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 | Baltimore | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lives lost during the tragic earthquake that shook southern Turkey and northwestern Syria and to reaffirm the American commitment to provide assistance to recover from this disaster. In the early morning hours of February 6, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake, one of the strongest quakes in the region's history, struck near the city of Gaziantep, causing the deaths of thousands of innocent individuals and wreaking disaster and destruction on many communities that were already struggling from the effects of war. I am devastated by the growing loss of life and injuries in Turkey and Syria. As of today, the earthquake has left more than 20,000 dead in Turkey and Syria and over 50,000 injured. Rescue missions continue to search for scores more that remain missing. In this great time of sadness for their countries, the United States will stand in humanitarian solidarity to provide relief, recovery, and efforts to build back even stronger. Within hours, the U.S. Agency for International Development activated a Disaster Assistance Response Team--DART--to lead the U.S. Government's humanitarian response to the disaster. The DART is working closely with Turkish authorities on the frontlines and will continue provide search and rescue support and identify priority humanitarian needs in the days to come. Globally, the outpouring of support in resources and rescue workers has been encouraging. The White Helmets, a volunteer organization that has assisted in the rescue of the many civilians suffering from attacks by the Syrian regime, has sprung into action. The internationally renowned group is currently working around the clock and has sent out over 300 search and rescue teams--several times their normal operating capacity. Over 20 NATO allies and partners have provided more than 1,400 emergency response personnel, including firefighters, engineers, search-and-rescue and medical teams. I am heartened by the generosity of individuals, countries, and organizations, which include the Catholic Relief Services--CRS--a humanitarian agency based in Baltimore, MD. CRS is supporting emergency relief efforts by local partners in Turkey and Syria, including partner organizations Caritas Turkey, Caritas Syria, and Caritas Anatolia. Today, we honor those lost and injured in this week's disaster. We will continue to provide rescue support, and send our thoughts and prayers to the people of Turkey and Syria. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2023-02-09-pt1-PgS307 | null | 5,800 |
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-2023-02-10-pt1-PgH833 | null | 5,801 |
formal | public school | null | racist | DREAM Act Madam President, they say to me, to be an effective Senator, you have to be patient, but what I am about to describe tests that theory. It has been 22 years since I introduced the DREAM Act. The best chance we ever had to pass it came to mind as I listened to the Republican leader a few minutes ago talking about the horrors of fentanyl and drugs that are crossing our borders and recount the numbers of people who are showing up at our borders as well. It brought back my memory of something called the Gang of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Senator Flake, Senator Rubio, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Menendez, and myself. We worked for almost a year to put together a comprehensive immigration reform that was long overdue. It included border security at a level unseen in America ever. We were prepared to invest billions of dollars to make our border safe. We passed this bill with, I think, 68 votes here on the floor of the Senate. I thought, finally, after 30 years of talking about immigration and batting it back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, we are finally going to do something on a bipartisan basis. We took that measure and sent it over to the Republican-led House of Representatives. They refused to even consider it--refused to consider it. So when I hear concerns and complaints today that our border just isn't safe enough, I agree. But I ask those who are complaining: Where were you when we brought this bipartisan measure to the floor, which had so much enforcement in it and really would have given us a safer situation today and for years to come? We can do that again. I agree completely with Senator McConnell that the drug crisis in America is serious, not just in Kentucky but in my State of Illinois and in yours, too, and all across this Nation. I also understand that there are too many people presenting themselves at the border believing they are going to somehow find their way into this country. I have met with many of them who were brought on buses to the city of Chicago. You should hear their stories. These are not people who are out trying to deceive the system or cheat the laws of America. They are desperate people--desperate for the safety of themselves and their children, desperate for an opportunity to have hope and a future. You sit down with them and think: How could they be much different than my mother, who was an immigrant to this country at the age of 2? She came here with her family looking for a better life. She found it, and because she found it, I did too. That story is the story of America. Immigration is the story of America.The notion that some Republicans have that we will not accept one more immigrant is ridiculous and it is un-American, and it doesn't reflect the reality of the country we live in. Twenty-two years ago, I heard a story about a young lady, a woman, in the city of Chicago. She was from Korea. Her name was Tereza Lee. She came here on a visitor's visa, overstayed the visa, and was technically undocumented, illegal in the eyes of the law. Well, her father wanted to have a church. He wanted to be a Korean pastor of a church in Chicago. He never quite realized his dream, but he visited a lot of churches and dragged along his little daughter with him. While he was talking things over with pastors of these churches about what he might do, she would wander around the church and eventually get to the piano and sit down and start banging away at the keys. She wasn't very good to start with, but there was some promise there. She became part of the Merit School of Music program in Chicago. This is a program which is remarkable. A lady left a lot of money and said: Use that money to train kids in public schools to play musical instruments. Tereza Lee was one of those kids. She learned how to play the piano and became one of the best. The day came when she was finally urged to take a chance and apply for music school, and she did. She got to one of the questions on the application, out of high school, and the question was: What is your citizenship status. She said to her mother: What is it? Her mom said: We never filed any papers. I don't know. She said: What are we going to do? They said: We are going to call Durbin. So they called my office and got in touch with Clarisol Duque, who is my chief of staff and who was working on those cases at the time, and we checked the law. For this 18-year-old girl, the law was clear. She was illegal in America, and she had to leave for 10 years and then apply to come back in. It didn't seem right. She didn't make the decision to come to this country; her parents did. She did everything right once she got here and struggled with a family who didn't have a lot of money but managed to scrape by. Here she was, asking for a chance to continue her education from Chicago Public Schools to music school that might make a difference in her life. She was being told officially by the government: No, thanks. That is when I decided to introduce a bill called the DREAM Act, 22 years ago. For more than 20 years now, hundreds of thousands of young people in this country have been waiting for Congress to pass this bill. I have been waiting too. Along the way, there have been some victories and some major setbacks, but through it all, one thing has remained steady and constant: the devotion of Dreamers to this country. Dreamers have woven themselves into the fabric of America. Many of them were brought here as babies. They grew up alongside other kids--our kids. They pledged allegiance to the same American flag that we all do, and they did it in classrooms day after day. Over the past 22 years, Dreamers have given everything they can to America, again and again. They have served our Nation as doctors, teachers, members of the military, and other essential roles that have helped move America forward. That is why last week, I reintroduced the Dream Act, for what I hope is the final time and we can see its passage. I want to thank one person in particular, Senator Lindsey Graham. He has joined me again and again as my Republican cosponsor of this measure. I can never thank him enough. This legislation will finally provide permanent protections to every Dreamer who has grown up in America and earned their path to citizenship. More than 800,000 Dreamers have received protection from Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. The President initiated that in 2012. That is quite a few years ago now. It was never meant to be a permanent solution. It was supposed to be a bridge until Congress finally acted on immigration. We are still waiting. What is more, there are thousands of other Dreamers who can never have the chance to apply for DACA protection. Instead, they have to be forced to remain in the shadows. Let me show you two to demonstrate this story. This is Karen and Judith, twin sisters. Theirs is the 132nd and 133rd Dreamer story I have told on the Senate floor. That is a lot. Karen and Judith were born in Durango, Mexico. They arrived in the United States when they were 2 years old, the same age as my mom when she came here as an immigrant. Their family settled down in Dallas. Growing up, their parents were loving and supportive. Karen and Judith faced some obstacles because they were undocumented. For instance, they didn't have health insurance, which meant doctor and dental appointments were reserved only for emergencies. By the time Karen and Judith reached high school, it became clear they would not be given the same opportunities as the kids they went to school with. They could only watch from afar as their friends got their drivers' licenses, traveled outside the country, and landed their first jobs. Karen and Judith were not in that category. They were undocumented. But despite their frustrations, they pushed onward. Let me tell you what happened. In addition to graduating salutatorian and valedictorian, Karen and Judith became Junior ROTC Academic Bowl national qualifiers, AP Scholars with Distinction, National Hispanic Scholars, National Honor Society inductees, and so much more. Really, their academic accomplishments I can't even start to list, but because of their immigration status, Karen and Judith could not apply for financial aid or scholarships at the colleges at the top of their lists. So upon graduating high school, they stayed close to home, where the two of them are currently attending Texas A&M. After they earn their degrees, both of them hope to pursue their careers in medicine. Do we need more medical professionals? The question answers itself. But for now, in their spare time, both sisters give back to their community when they can. Karen tutors schoolkids and provides in-home care for seniors, while Judith volunteers at a local hospital, as well as an interfaith immigration network. Really, that should be the end of their story for now, but it is not. You see, a couple of years ago, Karen and Judith's paths diverged--twins though they may be--not by choice but because of our broken immigration system. What do I mean? In 2020, Karen and Judith submitted their applications for DACA, but they did so 1 day apart. A year or so later, Karen's application was approved. But before Judith even received a reply to her application filed 1 day later, a Federal judge in Texas, Judge Hanen, decided to hit the brakes for the DACA Program. He ruled that the USCIS could not approve any DACA applications after his decision. Judith has been living in limbo ever since that decision was handed down. She cannot legally work, and she has no idea what her future holds. Ask yourself a simple question: Would America be better if these two sisters were deported back to Durango, Mexico? Would it be any better if Karen and Judith are sent to a country they don't even remember? What about the more than 200,000 DACA recipients who worked on the frontlines of this pandemic--doctors, nurses, paramedics--would America be better without them? Of course not. We need Dreamers like Karen and Judith, and this Congress needs to do something to protect them. Think about this for a moment. Karen and Judith weren't even alive when I first introduced the Dream Act in 2001. While they have grown up and gone on to change their lives, Congress stood still and did not fix a broken immigration system. Even DACA, a temporary solution for Dreamers like Karen and Judith, endured one bad-faith attack after another. Republican Governors like Texas's Greg Abbott have led a relentless campaign to eliminate DACA and deport these two young women and disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in America. Last October, the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling on DACA. The court kept protections in place for now for current recipients but sent the case back to the judge in Texas who has repeatedly ruled against the program--the same Judge Hanen. Just recently, nine Republican-led States asked that same judge to end DACA in their States all together. That would be a disaster for this country, not just in terms of the human costs but the economic costs and what it says about our values. DACA recipients and their households pay more than $5 billion in Federal taxes each year. That is money for repairing roads and bridges, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. By enacting the Dream Act, we will increase America's GDP by nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. The bottom line is we can point fingers at other people, but this ball is in our court, and there are other immigration issues we should address. As Senator McConnell raised earlier, border security is one of them. We need to bring order to our Nation's border. We should never knowingly allow anyone dangerous to come or stay in this country, and we cannot absorb all the people in the world who want to become citizens or residents tomorrow. We have to have a thoughtful system that makes sense for America's future and our economy. It is worth noting that President Biden has made some progress. Even with the limitations of a woefully outdated immigration legal system, the Biden administration has developed a more efficient process that is starting to make a difference. That new process has helped reduce the number of migrant crossings from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela by roughly 97 percent. It is progress. But as I mentioned, Executive action can't get the job done on its own. Poll after poll shows that Americans of all stripes--liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Independent--want Congress to do something instead of making speeches on the floor. In fact, one recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--support both protections for Dreamers and improving border security. I want to put that in writing. We are going to put together a bill that addresses border security and the future of the Dream Act, and we need to do it soon. If we learned anything from last year's election, it is that America wants us to come together on a bipartisan basis to make our Nation stronger, safer, more prosperous, and really reflect the values of the American people. I can think of no better place to start than the Dream Act. Let's work together to protect our brave young Dreamers from deportation and bring order to America's southern border. There is no other option. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS335-2 | null | 5,802 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | DREAM Act Madam President, they say to me, to be an effective Senator, you have to be patient, but what I am about to describe tests that theory. It has been 22 years since I introduced the DREAM Act. The best chance we ever had to pass it came to mind as I listened to the Republican leader a few minutes ago talking about the horrors of fentanyl and drugs that are crossing our borders and recount the numbers of people who are showing up at our borders as well. It brought back my memory of something called the Gang of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Senator Flake, Senator Rubio, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Menendez, and myself. We worked for almost a year to put together a comprehensive immigration reform that was long overdue. It included border security at a level unseen in America ever. We were prepared to invest billions of dollars to make our border safe. We passed this bill with, I think, 68 votes here on the floor of the Senate. I thought, finally, after 30 years of talking about immigration and batting it back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, we are finally going to do something on a bipartisan basis. We took that measure and sent it over to the Republican-led House of Representatives. They refused to even consider it--refused to consider it. So when I hear concerns and complaints today that our border just isn't safe enough, I agree. But I ask those who are complaining: Where were you when we brought this bipartisan measure to the floor, which had so much enforcement in it and really would have given us a safer situation today and for years to come? We can do that again. I agree completely with Senator McConnell that the drug crisis in America is serious, not just in Kentucky but in my State of Illinois and in yours, too, and all across this Nation. I also understand that there are too many people presenting themselves at the border believing they are going to somehow find their way into this country. I have met with many of them who were brought on buses to the city of Chicago. You should hear their stories. These are not people who are out trying to deceive the system or cheat the laws of America. They are desperate people--desperate for the safety of themselves and their children, desperate for an opportunity to have hope and a future. You sit down with them and think: How could they be much different than my mother, who was an immigrant to this country at the age of 2? She came here with her family looking for a better life. She found it, and because she found it, I did too. That story is the story of America. Immigration is the story of America.The notion that some Republicans have that we will not accept one more immigrant is ridiculous and it is un-American, and it doesn't reflect the reality of the country we live in. Twenty-two years ago, I heard a story about a young lady, a woman, in the city of Chicago. She was from Korea. Her name was Tereza Lee. She came here on a visitor's visa, overstayed the visa, and was technically undocumented, illegal in the eyes of the law. Well, her father wanted to have a church. He wanted to be a Korean pastor of a church in Chicago. He never quite realized his dream, but he visited a lot of churches and dragged along his little daughter with him. While he was talking things over with pastors of these churches about what he might do, she would wander around the church and eventually get to the piano and sit down and start banging away at the keys. She wasn't very good to start with, but there was some promise there. She became part of the Merit School of Music program in Chicago. This is a program which is remarkable. A lady left a lot of money and said: Use that money to train kids in public schools to play musical instruments. Tereza Lee was one of those kids. She learned how to play the piano and became one of the best. The day came when she was finally urged to take a chance and apply for music school, and she did. She got to one of the questions on the application, out of high school, and the question was: What is your citizenship status. She said to her mother: What is it? Her mom said: We never filed any papers. I don't know. She said: What are we going to do? They said: We are going to call Durbin. So they called my office and got in touch with Clarisol Duque, who is my chief of staff and who was working on those cases at the time, and we checked the law. For this 18-year-old girl, the law was clear. She was illegal in America, and she had to leave for 10 years and then apply to come back in. It didn't seem right. She didn't make the decision to come to this country; her parents did. She did everything right once she got here and struggled with a family who didn't have a lot of money but managed to scrape by. Here she was, asking for a chance to continue her education from Chicago Public Schools to music school that might make a difference in her life. She was being told officially by the government: No, thanks. That is when I decided to introduce a bill called the DREAM Act, 22 years ago. For more than 20 years now, hundreds of thousands of young people in this country have been waiting for Congress to pass this bill. I have been waiting too. Along the way, there have been some victories and some major setbacks, but through it all, one thing has remained steady and constant: the devotion of Dreamers to this country. Dreamers have woven themselves into the fabric of America. Many of them were brought here as babies. They grew up alongside other kids--our kids. They pledged allegiance to the same American flag that we all do, and they did it in classrooms day after day. Over the past 22 years, Dreamers have given everything they can to America, again and again. They have served our Nation as doctors, teachers, members of the military, and other essential roles that have helped move America forward. That is why last week, I reintroduced the Dream Act, for what I hope is the final time and we can see its passage. I want to thank one person in particular, Senator Lindsey Graham. He has joined me again and again as my Republican cosponsor of this measure. I can never thank him enough. This legislation will finally provide permanent protections to every Dreamer who has grown up in America and earned their path to citizenship. More than 800,000 Dreamers have received protection from Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. The President initiated that in 2012. That is quite a few years ago now. It was never meant to be a permanent solution. It was supposed to be a bridge until Congress finally acted on immigration. We are still waiting. What is more, there are thousands of other Dreamers who can never have the chance to apply for DACA protection. Instead, they have to be forced to remain in the shadows. Let me show you two to demonstrate this story. This is Karen and Judith, twin sisters. Theirs is the 132nd and 133rd Dreamer story I have told on the Senate floor. That is a lot. Karen and Judith were born in Durango, Mexico. They arrived in the United States when they were 2 years old, the same age as my mom when she came here as an immigrant. Their family settled down in Dallas. Growing up, their parents were loving and supportive. Karen and Judith faced some obstacles because they were undocumented. For instance, they didn't have health insurance, which meant doctor and dental appointments were reserved only for emergencies. By the time Karen and Judith reached high school, it became clear they would not be given the same opportunities as the kids they went to school with. They could only watch from afar as their friends got their drivers' licenses, traveled outside the country, and landed their first jobs. Karen and Judith were not in that category. They were undocumented. But despite their frustrations, they pushed onward. Let me tell you what happened. In addition to graduating salutatorian and valedictorian, Karen and Judith became Junior ROTC Academic Bowl national qualifiers, AP Scholars with Distinction, National Hispanic Scholars, National Honor Society inductees, and so much more. Really, their academic accomplishments I can't even start to list, but because of their immigration status, Karen and Judith could not apply for financial aid or scholarships at the colleges at the top of their lists. So upon graduating high school, they stayed close to home, where the two of them are currently attending Texas A&M. After they earn their degrees, both of them hope to pursue their careers in medicine. Do we need more medical professionals? The question answers itself. But for now, in their spare time, both sisters give back to their community when they can. Karen tutors schoolkids and provides in-home care for seniors, while Judith volunteers at a local hospital, as well as an interfaith immigration network. Really, that should be the end of their story for now, but it is not. You see, a couple of years ago, Karen and Judith's paths diverged--twins though they may be--not by choice but because of our broken immigration system. What do I mean? In 2020, Karen and Judith submitted their applications for DACA, but they did so 1 day apart. A year or so later, Karen's application was approved. But before Judith even received a reply to her application filed 1 day later, a Federal judge in Texas, Judge Hanen, decided to hit the brakes for the DACA Program. He ruled that the USCIS could not approve any DACA applications after his decision. Judith has been living in limbo ever since that decision was handed down. She cannot legally work, and she has no idea what her future holds. Ask yourself a simple question: Would America be better if these two sisters were deported back to Durango, Mexico? Would it be any better if Karen and Judith are sent to a country they don't even remember? What about the more than 200,000 DACA recipients who worked on the frontlines of this pandemic--doctors, nurses, paramedics--would America be better without them? Of course not. We need Dreamers like Karen and Judith, and this Congress needs to do something to protect them. Think about this for a moment. Karen and Judith weren't even alive when I first introduced the Dream Act in 2001. While they have grown up and gone on to change their lives, Congress stood still and did not fix a broken immigration system. Even DACA, a temporary solution for Dreamers like Karen and Judith, endured one bad-faith attack after another. Republican Governors like Texas's Greg Abbott have led a relentless campaign to eliminate DACA and deport these two young women and disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in America. Last October, the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling on DACA. The court kept protections in place for now for current recipients but sent the case back to the judge in Texas who has repeatedly ruled against the program--the same Judge Hanen. Just recently, nine Republican-led States asked that same judge to end DACA in their States all together. That would be a disaster for this country, not just in terms of the human costs but the economic costs and what it says about our values. DACA recipients and their households pay more than $5 billion in Federal taxes each year. That is money for repairing roads and bridges, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. By enacting the Dream Act, we will increase America's GDP by nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. The bottom line is we can point fingers at other people, but this ball is in our court, and there are other immigration issues we should address. As Senator McConnell raised earlier, border security is one of them. We need to bring order to our Nation's border. We should never knowingly allow anyone dangerous to come or stay in this country, and we cannot absorb all the people in the world who want to become citizens or residents tomorrow. We have to have a thoughtful system that makes sense for America's future and our economy. It is worth noting that President Biden has made some progress. Even with the limitations of a woefully outdated immigration legal system, the Biden administration has developed a more efficient process that is starting to make a difference. That new process has helped reduce the number of migrant crossings from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela by roughly 97 percent. It is progress. But as I mentioned, Executive action can't get the job done on its own. Poll after poll shows that Americans of all stripes--liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Independent--want Congress to do something instead of making speeches on the floor. In fact, one recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--support both protections for Dreamers and improving border security. I want to put that in writing. We are going to put together a bill that addresses border security and the future of the Dream Act, and we need to do it soon. If we learned anything from last year's election, it is that America wants us to come together on a bipartisan basis to make our Nation stronger, safer, more prosperous, and really reflect the values of the American people. I can think of no better place to start than the Dream Act. Let's work together to protect our brave young Dreamers from deportation and bring order to America's southern border. There is no other option. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS335-2 | null | 5,803 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | DREAM Act Madam President, they say to me, to be an effective Senator, you have to be patient, but what I am about to describe tests that theory. It has been 22 years since I introduced the DREAM Act. The best chance we ever had to pass it came to mind as I listened to the Republican leader a few minutes ago talking about the horrors of fentanyl and drugs that are crossing our borders and recount the numbers of people who are showing up at our borders as well. It brought back my memory of something called the Gang of 8--four Democrats and four Republicans--including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Senator Flake, Senator Rubio, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennet of Colorado, Senator Menendez, and myself. We worked for almost a year to put together a comprehensive immigration reform that was long overdue. It included border security at a level unseen in America ever. We were prepared to invest billions of dollars to make our border safe. We passed this bill with, I think, 68 votes here on the floor of the Senate. I thought, finally, after 30 years of talking about immigration and batting it back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, we are finally going to do something on a bipartisan basis. We took that measure and sent it over to the Republican-led House of Representatives. They refused to even consider it--refused to consider it. So when I hear concerns and complaints today that our border just isn't safe enough, I agree. But I ask those who are complaining: Where were you when we brought this bipartisan measure to the floor, which had so much enforcement in it and really would have given us a safer situation today and for years to come? We can do that again. I agree completely with Senator McConnell that the drug crisis in America is serious, not just in Kentucky but in my State of Illinois and in yours, too, and all across this Nation. I also understand that there are too many people presenting themselves at the border believing they are going to somehow find their way into this country. I have met with many of them who were brought on buses to the city of Chicago. You should hear their stories. These are not people who are out trying to deceive the system or cheat the laws of America. They are desperate people--desperate for the safety of themselves and their children, desperate for an opportunity to have hope and a future. You sit down with them and think: How could they be much different than my mother, who was an immigrant to this country at the age of 2? She came here with her family looking for a better life. She found it, and because she found it, I did too. That story is the story of America. Immigration is the story of America.The notion that some Republicans have that we will not accept one more immigrant is ridiculous and it is un-American, and it doesn't reflect the reality of the country we live in. Twenty-two years ago, I heard a story about a young lady, a woman, in the city of Chicago. She was from Korea. Her name was Tereza Lee. She came here on a visitor's visa, overstayed the visa, and was technically undocumented, illegal in the eyes of the law. Well, her father wanted to have a church. He wanted to be a Korean pastor of a church in Chicago. He never quite realized his dream, but he visited a lot of churches and dragged along his little daughter with him. While he was talking things over with pastors of these churches about what he might do, she would wander around the church and eventually get to the piano and sit down and start banging away at the keys. She wasn't very good to start with, but there was some promise there. She became part of the Merit School of Music program in Chicago. This is a program which is remarkable. A lady left a lot of money and said: Use that money to train kids in public schools to play musical instruments. Tereza Lee was one of those kids. She learned how to play the piano and became one of the best. The day came when she was finally urged to take a chance and apply for music school, and she did. She got to one of the questions on the application, out of high school, and the question was: What is your citizenship status. She said to her mother: What is it? Her mom said: We never filed any papers. I don't know. She said: What are we going to do? They said: We are going to call Durbin. So they called my office and got in touch with Clarisol Duque, who is my chief of staff and who was working on those cases at the time, and we checked the law. For this 18-year-old girl, the law was clear. She was illegal in America, and she had to leave for 10 years and then apply to come back in. It didn't seem right. She didn't make the decision to come to this country; her parents did. She did everything right once she got here and struggled with a family who didn't have a lot of money but managed to scrape by. Here she was, asking for a chance to continue her education from Chicago Public Schools to music school that might make a difference in her life. She was being told officially by the government: No, thanks. That is when I decided to introduce a bill called the DREAM Act, 22 years ago. For more than 20 years now, hundreds of thousands of young people in this country have been waiting for Congress to pass this bill. I have been waiting too. Along the way, there have been some victories and some major setbacks, but through it all, one thing has remained steady and constant: the devotion of Dreamers to this country. Dreamers have woven themselves into the fabric of America. Many of them were brought here as babies. They grew up alongside other kids--our kids. They pledged allegiance to the same American flag that we all do, and they did it in classrooms day after day. Over the past 22 years, Dreamers have given everything they can to America, again and again. They have served our Nation as doctors, teachers, members of the military, and other essential roles that have helped move America forward. That is why last week, I reintroduced the Dream Act, for what I hope is the final time and we can see its passage. I want to thank one person in particular, Senator Lindsey Graham. He has joined me again and again as my Republican cosponsor of this measure. I can never thank him enough. This legislation will finally provide permanent protections to every Dreamer who has grown up in America and earned their path to citizenship. More than 800,000 Dreamers have received protection from Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. The President initiated that in 2012. That is quite a few years ago now. It was never meant to be a permanent solution. It was supposed to be a bridge until Congress finally acted on immigration. We are still waiting. What is more, there are thousands of other Dreamers who can never have the chance to apply for DACA protection. Instead, they have to be forced to remain in the shadows. Let me show you two to demonstrate this story. This is Karen and Judith, twin sisters. Theirs is the 132nd and 133rd Dreamer story I have told on the Senate floor. That is a lot. Karen and Judith were born in Durango, Mexico. They arrived in the United States when they were 2 years old, the same age as my mom when she came here as an immigrant. Their family settled down in Dallas. Growing up, their parents were loving and supportive. Karen and Judith faced some obstacles because they were undocumented. For instance, they didn't have health insurance, which meant doctor and dental appointments were reserved only for emergencies. By the time Karen and Judith reached high school, it became clear they would not be given the same opportunities as the kids they went to school with. They could only watch from afar as their friends got their drivers' licenses, traveled outside the country, and landed their first jobs. Karen and Judith were not in that category. They were undocumented. But despite their frustrations, they pushed onward. Let me tell you what happened. In addition to graduating salutatorian and valedictorian, Karen and Judith became Junior ROTC Academic Bowl national qualifiers, AP Scholars with Distinction, National Hispanic Scholars, National Honor Society inductees, and so much more. Really, their academic accomplishments I can't even start to list, but because of their immigration status, Karen and Judith could not apply for financial aid or scholarships at the colleges at the top of their lists. So upon graduating high school, they stayed close to home, where the two of them are currently attending Texas A&M. After they earn their degrees, both of them hope to pursue their careers in medicine. Do we need more medical professionals? The question answers itself. But for now, in their spare time, both sisters give back to their community when they can. Karen tutors schoolkids and provides in-home care for seniors, while Judith volunteers at a local hospital, as well as an interfaith immigration network. Really, that should be the end of their story for now, but it is not. You see, a couple of years ago, Karen and Judith's paths diverged--twins though they may be--not by choice but because of our broken immigration system. What do I mean? In 2020, Karen and Judith submitted their applications for DACA, but they did so 1 day apart. A year or so later, Karen's application was approved. But before Judith even received a reply to her application filed 1 day later, a Federal judge in Texas, Judge Hanen, decided to hit the brakes for the DACA Program. He ruled that the USCIS could not approve any DACA applications after his decision. Judith has been living in limbo ever since that decision was handed down. She cannot legally work, and she has no idea what her future holds. Ask yourself a simple question: Would America be better if these two sisters were deported back to Durango, Mexico? Would it be any better if Karen and Judith are sent to a country they don't even remember? What about the more than 200,000 DACA recipients who worked on the frontlines of this pandemic--doctors, nurses, paramedics--would America be better without them? Of course not. We need Dreamers like Karen and Judith, and this Congress needs to do something to protect them. Think about this for a moment. Karen and Judith weren't even alive when I first introduced the Dream Act in 2001. While they have grown up and gone on to change their lives, Congress stood still and did not fix a broken immigration system. Even DACA, a temporary solution for Dreamers like Karen and Judith, endured one bad-faith attack after another. Republican Governors like Texas's Greg Abbott have led a relentless campaign to eliminate DACA and deport these two young women and disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in America. Last October, the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling on DACA. The court kept protections in place for now for current recipients but sent the case back to the judge in Texas who has repeatedly ruled against the program--the same Judge Hanen. Just recently, nine Republican-led States asked that same judge to end DACA in their States all together. That would be a disaster for this country, not just in terms of the human costs but the economic costs and what it says about our values. DACA recipients and their households pay more than $5 billion in Federal taxes each year. That is money for repairing roads and bridges, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. By enacting the Dream Act, we will increase America's GDP by nearly $800 billion over the next 10 years and create hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. The bottom line is we can point fingers at other people, but this ball is in our court, and there are other immigration issues we should address. As Senator McConnell raised earlier, border security is one of them. We need to bring order to our Nation's border. We should never knowingly allow anyone dangerous to come or stay in this country, and we cannot absorb all the people in the world who want to become citizens or residents tomorrow. We have to have a thoughtful system that makes sense for America's future and our economy. It is worth noting that President Biden has made some progress. Even with the limitations of a woefully outdated immigration legal system, the Biden administration has developed a more efficient process that is starting to make a difference. That new process has helped reduce the number of migrant crossings from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela by roughly 97 percent. It is progress. But as I mentioned, Executive action can't get the job done on its own. Poll after poll shows that Americans of all stripes--liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Independent--want Congress to do something instead of making speeches on the floor. In fact, one recent poll showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--support both protections for Dreamers and improving border security. I want to put that in writing. We are going to put together a bill that addresses border security and the future of the Dream Act, and we need to do it soon. If we learned anything from last year's election, it is that America wants us to come together on a bipartisan basis to make our Nation stronger, safer, more prosperous, and really reflect the values of the American people. I can think of no better place to start than the Dream Act. Let's work together to protect our brave young Dreamers from deportation and bring order to America's southern border. There is no other option. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS335-2 | null | 5,804 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Remembering Sean O'Shea Madam President, on a separate topic, I want to talk about a friend of mine who just passed away. He was a selfless son of Chicago who did a lot of good for a lot of people. Sean O'Shea was a political science major at DePaul University in Chicago when he was chosen to intern in the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs under President Clinton. Mitch Dudek recently wrote a beautiful obituary in the Chicago Sun-Times. The first line reads: Sean O'Shea had an endearing quality that, combined with grit and chutzpah, served as a lock-picking device of sorts on doors leading from his South Side home all the way to the White House. Kris Balderston, who was Sean's first boss in the White House, recalled his first impressions. I will substitute some of the more colorful language. He said: I'm not exaggerating. The guy walked in our office and I think within the first day we were like, ``Who the [bleep] is this kid?'' He was amazing. He totally stood out from every intern we ever had. He was like ``mentorship? I know what I'm doing here,'' and he wasn't kidding. People would ask, "How old is he?'' And I'd tell them, ``You don't want to know.'' He was the son of Irish immigrants and didn't know anyone. And he was just funny and personal and a real doer. And everyone in the White House, from the President and Mrs. Clinton on down, fell in love with Sean O'Shea. Sean made such an impression that after he graduated, he was offered a full-time job as a liaison between the White House and several Cabinet Agencies. He was then in his early twenties. After the White House, Sean served as top aide to Senator Hillary Clinton and handled domestic appropriations bills, transportation and infrastructure. He was an adviser on the Northern Ireland peace process. He then went back home to Illinois to serve as deputy chief of staff to former Governor Pat Quinn, overseeing tens of billions of dollars in transportation and other capital improvement projects. He also helped pass marriage equality in my State of Illinois. In hindsight, maybe Sean packed so much into such a short span because he would not be given the gift of a long life. He passed away last month of brain cancer at the age of 46. Sean Francis Patrick O'Shea grew up on the South Side of Chicago, the youngest of Joe and Mary O'Shea's four kids. His parents were both born in Ireland, and they met at a dance in Chicago. Like many immigrant parents, Joe and Mary taught their kids to be proud of their heritage and to be grateful they were Americans. Sean's dad worked for the Chicago water department as an operating engineer. His mom worked in the Office of the Cook County Assessor. Joe O'Shea was an accordion player and past president of the Chicago chapter of the Irish Musicians Association--God bless him--who insisted that all four of their children learn Irish dancing. One of Joe's proudest moments was in 2000, when Sean was asked if he could recommend any Irish musicians from Chicago to play at President Clinton's final St. Patrick's Day in the White House. Sean put in a plug for his dad and some dancers from the Irish dance school he attended in Chicago. He and his sister were able to watch as their dad played for the President and First Lady. Sean also was that rare South Sider who was a Chicago Cubs fan, which is a big deal in Chicago. He was a regular at Cubs spring training in Arizona with his friends from WGN television and radio. He never missed the big game, which ranged from opening day to game 7 of the World Series, to any random Tuesday when the Cubs were well out of playoff contention. He loved the sport, the Cubs, and Wrigley Field, and to experience those days with his family and friends. Sean was incredibly proud to have helped make Kerry Wood Cubs Field--which has given countless Chicago children the chance to play baseball--a reality during his time in the Governor's office. He also loved people. Sean's husband Sebastian said they could go into a restaurant or bar where neither of them knew anyone, and by the time they left, Sean knew everyone and had the phone numbers of 10 new friends in his pocket. As one of Sean's friends said, ``He left every room better than when he came in.'' But what Sean loved most of all was helping others. He was a good, honorable man who believed that government could make life better for people and that public service was a privilege. He could often be heard saying, ``How can I help?'' He had a tremendous impact on the lives of people in Chicago, in Illinois, across America, and beyond. His contributions will make a difference for years to come, and he will be deeply missed. Sean's funeral mass was held at Old St. Pat's Parish Church in Chicago. The church was filled with hundreds of floral arrangements and packed with his friends and countless people whose lives he touched. The last song they played, of course, was an Irish tune called ``The Parting Glass.'' It is about a man who is leaving his friends behind. It includes the lines: Come fill to me the parting glass. Good night and joy be with you all. That is how Sean would want to be remembered--as a good man who used his short time on Earth to make the world better and bring joy to so many people. Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to Sean's husband Sebastian Contreras, Jr.; his mother Mary; his siblings, Michael, Daniel, and Colleen; his niece and nephew, Declan and Delaney; and to Sean's friends--too numerous to count. May you find comfort in your memories. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS335 | null | 5,805 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Debt Ceiling Madam President, now, on the debt ceiling, last week, President Biden distilled the sharp contrast between the Democratic and Republican approaches to the debt ceiling. And in the days since that, Republicans have made that contrast even sharper. Democrats have been clear about our position--very clear, crystal clear. We must raise the debt ceiling cleanly, in a bipartisan fashion, without blackmail or brinksmanship or hostage-taking. House Republicans have taken a different and far more dangerous approach. Rather than affirm the need to raise the debt ceiling together, House Republicans are trying to force the rest of the country into a perilous game of chicken, threatening to withhold their support for lifting the debt ceiling unless everyone agrees to spending cuts first. But to this day--to this day--despite more than a month of questioning, House Republicans won't answer one question: What cuts do they want? Where is their plan? House Republicans, where is your plan? I say to House Republicans, enough with the games. Show us your plan. You say you want cuts--well, what are they? You have an obligation not only to show us but the American people what they are. These could be quite dangerous to tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of Americans. Are House Republicans going to put Social Security and Medicare on the table in exchange for the debt ceiling? Well, last week, Republicans erupted like wild hornets during the State of the Union when President Biden pointed out the obvious: that many withintheir own party have been very open about wanting to target Social Security and Medicare, Rick Scott being among them, and he was the leader of the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee. But listen to this one. If you think this is just a few people, a few dangerous people, doing this, dangerous on Social Security and Medicare, that is, the Republican Study Committee, which includes a majority--a majority--of House Republicans, at least half--this is not some fringe group but half of the entire House conference--released a budget last year that proposed raising Social Security retirement age, cutting benefits to certain recipients, and even privatizing some parts of Social Security. Let me say that again because this--I don't know if it has been reported, but it is astounding. The Republican Study Committee, including a majority of House Republicans, released a budget just last year that proposed raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting benefits to certain recipients, and even privatizing some parts of Social Security. And almost as if to prove President Biden correct, Senator Johnson of Wisconsin reacted to the State of the Union by going on the radio and calling for annual votes on Social Security, calling it a Ponzi scheme. Let me say that one again too. According to Wisconsin Public Radio, Senator Johnson, last week, openly called Social Security a Ponzi scheme before bemoaning the failed attempt to privatize the program during the Bush administration. A, it is an incredible example of how out of touch MAGA Republicans are from average Americans, and, B, it shows that this idea that Republicans don't want to cut Social Security is not at all clear, no matter what Speaker McCarthy says. There are too many in his ranks who either are calling for it now or have called for it in the recent past. We Democrats are not going to stop fighting until this plan, bubbling up in Republican quarters even now, to cut Social Security, to cut Medicare is dead--D-E-A-D. So it brings us back to the $64,000 question: Are Republicans going to target Social Security and Medicare? Until Republicans actually show us their plan, we simply can't take them at their word that Social Security and Medicare won't be touched because the record over the last few years clearly shows that many of them are open to doing just that, cutting it. