is not a solution to the open border policies that currently exist. It doesn't discourage migrants from making the long, dangerous journey; it just artificially lowers the numbers. Here is what I mean by that. Before this so-called new policy, if a migrant from one of these four countries was apprehended at the border, they would be encountered by the Border Patrol and either removed under title 42, repatriated, or paroled into the country. Every month, Customs and Border Protection reports a total number of migrants released into the United States, giving us an understanding of just how big, what the magnitude of this crisis truly is. Last month, for example, more than 130,000 migrants were paroled into the United States. One hundred thirty thousand were given the paperwork to move into the United States. The administration has taken a lot of heat for the fact that it is engaging in catch-and-release at an unprecedented pace. Basically, what that means is that rather than being detained while your asylum status is determined--and, as I said, the vast majority will not ultimately qualify if they appear in front of an immigration judge--catch-and-release just makes this worse. Rather than stop the practice and actually detain and remove migrants without legitimate asylum claims, the Biden administration came up with this new policy to, in effect, cook the books. The 30,000 migrants a month who enter the United States as part of this new program won't even be included in the monthly statistics that have become a huge political albatross for President Biden. If migrants enter the United States on a legal basis, which is exactly what this program provides, they will never be tallied as part of the migration crisis. They have taken 30,000 people and said: OK, we are going to make your entry into the country legal--so, by definition, it is no longer illegal immigration--by a wave of the magic wand. In short, this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have actually gone down, which they have not. Problem No. 2 is that any progress is all but guaranteed to be temporary. According to the administration, we have seen a 97-percent drop in the number of illegal crossings for migrants from these four countries, and, as I said, these are just 4 of the 176 countries represented by the folks who show up at the one Yuma Border Patrol crossing currently. So it is just four countries. It appears, now, that there are thousands of migrants who would have previously arrived at the border who are now waiting for the Biden administration to approve their online application. But what happens after those 30,000 spots are filled? What happens when it takes months rather than weeks for migrants to receive the green light? I can tell you exactly what will happen. Migrants from these four countries will start coming across the border illegally once again. Will they be expelled under title 42? Will they be paroled into the interior? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure. Once the line gets too long, we will be right back where we started, only with an added challenge: There will be a new population of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the United States on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. As Ronald Reagan once noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Third, the new program normalizes migrants coming to the United States based on facts that would not qualify them under our current laws for asylum. The administration's description of urgent humanitarian reasons that would qualify a Haitian migrant for the program, for example, points to gang violence, the aftermath of an earthquake or a cholera breakout that worsened political, economic, and social conditions. Now, we can all agree that these are terrible conditions, but they don't meet the standard for a valid asylum claim. That leads to perhaps the biggest problem of all: that the administration circumvented--did an end run--around Congress to implement this policy, which has basically teed up an even bigger headache. President Biden is following in the footsteps of President Obama by creating a new category of immigrants without consulting with or getting the agreement of Congress. As we saw with President Obama and the deferred action for childhood arrivals, his use of Executive action 10 years ago has now created more problems for this population of young people who came here as children and who are now adults because the courts have so far said that President Obama didn't have the authority to do what he purported to do. By the way, if you go back and do an internet search and see what President Obama said shortly before he granted this deferred action for childhood arrivals, I think he said, perhaps as many as 17 times--I could be off a little bit--that he did not have the authority. He said he did not have the authority to do what he ultimately did, and, unfortunately, now the courts are agreeing with him, putting the livelihood and future of these young people in jeopardy. It has been more than a decade since DACA was established, and the fate of these young people is still being litigated in court. It is a terrible circumstance to find themselves in, and this won't be any different. The Biden policies will allow migrants to live and work in the United States for 2 years, and then what? Well, will they leave voluntarily? I doubt it. Will they be apprehended and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement? No, I doubt that. Or will this be another group of migrants who will live in the shadows? There is no question that our immigration system is broken. I have yet to find a person--a responsible person--who thinks our immigration system is working the way it should. It is big, it is outdated, it is inefficient, and it is not serving our Nation's interests well. But if the President wants to undertake immigration reform, as he says he does, this is not the way to go. By end-running Congress to try to establish new categories of immigrants, he is poisoning the well. He is making it harder for us to do what many of us would like to do, and that is to take on the monumental task of securing the border and creating a legal immigration system that serves our Nation's interests and one that we can be proud of. But, by poisoning the well, the President is not gaining new allies. He is just ensuring that more people will resist any potential legislation that we might take up soon. So despite what the initial data may suggest, what the spin doctors here in Washington have been selling to the news media, which has gullibly been accepting that, as if this is somehow a big deal for a negative trend in terms of illegal immigration, it is not so. The President hasn'tsolved the problem. He has just swept it under the rug, and he has, arguably, made it worse. This crisis is complex, but the solution isn't. The administration needs to engage with Congress and enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and those that are being exploited by the international criminal networks that are smuggling people into the United States on a daily basis. We need to work together to address those gaps that are being exploited. If migrants from any country see that the United States is quickly detaining and removing people who do not have a legal basis to remain in our country, the flow of illegal immigration will drop dramatically. That is the only viable path forward and where the administration should focus its time and effort. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS155 | null | 5,674 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have seen a number of headlines with surprising announcements about the impact the Biden administration's new border policies have had. Reuters, for example, ran a story last week titled ``U.S. arrests of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants plummet.'' Dallas Morning News had a story titled ``Biden administration says illegal border crossings already falling under new policies.'' The Wall Street Journal ran a story over the weekend with the headline ``Migrant Arrests Fell by Roughly Half in January After New Enforcement Measures.'' Well, by reading those headlines alone, you might assume that the administration had finally done something it has refused to do over the last 2 years, and that is to take action to address the migration crisis, the humanitarian and public safety crisis that has been occurring at our southern border. You might think that they started using authorities they already had under existing law to enforce those laws at the southern border and deter would-be migrants from making the dangerous journey north. Well, if you made those assumptions, you would be wrong. That is not the case at all. As we know, the border has been operating at a state of crisis for at least the last 2 years. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.4 million migrants, completely shattering previous records. Last month, we broke the record for monthly encounters. The Agency logged more than a quarter of a million--more than 250,000--border crossings in December alone. Here is the ugly little secret that the Biden administration so far has failed to acknowledge: Vice President Kamala Harris talks about going to Central America, talks about root causes of the migration crisis, and Secretary Blinken talks about root causes, assuming that this is a regional matter affecting Mexico and Central America and that it is primarily people who are coming to the United States strictly for economic reasons or to flee violence. But the fact of the matter is, people are coming from all over the world to our doorstep and seeking asylum. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bipartisan congressional trip to El Paso, an urban area. We then went to Yuma, AZ, which is a sleepy little agricultural community right there along the border of Arizona and California. The acting Border Patrol chief told us that they had people from 176 countries, speaking 200 languages, seeking asylum, coming to the Yuma port of entry. You might ask, how in the world is that possible? That doesn't sound like root causes; that sounds like a global network of human struggling that is exploiting our asylum laws to gain entry into the United States. Well, Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, who was with us, said: Well, Mexicali, which is a relatively large city in northern Mexico, just across the border from Yuma, has an airport, and presumably people are flying into Mexicali from disparate places around the world because they know that if they show up at this port of entry in Yuma, they are likely to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum, and they know that because of the backlog in asylum cases, their case is not likely to be heard for literally years and that if they did ultimately appear in front of an immigration judge, their chances of successfully gaining asylum, according to the legal standard under American law, was about 10 percent. So it doesn't surprise anybody that many of them don't show up for their court hearing but simply hope to evade detection and be able to permanently settle in the United States. This is what the Border Patrol calls ``no consequences'' associated with illegal immigration. What they have told me and anybody else who will listen is that if there are no consequences to coming to the United States and exploiting our asylum system or illegally coming to the United States, then people are going to keep coming. Indeed, that is what we have seen with an absolute lack of deterrence because of nonenforcement and because of the Biden administration border policies. People all over the world are taking advantage of the Biden administration's weak policies. They are crossing our southern border at an alarming rate, imposing huge burdens on the border communities in States like mine, like Texas, that do not have the resources to meet the demands of this crisis. It wasn't that long ago that Del Rio, TX, a small community of 35,000 people, had 15,000 Haitians arrive in their city and claim asylum. As it turned out, many of those Haitians had been living in South America, having fled Haiti previously, but they had been living more or less peacefully in South America. But because they saw an opportunity to come to the United States and exploit this same asylum system, they showed up in Del Rio, TX--35,000 people--15,000 of them, overwhelming the capacity of that small city to deal with them. Until recently, the administration saw two options when it came to migrants. Option No. 1 was to use the authority granted under title 42 to expel these individuals to Mexico. Of course, title 42 is a public health title that has been in place because of COVID. Option No. 2 was to parole them. Basically, that means to grant them permission to enter the United States, where they would await immigration court proceedings, which, as I said, because of the backlog, because of the sheer volume, will take years. Under the administration's so-called new plan, there is now another option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. So that is four countries. There is a new option for people coming from those four countries. It apparently doesn't apply to the other 172 countries that the Yuma Border Patrolchief has said that they have encountered. But under the administration's new plan, there is an option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that will allow them to remain in the United States legally for 2 years and receive work authorization. What more of a magnet do you need for people to come to the United States than to give them a work permit and to say: You can stay here legally for 2 years while you await your court proceeding. All they have to do is submit information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. Well, the Border Patrol, in educating me and others about what is happening at the border, they talk about push factors and they talk about pull factors. The push factors, we all understand. That is poverty, violence, people wanting a better life. We don't begrudge people who want a better life, want a piece of the American dream, but we do--we should--insist they come to the country through legal means, not illegal means, not exploiting vulnerabilities in our asylum system. But there is no greater pull factor than this idea that there will be no consequences to coming to the United States, that you will successfully make your way into the United States, into the interior, and you will be able to stay. That is the ultimate pull factor, and that is the reason there is zero deterrence under President Biden's open border policies. Apparently he wants to continue that when it comes to people coming from these four countries. Well, there are several problems with this plan that I alluded to. First of all, it is not a solution to the open border policies that currently exist. It doesn't discourage migrants from making the long, dangerous journey; it just artificially lowers the numbers. Here is what I mean by that. Before this so-called new policy, if a migrant from one of these four countries was apprehended at the border, they would be encountered by the Border Patrol and either removed under title 42, repatriated, or paroled into the country. Every month, Customs and Border Protection reports a total number of migrants released into the United States, giving us an understanding of just how big, what the magnitude of this crisis truly is. Last month, for example, more than 130,000 migrants were paroled into the United States. One hundred thirty thousand were given the paperwork to move into the United States. The administration has taken a lot of heat for the fact that it is engaging in catch-and-release at an unprecedented pace. Basically, what that means is that rather than being detained while your asylum status is determined--and, as I said, the vast majority will not ultimately qualify if they appear in front of an immigration judge--catch-and-release just makes this worse. Rather than stop the practice and actually detain and remove migrants without legitimate asylum claims, the Biden administration came up with this new policy to, in effect, cook the books. The 30,000 migrants a month who enter the United States as part of this new program won't even be included in the monthly statistics that have become a huge political albatross for President Biden. If migrants enter the United States on a legal basis, which is exactly what this program provides, they will never be tallied as part of the migration crisis. They have taken 30,000 people and said: OK, we are going to make your entry into the country legal--so, by definition, it is no longer illegal immigration--by a wave of the magic wand. In short, this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have actually gone down, which they have not. Problem No. 2 is that any progress is all but guaranteed to be temporary. According to the administration, we have seen a 97-percent drop in the number of illegal crossings for migrants from these four countries, and, as I said, these are just 4 of the 176 countries represented by the folks who show up at the one Yuma Border Patrol crossing currently. So it is just four countries. It appears, now, that there are thousands of migrants who would have previously arrived at the border who are now waiting for the Biden administration to approve their online application. But what happens after those 30,000 spots are filled? What happens when it takes months rather than weeks for migrants to receive the green light? I can tell you exactly what will happen. Migrants from these four countries will start coming across the border illegally once again. Will they be expelled under title 42? Will they be paroled into the interior? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure. Once the line gets too long, we will be right back where we started, only with an added challenge: There will be a new population of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the United States on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. As Ronald Reagan once noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Third, the new program normalizes migrants coming to the United States based on facts that would not qualify them under our current laws for asylum. The administration's description of urgent humanitarian reasons that would qualify a Haitian migrant for the program, for example, points to gang violence, the aftermath of an earthquake or a cholera breakout that worsened political, economic, and social conditions. Now, we can all agree that these are terrible conditions, but they don't meet the standard for a valid asylum claim. That leads to perhaps the biggest problem of all: that the administration circumvented--did an end run--around Congress to implement this policy, which has basically teed up an even bigger headache. President Biden is following in the footsteps of President Obama by creating a new category of immigrants without consulting with or getting the agreement of Congress. As we saw with President Obama and the deferred action for childhood arrivals, his use of Executive action 10 years ago has now created more problems for this population of young people who came here as children and who are now adults because the courts have so far said that President Obama didn't have the authority to do what he purported to do. By the way, if you go back and do an internet search and see what President Obama said shortly before he granted this deferred action for childhood arrivals, I think he said, perhaps as many as 17 times--I could be off a little bit--that he did not have the authority. He said he did not have the authority to do what he ultimately did, and, unfortunately, now the courts are agreeing with him, putting the livelihood and future of these young people in jeopardy. It has been more than a decade since DACA was established, and the fate of these young people is still being litigated in court. It is a terrible circumstance to find themselves in, and this won't be any different. The Biden policies will allow migrants to live and work in the United States for 2 years, and then what? Well, will they leave voluntarily? I doubt it. Will they be apprehended and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement? No, I doubt that. Or will this be another group of migrants who will live in the shadows? There is no question that our immigration system is broken. I have yet to find a person--a responsible person--who thinks our immigration system is working the way it should. It is big, it is outdated, it is inefficient, and it is not serving our Nation's interests well. But if the President wants to undertake immigration reform, as he says he does, this is not the way to go. By end-running Congress to try to establish new categories of immigrants, he is poisoning the well. He is making it harder for us to do what many of us would like to do, and that is to take on the monumental task of securing the border and creating a legal immigration system that serves our Nation's interests and one that we can be proud of. But, by poisoning the well, the President is not gaining new allies. He is just ensuring that more people will resist any potential legislation that we might take up soon. So despite what the initial data may suggest, what the spin doctors here in Washington have been selling to the news media, which has gullibly been accepting that, as if this is somehow a big deal for a negative trend in terms of illegal immigration, it is not so. The President hasn'tsolved the problem. He has just swept it under the rug, and he has, arguably, made it worse. This crisis is complex, but the solution isn't. The administration needs to engage with Congress and enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and those that are being exploited by the international criminal networks that are smuggling people into the United States on a daily basis. We need to work together to address those gaps that are being exploited. If migrants from any country see that the United States is quickly detaining and removing people who do not have a legal basis to remain in our country, the flow of illegal immigration will drop dramatically. That is the only viable path forward and where the administration should focus its time and effort. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS155 | null | 5,675 |
formal | securing the border | null | anti-Latino | Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have seen a number of headlines with surprising announcements about the impact the Biden administration's new border policies have had. Reuters, for example, ran a story last week titled ``U.S. arrests of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan migrants plummet.'' Dallas Morning News had a story titled ``Biden administration says illegal border crossings already falling under new policies.'' The Wall Street Journal ran a story over the weekend with the headline ``Migrant Arrests Fell by Roughly Half in January After New Enforcement Measures.'' Well, by reading those headlines alone, you might assume that the administration had finally done something it has refused to do over the last 2 years, and that is to take action to address the migration crisis, the humanitarian and public safety crisis that has been occurring at our southern border. You might think that they started using authorities they already had under existing law to enforce those laws at the southern border and deter would-be migrants from making the dangerous journey north. Well, if you made those assumptions, you would be wrong. That is not the case at all. As we know, the border has been operating at a state of crisis for at least the last 2 years. Last year alone, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.4 million migrants, completely shattering previous records. Last month, we broke the record for monthly encounters. The Agency logged more than a quarter of a million--more than 250,000--border crossings in December alone. Here is the ugly little secret that the Biden administration so far has failed to acknowledge: Vice President Kamala Harris talks about going to Central America, talks about root causes of the migration crisis, and Secretary Blinken talks about root causes, assuming that this is a regional matter affecting Mexico and Central America and that it is primarily people who are coming to the United States strictly for economic reasons or to flee violence. But the fact of the matter is, people are coming from all over the world to our doorstep and seeking asylum. A couple of weeks ago, we had a bipartisan congressional trip to El Paso, an urban area. We then went to Yuma, AZ, which is a sleepy little agricultural community right there along the border of Arizona and California. The acting Border Patrol chief told us that they had people from 176 countries, speaking 200 languages, seeking asylum, coming to the Yuma port of entry. You might ask, how in the world is that possible? That doesn't sound like root causes; that sounds like a global network of human struggling that is exploiting our asylum laws to gain entry into the United States. Well, Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona, who was with us, said: Well, Mexicali, which is a relatively large city in northern Mexico, just across the border from Yuma, has an airport, and presumably people are flying into Mexicali from disparate places around the world because they know that if they show up at this port of entry in Yuma, they are likely to gain entry into the United States by claiming asylum, and they know that because of the backlog in asylum cases, their case is not likely to be heard for literally years and that if they did ultimately appear in front of an immigration judge, their chances of successfully gaining asylum, according to the legal standard under American law, was about 10 percent. So it doesn't surprise anybody that many of them don't show up for their court hearing but simply hope to evade detection and be able to permanently settle in the United States. This is what the Border Patrol calls ``no consequences'' associated with illegal immigration. What they have told me and anybody else who will listen is that if there are no consequences to coming to the United States and exploiting our asylum system or illegally coming to the United States, then people are going to keep coming. Indeed, that is what we have seen with an absolute lack of deterrence because of nonenforcement and because of the Biden administration border policies. People all over the world are taking advantage of the Biden administration's weak policies. They are crossing our southern border at an alarming rate, imposing huge burdens on the border communities in States like mine, like Texas, that do not have the resources to meet the demands of this crisis. It wasn't that long ago that Del Rio, TX, a small community of 35,000 people, had 15,000 Haitians arrive in their city and claim asylum. As it turned out, many of those Haitians had been living in South America, having fled Haiti previously, but they had been living more or less peacefully in South America. But because they saw an opportunity to come to the United States and exploit this same asylum system, they showed