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS338-5 | null | 5,806 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Abortion Madam President, my Democratic colleagues frequently say conservatives are radical in order to score political points. Even President Biden has used his office to attack conservatives with language I won't give more air time by repeating here at this time. Liberals do this to scare Americans into ignoring the failures of their own policies and to distract voters from how extreme they have become. This was on full display in last week's State of the Union Address, as President Biden misled the country about Republican ideas and straight up twisted the facts of his own agenda. President Biden sold the state of the Nation as perfectly fine, ignoring many of the issues Americans care most about. The reality is, President Biden and my colleagues on the far left are sometimes way, way out of touch with what the American people believe in. Democrats frequently reject commonsense proposals but support extreme policies put forth by the far, far leftwing of their party. Liberal representatives have to do this because they are aligned with a woke mob that will cancel them if they disagree. Although that far-left mob is very vocal, they don't represent the vast majority of Americans. Sadly, President Biden's position on the border, the economy,crime, and energy have all fallen victim to this trap set by the progressive ideas of the left, and his administration is set on taking this country apart from the inside out. We are dying from the inside out, using far-left, even socialist ideas that have not and will not--will not--ever work in the United States of America. Democrats are misusing the Federal Government to get their way regardless of what the law, the Constitution, or the American people have to say. No issue shows the radical drift of this administration better than abortion--a very tough and a very important topic. The far left attacks pro-life Americans, and they distract from the fact that their views go well beyond the beliefs of most Americans and most civilized people around the world. The Biden administration courts an extreme, heartless, and inhumane abortion agenda. Democrats today believe in abortion at any time for any reason with no restrictions or regard for human life. I am proud to be pro-life for many reasons, including my faith--another thing I will not set aside for political correctness. However, even without considering religion, a society that allows abortion up to and past the moment of birth--after the baby has been born--isn't progressive; it is barbaric, and it is murder. When the Supreme Court ruled that abortions should be left up to the people, this administration went into overdrive to force their agenda onto every American. Now, to be clear, the Supreme Court ruling did not make abortion illegal. They said: We are going to send it back to the States where it can be more closely decided by the voters. Let the voters decide. That is how we do it in the United States of America, because it is an issue that should not be left up to the Federal Government or to a court. The people should decide. That is what we should do here. That is what we have always done. The Biden administration is attempting to use, at this time now, our military, our veterans affairs facilities, your taxpayer dollars, maybe even a ridiculous new public health emergency in the very near future to go at this agenda--all to make sure there is unrestricted access to ending the life of an unborn child. That is extreme. Let's look at how this administration is trying to skirt the law and ignore the Supreme Court and how it will impose the law. Last summer, the Department of Defense claimed that the decision to overturn Roe would have serious impacts on our military readiness--extreme impacts. Of course, they provided no real evidence to back up this claim. But, as usual, they laid out a radical plan to use our military resources to fly folks around the country to get abortions on taxpayer money. American taxpayers are expected to pay for time off, support, and travel costs for servicemembers and their dependents. For years, the military has funded abortions in three different cases: rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. The new policy that the Department of Defense wants to put forward throws all those restrictions out the door, and opens military facilitated abortion services to millions and millions more people. It is ridiculous; it is against the law. And they know it. That is why they refused to answer questions asked by Members of Congress when we doubted these plans. The Department of Defense stonewalled--stonewalled--all of our requests for a briefing for months this past fall, only giving us answers after I held up their nominations to force their hands. They were forced to do it. Those answers were shocking once we had the briefing. The Department of Defense leaders claimed overturning Roe would severely impact military readiness. But the Department has averaged less than 20 abortions per year for many, many years--averaged only 20. So does this potentially restricting less than 20 procedures a year sound like a threat to our military readiness? It does not. This isn't about readiness. It is about politics. The new policy would put the American people on the hook to pay for thousands and thousands of abortion trips every year with no clear restrictions. Of course, they have no idea how much it is going to cost the American taxpayer. The Department of Defense isn't the only department seeking to expand abortion access. Last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a similar policy. Like the Department of Defense, the VA is attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. The VA began performing abortions at taxpayer-funded medical facilities across the country due to the so-called ``crisis'' created by commonsense restrictions. This includes States like my home State of Alabama, where, by the way, abortion is illegal. Never mind that the Federal law prohibits the use of VA facilities for abortions. Never mind that. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled that States can pass their own laws to regulate the issue. That is what the Supreme Court says. Never mind that the VA provided no protections for staff who may have religious objections to performing these procedures. And never mind the cost to taxpayers, the impact on veterans, and the will of the American people. Never mind all that. The VA providing abortions is against the law--absolutely against the law. It is an unconstitutional abuse of the government, and it should not be tolerated. Last week, more than half of the Republican conference in the Senate and dozens of lawmakers in the House joined me in introducing a resolution disapproving of the VA rule allowing abortion on demand. Our resolution defends the law, the unborn, and our veterans who depend on the VA for their healthcare. Soon we will force a vote on this resolution, because the American people deserve to know where each Senator in this room stands on the law and protecting life or with abortion at any time. The people need to know that and where everybody stands. This extreme abortion madness does not appear to be stopping with the military and the VA. The Biden Department of Health and Human Services is reportedly considering declaring a public health emergency on abortion. It is an emergency. The idea would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously wrong for our country. Of course, this is just another power grab. The public health emergency frees up extra money and gives the Federal Government more control. Why else would they do it? It is just like the sham of the COVID declaration we are still living under somehow. We still have the declaration of emergency. There is no emergency because Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats just think that giving Americans the power to self-govern is some kind of crisis. President Biden seems set on forcing taxpayers to fund an abortion agenda that is completely out of step with the American people. Only 19 percent of Americans support late-term abortion, and a majority support a 15-week ban. But you probably haven't heard that, because pro-life Americans are often silenced. No more. We will not be silent. We believe every American, including the unborn has a right to life. We believe in the authority of the Supreme Court who made the issue very clear last year: Let the States decide what each voter wants. We believe our military and VA should be focused on national defense and veterans, not politics. And we believe in a government that works within the law. Using our military and fake emergencies to make sure there are no limits on abortion is absolutely, positively shameful. I will never bow to the mob saying otherwise. It is embarrassing to our country, and I encourage all Americans who believe in the value of human life to stand up and join me. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS339-3 | null | 5,807 |
formal | political correctness | null | racist | Abortion Madam President, my Democratic colleagues frequently say conservatives are radical in order to score political points. Even President Biden has used his office to attack conservatives with language I won't give more air time by repeating here at this time. Liberals do this to scare Americans into ignoring the failures of their own policies and to distract voters from how extreme they have become. This was on full display in last week's State of the Union Address, as President Biden misled the country about Republican ideas and straight up twisted the facts of his own agenda. President Biden sold the state of the Nation as perfectly fine, ignoring many of the issues Americans care most about. The reality is, President Biden and my colleagues on the far left are sometimes way, way out of touch with what the American people believe in. Democrats frequently reject commonsense proposals but support extreme policies put forth by the far, far leftwing of their party. Liberal representatives have to do this because they are aligned with a woke mob that will cancel them if they disagree. Although that far-left mob is very vocal, they don't represent the vast majority of Americans. Sadly, President Biden's position on the border, the economy,crime, and energy have all fallen victim to this trap set by the progressive ideas of the left, and his administration is set on taking this country apart from the inside out. We are dying from the inside out, using far-left, even socialist ideas that have not and will not--will not--ever work in the United States of America. Democrats are misusing the Federal Government to get their way regardless of what the law, the Constitution, or the American people have to say. No issue shows the radical drift of this administration better than abortion--a very tough and a very important topic. The far left attacks pro-life Americans, and they distract from the fact that their views go well beyond the beliefs of most Americans and most civilized people around the world. The Biden administration courts an extreme, heartless, and inhumane abortion agenda. Democrats today believe in abortion at any time for any reason with no restrictions or regard for human life. I am proud to be pro-life for many reasons, including my faith--another thing I will not set aside for political correctness. However, even without considering religion, a society that allows abortion up to and past the moment of birth--after the baby has been born--isn't progressive; it is barbaric, and it is murder. When the Supreme Court ruled that abortions should be left up to the people, this administration went into overdrive to force their agenda onto every American. Now, to be clear, the Supreme Court ruling did not make abortion illegal. They said: We are going to send it back to the States where it can be more closely decided by the voters. Let the voters decide. That is how we do it in the United States of America, because it is an issue that should not be left up to the Federal Government or to a court. The people should decide. That is what we should do here. That is what we have always done. The Biden administration is attempting to use, at this time now, our military, our veterans affairs facilities, your taxpayer dollars, maybe even a ridiculous new public health emergency in the very near future to go at this agenda--all to make sure there is unrestricted access to ending the life of an unborn child. That is extreme. Let's look at how this administration is trying to skirt the law and ignore the Supreme Court and how it will impose the law. Last summer, the Department of Defense claimed that the decision to overturn Roe would have serious impacts on our military readiness--extreme impacts. Of course, they provided no real evidence to back up this claim. But, as usual, they laid out a radical plan to use our military resources to fly folks around the country to get abortions on taxpayer money. American taxpayers are expected to pay for time off, support, and travel costs for servicemembers and their dependents. For years, the military has funded abortions in three different cases: rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother. The new policy that the Department of Defense wants to put forward throws all those restrictions out the door, and opens military facilitated abortion services to millions and millions more people. It is ridiculous; it is against the law. And they know it. That is why they refused to answer questions asked by Members of Congress when we doubted these plans. The Department of Defense stonewalled--stonewalled--all of our requests for a briefing for months this past fall, only giving us answers after I held up their nominations to force their hands. They were forced to do it. Those answers were shocking once we had the briefing. The Department of Defense leaders claimed overturning Roe would severely impact military readiness. But the Department has averaged less than 20 abortions per year for many, many years--averaged only 20. So does this potentially restricting less than 20 procedures a year sound like a threat to our military readiness? It does not. This isn't about readiness. It is about politics. The new policy would put the American people on the hook to pay for thousands and thousands of abortion trips every year with no clear restrictions. Of course, they have no idea how much it is going to cost the American taxpayer. The Department of Defense isn't the only department seeking to expand abortion access. Last year, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a similar policy. Like the Department of Defense, the VA is attempting to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. The VA began performing abortions at taxpayer-funded medical facilities across the country due to the so-called ``crisis'' created by commonsense restrictions. This includes States like my home State of Alabama, where, by the way, abortion is illegal. Never mind that the Federal law prohibits the use of VA facilities for abortions. Never mind that. Never mind that the Supreme Court ruled that States can pass their own laws to regulate the issue. That is what the Supreme Court says. Never mind that the VA provided no protections for staff who may have religious objections to performing these procedures. And never mind the cost to taxpayers, the impact on veterans, and the will of the American people. Never mind all that. The VA providing abortions is against the law--absolutely against the law. It is an unconstitutional abuse of the government, and it should not be tolerated. Last week, more than half of the Republican conference in the Senate and dozens of lawmakers in the House joined me in introducing a resolution disapproving of the VA rule allowing abortion on demand. Our resolution defends the law, the unborn, and our veterans who depend on the VA for their healthcare. Soon we will force a vote on this resolution, because the American people deserve to know where each Senator in this room stands on the law and protecting life or with abortion at any time. The people need to know that and where everybody stands. This extreme abortion madness does not appear to be stopping with the military and the VA. The Biden Department of Health and Human Services is reportedly considering declaring a public health emergency on abortion. It is an emergency. The idea would be laughable if it wasn't so seriously wrong for our country. Of course, this is just another power grab. The public health emergency frees up extra money and gives the Federal Government more control. Why else would they do it? It is just like the sham of the COVID declaration we are still living under somehow. We still have the declaration of emergency. There is no emergency because Roe v. Wade was overturned. Democrats just think that giving Americans the power to self-govern is some kind of crisis. President Biden seems set on forcing taxpayers to fund an abortion agenda that is completely out of step with the American people. Only 19 percent of Americans support late-term abortion, and a majority support a 15-week ban. But you probably haven't heard that, because pro-life Americans are often silenced. No more. We will not be silent. We believe every American, including the unborn has a right to life. We believe in the authority of the Supreme Court who made the issue very clear last year: Let the States decide what each voter wants. We believe our military and VA should be focused on national defense and veterans, not politics. And we believe in a government that works within the law. Using our military and fake emergencies to make sure there are no limits on abortion is absolutely, positively shameful. I will never bow to the mob saying otherwise. It is embarrassing to our country, and I encourage all Americans who believe in the value of human life to stand up and join me. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS339-3 | null | 5,808 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | State of the Union Address Madam President, on another matter, this last week, President Biden spoke at his State of the Union Address about the looming debt crisis, but instead of a plea for unity and bipartisanship and working together, he turned it into political fearmongering and finger-pointing. He even suggested that Republicans wanted to cut funding for Social Security and Medicare, on which millions upon millions of seniors depend--something that could not be further from the truth. You might call it the Big Lie. Speaker McCarthy is leading debt ceiling discussions for Republicans, and he has been absolutely clear that these programs are not on the chopping block. As the American people witnessed last Tuesday evening, Republicans all agree on this point. Social Security and Medicare are a lifeline for seniors and some of the most vulnerable people in our country, and these programs are not going anywhere, period. But what the President and our Democratic colleagues have failed to acknowledge is that the status quo is not sustainable, particularly when it comes to Social Security. We are told by the actuaries that unless Congress does something, Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent and incapable of paying the benefits upon which millions of seniors depend. I have to ask whether the President, by this fearmongering, made it easier or harder for us to work together to meet our responsibilities and to eliminate the threat of insolvency, which we are on a path to if Congress does nothing. Did the President make it more likely that Republicans and Democrats would work together to provide for the solvency and survival of Social Security or Medicare by fearmongering and finger-pointing? I think we all know he did not. Projections show that Social Security recipients will see a reduction of almost 25 percent in their benefits if nothing changes. So we know we have to do something. Texans who live on a fixed income cannot handle a 25-percent cut. They are already strugglingto keep up with inflation as things are, which is now about 6\1/2\ percent. That is essentially a pay cut for the American people, thanks to the spending of our Democratic colleagues and this administration. But a 25-percent reduction is absolutely unfathomable. Given the strong bipartisan support for Social Security that we saw last week, I hope we will all agree that we can't allow these programs to run out of money. There is a clear bipartisan desire to save Social Security. Last Congress, Senator Romney of Utah and Senator Manchin of West Virginia introduced the TRUST Act to rescue Social Security. I was proud to cosponsor that legislation, and I hope it will gain some momentum this year. Unfortunately, the White House has already slammed the door on that possibility once again. We see a trend here, where instead of engaging in a bipartisan manner with Members of Congress to try to solve problems, the President just makes things harder and less likely for that consultation and that cooperation to occur. The White House spokesman even described commissions like the one the bill would create as ``a death panel for Social Security and Medicare.'' Yet four decades ago, then-Senator Biden voted for Social Security reforms proposed by what he now refers to as a ``death panel,'' and those reforms extended the program for another 50 years. Two years ago, the Senate voted on Senator Romney's TRUST Act as an amendment to the Democrats' reckless budget, and it actually passed by a vote of 71 to 29. That is more than 20 of our Democratic colleagues who voted for it--a strong bipartisan vote, 71 to 29. It is completely irresponsible for the President to claim that Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare and then demagogue the very bipartisan efforts to protect the longevity of these programs. How shameful and irresponsible is that? Whether or not the President will admit it, he knows that Social Security is operating on borrowed time. We need to ensure its long-term success, and the TRUST Act is a great starting point for conversations to do just that. Of course, this is just one small part of the major changes we need to see to get our fiscal house in order. The national debt is now $31.5 trillion. Congress can't raise the debt limit and continue to borrow and spend like there is no tomorrow. Interest on that $31 trillion debt approaches $1 trillion a year. That means more and more of the discretionary spending that we need in order to defend our country or to support other priorities goes up in smoke because we have to pay interest on that $31.5 trillion in borrowed money. Yes, we do need to avoid a debt crisis, and no one in Congress wants us to default on our debts, but we also need to enact broader reforms to change the trajectory of this out-of-control spending. Last week, I was proud to join with Senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi in introducing an amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget. I have authored and voted for similar legislation in the past, and I believe that this is a critical component to smart spending reforms. Families, businesses, and State and local governments all have no choice but to balance their budgets. If there is not money coming in the front door, they can't spend it out the back door--unless, of course, you are the Federal Government and you print money. The Federal Government is the only glaring exception to this commonsense financial practice, and we are seeing the consequences. The national debt has skyrocketed from $3.2 trillion in 1980 to $9.7 trillion in 2000 and then to $31.5 trillion today. It has more than tripled since 2000. It is past time to take action to address this growing debt crisis, and there is real-world evidence that balanced budgets work. Every State in the Nation, including Texas, has one, and we are far from operating in the red like the Federal Government. In fact, Texas has gone into the current legislative session with a $33 billion surplus. You don't do that by borrowing money and forcing your children and grandchildren to pay the bills. You do it by responsible budgeting. I have always been a proponent of taking the Texas model nationwide, and this is an example of my State's smart fiscal policies in action that the Federal Government needs to emulate. One of the earliest lessons we teach our children is about only spending the money that you have and not spending money you don't have. It is time to apply that same commonsense logic to the Federal Government. I appreciate Senator Hyde-Smith's leadership on this bill, and I am proud to be one of the 23 cosponsors and would invite all of our colleagues to consider joining us in cosponsoring this legislation. You might wonder: Is this some Republican trick or not? Well, it is interesting to note that the current occupant of the White House, President Biden, voted for a balanced budget amendment when he was a Member of the U.S. Senate, and he didn't just do it once. He didn't just do it twice. He did it three times. Then-Senator Biden voted for a balanced budget amendment in March of 1995, when the debt was $4.9 trillion. In June of 1996, he voted for a balanced budget amendment when the debt was $5.1 trillion. And in March of 1997, when the debt stood at $5.4 trillion, Joe Biden--then-Senator Biden--voted for a balanced amendment to the Constitution. My Republican colleagues have offered a range of proposals to rein in the national debt and to get America's spending habits in check, and all of these ideas should be part of a serious discussion to address this crisis. If you strip away the agreements about how we got here and the best path forward, there is one unavoidable truth: When it comes to finances, the United States is on an unsustainable course. The national debt will haunt every generation until leaders show enough courage to make tough choices and fix this mess, and I can't think of any better time than now. I hope President Biden will stop the fearmongering and stop the demagoguing and take this crisis seriously. Republicans and Democrats alike want to avoid a debt crisis, but so far we haven't taken the necessary steps to rein in the irresponsible spending and to support, sustain, and save important programs like Social Security and Medicare for future generations. These are popular, commonsense goals, and I hope that our Democratic colleagues will stop playing politics and start talking about the solutions. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS342-3 | null | 5,809 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CASEY. Madam President, every year, it is my privilege, during Black History Month, to honor Black Pennsylvanians who have made particularly notable contributions to their communities and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I rise today to pay tribute to this year's honorees and to commend their deep commitment to service. This year's theme is ``Inspiring a Bold and Bright Future.'' Several individuals we honor have been laboring in their communities for generations, while we are also honoring a younger generation of Pennsylvanians who have already brought about positive change in their communities. We have chosen to honor both those in the dawn of their service and those who are well established in that service to highlight the generational and sustained nature of this work and to emphasize the enduring relationships between our older heroes and those who come behind them to take up the mantel of justice work and community empowerment. Hettie Simmons Love--south central Pennsylvania In 1947, a young African-American woman, Hettie Simmons, graduated from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania with her MBA in accounting, becoming the first African-American to do so. While Hettie never had the opportunity to pursue a career in the same manner afforded to other graduates of Wharton, she continued to forge a path where she could apply her talents for the benefit of others. While she has recently been discovered late in life as a ``hidden figure,'' to many in central Pennsylvania, she is an accomplished community leader clearing a path for those who came after her. Hettie Simmons was born in Jacksonville, FL, and attended Fisk University, a historically Black college or university--HBCU--in Tennessee where she majored in math. After graduating from Fisk in 1943, her desire for better opportunities for her future led her to apply for admission to Penn's Wharton School. Unable to pursue a career with her Wharton degree, Hettie Simmons Love, newly married and living in Philadelphia, applied her academic skills in community settings, serving as treasurer in several organizations and, after the family moved to Harrisburg in 1971, serving as the church treasurer at St. Paul's Episcopal Church for over 20 years. Hettie also lent her business acumen to three different Black-owned businesses in the Harrisburg area, serving as a bookkeeper and offering suggestions for operational improvements. In her early eighties, Hettie Simmons Love was still volunteering to help seniors with their income tax forms. Hettie is also a long-time member of her sorority, volunteering for decades and becoming a diamond member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., in 2016 for having been a member for 75 years. In December 2016, Hettie was awarded a Trailblazer award from the National African-American MBA Association for being the first African-American graduate student to earn her MBA degree from the Wharton School. The current Dean of the Wharton School, Dean Ericka James, the first African-American dean of the school, had the honor of meeting Hettie and presenting her with a certificate acknowledging the historic significance of Hettie's achievement. Now 100 years young, Hettie Simmons Love continues to thrive, servingin her church and community whenever opportunities arise. With each passing birthday, she thinks that if God is keeping her here, then she must have more to do. Hettie continues to donate her time, talent, and treasures to others, earning the respect of her community and inspiring generations of leaders to come. Gary Horton--northwest Pennsylvania While Ms. Hettie Simmons Love was building community in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Gary Horton was learning the same lessons of community service from his parents in northwestern Pennsylvania and making those lessons his own. Born into a large family in Erie, Gary learned from his parents and grandparents the importance of public service early in his life. One of his first acts of civic engagement at the young age of 8 was to canvass for U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign for President. Gary recalled that he and others, ``were able to picket places as a young person for job opportunities, for voting rights, for justice and we were able to register people to vote.'' The transformative power of education was evident early in Gary's life and would become a theme of his own service over time as well. Gary was educated in Erie Public Schools and graduated from Strong Vincent High School. Gary went on to pursue higher education at Hampton Institute and then Cheney University, earning a bachelor's degree in political science. He applied the political education he learned as a young activist and then as a student by going to work in State government for several years and then returning home to work in the administration of Erie Mayor Joyce Savocchio, Erie's first woman mayor. Wanting to continue his work to improve his hometown of Erie, Gary then founded the Urban Erie Economic Development Corporation--UECDC--and became its chief executive officer when it merged with the Reverend Ernest Franklin Smith Quality of Life Learning Center in 2002. At UECDC, Gary leads an organization that carries on the educational mission that informed his life from an early age, offering job training programs, a summer youth work program, and self-help initiatives for young people and, more recently, a growing number of new Americans from South Sudan, Eritrea, Liberia, Ukraine, Iraq, the DRC, and other countries. With Gary's help and that of the UECDC, these new arrivals have found the promise of a new life. Gary Horton has also served his city through voluntarism, serving two terms as an elected member of the board of directors of the school district of the City of Erie from 2004 to 2011, serving as the president of the Erie chapter of the NAACP, and leading Erie's ``Walking in Black History,'' a program that takes Erie school children to historic sites of the civil rights movement throughout the South. The city of Erie is blessed to have Gary and those like him who have dedicated their lives to the city and its residents. Gary has truly been an inspiration in Erie and with Gary and others leading the charge, offers a bright future to its residents. I have thus far talked about two leaders who have devoted their entire lives to community building, Ms. Hettie Simmons Love, who is still doing so at the age of 100, and Gary Horton, who though he cannot match Ms. Simmons Love in total years, has brought his own unmatched service to Erie. But today I also want to honor the next generation of leaders, those who have been inspired by the efforts of people like Ms. Hettie Simmons Love and Gary Horton and upon whose shoulders they stand. Shawn Aleong--southeast Pennsylvania Shawn Aleong is a disability, civil, and human rights activist from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although Shawn lives with cerebral palsy, he has always said, ``For me, my disability is not a curse. It's not a handicap. It is a gift so that I can help implement change.'' His passion and dedication were recognized this past year on a national level. On March 11, 2022, President Biden appointed Shawn to serve on the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, which advises the President on disability policy. Shawn will now be able to effect change nationally just as he does locally. Leading up to that well-deserved appointment, Shawn has been steadily building his platform through his education and community engagement efforts, particularly at Temple University. He is a pre-law student at Temple, and he serves as senior adviser for local and community affairs for Temple student government and is a director on the board of advisers for Temple's Institute on Disabilities. During an internship with the Temple University Police Department, Shawn developed an interest in the interactions between law enforcement and people with disabilities and started a process to train officers to better interact with people with disabilities. Shawn is also an intern at Disability Rights Pennsylvania, where he supports staff working on potential discrimination cases related to the disabilities of clients. He has been a member of the NAACP and the board of directors for the Arc of Philadelphia, an organization that advocates for the rights of people with disabilities. Shawn has been an outspoken advocate for disability policies affecting the well-being of all people with disabilities. He has advocated for passage of a bill providing an expansion of ABLE account eligibility to age 46. We achieved passage of this in Congress this past December with Shawn's assistance. He has also worked to preserve and expand access to Medicaid, home and community-based services, and accessible voting for people with disabilities. Shawn has also been an advocate for people with disabilities having the opportunity to live in their own homes, in neighborhoods of their own choosing. When describing what inclusion means, he has said it is ``living in the community and working in the community. We need affordable housing, good paying jobs, good support systems, and a good community. That's how I believe that we can all be as one.'' Shawn has been able to continue his advocacy in a much more creative way. He is an accomplished actor and long-time cast member of ``A Fierce Kind of Love,'' a theater piece highlighting the struggles of people with intellectual disabilities who were institutionalized in the early and mid-20th century and how leaving institutional living affected their lives. Deahmi Mobley and Jaia Harrison--southwest Pennsylvania This year, we also honor two high school freshmen from southwest Pennsylvania, Deahmi Mobley and Jaia Harrison. In 2022, Dehami and Jaia were named Do the Write Thing Ambassadors for their impressive essays on the impact of gun violence. Deahmi Mobley is a freshman at Central Catholic High School. In 2022, Dehami was named one of Pittsburgh's two Do the Write Thing Ambassadors after his essay on the impact of gun violence for young people won a top honor. In his essay, Deahmi describes how youth and gun violence has affected his life since he lost his brother, SeQuorri Smith. In his essay, Deahmi reflects on a number of things, the impact of his brother's death at a young age, the misplaced priorities of some young people, the bullying that others face, and the critical importance of violence prevention and the need for parents and educators to play a role in it. Deahmi talks about his belief that education and youth violence are closely linked and he echoes our other honorees in stressing the important role that education has on community change. He writes, ``We need to do better as a whole. Instead of putting others down, we should bring each other up. Instead of balling up a fist, hold someone's hand. Instead of picking up a gun, pick up some books. And watch how society, and us as a community, change.'' Jaia Harrison, a student at Northgate Senior High School is, like Deahmi, a freshman. In her essay, Jaia talks about her own experience with youth violence as a witness to a deadly shooting in 2021, and she summons the courage to talk about its impact upon her. She speaks poignantly about the shock that spread through her body as a result of witnessing youth violence firsthand. She also shares her views on youth violence more broadly, particularly the need to take youth mental health more seriously in order to prevent violence. She likens youth mental health to a home that may appear to be in good shape on the outside, but which internally has many problems that may be invisible. ``To addresswhat may seem like the bigger problems,' Jaia says, ``you have to address the internal problems first.'' Jaia loves being a big sister. She has a sister, Jaylen, and a young brother named Junior, and she dreams of attending a historically Black college and university. It is difficult to share your loss and your struggles in public, and Deahmi and Jaia have shown remarkable courage for stepping forward and telling their stories. They have not only reminded us of the terrible toll that violence takes upon our communities, especially our young people, but they have also provided us specific areas of focus to prevent violence and promote better health in our communities. I am grateful for their wisdom and leadership, and I encourage them to continue speaking up. I have no doubt that they will continue to speak the truth and bring about change in the years to come. The community leaders working in our communities large and small across Pennsylvania improve our neighborhoods and strengthen our communities. Pennsylvanians like Hettie Simmons Love and Gary Horton, who apply their talents wherever they are called to do so, lead our communities through dark times and into a brighter future. Shawn Aleong's fight for disability rights and the right to self-determination inspires me and so many others to join him in the struggle for the civil rights of people with disabilities. It is young people like Deahmi Mobley and Jaia Harrison who muster the courage to challenge all of us, young and old alike, to declare that we must act boldly to end the epidemic of violence in our communities. I am inspired by the example and the commitment of the leaders who we are honoring this year, and I am sustained in my own work by the knowledge that they stand with me in the fight to bring equity and justice to communities across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CASEY | Senate | CREC-2023-02-13-pt1-PgS347 | null | 5,810 |
formal | CRT | null | racist | Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows: EC-386. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Rural Development Innovation Center, Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal (WWD) Loans and Grants [Docket No.: RUS-21-WATER- 0017] (RIN: 0572-AC55) received February 3, 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-387. 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: Consumer Refrigeration and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products [EERE-2022-BT-CRT-0021] (RIN: 1904-AF42) received February 10, 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-388. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel for Operations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting two (2) notifications on an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-389. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, Branch of Administrative Support Systems, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Five Species That Occur on San Clemente Island From the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants [Docket No.: FWS-R8-ES-2020-0074; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] (RIN: 1018-BE73) received February 3, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-390. A letter from the Chief, Division of Regulations, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Mount Rainier National Park; Fishing [NPS-MORA-34555; Docket No.: NPS-2022- 0002; PPPWMORAS1 PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] (RIN: 1024-AE66) received February 3, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-391. A letter from the Agency Representative, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Final Rule Eliminating Continuing Legal Education Certification and Recognition for Patent Practitioners [Docket No.: PTO-C-2022- 0028] (RIN: 0651-AD62) received January 30, 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-392. A letter from the Chief, Division of Regulations, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-33240; PPWOVPADU0/ PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000] (RIN: 1024-AE78) received February 3, 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-393. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment (RIN: 3133-AF54) received February 2, 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-394. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1421; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01088-G; Amendment 39-22310; AD 2023-02-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-395. 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-2022-1051; Project Identifier AD-2022-00089-T; Amendment 39-22257; AD 2022-25- 01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-396. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA- 2022-1305; Project Identifier AD-2022-00913-T; Amendment 39- 22309; AD 2023-02-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-397. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2023- 0021; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01618-E; Amendment 39- 22306; AD 2023-01-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-398. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2023- 0020; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01566-E; Amendment 39- 22305; AD 2023-01-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-399. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Turboprop Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1302; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00062-E; Amendment 39-22301; AD 2023-01- 07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-400. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1028; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASO-9] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-401. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace; Marfa, TX [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1351; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASW-22] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-402. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ness City, KS [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0249; Airspace Docket No.: 20-ACE-2] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-403. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1333; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASO-24] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received January 30, 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-404. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Manchester and Nashua, NH [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 1207; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ANE-9] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-405. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple North Dakota Towns [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1316; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-32] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-406. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-214, V-285, and V-305, and Revocation of V-96 in the Vicinity of Kokomo, IN [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0822; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AGL-1] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-407. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mount Sterling and Pittsfield, IL [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1318; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-33] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-408. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Plymouth and Winamac, IN [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1225; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-31] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-409. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of V-6, V-10, V-30, V- 100, and V-233 in the Vicinity of Litchfield, MI [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1113; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-20] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received January 30, 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-410. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Selma, AL [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0922; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASO-15] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received January 30, 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-411. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1664; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01585-R; Amendment 39-22294; AD 2022-27-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-412. 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-2022-0818; Project Identifier AD-2022-00299-R; Amendment 39-22296; AD 2023-01- 02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-413. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-1105; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01459-T; Amendment 39-22086; AD 2020-25-03R1] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-414. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A.) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA- 2022-1246; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00675-T; Amendment 39-22291; AD 2022-27-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-415. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- VA Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition of Information Technology; and Other Contracts for Goods and Services Involving Information, VA Sensitive Information, and Information Security; and Liquidated Damages Requirements for Data Breach (RIN: 2900-AQ41) received February 2, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-416. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting a continuation of the national emergency with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, declared in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, is to continue in effect beyond March 1, 2023, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 202(d); (90 Stat. 1257) (H. Doc. No. 118--9); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgH835-8 | null | 5,811 |
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-386. A letter from the Director, Regulations Management Division, Rural Development Innovation Center, Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Section 306C Water and Waste Disposal (WWD) Loans and Grants [Docket No.: RUS-21-WATER- 0017] (RIN: 0572-AC55) received February 3, 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-387. 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: Consumer Refrigeration and Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products [EERE-2022-BT-CRT-0021] (RIN: 1904-AF42) received February 10, 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-388. A letter from the Deputy General Counsel for Operations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting two (2) notifications on an action on nomination, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3349(a); Public Law 105-277, Sec. 151(b); (112 Stat. 2681-614); to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. EC-389. A letter from the Administrative Assistant, Branch of Administrative Support Systems, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Five Species That Occur on San Clemente Island From the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants [Docket No.: FWS-R8-ES-2020-0074; FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] (RIN: 1018-BE73) received February 3, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-390. A letter from the Chief, Division of Regulations, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Mount Rainier National Park; Fishing [NPS-MORA-34555; Docket No.: NPS-2022- 0002; PPPWMORAS1 PPMPSPD1Z.YM0000] (RIN: 1024-AE66) received February 3, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Natural Resources. EC-391. A letter from the Agency Representative, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Final Rule Eliminating Continuing Legal Education Certification and Recognition for Patent Practitioners [Docket No.: PTO-C-2022- 0028] (RIN: 0651-AD62) received January 30, 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-392. A letter from the Chief, Division of Regulations, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-33240; PPWOVPADU0/ PPMPRLE1Y.Y00000] (RIN: 1024-AE78) received February 3, 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-393. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment (RIN: 3133-AF54) received February 2, 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-394. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1421; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01088-G; Amendment 39-22310; AD 2023-02-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-395. 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-2022-1051; Project Identifier AD-2022-00089-T; Amendment 39-22257; AD 2022-25- 01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-396. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA- 2022-1305; Project Identifier AD-2022-00913-T; Amendment 39- 22309; AD 2023-02-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-397. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2023- 0021; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01618-E; Amendment 39- 22306; AD 2023-01-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-398. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2023- 0020; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01566-E; Amendment 39- 22305; AD 2023-01-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-399. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Turboprop Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1302; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00062-E; Amendment 39-22301; AD 2023-01- 07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-400. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1028; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASO-9] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-401. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Revocation of Class E Airspace; Marfa, TX [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1351; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASW-22] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-402. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ness City, KS [Docket No.: FAA-2020-0249; Airspace Docket No.: 20-ACE-2] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-403. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1333; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASO-24] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received January 30, 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-404. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Manchester and Nashua, NH [Docket No.: FAA-2022- 1207; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ANE-9] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-405. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple North Dakota Towns [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1316; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-32] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-406. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-214, V-285, and V-305, and Revocation of V-96 in the Vicinity of Kokomo, IN [Docket No.: FAA-2021-0822; Airspace Docket No.: 21-AGL-1] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-407. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mount Sterling and Pittsfield, IL [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1318; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-33] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-408. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of Class E Airspace; Plymouth and Winamac, IN [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1225; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-31] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received January 30, 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-409. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Amendment of V-6, V-10, V-30, V- 100, and V-233 in the Vicinity of Litchfield, MI [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1113; Airspace Docket No.: 22-AGL-20] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received January 30, 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-410. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Selma, AL [Docket No.: FAA-2022-0922; Airspace Docket No.: 22-ASO-15] (RIN: 2120- AA66) received January 30, 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-411. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2022-1664; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01585-R; Amendment 39-22294; AD 2022-27-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-412. 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-2022-0818; Project Identifier AD-2022-00299-R; Amendment 39-22296; AD 2023-01- 02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-413. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2020-1105; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01459-T; Amendment 39-22086; AD 2020-25-03R1] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-414. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A.) Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA- 2022-1246; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00675-T; Amendment 39-22291; AD 2022-27-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received January 30, 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-415. A letter from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Office of General Counsel (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's final rule -- VA Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition of Information Technology; and Other Contracts for Goods and Services Involving Information, VA Sensitive Information, and Information Security; and Liquidated Damages Requirements for Data Breach (RIN: 2900-AQ41) received February 2, 2023, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-416. A communication from the President of the United States, transmitting a continuation of the national emergency with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, declared in Proclamation 9994 of March 13, 2020, is to continue in effect beyond March 1, 2023, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); Public Law 94-412, Sec. 202(d); (90 Stat. 1257) (H. Doc. No. 118--9); jointly to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, and ordered to be printed. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgH835-8 | null | 5,812 |
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-2023-02-14-pt1-PgH840 | null | 5,813 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, now, on judges, today, the Senate reaches a major milestone as we confirm the 100th--100th--judicial nominee of the Biden administration. That is 100 judges who will bring balance and excellence to the Federal bench, 100 judges who have expanded the diversity and dynamism of the judiciary, 100 judges who embody the best of our justice system: experience, fairmindedness, and, most of all, fidelity to the Constitution. Today's nominee, Judge Gina Mendez-Miro, is remarkable in her own right. Judge Mendez-Miro, nominatedto serve as a district judge for the District of Puerto Rico, would make history as the first openly LGBTQ member of that court. That is something to celebrate, something to be proud of, and something that shows America can, little by little, live up to its promise of opportunity for all, regardless of his or her background. Judge Mendez-Miro is already a deeply respected member of the Puerto Rican court of appeals, and I am confident she will make an excellent district court judge. Mr. President, whenever we reach a milestone like today's, it is as good an opportunity as any to pause and evaluate everything we have accomplished and what it means for our country. Today, because of the work done by this majority, our Federal judiciary is far more balanced, far more diverse, far more experienced than the one we had just 2 years ago, and it is something every American can be proud of. This Senate has confirmed more judges by this point in a President's term than either of the previous two administrations. Of the 100 judges, 76 are women--76. Today, only about one-third of active Federal judges are women. So this is a sorely needed step in the right direction, redressing what has been a time-old imbalance. Sixty-eight of these judges are people of color: 33 Black judges, 25 Black women judges, 21 from Hispanic backgrounds. We confirmed the first Muslim American Federal judge in U.S. history, and, of course--of course--we confirmed the first Black woman ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. And diversity can take many forms. Justice Jackson, for instance, is also the first public defender to ever bear the title Justice. It is no small feat to confirm the first ever Justice who knows firsthand what it is like to defend the rights of the accused. And perhaps more than at any other point in history, our bench has more public defenders, civil rights lawyers, election lawyers--people who have understood average folks as they walk through their lives. From Myrna Perez, who directed the Brennan Center for voting rights and elections, to Holly Thomas, who led DOJ's civil rights division, to Nina Morrison, the former senior litigator of the Innocence Project, these judges are the kind of heavy hitters who, until now, rarely made it to the Federal bench. We Democrats are proud--very proud--that we are changing that. Diversity is something we are all proud to celebrate, but it is not diversity on its own that matters here. If our democracy is to prosper in the 21st century, the American people must have confidence that our Federal courts can faithfully adhere to the principle of equal justice under law. The more our judges reflect our Nation's vibrancy and diversity, the more effective they will be in administering equal justice. The more Americans look at our courts and see people who look like them and come from their backgrounds and share similar experiences, the better off our judicial system will be. Now, that does not change the obligation of judges, who have to apply the law fairly, impartially, and equally. On the contrary, I believe diversity enhances the court's ability to rule impartially. So you can bet that we will continue in this effort. I want to thank all of my colleagues who worked so hard in the last 2 years to confirm these remarkable judges. I want to thank my Republican colleagues who worked with us as well because their support has made this milestone possible. And, of course, above all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, particularly Chairman Durbin, for his leadership in seeing these judges through the nomination process. And as a sign of what is to come, last week, Senator Durbin led the Judiciary Committee to advance another 24--that is 24--new judicial nominees. Mr. President, the Senate will keep going to confirm even more judges to the bench as quickly as we can. When we began our majority, I said judges would be one of our top priorities in this Chamber, and we have kept that promise, and we are going to continue to work in the months and years ahead to ensure our courts advance the cause of equal justice under law for every single person in this country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS371-11 | null | 5,814 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, now, on judges, today, the Senate reaches a major milestone as we confirm the 100th--100th--judicial nominee of the Biden administration. That is 100 judges who will bring balance and excellence to the Federal bench, 100 judges who have expanded the diversity and dynamism of the judiciary, 100 judges who embody the best of our justice system: experience, fairmindedness, and, most of all, fidelity to the Constitution. Today's nominee, Judge Gina Mendez-Miro, is remarkable in her own right. Judge Mendez-Miro, nominatedto serve as a district judge for the District of Puerto Rico, would make history as the first openly LGBTQ member of that court. That is something to celebrate, something to be proud of, and something that shows America can, little by little, live up to its promise of opportunity for all, regardless of his or her background. Judge Mendez-Miro is already a deeply respected member of the Puerto Rican court of appeals, and I am confident she will make an excellent district court judge. Mr. President, whenever we reach a milestone like today's, it is as good an opportunity as any to pause and evaluate everything we have accomplished and what it means for our country. Today, because of the work done by this majority, our Federal judiciary is far more balanced, far more diverse, far more experienced than the one we had just 2 years ago, and it is something every American can be proud of. This Senate has confirmed more judges by this point in a President's term than either of the previous two administrations. Of the 100 judges, 76 are women--76. Today, only about one-third of active Federal judges are women. So this is a sorely needed step in the right direction, redressing what has been a time-old imbalance. Sixty-eight of these judges are people of color: 33 Black judges, 25 Black women judges, 21 from Hispanic backgrounds. We confirmed the first Muslim American Federal judge in U.S. history, and, of course--of course--we confirmed the first Black woman ever to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. And diversity can take many forms. Justice Jackson, for instance, is also the first public defender to ever bear the title Justice. It is no small feat to confirm the first ever Justice who knows firsthand what it is like to defend the rights of the accused. And perhaps more than at any other point in history, our bench has more public defenders, civil rights lawyers, election lawyers--people who have understood average folks as they walk through their lives. From Myrna Perez, who directed the Brennan Center for voting rights and elections, to Holly Thomas, who led DOJ's civil rights division, to Nina Morrison, the former senior litigator of the Innocence Project, these judges are the kind of heavy hitters who, until now, rarely made it to the Federal bench. We Democrats are proud--very proud--that we are changing that. Diversity is something we are all proud to celebrate, but it is not diversity on its own that matters here. If our democracy is to prosper in the 21st century, the American people must have confidence that our Federal courts can faithfully adhere to the principle of equal justice under law. The more our judges reflect our Nation's vibrancy and diversity, the more effective they will be in administering equal justice. The more Americans look at our courts and see people who look like them and come from their backgrounds and share similar experiences, the better off our judicial system will be. Now, that does not change the obligation of judges, who have to apply the law fairly, impartially, and equally. On the contrary, I believe diversity enhances the court's ability to rule impartially. So you can bet that we will continue in this effort. I want to thank all of my colleagues who worked so hard in the last 2 years to confirm these remarkable judges. I want to thank my Republican colleagues who worked with us as well because their support has made this milestone possible. And, of course, above all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, particularly Chairman Durbin, for his leadership in seeing these judges through the nomination process. And as a sign of what is to come, last week, Senator Durbin led the Judiciary Committee to advance another 24--that is 24--new judicial nominees. Mr. President, the Senate will keep going to confirm even more judges to the bench as quickly as we can. When we began our majority, I said judges would be one of our top priorities in this Chamber, and we have kept that promise, and we are going to continue to work in the months and years ahead to ensure our courts advance the cause of equal justice under law for every single person in this country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS371-11 | null | 5,815 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Nomination of Adrienne C. Nelson Mr. President, I want to use my time to offer my unwavering support for the confirmation of Associate Justice Adrienne Nelson to the U.S. District Court for Oregon. Through a powerful combination of legal knowledge and a commitment to justice for all, Justice Adrienne Nelson has amassed an extraordinary record, earning her a well-deserved seat on the Oregon Supreme Court, the first Black woman ever to serve there. Before she was the first Black woman Oregon Supreme Court justice, before law school, before her impressive legal career, which includes her 12 years of experience on Multnomah County Circuit Court, in private practice, as a public defender, even before she could vote, Judge Nelson was No. 1 in her class at an Arkansas high school that wouldn't recognize her as valedictorian because of the color of her skin. The lawsuit that followed in her name ensured that no student could be denied any accomplishment based on their race, and that victory activated a lifelong legal mind and civil rights champion. Around my State, Justice Nelson is lauded for her prodigious work ethic, her integrity, and her humility. Support for her nomination comes from her fellow Justices on the Oregon Supreme Court, nonprofit and business leaders, law enforcement officials from urban and rural communities; and that includes district attorneys, the sheriff of our largest county, and a former U.S. Attorney who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. There is so much to like about Judge Nelson, but what I like most is that she is a role modeled for young people. Young people in my State really look up to Judge Nelson. In fact, there is an Adrienne C. Nelson High School in Happy Valley, OR. I think everybody reports that the students there just adore her. In addition to these impressive accomplishments and the praise and her service as a role model, she has never lost sight of that valedictorian fighting tooth and nail within the American legal system to make ours a better and even stronger country for everybody. I am certain she is going to bring that dedication and commitment to justice for all to every single case that crosses her desk. There is no question that, with Justice Nelson's top-notch qualifications, she is going to make a superb Federal judge. It is all these reasons together that causes me tonight to urge our colleagues--it will happen shortly, later in the week--to vote for this supremely qualified candidate to the U.S. District Court. In Oregon, we are all so proud of Judge Adrienne Nelson, and I believe all Americans will be when she is in service on the court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS381 | null | 5,816 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Nomination of Adrienne C. Nelson Mr. President, I want to use my time to offer my unwavering support for the confirmation of Associate Justice Adrienne Nelson to the U.S. District Court for Oregon. Through a powerful combination of legal knowledge and a commitment to justice for all, Justice Adrienne Nelson has amassed an extraordinary record, earning her a well-deserved seat on the Oregon Supreme Court, the first Black woman ever to serve there. Before she was the first Black woman Oregon Supreme Court justice, before law school, before her impressive legal career, which includes her 12 years of experience on Multnomah County Circuit Court, in private practice, as a public defender, even before she could vote, Judge Nelson was No. 1 in her class at an Arkansas high school that wouldn't recognize her as valedictorian because of the color of her skin. The lawsuit that followed in her name ensured that no student could be denied any accomplishment based on their race, and that victory activated a lifelong legal mind and civil rights champion. Around my State, Justice Nelson is lauded for her prodigious work ethic, her integrity, and her humility. Support for her nomination comes from her fellow Justices on the Oregon Supreme Court, nonprofit and business leaders, law enforcement officials from urban and rural communities; and that includes district attorneys, the sheriff of our largest county, and a former U.S. Attorney who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. There is so much to like about Judge Nelson, but what I like most is that she is a role modeled for young people. Young people in my State really look up to Judge Nelson. In fact, there is an Adrienne C. Nelson High School in Happy Valley, OR. I think everybody reports that the students there just adore her. In addition to these impressive accomplishments and the praise and her service as a role model, she has never lost sight of that valedictorian fighting tooth and nail within the American legal system to make ours a better and even stronger country for everybody. I am certain she is going to bring that dedication and commitment to justice for all to every single case that crosses her desk. There is no question that, with Justice Nelson's top-notch qualifications, she is going to make a superb Federal judge. It is all these reasons together that causes me tonight to urge our colleagues--it will happen shortly, later in the week--to vote for this supremely qualified candidate to the U.S. District Court. In Oregon, we are all so proud of Judge Adrienne Nelson, and I believe all Americans will be when she is in service on the court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS381 | null | 5,817 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Nomination of Adrienne C. Nelson Mr. President, I want to use my time to offer my unwavering support for the confirmation of Associate Justice Adrienne Nelson to the U.S. District Court for Oregon. Through a powerful combination of legal knowledge and a commitment to justice for all, Justice Adrienne Nelson has amassed an extraordinary record, earning her a well-deserved seat on the Oregon Supreme Court, the first Black woman ever to serve there. Before she was the first Black woman Oregon Supreme Court justice, before law school, before her impressive legal career, which includes her 12 years of experience on Multnomah County Circuit Court, in private practice, as a public defender, even before she could vote, Judge Nelson was No. 1 in her class at an Arkansas high school that wouldn't recognize her as valedictorian because of the color of her skin. The lawsuit that followed in her name ensured that no student could be denied any accomplishment based on their race, and that victory activated a lifelong legal mind and civil rights champion. Around my State, Justice Nelson is lauded for her prodigious work ethic, her integrity, and her humility. Support for her nomination comes from her fellow Justices on the Oregon Supreme Court, nonprofit and business leaders, law enforcement officials from urban and rural communities; and that includes district attorneys, the sheriff of our largest county, and a former U.S. Attorney who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. There is so much to like about Judge Nelson, but what I like most is that she is a role modeled for young people. Young people in my State really look up to Judge Nelson. In fact, there is an Adrienne C. Nelson High School in Happy Valley, OR. I think everybody reports that the students there just adore her. In addition to these impressive accomplishments and the praise and her service as a role model, she has never lost sight of that valedictorian fighting tooth and nail within the American legal system to make ours a better and even stronger country for everybody. I am certain she is going to bring that dedication and commitment to justice for all to every single case that crosses her desk. There is no question that, with Justice Nelson's top-notch qualifications, she is going to make a superb Federal judge. It is all these reasons together that causes me tonight to urge our colleagues--it will happen shortly, later in the week--to vote for this supremely qualified candidate to the U.S. District Court. In Oregon, we are all so proud of Judge Adrienne Nelson, and I believe all Americans will be when she is in service on the court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS381 | null | 5,818 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the confirmation of Matthew Garcia to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Mr. Garcia is an experienced litigator with deep ties to the New Mexico legal community. He received degrees from the University of New Mexico, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and the University of New Mexico School of Law before establishing a career in civil rights litigation. Mr. Garcia represented plaintiffs in religious liberty, unlawful discrimination, and wage theft cases. He also gained experience in multistate antitrust actions and personal injury matters. In 2019, Mr. Garcia left private practice and joined the New Mexico State government as general counsel to New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham. He now serves as her chief of staff and advises on issues related to State constitutional questions and statutory interpretation. Throughout his career, Mr. Garcia has appeared frequently in State and Federal court. His breadth of experience in government and the private sector will make him ready to serve on the District of New Mexico from day one. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Mr. Garcia ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of his home-State Senators, Mr. Heinrich and Mr. Lujan. I supported his nomination and was glad to see him confirmed. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS382-2 | null | 5,819 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the confirmation of Lindsay Jenkins to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Born in Cleveland, OH, Ms. Jenkins received her bachelor's degree from Miami University of Ohio and her J.D., summa cum laude, from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. After clerking for Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr., on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and working in private practice for 2 years, Ms. Jenkins spent the majority of her legal career--15 years--as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ms. Jenkins prosecuted a range of cases, including violations of drug and firearm laws, fraud, gang-related activity, civil rights violations, and corruption. In addition to her caseload at the U.S. Attorney's Office, she took on supervisory responsibilities, rising to become chief of the Criminal Division. In that role, she oversaw all criminal prosecutions in the Northern District of Illinois, supervising nearly 150 prosecutors across 9 prosecution sections. In 2021, Ms. Jenkins returned to private practice, primarily working on internal investigations and white collar cases. The American Bar Association rated Ms. Jenkins as unanimously ``well qualified.'' Given her qualifications and her deep knowledge of the Northern District, Senator Duckworth and I strongly support Ms. Jenkins. I thank my colleagues for confirming her. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS382-3 | null | 5,820 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, we must never forget the ``first to fire'' troops from the United States and the Philippines who bravely defended Bataan, Corregidor, and other critical locations throughout the Pacific theater in the early months of World War II before enduring some of the most harrowing prisoners of war experiences in history. Their combat experiences began hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory, on December 7, 1941. Imperial Japanese forces launched coordinated attacks throughout Asia, striking Malaya, Thailand, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and the American Territories of Guam, Midway, Wake Island, Howland Island, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines. By December 22, 1941, the American Territories of Guam and Wake Island were surrendered to Imperial Japan. The Commonwealth of the Philippines was under a full-scale invasion. By March 10, 1942, the U.S. Asiatic Fleet was destroyed, and U.S. Army Forces on Java in the Dutch East Indies were surrendered, and General Douglas MacArthur was evacuated from Corregidor to Australia. By June 9, 1942, all of the Philippines was surrendered. The Japanese occupied the Alaskan islands of Kiska and Attu. Japanese forces threw three captured American aviators from the Battle of Midway into the sea. Only in the Philippine Islands did U.S. Armed Forces under the command of the United States Army Forces Far East--USAFFE--wage a prolonged, 6-month resistance to Imperial Japan's invasion in contrast to other Allied encounters with Japan throughout Southeast Asia. In the Philippines, the ``first to fire'' at the Japanese invaders on December 8, 1941, were the New Mexico National Guardsmen from the 200th and 515th Coast Artillery (AA) regiments, who were stationed at Fort Stotsenburg north of Manila with the mission of protecting Clark Field. With the activation of War Plan Orange (WPO-3) on December 24, 1941, USAFFE forces on the island of Luzon in the Philippines withdrew into the Bataan Peninsula to defend Manila Bay and await for reinforcements, which were never to come. The withdrawal was covered by 26th Cavalry Regiment (Philippine Scouts) and the Provisional Tank Group commanded by Brigadier General James R. N. Weaver that was composed of the 192nd GHQ Light Tank Battalion made up of Company A from Janesville, WI, Company B from Maywood, IL, Company C from Port Clinton, OH, and Company D from Harrodsburg, KY, and the GHQ 194th Light Tank Battalion made up of Company A from Brainerd, MN, Company B from Saint Joseph, MO, and Company C from Salinas, CA, and the 17th Ordnance Company (Armored). On January 16, 1942, when Troop G of the 26th Cavalry encountered Japanese forces at an escape route to Bataan, Lieutenant Edwin P. Ramsey ordered the last cavalry charge in American history. For the next 4 months, an estimated 12,000 American troops, 76,000 Filipino troops, and 20,000 Filipino civilians endured siege conditions marked by hunger, disease, and confusion with dwindling and antiquated war materiel. The Japan's successful command of the air and sea in Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific combined with Washington and London's ``Europe First'' strategy foreclosed sending reinforcements and supplies to the besieged islands in the Pacific. Despite the combat prowess, dedication, and pure heroism of the American and Filipino troops on Bataan, Commanding General Edward B. King understood his seriously degraded force could not continue. He surrendered the Bataan Peninsula on April 9, 1942. With surrender, thousands of troops and civilians were assembled at the Port of Mariveles at the tip of Bataan for a 65-mile merciless march in the tropical sun up the peninsula to a train station at San Fernando where they were packed standing into small unventilated boxcars for the 24 miles to Capas. From there, the survivors were forced to march 6 miles to Camp O'Donnell, a makeshift POW camp with only one source of water. This forced trek came to be known as the Bataan Death March as it was marked by the Japanese capturers' conscious cruelty of withholding food, water, and medicine, for looting and murder, and for inflicting capricious abuse and torture upon defenseless prisoners. For the next month, the Japanese under the command of General Masaharu Homma unleashed a continual air and artillery assault on the fortress islands of Corregidor (Ft. Mills), Ft. Frank, Ft. Hughes, and Ft. Drum in Manila Bay. After Japanese forces breached beach defenses on Corregidor, Commanding General Jonathan Wainwright surrendered Corregidor and its associated islands on May 6, 1942. General Homma refused to accept the surrender and kept the men and women held on the islands in Manila Bay as hostages until he received assurance on June 9, 1942, that all the USAFFE troops throughout the Philippines had surrendered. On June 7, 1942, the Imperial Japanese Army occupied the Aleutian Island of Attu, capturing the population of 42 Unangax (Aleut) and two American citizens, one of whom was executed and the other taken to Japan with the Alaska Natives as prisoners of war. Included in the surrenders in the Philippines were female nurses of U.S. Army, Navy, Philippine Army, and civilian volunteers who became the first large group of American women in combat and, alongside the five Navy nurses surrendered on Guam in December 1941, comprised the first group of American military women taken captive and imprisoned by an enemy. Between January of 1942 and December of 1944, thousands of prisoners of war from the United States who had survived the surrenders throughout the Pacific were shipped in unmarked transports, known as ``hellships'' for forced labor, often with private companies, throughout the Japanese Empire. By the war's end, more than 12,000 Americans had died in squalid POW camps, in the fetid holds of the ``hellships,'' or in forced labor camps owned by Japanese companies where they were denied food, water, sanitation, clothing, and medical care. As a result, the death rate for American POWs of Japan was 40 percent. Less than half of the men of New Mexico Coast Artillery and the members of the 192nd and 194th Provisional Tank Battalions returned home after the war. Surviving as a POW of Japan and returning home was the beginning of new battles: finding acceptance in society and living with serious mental and physical ailments that the Veterans Administration was unprepared to address, resulting in death rates that were more than twice those of the comparably aged White male population of the time. The veterans of the early defensive battles in the Pacific represented all States, Tribes, and Territories of the United States, a diversity of ethnicities and religions embodying the American spirit of perseverance, faith, and optimism. President Ronald Reagan first proclaimed National Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day in 1988, which was established to coincide with April 9, the anniversary of the surrender of Bataan and the start of the Bataan Death March. The U.S. Navy has honored the service and heroism of the veterans of early battles in the Pacific by naming several ships after the 1942 fighting in the Philippines and other places in the Pacific, including one still in service, the USS Bataan (LHD-5), homeported in Norfolk, VA; as well as the now decommissioned USS Corregidor (CVE-58); USS Antrim (FFG-20); USS Bangust (DE-739), USS Baron (DE-739), USS Elrod (FFG-55), and USS Rooks (DD-804). It is time to recognize the Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor: ordinary men and women who found uncommon courage in extraordinary circumstances to fight the impossible and endure the unimaginable for freedom from tyranny and oppression. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HEINRICH | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS395 | null | 5,821 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-479. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds for Section 8 of the Clayton Act'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-480. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revised Jurisdictional Thresholds for Section 7A of the Clayton Act'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-481. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2019 Annual Report of the National Institute of Justice''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-482. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Literature Review and Data Analysis on Deaths in Custody''; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-483. A communication from the President of the United States Capitol Historical Society, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Society's fiscal year 2022 annual report and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL); to the Committee on Rules and Administration. EC-484. A communication from the Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Federal Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to notifying Congress that the Commission did not complete or initiate competitive sourcing for conversion in fiscal year 2022, nor do they plan to do so in fiscal year 2023; to the Committee on Rules and Administration. EC-485. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Modifications of Approval Requirements for Courses Designed to Prepare Individuals for Licensure or Certifications'' (RIN2900-AQ91) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 26, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-486. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Amendments'' (RIN2900-AR79) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 26, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-487. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Emergent Suicide Care'' (RIN2900-AR50) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 26, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-488. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 26, 2023; to the Committee on Indian Affairs. EC-489. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Withdrawal of the Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding `Unfair Methods of Competition' under Section 5 of the FTC Act'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-490. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Rebates and Fees in Exchange for Excluding Lower-Cost Drug Products'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-491. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Telemarketing Sales Rule Fees'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-492. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Adjustments to Civil Penalty Amounts'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-493. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification, and Posting'' (RIN3064-AB39) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-494. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Evaluation for BWRVIP-321, Boiling Water Reactor and Internals Project, Plan for Extension of the Boiling Water Reactor Integrated Surveillance Program Through Second License Renewal'' received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on January 19, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS396-3 | null | 5,822 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Braun, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Fischer, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Rounds): S. 415. A bill to provide reliable and evidence-based food and energy security; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS399-2 | null | 5,823 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Braun, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Fischer, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Rounds): S. 415. A bill to provide reliable and evidence-based food and energy security; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-14-pt1-PgS399 | null | 5,824 |
formal | balance the budget | null | conservative | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, chaos over there in the House on the Republican side. Each day that passes in Washington, two things hold true: We keep getting closer to default but no closer to a Republican plan to lift the debt ceiling. I repeat once again: House Republicans, Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. It has been more than a month since Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans began threatening the entire U.S. economy in order to secure drastic spending cuts that, in all likelihood, will hurt the American people badly. But in all this time, nobody can seem to get an answer to the $64,000 question: What cuts exactly are the Republicans proposing? Show us your plan. Some of the things we are hearing from the MAGA wing is the stuff of nightmares. Later this afternoon, I will join with a number of Senate colleagues to shine a light on how devastating the radical MAGA cuts would be for American families if the MAGA Republicans got their way. But where is the House Republican plan? How are they going to lift the debt ceiling? After months of no answers, now Speaker McCarthy has recently claimed Republican leadership is trying to come up with a plan right now. I am glad he is at least saying he wants to answer our question. Frankly, it is a lot easier said than done, and I don't think Speaker McCarthy will be able to unify his conference. It takes 218 votes, as we know, to pass anything in the House, and with the razor-thin GOP majority paralyzed by internal division and with the stronghold the MAGA Republicans have on the Speaker, Speaker McCarthy will have a very difficult time getting everyone on the same page, if he can do it at all. To quote from Punchbowl this morning, ``House Republicans . . . face an intractable political math challenge as they seek to reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit.'' For one, Speaker McCarthy has insisted Republicans will only preserve the full faith and credit of the United States if they secure drastic spending cuts first. MAGA Republican hardliners have demanded Speaker McCarthy release a proposal to balance the budget over the next 10 years, one of the conditions for having supported his leadership. At the same time, Speaker McCarthy has also claimed Republicans won't touch Social Security and Medicare. Now, I will believe that when I see it because so many Republicans, not just a handful--so many--have spent years going on record calling for cuts and changes and privatization of these programs. All this leads to a terrible conclusion. If Speaker McCarthy is going to meet these goals, Republicans would need to cut 85 percent of all discretionary spending in order to balance the budget in 10 years. Let me say that again. If Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans are serious about balancing the budget in their 10-year plan without touching Medicare and Social Security, they will need to cut 85 percent of all discretionary spending. That would be Republican austerity at an apocalyptic level. Teachers, nurses, firefighters, student loan borrowers, police officers would all kiss Federal funding goodbye. Funding for scientific research, so vital in our competition with China, would likely disappear. Child hunger would spike without Federal nutrition programs. Housing programs would be starved of resources. We would be thrust into a greater housing crisis than we now have. So my point is this: Speaker McCarthy is not going to be able to keep his promise to balance the budget in 10 years while, at the same time, leaving Social Security and Medicare untouched. The math doesn't add up. Very soon, the MAGA brigade will see that the Speaker made a bunch of promises that he won't be able to keep, and I worry greatly that the dangers of slipping into default will only increase as the toxic dynamic within the House GOP gets worse day by day. That is why it is so important that now, early on, the House Republicans show us their plan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS406-2 | null | 5,825 |
formal | balancing the budget | null | conservative | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, chaos over there in the House on the Republican side. Each day that passes in Washington, two things hold true: We keep getting closer to default but no closer to a Republican plan to lift the debt ceiling. I repeat once again: House Republicans, Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. It has been more than a month since Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans began threatening the entire U.S. economy in order to secure drastic spending cuts that, in all likelihood, will hurt the American people badly. But in all this time, nobody can seem to get an answer to the $64,000 question: What cuts exactly are the Republicans proposing? Show us your plan. Some of the things we are hearing from the MAGA wing is the stuff of nightmares. Later this afternoon, I will join with a number of Senate colleagues to shine a light on how devastating the radical MAGA cuts would be for American families if the MAGA Republicans got their way. But where is the House Republican plan? How are they going to lift the debt ceiling? After months of no answers, now Speaker McCarthy has recently claimed Republican leadership is trying to come up with a plan right now. I am glad he is at least saying he wants to answer our question. Frankly, it is a lot easier said than done, and I don't think Speaker McCarthy will be able to unify his conference. It takes 218 votes, as we know, to pass anything in the House, and with the razor-thin GOP majority paralyzed by internal division and with the stronghold the MAGA Republicans have on the Speaker, Speaker McCarthy will have a very difficult time getting everyone on the same page, if he can do it at all. To quote from Punchbowl this morning, ``House Republicans . . . face an intractable political math challenge as they seek to reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit.'' For one, Speaker McCarthy has insisted Republicans will only preserve the full faith and credit of the United States if they secure drastic spending cuts first. MAGA Republican hardliners have demanded Speaker McCarthy release a proposal to balance the budget over the next 10 years, one of the conditions for having supported his leadership. At the same time, Speaker McCarthy has also claimed Republicans won't touch Social Security and Medicare. Now, I will believe that when I see it because so many Republicans, not just a handful--so many--have spent years going on record calling for cuts and changes and privatization of these programs. All this leads to a terrible conclusion. If Speaker McCarthy is going to meet these goals, Republicans would need to cut 85 percent of all discretionary spending in order to balance the budget in 10 years. Let me say that again. If Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans are serious about balancing the budget in their 10-year plan without touching Medicare and Social Security, they will need to cut 85 percent of all discretionary spending. That would be Republican austerity at an apocalyptic level. Teachers, nurses, firefighters, student loan borrowers, police officers would all kiss Federal funding goodbye. Funding for scientific research, so vital in our competition with China, would likely disappear. Child hunger would spike without Federal nutrition programs. Housing programs would be starved of resources. We would be thrust into a greater housing crisis than we now have. So my point is this: Speaker McCarthy is not going to be able to keep his promise to balance the budget in 10 years while, at the same time, leaving Social Security and Medicare untouched. The math doesn't add up. Very soon, the MAGA brigade will see that the Speaker made a bunch of promises that he won't be able to keep, and I worry greatly that the dangers of slipping into default will only increase as the toxic dynamic within the House GOP gets worse day by day. That is why it is so important that now, early on, the House Republicans show us their plan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS406-2 | null | 5,826 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now, chaos over there in the House on the Republican side. Each day that passes in Washington, two things hold true: We keep getting closer to default but no closer to a Republican plan to lift the debt ceiling. I repeat once again: House Republicans, Speaker McCarthy, show us your plan. It has been more than a month since Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans began threatening the entire U.S. economy in order to secure drastic spending cuts that, in all likelihood, will hurt the American people badly. But in all this time, nobody can seem to get an answer to the $64,000 question: What cuts exactly are the Republicans proposing? Show us your plan. Some of the things we are hearing from the MAGA wing is the stuff of nightmares. Later this afternoon, I will join with a number of Senate colleagues to shine a light on how devastating the radical MAGA cuts would be for American families if the MAGA Republicans got their way. But where is the House Republican plan? How are they going to lift the debt ceiling? After months of no answers, now Speaker McCarthy has recently claimed Republican leadership is trying to come up with a plan right now. I am glad he is at least saying he wants to answer our question. Frankly, it is a lot easier said than done, and I don't think Speaker McCarthy will be able to unify his conference. It takes 218 votes, as we know, to pass anything in the House, and with the razor-thin GOP majority paralyzed by internal division and with the stronghold the MAGA Republicans have on the Speaker, Speaker McCarthy will have a very difficult time getting everyone on the same page, if he can do it at all. To quote from Punchbowl this morning, ``House Republicans . . . face an intractable political math challenge as they seek to reduce the $1.4 trillion deficit.'' For one, Speaker McCarthy has insisted Republicans will only preserve the full faith and credit of the United States if they secure drastic spending cuts first. MAGA Republican hardliners have demanded Speaker McCarthy release a proposal to balance the budget over the next 10 years, one of the conditions for having supported his leadership. At the same time, Speaker McCarthy has also claimed Republicans won't touch Social Security and Medicare. Now, I will believe that when I see it because so many Republicans, not just a handful--so many--have spent years going on record calling for cuts and changes and privatization of these programs. All this leads to a terrible conclusion. If Speaker McCarthy is going to meet these goals, Republicans would need to cut 85 percent of all discretionary spending in order to balance the budget in 10 years. Let me say that again. If Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans are serious about balancing the budget in their 10-year plan without touching Medicare and Social Security, they will need to cut 85 percent of all discretionary spending. That would be Republican austerity at an apocalyptic level. Teachers, nurses, firefighters, student loan borrowers, police officers would all kiss Federal funding goodbye. Funding for scientific research, so vital in our competition with China, would likely disappear. Child hunger would spike without Federal nutrition programs. Housing programs would be starved of resources. We would be thrust into a greater housing crisis than we now have. So my point is this: Speaker McCarthy is not going to be able to keep his promise to balance the budget in 10 years while, at the same time, leaving Social Security and Medicare untouched. The math doesn't add up. Very soon, the MAGA brigade will see that the Speaker made a bunch of promises that he won't be able to keep, and I worry greatly that the dangers of slipping into default will only increase as the toxic dynamic within the House GOP gets worse day by day. That is why it is so important that now, early on, the House Republicans show us their plan. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS406-2 | null | 5,827 |