up in Del Rio, TX--35,000 people--15,000 of them, overwhelming the capacity of that small city to deal with them. Until recently, the administration saw two options when it came to migrants. Option No. 1 was to use the authority granted under title 42 to expel these individuals to Mexico. Of course, title 42 is a public health title that has been in place because of COVID. Option No. 2 was to parole them. Basically, that means to grant them permission to enter the United States, where they would await immigration court proceedings, which, as I said, because of the backlog, because of the sheer volume, will take years. Under the administration's so-called new plan, there is now another option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans. So that is four countries. There is a new option for people coming from those four countries. It apparently doesn't apply to the other 172 countries that the Yuma Border Patrolchief has said that they have encountered. But under the administration's new plan, there is an option for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans that will allow them to remain in the United States legally for 2 years and receive work authorization. What more of a magnet do you need for people to come to the United States than to give them a work permit and to say: You can stay here legally for 2 years while you await your court proceeding. All they have to do is submit information online before crossing the border and wait for the administration to give them the green light. Well, the Border Patrol, in educating me and others about what is happening at the border, they talk about push factors and they talk about pull factors. The push factors, we all understand. That is poverty, violence, people wanting a better life. We don't begrudge people who want a better life, want a piece of the American dream, but we do--we should--insist they come to the country through legal means, not illegal means, not exploiting vulnerabilities in our asylum system. But there is no greater pull factor than this idea that there will be no consequences to coming to the United States, that you will successfully make your way into the United States, into the interior, and you will be able to stay. That is the ultimate pull factor, and that is the reason there is zero deterrence under President Biden's open border policies. Apparently he wants to continue that when it comes to people coming from these four countries. Well, there are several problems with this plan that I alluded to. First of all, it is not a solution to the open border policies that currently exist. It doesn't discourage migrants from making the long, dangerous journey; it just artificially lowers the numbers. Here is what I mean by that. Before this so-called new policy, if a migrant from one of these four countries was apprehended at the border, they would be encountered by the Border Patrol and either removed under title 42, repatriated, or paroled into the country. Every month, Customs and Border Protection reports a total number of migrants released into the United States, giving us an understanding of just how big, what the magnitude of this crisis truly is. Last month, for example, more than 130,000 migrants were paroled into the United States. One hundred thirty thousand were given the paperwork to move into the United States. The administration has taken a lot of heat for the fact that it is engaging in catch-and-release at an unprecedented pace. Basically, what that means is that rather than being detained while your asylum status is determined--and, as I said, the vast majority will not ultimately qualify if they appear in front of an immigration judge--catch-and-release just makes this worse. Rather than stop the practice and actually detain and remove migrants without legitimate asylum claims, the Biden administration came up with this new policy to, in effect, cook the books. The 30,000 migrants a month who enter the United States as part of this new program won't even be included in the monthly statistics that have become a huge political albatross for President Biden. If migrants enter the United States on a legal basis, which is exactly what this program provides, they will never be tallied as part of the migration crisis. They have taken 30,000 people and said: OK, we are going to make your entry into the country legal--so, by definition, it is no longer illegal immigration--by a wave of the magic wand. In short, this new policy lets the administration roll out the welcome mat for tens of thousands of migrants while making it seem like the numbers have actually gone down, which they have not. Problem No. 2 is that any progress is all but guaranteed to be temporary. According to the administration, we have seen a 97-percent drop in the number of illegal crossings for migrants from these four countries, and, as I said, these are just 4 of the 176 countries represented by the folks who show up at the one Yuma Border Patrol crossing currently. So it is just four countries. It appears, now, that there are thousands of migrants who would have previously arrived at the border who are now waiting for the Biden administration to approve their online application. But what happens after those 30,000 spots are filled? What happens when it takes months rather than weeks for migrants to receive the green light? I can tell you exactly what will happen. Migrants from these four countries will start coming across the border illegally once again. Will they be expelled under title 42? Will they be paroled into the interior? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure. Once the line gets too long, we will be right back where we started, only with an added challenge: There will be a new population of tens or even hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the United States on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. As Ronald Reagan once noted, there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. Third, the new program normalizes migrants coming to the United States based on facts that would not qualify them under our current laws for asylum. The administration's description of urgent humanitarian reasons that would qualify a Haitian migrant for the program, for example, points to gang violence, the aftermath of an earthquake or a cholera breakout that worsened political, economic, and social conditions. Now, we can all agree that these are terrible conditions, but they don't meet the standard for a valid asylum claim. That leads to perhaps the biggest problem of all: that the administration circumvented--did an end run--around Congress to implement this policy, which has basically teed up an even bigger headache. President Biden is following in the footsteps of President Obama by creating a new category of immigrants without consulting with or getting the agreement of Congress. As we saw with President Obama and the deferred action for childhood arrivals, his use of Executive action 10 years ago has now created more problems for this population of young people who came here as children and who are now adults because the courts have so far said that President Obama didn't have the authority to do what he purported to do. By the way, if you go back and do an internet search and see what President Obama said shortly before he granted this deferred action for childhood arrivals, I think he said, perhaps as many as 17 times--I could be off a little bit--that he did not have the authority. He said he did not have the authority to do what he ultimately did, and, unfortunately, now the courts are agreeing with him, putting the livelihood and future of these young people in jeopardy. It has been more than a decade since DACA was established, and the fate of these young people is still being litigated in court. It is a terrible circumstance to find themselves in, and this won't be any different. The Biden policies will allow migrants to live and work in the United States for 2 years, and then what? Well, will they leave voluntarily? I doubt it. Will they be apprehended and removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement? No, I doubt that. Or will this be another group of migrants who will live in the shadows? There is no question that our immigration system is broken. I have yet to find a person--a responsible person--who thinks our immigration system is working the way it should. It is big, it is outdated, it is inefficient, and it is not serving our Nation's interests well. But if the President wants to undertake immigration reform, as he says he does, this is not the way to go. By end-running Congress to try to establish new categories of immigrants, he is poisoning the well. He is making it harder for us to do what many of us would like to do, and that is to take on the monumental task of securing the border and creating a legal immigration system that serves our Nation's interests and one that we can be proud of. But, by poisoning the well, the President is not gaining new allies. He is just ensuring that more people will resist any potential legislation that we might take up soon. So despite what the initial data may suggest, what the spin doctors here in Washington have been selling to the news media, which has gullibly been accepting that, as if this is somehow a big deal for a negative trend in terms of illegal immigration, it is not so. The President hasn'tsolved the problem. He has just swept it under the rug, and he has, arguably, made it worse. This crisis is complex, but the solution isn't. The administration needs to engage with Congress and enforce our immigration laws that are on the books and those that are being exploited by the international criminal networks that are smuggling people into the United States on a daily basis. We need to work together to address those gaps that are being exploited. If migrants from any country see that the United States is quickly detaining and removing people who do not have a legal basis to remain in our country, the flow of illegal immigration will drop dramatically. That is the only viable path forward and where the administration should focus its time and effort. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CORNYN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS155 | null | 5,676 |