formal | urban | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on implementation, as President Biden pointed out last week during his State of the Union Address, the Democratic agenda is already bearing fruit across this country. There will be tens of thousands of projects funded. Last week, for instance, I joined with President Biden to talk about Gateway in New York, which is something New Yorkers have waited for for decades and is vital to continuing the health of our bistate--New York-New Jersey--economy as well as the economy of the Northeast. When the President came and we actually started working on the project, you could feel exaltation and excitement in the city. That is going to start happening again and again everywhere--in urban, suburban, and rural areas--as Democrats make it a priority to get the word out about all the good things that are coming the American people's way. It is one thing for Americans to read about things that Congress has passed, but when they can actually feel and see these accomplishments play out in their communities, it makes a world of difference. We have a responsibility to make the connection between what happens in this Chamber and what is going on in people's backyards. This morning, I sent out a Dear Colleague with Senator Stabenow about how Democrats are going to get the word out on implementing our agenda in the coming weeks. We have a great story to tell the American people and no shortage of examples of how our agenda is making the country stronger and making Americans' lives better. Let me give a few examples: Seniors on Medicare, for instance, can now, already, take advantage of Democrats' historic $35-a-month cap on insulin. After years of hard work, this is no longer an aspiration; a $35 insulin cap is now the law of the land. Seniors, who were up nights worrying how they were going to pay $400, $500, $600, $700 a month for this vital drug when you have diabetes can now breathe easy. Millions of people--the seniors and their families and friends--can breathe easier because of what we have done. Now--let's not forget--we should be expanding the cap to all Americans, not just to those over 65. And in this Congress, Democrats are going to work hard, try to work with our Republican colleagues--we hope they will join us--to make that happen. Here is another one: Very few people know of this, but we are spreading the word. Seniors on Medicaid can take advantage of free shingles vaccines. These two benefits alone--the insulin cap and free shingles vaccines--could mean hundreds in savings every year for seniors on Medicaid. And so many seniors are. On the infrastructure fund: Communities across the country can now apply for new grant funding to fix their roads, their bridges, their highways. These are perhaps the most obvious examples of our agenda at work. People are going to start seeing more orange vests, more hardhats, and good-paying union jobs in their communities as the communities get the updates they sorely need. And the Inflation Reduction Act is already doing exactly what its name suggests: saving people money. The tax credits alone can give families as much as $14,000 for making their homes energy efficient. People can put in heat pumps, get help to get those heat pumps, and their heating bills go down. It is a great thing. The examples go on. Democrats are going to make implementation a top priority in this Congress. After everything we have been through over the past 3 years, Americans deserve to hear some good news about how their leaders are working hard for them. That is precisely what we will focus on in the coming years. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS406 | null | 5,828 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, last week, President Biden spent part of his State of the Union Address celebrating what he seemed to think was a victory over inflation. Yesterday, however, another wave of official figures confirmed what working families already knew: The President was simply wrong. The Democrats' football spiking was premature. The American people are hurting badly. The CPI rose another half a point last month, even faster than predicted, for an overall price hike of 6.4 percent year on year. Now, mind you, that is not 6.4 percent inflation since President Biden was sworn in. That is an additional 6.4 percent just since February of last year--since February of last year--a baseline that already had an entire previous year of historic and unacceptable inflation already baked into it. The overall Biden inflation rate is 14.4 percent. The overall Biden inflation rate is 14.4 percent from January 2021 to today. Rents are up 12.7 percent since President Biden took office. Grocery prices are up 19.6 percent. Energy prices are up 38 percent after 2 years of total Democratic control here in Washington. Prices are still rising out of control. And, even worse, the rate of increase is speeding back up again. This past month was the hottest for inflation since last October. We have now had 21 straight months above 5 percent annual inflation--a mind-boggling policy failure. And what does the White House have to say about it? Well, yesterday, the President's press secretary claimed: The President's economic plan is indeed working. So I guess the official White House position is that Democrats caused all of this crushing inflation on purpose. This is the kind of insanity that has left just 16 percent of Americans saying they are in a better financial position than they were 2 years ago. That has nearly two-thirds of Americans saying they are living literally paycheck to paycheck. So much preventable pain, because Democrats gambled away families' security on their radical plans and their reckless spending. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS407-4 | null | 5,829 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Prescription Drug Costs Madam President, there is a lot of discussion in our country about how divided we are as a people, and there is no question that on many issues, that is absolutely true. But it turns out that on one of the most important matters facing the American people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, progressives, moderates, and conservatives are all united, and they are united on the need to take on the outrageous corporate greed in the pharmaceutical industryand to substantially lower the incredibly high prices we pay for prescription drugs in this country. On that issue, the American people are quite united. Today, millions of Americans are forced to make the unacceptable choice between feeding their families or buying the medicine they need to ease their pain or to stay alive. Seniors from Vermont to Alaska are forced to split their pills in half because they don't have enough money to fill their prescriptions. Nobody really knows how many people die each year because they lack the medicine that their doctors prescribe. But a 2020 study by West Health found that by the year 2030, over 100,000 Medicare recipients could die prematurely every year because they cannot afford to buy their lifesaving medicine--100,000 seniors every year. All over this country, in every State in this country, the American people are asking some pretty simple questions. They want to know how does it happen that in the United States, we pay by far--not even close--the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. How does it happen? Why is it, people are asking, that nearly one out of every four Americans cannot afford the prescriptions that their doctors write? Think about how crazy that is. People walk into a doctor's office. They get a diagnosis. The doctor writes out a script. They can't afford to fill that prescription. They get sicker or maybe they end up in the emergency room, maybe they end up in the hospital, maybe they die. People are asking: How does it happen that nearly half of all new drugs in the United States cost more than $150,000 a year? They cost more than $150,000 a year. A few years ago, I took a busload of people dealing with diabetes from Detroit, MI, over the Canadian border to a drugstore in Windsor, Ontario. I think the trip took us maybe 45 minutes. There in Windsor, Canada, people on the bus--diabetics--were able to purchase the same insulin products that they bought in the United States for one-tenth the price--a 45-minute trip, same product, one-tenth the price. I will never forget it. Tears were coming down the eyes of people who were buying their product. They couldn't believe how much money they were saving. In 1999, 24 years ago, I was a Member of Congress, and I took another busload of people. This time it was women in northern Vermont who were suffering with breast cancer. We took them to a pharmacy in Montreal, Canada. Once again, they paid one-tenth the price for tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug that they desperately needed. So how does it happen that in Canada and other major countries, the same exact medicines manufactured by the same exact companies are sold for a fraction of the price that we pay in America? It is a simple question. It is a question Democrats, Republicans, Independents--everybody wants an answer to it. Well, the truth is that the answer to that question, in my view, is not complicated. In fact, it can be summed up in just three words, and that is unacceptable corporate greed--unacceptable corporate greed. Over the past 25 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent $8.5 billion on lobbying--$8.5 billion on lobbying and over $745 million on campaign contributions so that we can continue to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Incredibly, last year, drug companies hired over 1,700 lobbyists to knock on every door in the Capitol--1,700 lobbyists--former leaders of the Democratic Party, former leaders of the Republican Party. There are 535 Members of Congress. They have 1,700 lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry--three lobbyists for every Member of Congress. Meanwhile, as Americans die because they cannot afford the medications they need, the pharmaceutical industry makes higher profits every year than other major industries. Year after year after year, they lead the index in terms of their profits. Between the years 2000 and 2018, drug companies in this country made over $8 trillion--that is with a ``t''--$8 trillion in profits. In fact, in 2021, just 10 pharmaceutical companies in the United States made a total of more than $102 billion in profits, up 137 percent from the previous year. It is the greed that we are seeing manifest itself--not just in corporate profits. It also manifests itself in the exorbitant compensation packages that the pharmaceutical industry has given to its CEOs and other top executives within the industry. I hope that people who are listening to us this afternoon--people who can't afford to pay for their prescription drugs--hear this, and that is according to a report done by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee staff, which I chair, released today: In 2021, while hundreds of thousands of Americans died from COVID, 50 pharmaceutical executives in just 10 companies made $1.9 billion in total compensation--50 executives, $1.9 billion. The same 50 executives are in line to receive $2.8 billion in golden parachutes once they leave their companies. Let me give you just a few examples. AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez made nearly $62 million in total compensation in 1 year. The CEO of Eli Lilly, David Ricks, made more than $67 million in 1 year. Incredibly, the CEO of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Leonard Schleifer, made nearly $453 million in total compensation in 1 year--$453 million in 1 year. Meanwhile, while we are told over and over again that the reason we have such high drug prices in America is because of the need of the drug companies to invest in research and development--that is what we are told over and over again: We need to charge you outrageous prices so that we can use that money to invest in research and development for new drugs. Well, it turns out that over the past decade, 14 major pharmaceutical companies spent $747 billion not to research and develop lifesaving drugs but to make their wealthy shareholders even wealthier by buying back their own stock and handing out huge dividends. It turns out, amazingly enough--or maybe not amazingly--that the drug companies spent $87 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than they spent on research and development. So when you hear about all of the need for high prices for research and development, they spent $87 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than on research and development. The truth is, we are dealing here today not just with an economic issue in terms of the high price of prescription drugs--it is a very, very important economic issue--but we are dealing with something even more profound, and that is the moral issue. The question, I think, that Americans should be asking themselves is, Is it morally acceptable that tens of thousands of people die each year in our country because they cannot afford the medicine their doctors prescribe, while at the same time the drug companies make billions in profits and provide their CEOs with huge compensation packages? Is it morally acceptable that, at a time when the taxpayers of this country spent tens of billions a year on research and development for lifesaving drugs, many of these same taxpayers who helped fund the research and development for new drugs are unable to afford those drugs? Is it morally acceptable that the business model of the pharmaceutical industry today is primarily not to create the lifesaving drugs we need for cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, and so many other terrible illnesses, but, rather, through their excessive greed, to make as much money as they possibly can? I should point out that it has not always been that way. There was once a time when the inventors of lifesaving drugs were not obsessed with making huge sums of money but were, instead, obsessed with ending the terrible illnesses that plagued humanity. In the 1950s, for example, there was Dr. Jonas Salk, who invented the vaccine for polio. Salk's work saved millions of lives and prevented millions more from suffering paralysis. It has been estimated that if Dr. Salk had chosen to patent the polio vaccine, he would have made billions of dollars. But he did not. When asked who owns the patent for this vaccine, this is what Dr. Salk said: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun? What Dr. Salk understood was that the purpose of the vaccine he invented was to save lives, to make sure that as many people all over the world were able to receive it, and not to make himself obscenely rich. And Salk, among other great scientists, was not alone. In 1928, Alexander Fleming, a scientist from Scotland, discovered penicillin at St. Mary's Hospital in London. Fleming's discovery of penicillin changed the medical world and saved millions of lives. I am sure that Alexander Fleming could also have become a multibillionaire if he had chosen to own the exclusive rights for this antibiotic. But he did not. When Fleming was asked about his role, he did not talk about the outrageous fortune he could have made through his discovery. Instead, he said: I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident. And then there was the great scientist Frederick Banting from Canada. In 1921, Dr. Banting, along with two other scientists at the University of Toronto, invented insulin--insulin, a drug we are hearing a whole lot about now. When Dr. Banting was asked why he wouldn't patent insulin and why he sold the rights to his invention for $1--$1--he replied: Insulin does not belong to me. It belongs to the world. Frederick Banting. It has been estimated that Dr. Banting's invention of insulin saved some 300 million lives. Once again, in Dr. Banting, we saw a great scientist make it clear that his purpose in life was to help humanity prevent suffering and save lives, not just to make billions for himself. Meanwhile, while Dr. Banting sold his patent for insulin for $1 so that humanity could benefit from his discovery, I should point out that Eli Lilly, one of our Nation's largest drug companies, has increased the price of insulin by 1,200 percent over the past 27 years, to $275, while it costs just $8 to manufacture--selling it for 275 bucks and it costs $8 to manufacture--not quite the spirit of Frederick Banting. Now, let's fast forward to the Covid pandemic, this horrible moment in our history when we have lost over 1 million Americans and tens of millions have suffered various levels of illness. Moderna, a drug company in Massachusetts, worked alongside the National Institutes of Health to develop the vaccine that so many of our people have effectively used--used by millions of people effectively. It is widely acknowledged that both the company and the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, were responsible for the creation of this vaccine. They worked together. After the company received billions of dollars from the Federal Government to research, develop, and distribute the COVID vaccine, well, guess what happened. It turns out that the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel, became a billionaire overnight and is now worth $5.7 billion. Further, the two cofounders of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan and Robert Langer, also became billionaires and are now both worth $2 billion each. And one of the founding investors in Moderna, Tim Springer, is worth $2.5 billion. None of them were billionaires before the taxpayers of our country funded the research and development for the COVID-19 vaccine, and, collectively, this handful of people at Moderna are now worth over $11 billion. Meanwhile, Moderna, as a whole, made over $19 billion in profits during the pandemic. Given that reality, given the enormous amount of taxpayer support, how has the CEO of this company thanked the taxpayers of America for the huge profits that Moderna has experienced and for the incredible wealth that he and his other executives have experienced? Well, he is thanking them by proposing to quadruple the price of the COVID vaccine to about $130 once the government stockpile runs out. And let us be clear, by the way, this is a vaccine that costs just $2.85 to manufacture. On March 22, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will be holding a hearing to discuss this subject, and the bottom line that we will be discussing is this: Does Moderna think that it is appropriate to quadruple prices for the vaccine after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer support? While Moderna may be a poster child for contemporary corporate greed, certainly, they are not alone. A number of years ago, the former CEO of Gilead became a billionaire by charging $1,000 for SOVALDI, a hepatitis C drug that was discovered by scientists at the Veterans' Administration. This drug costs just $1 to manufacture and can be purchased in India for $4. The Japanese drug maker Astellas, which made a billion dollars in profits in 2021, recently raised the price of the prostate cancer drug Xtandi by more than 75 percent in the United States to nearly $190,000. This is a drug that was invented by federally funded scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-sixth the price charged in America. Taxpayers funded the development of the drug and now pay six times more than Canadians do for the same product. And it goes on and on and on. There is no rational reason why the HIV treatment, BIKTARVY, costs over $45,000 per year in the United States but only $7,500 in France, or why a weekly dose of the autoimmune medicine Enbrel costs over $1,700 in the United States but just $300 in Canada--et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It goes on and on and on. The American people, regardless of their political affiliations, are sick and tired of being ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time for us to have the courage to take on the 1,700 lobbyists all over Capitol Hill, to take on the unlimited financial resources of that industry. Now is the time to stand with the American people and substantially lower prescription drug prices in our country, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is going to be actively involved in that process. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS412-4 | null | 5,830 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Prescription Drug Costs Madam President, there is a lot of discussion in our country about how divided we are as a people, and there is no question that on many issues, that is absolutely true. But it turns out that on one of the most important matters facing the American people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, progressives, moderates, and conservatives are all united, and they are united on the need to take on the outrageous corporate greed in the pharmaceutical industryand to substantially lower the incredibly high prices we pay for prescription drugs in this country. On that issue, the American people are quite united. Today, millions of Americans are forced to make the unacceptable choice between feeding their families or buying the medicine they need to ease their pain or to stay alive. Seniors from Vermont to Alaska are forced to split their pills in half because they don't have enough money to fill their prescriptions. Nobody really knows how many people die each year because they lack the medicine that their doctors prescribe. But a 2020 study by West Health found that by the year 2030, over 100,000 Medicare recipients could die prematurely every year because they cannot afford to buy their lifesaving medicine--100,000 seniors every year. All over this country, in every State in this country, the American people are asking some pretty simple questions. They want to know how does it happen that in the United States, we pay by far--not even close--the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. How does it happen? Why is it, people are asking, that nearly one out of every four Americans cannot afford the prescriptions that their doctors write? Think about how crazy that is. People walk into a doctor's office. They get a diagnosis. The doctor writes out a script. They can't afford to fill that prescription. They get sicker or maybe they end up in the emergency room, maybe they end up in the hospital, maybe they die. People are asking: How does it happen that nearly half of all new drugs in the United States cost more than $150,000 a year? They cost more than $150,000 a year. A few years ago, I took a busload of people dealing with diabetes from Detroit, MI, over the Canadian border to a drugstore in Windsor, Ontario. I think the trip took us maybe 45 minutes. There in Windsor, Canada, people on the bus--diabetics--were able to purchase the same insulin products that they bought in the United States for one-tenth the price--a 45-minute trip, same product, one-tenth the price. I will never forget it. Tears were coming down the eyes of people who were buying their product. They couldn't believe how much money they were saving. In 1999, 24 years ago, I was a Member of Congress, and I took another busload of people. This time it was women in northern Vermont who were suffering with breast cancer. We took them to a pharmacy in Montreal, Canada. Once again, they paid one-tenth the price for tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug that they desperately needed. So how does it happen that in Canada and other major countries, the same exact medicines manufactured by the same exact companies are sold for a fraction of the price that we pay in America? It is a simple question. It is a question Democrats, Republicans, Independents--everybody wants an answer to it. Well, the truth is that the answer to that question, in my view, is not complicated. In fact, it can be summed up in just three words, and that is unacceptable corporate greed--unacceptable corporate greed. Over the past 25 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent $8.5 billion on lobbying--$8.5 billion on lobbying and over $745 million on campaign contributions so that we can continue to pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Incredibly, last year, drug companies hired over 1,700 lobbyists to knock on every door in the Capitol--1,700 lobbyists--former leaders of the Democratic Party, former leaders of the Republican Party. There are 535 Members of Congress. They have 1,700 lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry--three lobbyists for every Member of Congress. Meanwhile, as Americans die because they cannot afford the medications they need, the pharmaceutical industry makes higher profits every year than other major industries. Year after year after year, they lead the index in terms of their profits. Between the years 2000 and 2018, drug companies in this country made over $8 trillion--that is with a ``t''--$8 trillion in profits. In fact, in 2021, just 10 pharmaceutical companies in the United States made a total of more than $102 billion in profits, up 137 percent from the previous year. It is the greed that we are seeing manifest itself--not just in corporate profits. It also manifests itself in the exorbitant compensation packages that the pharmaceutical industry has given to its CEOs and other top executives within the industry. I hope that people who are listening to us this afternoon--people who can't afford to pay for their prescription drugs--hear this, and that is according to a report done by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee staff, which I chair, released today: In 2021, while hundreds of thousands of Americans died from COVID, 50 pharmaceutical executives in just 10 companies made $1.9 billion in total compensation--50 executives, $1.9 billion. The same 50 executives are in line