formal | cut taxes | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,677 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,678 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,679 |
formal | entitlement program | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,680 |
formal | entitlement programs | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,681 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,682 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,683 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,684 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,685 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,686 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,687 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,688 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicanswould use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One-fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157-2 | null | 5,689 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the Biden administration and their historic step to permanently protect Bristol Bay, AK. More than a decade after the Pebble Mine was proposed, the Environmental Protection Agency, today, is finalizing a Clean Water Act protection that will permanently protect Bristol Bay. No company will ever be able to stick a mine on top of some of the best salmon habitat in the world. Salmon fishermen from Alaska and from my home State of Washington will continue to earn their livelihoods from Bristol Bay salmon, as they have for generations. No Bristol Bay salmon will ever have to swim through toxic soup just to get to its spawning grounds. This scientific decision today by the Environmental Protection Agency puts a final nail in this mine's proposal. It is difficult to understand and to really know the importance of Bristol Bay. In an average year, 40 to 60 million sockeye salmon swim into or out of the bay. Last year was a blockbuster run. Nearly 80 million sockeye salmon returned to Bristol Bay. That is why Bristol Bay is known as the holy grail of salmon. Today, Bristol Bay salmon fisheries are a $2.2 billion annual industry. They support over 15,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest and nationwide, and that is through commercial fishing, recreational fishing, tourism, seafood, restaurants, shipbuilding, and other associated industries. I know the Presiding Officer knows this well because northern California also benefits from these salmon sectors and the salmon industry. Salmon are one of the most important products that we in the Pacific Northwest have. It is the symbol of our region. So Bristol Bay salmon, being a powerhouse and supporting nearly half of the sockeye salmon harvested around the globe, is certainly worth fighting for. So, as you can imagine, when a mining corporation decided to try to build a mine in the headwaters of this most powerful salmon run on the planet, fishermen in my State and in many other States were outraged. Estuaries and mines really don't mix, and they certainly don't belong together at the headwaters of one of the most important salmon runs and spawning grounds in the Nation. For fishermen, the destruction wrought by Pebble Mine would have swept away their businesses and their way of life, and they certainly raised their voices and came to ask me and others in Washington for help. In 2011, I was proud to stand with fishermen and Tribes from my State and from Alaska to speak out against Pebble Mine and to call for permanent protections under the Clean Water Act if the science showed that the mine would have irreversible impacts on salmon. Well, sure enough, the science is damning, and that is what is being released as part of this decision today. In 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency found that more than 185 miles of streams and over 3,800 acres of wetlands would be permanently damaged or destroyed by Pebble Mine due to its toxic waste and habitat destruction, and that is just if the mine operated the way it was supposed to. That wasn't considering the kind of degradation that could happen if an accident happened. Those statistics don't account for a potential mine disaster that could really wipe out this irreplaceable ecosystem. So despite the clear science, the mining company has continued to claim that protecting Bristol Bay is a partisan government overreach. Their executives believe that stripping all the gold and copper out of Bristol Bay is a worthy goal, more important than our wild salmon or more important than the generations of Washington and Alaska fishermen who earn their livelihood from that. Protecting our fishing economy should not be a partisan issue, and that is why Congress created a fail-safe Clean Water Act provision called section 404(c). This provision says that if disposal or dredging in a waterway would destroy fisheries, municipal water, or have other serious impacts, the Environmental Agency could step in to stop the project. It is a simple concept, really: Let's not destroy a profitable, sustainable industry that keeps the water clean for the sake of just temporary extracting. Still, this authority in 404(c) isn't used lightly. Since 1972, millions of Clean Water Act permits have been approved, compared to only 14 times that this provision has been used to stop major projects like the one today that is being stopped at Pebble Mine. Republican Presidents have used this Clean Water 404(c) authority 11 times. Let me say that again. It has only been implemented 14 times in our history, and 11 times it was used by a Republican President. Ronald Reagan alone used the Clean Water Act 404 authority 8 times. So there was a time when people believed in this conservation. They believed in making sure that we preserve what is so unique about our planet. To sum it up, a multinational corporation thought that it could go to one of the most iconic salmon runs on the planet and decimate those jobs that we rely on in Bristol Bay and tear a hole in the culture of our Northwest fabric. And fishermen and we here said: No. I am proud of the scientific work done by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden, the University of Washington, and so many of the environmental partners that fought so hard to stop this project. I am proud to have stood with the fishermen and Tribes of Bristol Bay in saying we need to protect this unique place forever. I want to thank some of our greatest champions: The United Tribes of Bristol Bay, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and the fishing families in Alaska and Washington. I want to thank my staff, Nikki Teutschel, Amit Ronen, and Jeff Watters, who, through a decade, all continued this fight to make sure that every administration was listening to this cause. It seemed like a ``David and Goliath'' many times, this battle, but we know today that the voices of fishermen at Bristol Bay provided the leadership that we needed to preserve this area forever and said no to this project. Fishermen know that the Pacific Northwest salmon is worth more than copper, and today, salmon is even worth more than gold. It is our Pacific way of life, and thanks to this administration, it will be protected. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS157 | null | 5,690 |
formal | alarmism | null | climate change denier | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,691 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,692 |
formal | global elite | null | antisemitic | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,693 |
formal | global elites | null | antisemitic | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,694 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,695 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,696 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, last week, I spent time on the floor urging my colleagues to prioritize freedom in the 118th Congress. By learning from the mistakes of overregulation in the past, we can focus on creating a brighter future and a more prosperous future for all Americans. We should be doing everything we can to fix the problems created by the government and get Americans back on their feet by unleashing our economic potential and opening doors of opportunity. Unfortunately, too many here in Washington are still focused on growing the size of government and adding regulations they say will save the environment. However, very rarely does making the government larger benefit the American taxpayers and the American citizens of this country. For decades, fans of Big Government have used climate change warnings to grow their power--for decades, for as long as I can remember. They have claimed we are near the edge of a climate cliff--a prediction they know is impossible to prove and has never come true. Of course, they claim the only solution to this cooked-up crisis is for you, the American taxpayer, to sacrifice even more of your freedoms to tackle this so-called climate dilemma. This sacrifice won't come from the elites, who flew their private jets to Switzerland just a few weeks ago--the ones who are crowing about this. They flew, just a couple of weeks ago, to lecture, while they were there, the working families of this country. No. These sacrifices are expected to be made by average, hard-working American taxpayers. That is what they want. They want you to give up your affordable gas for imported fuel that istriple the cost. They want you to give up your ground beef for overpriced and underwhelming meat substitutes. They want you to give up affordable, abundant clean energy we could produce right here in America for the enormous cost of green energy policies. They even want you to be banned from cooking on gas stoves because how you cook in your own kitchen is now the government's business. They want our farmers to cut back and worry about emissions while they are focused on feeding the country and the rest of the world, which is a huge priority. Most importantly, they expect you, the American taxpayer, to foot the bill for their radical climate agenda--obviously. Well, I think I speak for most Americans when I say: No way. We should say ``no way'' to overpriced electric cars that are made with cobalt, processed and sold by China, and plugged into a charger that is powered by fossil fuels anyway. How do we come up with electricity? By fossil fuels. We should say ``no'' to fake meats--products that taste as bad as their price and that will eventually kill our livestock producers' way of life. What are we trying to do--put our farmers out of business? Exactly. That is what the climate agenda is about, even though, as we all know, our food security is national security, and we should be promoting domestic food production by protecting our Nation's farmers in every possible way we can--in every way. We should say ``no'' to unreliable energy sources and the skyrocketing utility bills we are seeing today because America cannot operate and achieve economic success without fossil fuels. It is impossible. I don't know what we are trying to prove. We will come back, but, hopefully, it is not at the sacrifice of the American taxpayers. We should say ``no'' to trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on an agenda that is based only on the rantings of failed candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry, global elites at a ski resort, and a European teenager who needs to go back to school and learn to read and write and learn math and stay out of politics at her age. That agenda is based solely on fearmongering and unproven theories--unproven--but that is how the left likes it. That is how they use fear--to push policy. Their agenda ignores reliable clean energy sources, like nuclear and natural gas that should be viable, but that does not fit their narrative. That is the reason they don't talk about it. They know nuclear energy--nuclear energy--is the answer, but the climate change group who continues to bark about this, they don't want answers. They don't want to talk about nuclear because the problem itself is too valuable for their pocketbooks and politicians' ambitions. Instead, their narrative has created a growing--growing--group of Americans and people around the world who now genuinely believe they should live in fear every day. We are teaching it in our schools, we are teaching it in clubs, and it is wrong. These are the folks who throw soup at famous paintings while gluing themselves to the wall and shut down city streets and major highways, calling themselves climate activists. For standing here on the Senate floor calling this out, some may call me a climate change denier, so I want to be clear. As a conservative, I believe in protecting our environment, conserving our natural resources, and doing what we can to make sure Americans live in a clean, safe environment, in clean communities that will last for generations to come. But I do not believe that we need to give up our livelihoods, our way of life, our access to affordable food and energy because of false claims that we are just a few years away from extinction. These claims are simply not true, and repeating them is dangerous. Instead, I believe we should be investing--investing heavily--in American energy production because we already produce some of the cleanest energy on the face of the Earth. Giving up our cars, our farms, and our affordable gas prices will do nothing--will do nothing--to stop the changing climate. It has done it for millions of years, and nothing we can do is going to stop that. In fact, in recent years, the United States has only been responsible for about 11 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions--11 percent. In comparison, China, a country with zero plans to cut back, is responsible for 27 percent of global emissions. China's total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were more than our country and every developed country in the world combined. Our adversaries, like the Chinese, have no plans--they have no plans--to cut back their usage because their economies are growing thanks to affordable energy. In 2020 alone, China invested almost $475 million in coal projects. That was in addition to the 1,100 coal powerplants they already have in use--almost four times the number we have in the United States. Guess what. They are building 350 as we speak. They are not slowing down. Their emissions level will continue to increase rapidly. Meanwhile, our country's emissions have fallen by about 17 percent since 2005, thanks--now, think about this--thanks in part to our turn to abundant, cleaner sources, such as natural gas, of which we have a 200-year supply already under the ground in this country as we speak. We couldn't use it in 200 years. But we refuse to dig for it, and we refuse to use it. Not only can we produce the world's cleanest natural gas, we also have the ability to produce the cleanest nuclear power in all of the world--the cleanest. We have refused to use it. We want to import the dirtiest oil, refine it here in our country, and pollute our country because we are too stubborn to use our own. That will eventually change. It always goes back around. We will use our energy and in just a short period of time. But the climate extremists running the current administration's energy policies would rather beg foreign countries and make deals with dictators whose countries produce all that dirtier oil. It makes no sense. Blaming the United States for a global problem we didn't create is unfair to whom? The American taxpayers. Importantly, the energy that we can and should produce at home is terrible for our own economy--that is what they are saying. It makes no sense. We have to be able to do two things at once: Help our economy thrive and promote innovation that leads to cleaner energy production. We can do two things at one time, but a cult-like obsession with climate alarmism is making us weaker and poorer in the name of a problem created by politicians. I am calling for commonsense solutions. Let American companies produce more energy. Recognize the benefits of clean energy, like natural gas and nuclear--that is the answer. Stop scaring people into depression by warning of the great climate extinction. Fear is a terrible thing to use. It is not true. We should focus on solutions that will actually help our people. Last year, I introduced the Restoring American Energy Independence Act. This bill would have reversed President Biden's shutdown of American energy and returned American energy to full production. Of course, it went nowhere with a Democrat-controlled Senate. It didn't get to first base. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy solutions put forth in this Congress. Sooner or later, we are going to use common sense, we are going to start looking after our country and the American taxpayer, and we are going to get off this high horse of thinking we have all the answers, when we do have them here, and it is our American energy. I hope to see this legislation and other sensible energy legislation and solutions put forth in this Congress. We have to do something. We can't keep punishing the American citizen and the American taxpayer, because if we keep our energy policies woke, we are going to go broke. This country is going to go flat broke. We are going to lose our farmers, we are going to lose small businesses, our prices are going to continue to rise, and it seems like nobody cares. We better start taking care of the American people. If we unleash domestic production, we can produce clean energy, we can make it more affordable, and we can make life a lot simpler and better for the American people and also our allies. Let's wake up and smell the roses. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. TUBERVILLE | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS159-3 | null | 5,697 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about our economy. The President has been doing a lot of bragging these days about the economy. Last week, it was Virginia. Later this week, it is Philadelphia. He is in New York City today. He is going to be here on Capitol Hill, down the hall, in the House, next Tuesday night, for the State of the Union. You know, the American people that I talk to--and looking at statistics and poll numbers from around the country--the American people just don't believe the President has anything to brag about, not when you look at the economy that is facing our Nation today. Two-thirds of people in polls out this weekend say that they disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling the economy--disapprove, doing a bad job, the country heading in the wrong direction. And it is really a problem when 70 percent of the people think the country in which they live, the county they love, is heading in the wrong direction. Why would they say it? Well, they took a look at their own personal situation, because the average American family has lost more than $10,000 to higher prices since Joe Biden took office just 2 years ago, and, now, what we are seeing across the country is more and more signs of the economy slowing down. Last week, we found out that the economy had slowed down at the end of last year. Last year, the economy grew at only a rate of 2.1 percent for the entire year. The White House predicted that it would be 3.8 percent, so much below what the President and the White House had predicted. Actually, they missed it by almost half. And this is just the latest in a long list of disappointments that have affected the people all across the country over the last 2 years. We found out Friday that consumer spending has dropped again. This week, working families are now getting another punch to the gut. Economists are predicting that the Federal Reserve is likely going to raise interest rates again in just 2 days. More rate hikes are going to make it even more expensive to borrow money. It is going to slow the economy down even further. Over the last year, we have seen the largest rate hikes in 40 years. The average rate of new mortgages doubled since Joe Biden became President. Credit card interest are at an all-time high. Higher rates, harder to buy a home, harder to buy a house, harder to pay off credit card debt--it is no surprise that mortgage applications recently hit their lowest level in 25 years. They say they can't afford it at these rates. This is very bitter medicine for the American people to take because they have been living through the worst inflation in 40 years. So why do we have the worst inflation in 40 years? Well, it is obvious. It is the massive spending done by the Democrats on a strictly party-line basis and the fact that the Democrats shut down American energy. You talk about a one-two punch--trying to kill the American energy industry and massive amounts of spending on top of it, inflation at a 40-year high, people suffering all around the country. Now, economists are predicting another recession coming this year. What does that mean? Well, it means more pain for people, more punishment for families who are just trying to get by or trying to put food on the table, and food prices have skyrocketed again. The American dream is moving further and further out of reach for many, many American families. According to the Gallup poll group, faith in the American dream recently hit an all-time low. How could that happen? Record numbers of people, surprisingly, believe that their children will have a lower standard of living than they have had. That is not the way my parents looked at me when I was growing up or your parents did, Mr. President, when you were growing up. The American dream was about a better next generation. Parents today don't see that for their kids because they see what they see going around their communities and this country. Many young people are giving up on their hope to buy a home someday. Families trying to get ahead are having a harder time, and many are falling behind. It didn't have to be this way. Oh, no, this is the result of the decisions that Joe Biden made and the inflation that Joe Biden and the Democrats have brought about this country. Remember, when Joe Biden took office just 2 years ago, inflation in this country was virtually nonexistent. A typical 30-year mortgage went for less than 4 percent. The lockdowns from the pandemic were coming to an end. The economy was ready to take off. And then in March of 2021, with every Democrat voting for it and every Republican voting against it, Democrats printed $2 trillion and added it to the national debt. Republicans warned the Democrats: Don't do it. Don't do this. Don't put the money. Don't spend the money. Don't add it to the debt. We said it would cause inflation, and it wasn't just Republicans who were saying it. Democrats' own economic experts warned them: Don't spend the money. It is going to jazz up the economy to the point of more money in. Prices are going to go chasing it, and prices will go up. Democrat advisers, like former President Obama's advisers--Larry Summers, Jason Furman, and Steve Rattner, to just to name a few--Democrats in Washington, in this body, on this side of the floor, ignored the whole thing, refused to listen. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House said we don't want to hear it. They put their fingers in their ears. A month after President Biden signed the bill, inflation climbed. We have been suffering the consequences ever since. President Biden said: No, no, it is transitory. No, it is not inflation. He had a hundred excuses. It was here, and it was here to stay, and the Democrats caused it. To add problems on top of this, Democrats also raised taxes on nearly every tax bracket. Of course, this was a direct violation of the promises Joe Biden made to the American people. Democrats raised prices anyway. Joe Biden went and gave an inaugural address where he talked like he was going to work together. It is not what happened. He went to the White House and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline and went far, far to the left, raising taxes on American energy, raising taxes on natural gas. Natural gas powers about half the homes in the United States. Taxes on coal went up a billion dollars. That means everybody is paying higher prices. It is strangling our economy. It is strangling our energy production. It is wrong for the Nation. You look at Joe Biden. He is smiling away like things are going well, completely out of touch with the families all across the country. We are still producing a lot less oil today than we were before the pandemic, and gas prices have gone up about 40 cents already this year. They are predicted to go to over $4 a gallon by March because of the attack on American energy by this administration and this President. Democrats have taken a sledgehammer to our economy on each and every side: higher taxes, higher spending, higher gas, less American energy. It is a Democrat policy in a nutshell. That is the Democrat economic policy: higher taxes, higher spending, higher debt, less American energy. It is a policy for failure, a policy for pain for American families. I guess that is why, right now, today, in the United States Joe Biden is the least popular Democrat President in the last 60 years--the least popular. So instead of bragging, instead of going to New York and pounding his chest, as he did in Virginia and he is going to do in Pennsylvania--instead of bragging, he ought to be apologizing to the American people. He does owe the American people an apology for the damage andthe destruction that he has inflicted because of his radical leftwing policies. His policies caused higher prices, caused higher interest rates, caused slower growth, caused much pain and much stress. So the American people are taking a look right now at the Biden economy, and they are not liking what they see. People want their money back. They want their future back. They want a future for their family. So if Joe Biden won't apologize, which is what he should do when he comes to Congress next week for the State of the Union, then he should at least announce that he is going to change course, try to make things better, announce that he is going to stop this reckless spending that has brought us these problems, announce that he is finally going to unleash American energy so energy is affordable, available, and reliable. That is what the American public is asking for and demanding. Working families in this country cannot afford any less. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS161-2 | null | 5,698 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about our economy. The President has been doing a lot of bragging these days about the economy. Last week, it was Virginia. Later this week, it is Philadelphia. He is in New York City today. He is going to be here on Capitol Hill, down the hall, in the House, next Tuesday night, for the State of the Union. You know, the American people that I talk to--and looking at statistics and poll numbers from around the country--the American people just don't believe the President has anything to brag about, not when you look at the economy that is facing our Nation today. Two-thirds of people in polls out this weekend say that they disapprove of the way Joe Biden is handling the economy--disapprove, doing a bad job, the country heading in the wrong direction. And it is really a problem when 70 percent of the people think the country in which they live, the county they love, is heading in the wrong direction. Why would they say it? Well, they took a look at their own personal situation, because the average American family has lost more than $10,000 to higher prices since Joe Biden took office just 2 years ago, and, now, what we are seeing across the country is more and more signs of the economy slowing down. Last week, we found out that the economy had slowed down at the end of last year. Last year, the economy grew at only a rate of 2.1 percent for the entire year. The White House predicted that it would be 3.8 percent, so much below what the President and the White House had predicted. Actually, they missed it by almost half. And this is just the latest in a long list of disappointments that have affected the people all across the country over the last 2 years. We found out Friday that consumer spending has dropped again. This week, working families are now getting another punch to the gut. Economists are predicting that the Federal Reserve is likely going to raise interest rates again in just 2 days. More rate hikes are going to make it even more expensive to borrow money. It is going to slow the economy down even further. Over the last year, we have seen the largest rate hikes in 40 years. The average rate of new mortgages doubled since Joe Biden became President. Credit card interest are at an all-time high. Higher rates, harder to buy a home, harder to buy a house, harder to pay off credit card debt--it is no surprise that mortgage applications recently hit their lowest level in 25 years. They say they can't afford it at these rates. This is very bitter medicine for the American people to take because they have been living through the worst inflation in 40 years. So why do we have the worst inflation in 40 years? Well, it is obvious. It is the massive spending done by the Democrats on a strictly party-line basis and the fact that the Democrats shut down American energy. You talk about a one-two punch--trying to kill the American energy industry and massive amounts of spending on top of it, inflation at a 40-year high, people suffering all around the country. Now, economists are predicting another recession coming this year. What does that mean? Well, it means more pain for people, more punishment for families who are just trying to get by or trying to put food on the table, and food prices have skyrocketed again. The American dream is moving further and further out of reach for many, many American families. According to the Gallup poll group, faith in the American dream recently hit an all-time low. How could that happen? Record numbers of people, surprisingly, believe that their children will have a lower standard of living than they have had. That is not the way my parents looked at me when I was growing up or your parents did, Mr. President, when you were growing up. The American dream was about a better next generation. Parents today don't see that for their kids because they see what they see going around their communities and this country. Many young people are giving up on their hope to buy a home someday. Families trying to get ahead are having a harder time, and many are falling behind. It didn't have to be this way. Oh, no, this is the result of the decisions that Joe Biden made and the inflation that Joe Biden and the Democrats have brought about this country. Remember, when Joe Biden took office just 2 years ago, inflation in this country was virtually nonexistent. A typical 30-year mortgage went for less than 4 percent. The lockdowns from the pandemic were coming to an end. The economy was ready to take off. And then in March of 2021, with every Democrat voting for it and every Republican voting against it, Democrats printed $2 trillion and added it to the national debt. Republicans warned the Democrats: Don't do it. Don't do this. Don't put the money. Don't spend the money. Don't add it to the debt. We said it would cause inflation, and it wasn't just Republicans who were saying it. Democrats' own economic experts warned them: Don't spend the money. It is going to jazz up the economy to the point of more money in. Prices are going to go chasing it, and prices will go up. Democrat advisers, like former President Obama's advisers--Larry Summers, Jason Furman, and Steve Rattner, to just to name a few--Democrats in Washington, in this body, on this side of the floor, ignored the whole thing, refused to listen. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House said we don't want to hear it. They put their fingers in their ears. A month after President Biden signed the bill, inflation climbed. We have been suffering the consequences ever since. President Biden said: No, no, it is transitory. No, it is not inflation. He had a hundred excuses. It was here, and it was here to stay, and the Democrats caused it. To add problems on top of this, Democrats also raised taxes on nearly every tax bracket. Of course, this was a direct violation of the promises Joe Biden made to the American people. Democrats raised prices anyway. Joe Biden went and gave an inaugural address where he talked like he was going to work together. It is not what happened. He went to the White House and killed the Keystone XL Pipeline and went far, far to the left, raising taxes on American energy, raising taxes on natural gas. Natural gas powers about half the homes in the United States. Taxes on coal went up a billion dollars. That means everybody is paying higher prices. It is strangling our economy. It is strangling our energy production. It is wrong for the Nation. You look at Joe Biden. He is smiling away like things are going well, completely out of touch with the families all across the country. We are still producing a lot less oil today than we were before the pandemic, and gas prices have gone up about 40 cents already this year. They are predicted to go to over $4 a gallon by March because of the attack on American energy by this administration and this President. Democrats have taken a sledgehammer to our economy on each and every side: higher taxes, higher spending, higher gas, less American energy. It is a Democrat policy in a nutshell. That is the Democrat economic policy: higher taxes, higher spending, higher debt, less American energy. It is a policy for failure, a policy for pain for American families. I guess that is why, right now, today, in the United States Joe Biden is the least popular Democrat President in the last 60 years--the least popular. So instead of bragging, instead of going to New York and pounding his chest, as he did in Virginia and he is going to do in Pennsylvania--instead of bragging, he ought to be apologizing to the American people. He does owe the American people an apology for the damage andthe destruction that he has inflicted because of his radical leftwing policies. His policies caused higher prices, caused higher interest rates, caused slower growth, caused much pain and much stress. So the American people are taking a look right now at the Biden economy, and they are not liking what they see. People want their money back. They want their future back. They want a future for their family. So if Joe Biden won't apologize, which is what he should do when he comes to Congress next week for the State of the Union, then he should at least announce that he is going to change course, try to make things better, announce that he is going to stop this reckless spending that has brought us these problems, announce that he is finally going to unleash American energy so energy is affordable, available, and reliable. That is what the American public is asking for and demanding. Working families in this country cannot afford any less. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2023-01-31-pt1-PgS161-2 | null | 5,699 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.