to receive $2.8 billion in golden parachutes once they leave their companies. Let me give you just a few examples. AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez made nearly $62 million in total compensation in 1 year. The CEO of Eli Lilly, David Ricks, made more than $67 million in 1 year. Incredibly, the CEO of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Leonard Schleifer, made nearly $453 million in total compensation in 1 year--$453 million in 1 year. Meanwhile, while we are told over and over again that the reason we have such high drug prices in America is because of the need of the drug companies to invest in research and development--that is what we are told over and over again: We need to charge you outrageous prices so that we can use that money to invest in research and development for new drugs. Well, it turns out that over the past decade, 14 major pharmaceutical companies spent $747 billion not to research and develop lifesaving drugs but to make their wealthy shareholders even wealthier by buying back their own stock and handing out huge dividends. It turns out, amazingly enough--or maybe not amazingly--that the drug companies spent $87 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than they spent on research and development. So when you hear about all of the need for high prices for research and development, they spent $87 billion more on stock buybacks and dividends than on research and development. The truth is, we are dealing here today not just with an economic issue in terms of the high price of prescription drugs--it is a very, very important economic issue--but we are dealing with something even more profound, and that is the moral issue. The question, I think, that Americans should be asking themselves is, Is it morally acceptable that tens of thousands of people die each year in our country because they cannot afford the medicine their doctors prescribe, while at the same time the drug companies make billions in profits and provide their CEOs with huge compensation packages? Is it morally acceptable that, at a time when the taxpayers of this country spent tens of billions a year on research and development for lifesaving drugs, many of these same taxpayers who helped fund the research and development for new drugs are unable to afford those drugs? Is it morally acceptable that the business model of the pharmaceutical industry today is primarily not to create the lifesaving drugs we need for cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, and so many other terrible illnesses, but, rather, through their excessive greed, to make as much money as they possibly can? I should point out that it has not always been that way. There was once a time when the inventors of lifesaving drugs were not obsessed with making huge sums of money but were, instead, obsessed with ending the terrible illnesses that plagued humanity. In the 1950s, for example, there was Dr. Jonas Salk, who invented the vaccine for polio. Salk's work saved millions of lives and prevented millions more from suffering paralysis. It has been estimated that if Dr. Salk had chosen to patent the polio vaccine, he would have made billions of dollars. But he did not. When asked who owns the patent for this vaccine, this is what Dr. Salk said: Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun? What Dr. Salk understood was that the purpose of the vaccine he invented was to save lives, to make sure that as many people all over the world were able to receive it, and not to make himself obscenely rich. And Salk, among other great scientists, was not alone. In 1928, Alexander Fleming, a scientist from Scotland, discovered penicillin at St. Mary's Hospital in London. Fleming's discovery of penicillin changed the medical world and saved millions of lives. I am sure that Alexander Fleming could also have become a multibillionaire if he had chosen to own the exclusive rights for this antibiotic. But he did not. When Fleming was asked about his role, he did not talk about the outrageous fortune he could have made through his discovery. Instead, he said: I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident. And then there was the great scientist Frederick Banting from Canada. In 1921, Dr. Banting, along with two other scientists at the University of Toronto, invented insulin--insulin, a drug we are hearing a whole lot about now. When Dr. Banting was asked why he wouldn't patent insulin and why he sold the rights to his invention for $1--$1--he replied: Insulin does not belong to me. It belongs to the world. Frederick Banting. It has been estimated that Dr. Banting's invention of insulin saved some 300 million lives. Once again, in Dr. Banting, we saw a great scientist make it clear that his purpose in life was to help humanity prevent suffering and save lives, not just to make billions for himself. Meanwhile, while Dr. Banting sold his patent for insulin for $1 so that humanity could benefit from his discovery, I should point out that Eli Lilly, one of our Nation's largest drug companies, has increased the price of insulin by 1,200 percent over the past 27 years, to $275, while it costs just $8 to manufacture--selling it for 275 bucks and it costs $8 to manufacture--not quite the spirit of Frederick Banting. Now, let's fast forward to the Covid pandemic, this horrible moment in our history when we have lost over 1 million Americans and tens of millions have suffered various levels of illness. Moderna, a drug company in Massachusetts, worked alongside the National Institutes of Health to develop the vaccine that so many of our people have effectively used--used by millions of people effectively. It is widely acknowledged that both the company and the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, were responsible for the creation of this vaccine. They worked together. After the company received billions of dollars from the Federal Government to research, develop, and distribute the COVID vaccine, well, guess what happened. It turns out that the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel, became a billionaire overnight and is now worth $5.7 billion. Further, the two cofounders of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan and Robert Langer, also became billionaires and are now both worth $2 billion each. And one of the founding investors in Moderna, Tim Springer, is worth $2.5 billion. None of them were billionaires before the taxpayers of our country funded the research and development for the COVID-19 vaccine, and, collectively, this handful of people at Moderna are now worth over $11 billion. Meanwhile, Moderna, as a whole, made over $19 billion in profits during the pandemic. Given that reality, given the enormous amount of taxpayer support, how has the CEO of this company thanked the taxpayers of America for the huge profits that Moderna has experienced and for the incredible wealth that he and his other executives have experienced? Well, he is thanking them by proposing to quadruple the price of the COVID vaccine to about $130 once the government stockpile runs out. And let us be clear, by the way, this is a vaccine that costs just $2.85 to manufacture. On March 22, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will be holding a hearing to discuss this subject, and the bottom line that we will be discussing is this: Does Moderna think that it is appropriate to quadruple prices for the vaccine after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer support? While Moderna may be a poster child for contemporary corporate greed, certainly, they are not alone. A number of years ago, the former CEO of Gilead became a billionaire by charging $1,000 for SOVALDI, a hepatitis C drug that was discovered by scientists at the Veterans' Administration. This drug costs just $1 to manufacture and can be purchased in India for $4. The Japanese drug maker Astellas, which made a billion dollars in profits in 2021, recently raised the price of the prostate cancer drug Xtandi by more than 75 percent in the United States to nearly $190,000. This is a drug that was invented by federally funded scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-sixth the price charged in America. Taxpayers funded the development of the drug and now pay six times more than Canadians do for the same product. And it goes on and on and on. There is no rational reason why the HIV treatment, BIKTARVY, costs over $45,000 per year in the United States but only $7,500 in France, or why a weekly dose of the autoimmune medicine Enbrel costs over $1,700 in the United States but just $300 in Canada--et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It goes on and on and on. The American people, regardless of their political affiliations, are sick and tired of being ripped off by the pharmaceutical industry. Now is the time for us to have the courage to take on the 1,700 lobbyists all over Capitol Hill, to take on the unlimited financial resources of that industry. Now is the time to stand with the American people and substantially lower prescription drug prices in our country, and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is going to be actively involved in that process. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS412-4 | null | 5,831 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Space Command Mr. President, we have had, over the last 10 days or so, or 2 weeks or so, in the Senate, briefing after briefing that our constituents never get the chance to see. These are briefings by the intelligence community, by the Department of Defense, about what the nature of the global threat is to the United States and the state of our national security--what they call the net effect between where we are as a strategic force and where our competitors are as strategic forces. Without revealing anything that I have heard in any of those classified sessions, either in those sessions or as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that I have found these briefings to be very sobering over the years. I would be surprised if there isn't a single Member of the Senate who doesn't feel the same way as I do. We have our work cut out for us. It is time for us to move from a 20th century mindset when it comes to our national defense and to our national security to a 21st century mindset. That is not going to be easy. We are going to have a lot of choices to make as a body to do that, but I am confident we will do it. One of the places we have a lot of ground to cover is in space. My colleague from Colorado is on the floor this evening. I am very glad that he is here because he was the Governor of Colorado, and he knows this issue as well as anybody in this Chamber, and I have seen it from the Intelligence Committee. You know, I deeply regret the fact that, for many years, among other things, we have enabled the Chinese--in particular, Beijing, and I should say it specifically--to steal a lot of our technology to be able to benefit their national security in the space race that we have. So I am really focused on this because we have had, based in Colorado for many years, something called a Space Command, which is the unified combatant control for space in the United States of America. The home has been in Colorado, and it has always been in Colorado. I am not going to bore you with one of the saddest stories that I know about a process run completely awry that resulted in the top generals in the Air Force walking into the White House with a recommendation that said we ought to leave the Space Command in Colorado. By the way, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the Trump administration was part of making that recommendation to the last White House. They walked into that White House with, as I said, the recommendation that it stay at the Peterson Air Force Base--now the Peterson Space Force Base--in Colorado. There were three principal reasons they were arguing that it should stay there. One was that it would reach full operational capability in Colorado faster than if it were moved anywhere else,between 4 and 6 years faster; that it would be cheaper to repurpose assets in Colorado for the Space Command than to move it across the country or to move it somewhere else; and that there would be massive attrition if the Space Command were moved. Of course, roughly 60 percent of the personnel who are part of the Space Command are civilians. They are not people who are in the Department of Defense, although 40 percent are people who are in the Department of Defense. That worries me a lot. All those things worry me a lot. But nothing was of more concern to me--especially in the wake now of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, nothing is more important than making sure that we get to full operational capability and that we do it in a way that makes sense. That is where the generals were on this issue. That is where the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force was. In fact, the people who went in to see President Trump said: If you are going to make a decision other than--other than--leaving Space Command in Colorado, you should delay the decision because nowhere else in America is ready to do the work that needs to be done. Instead, President Trump overturned their recommendation. As Senator Hickenlooper would tell you, that has never happened before in the history of our country, that we can find the President of the United States overrule the recommendation of the generals who knew the subject best. He went on the radio, and he said to these radio hosts in Alabama--which is where Donald Trump preferred to send Space Command for reasons that I suppose only he could know--but he went on a radio show and bragged that he single-handedly had overruled everybody else who had looked at this and said it ought to stay in Colorado, to put it in Alabama instead. The GAO and DOD's own inspector general have confirmed the facts that I just related to you. Instead of removing the stain of politics, I am sad to say that the Biden administration may be close to ratifying a decision that can't be ratified, a decision that was made in the face of the recommendations of the generals, a decision that was belied by all the relevant facts, and a decision that the GAO, the DOD's own inspector general, and Donald Trump on a radio program all confirmed, which is that politics played into the decision about moving Space Command to Alabama, not the national security interests of the United States. I know it is easy to think--and I will just confess in front of the pages and everybody else--that it might seem like this is just a parochial interest on the part of the Senators from Colorado because Space Command happens to be in Colorado. I will admit that fact. We have been a great home to Space Command. But I will also say that the months and months and months that we have dedicated, the years that we have dedicated to analyzing this decision, I think it is fair to say that we are here not representing the parochial interests of our State but representing the national security interests of the United States and the incredible importance of this Biden administration not ratifying a political decision that was made in the last few days of the Trump administration, because decisions of this importance shouldn't be made this way. It should be made in the interests of our national security. The Biden administration has the opportunity to restore the integrity of this process, and I think if they do restore the integrity of this process, they will find that this Space Command belongs in Colorado, and it shouldn't be moved anywhere else. I am on the floor today to remind people here of the importance of this issue, the urgency of this issue, not just for Colorado--not even for Colorado--but for the country as a whole and for our national security as a whole. This is a decision that should be made in the interest of the national security of the United States of America, and that decision will lead the Biden administration, I think, to reverse Donald Trump's political decision--a decision that he went on a radio show to advertise for the people of Alabama, demonstrating the political spoil that he was holding up in one hand instead of saying he had done the right thing for the people who work at Space Command and had done the right thing for the mission that we all care about so deeply. That, in the end, is what the American people, of course, deserve here, because our opponents and our competitors in space are not waiting for us to get out of our own way. It is critically important for us to give the people who are serving in this capacity a sense of security and a sense of stability about what the choice is going to be. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS417 | null | 5,832 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Space Command Mr. President, we have had, over the last 10 days or so, or 2 weeks or so, in the Senate, briefing after briefing that our constituents never get the chance to see. These are briefings by the intelligence community, by the Department of Defense, about what the nature of the global threat is to the United States and the state of our national security--what they call the net effect between where we are as a strategic force and where our competitors are as strategic forces. Without revealing anything that I have heard in any of those classified sessions, either in those sessions or as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that I have found these briefings to be very sobering over the years. I would be surprised if there isn't a single Member of the Senate who doesn't feel the same way as I do. We have our work cut out for us. It is time for us to move from a 20th century mindset when it comes to our national defense and to our national security to a 21st century mindset. That is not going to be easy. We are going to have a lot of choices to make as a body to do that, but I am confident we will do it. One of the places we have a lot of ground to cover is in space. My colleague from Colorado is on the floor this evening. I am very glad that he is here because he was the Governor of Colorado, and he knows this issue as well as anybody in this Chamber, and I have seen it from the Intelligence Committee. You know, I deeply regret the fact that, for many years, among other things, we have enabled the Chinese--in particular, Beijing, and I should say it specifically--to steal a lot of our technology to be able to benefit their national security in the space race that we have. So I am really focused on this because we have had, based in Colorado for many years, something called a Space Command, which is the unified combatant control for space in the United States of America. The home has been in Colorado, and it has always been in Colorado. I am not going to bore you with one of the saddest stories that I know about a process run completely awry that resulted in the top generals in the Air Force walking into the White House with a recommendation that said we ought to leave the Space Command in Colorado. By the way, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force in the Trump administration was part of making that recommendation to the last White House. They walked into that White House with, as I said, the recommendation that it stay at the Peterson Air Force Base--now the Peterson Space Force Base--in Colorado. There were three principal reasons they were arguing that it should stay there. One was that it would reach full operational capability in Colorado faster than if it were moved anywhere else,between 4 and 6 years faster; that it would be cheaper to repurpose assets in Colorado for the Space Command than to move it across the country or to move it somewhere else; and that there would be massive attrition if the Space Command were moved. Of course, roughly 60 percent of the personnel who are part of the Space Command are civilians. They are not people who are in the Department of Defense, although 40 percent are people who are in the Department of Defense. That worries me a lot. All those things worry me a lot. But nothing was of more concern to me--especially in the wake now of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, nothing is more important than making sure that we get to full operational capability and that we do it in a way that makes sense. That is where the generals were on this issue. That is where the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force was. In fact, the people who went in to see President Trump said: If you are going to make a decision other than--other than--leaving Space Command in Colorado, you should delay the decision because nowhere else in America is ready to do the work that needs to be done. Instead, President Trump overturned their recommendation. As Senator Hickenlooper would tell you, that has never happened before in the history of our country, that we can find the President of the United States overrule the recommendation of the generals who knew the subject best. He went on the radio, and he said to these radio hosts in Alabama--which is where Donald Trump preferred to send Space Command for reasons that I suppose only he could know--but he went on a radio show and bragged that he single-handedly had overruled everybody else who had looked at this and said it ought to stay in Colorado, to put it in Alabama instead. The GAO and DOD's own inspector general have confirmed the facts that I just related to you. Instead of removing the stain of politics, I am sad to say that the Biden administration may be close to ratifying a decision that can't be ratified, a decision that was made in the face of the recommendations of the generals, a decision that was belied by all the relevant facts, and a decision that the GAO, the DOD's own inspector general, and Donald Trump on a radio program all confirmed, which is that politics played into the decision about moving Space Command to Alabama, not the national security interests of the United States. I know it is easy to think--and I will just confess in front of the pages and everybody else--that it might seem like this is just a parochial interest on the part of the Senators from Colorado because Space Command happens to be in Colorado. I will admit that fact. We have been a great home to Space Command. But I will also say that the months and months and months that we have dedicated, the years that we have dedicated to analyzing this decision, I think it is fair to say that we are here not representing the parochial interests of our State but representing the national security interests of the United States and the incredible importance of this Biden administration not ratifying a political decision that was made in the last few days of the Trump administration, because decisions of this importance shouldn't be made this way. It should be made in the interests of our national security. The Biden administration has the opportunity to restore the integrity of this process, and I think if they do restore the integrity of this process, they will find that this Space Command belongs in Colorado, and it shouldn't be moved anywhere else. I am on the floor today to remind people here of the importance of this issue, the urgency of this issue, not just for Colorado--not even for Colorado--but for the country as a whole and for our national security as a whole. This is a decision that should be made in the interest of the national security of the United States of America, and that decision will lead the Biden administration, I think, to reverse Donald Trump's political decision--a decision that he went on a radio show to advertise for the people of Alabama, demonstrating the political spoil that he was holding up in one hand instead of saying he had done the right thing for the people who work at Space Command and had done the right thing for the mission that we all care about so deeply. That, in the end, is what the American people, of course, deserve here, because our opponents and our competitors in space are not waiting for us to get out of our own way. It is critically important for us to give the people who are serving in this capacity a sense of security and a sense of stability about what the choice is going to be. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS417 | null | 5,833 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the media likes narratives that split issues neatly into two opposing positions and often Republican against Democrat. There is one narrative that has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom. It holds that President Biden and Democrats in Congress have been 100 percent committed to opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Republican support is softening. That misleading narrative was briefly scrambled when the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a horribly naive letter calling for President Biden to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia. Clearly, there are factions on both sides of the aisle hesitant about backing a Ukrainian victory. There is also confusion about who in U.S. politics is most behind Ukraine winning the war. Let's be clear, the most fervent supporters of victory for Ukraine are Republicans. Meanwhile, the Biden administration gets credit for being all in for Ukraine, when in fact it is more accurate to say that it is, at best, three-quarters of the way in. And it has been dragged this far by events, public opinion, and some of our bolder European allies. Speculation about future Republican support for Ukraine is often framed in terms of Biden's chances to get the aid he might want, but no one asks why President Biden let $2.2 billion worth of authority passed by Congress to draw down existing weapons for Ukraine expire on September 30 unused. I have been pleased for the most part with President Biden's rhetorical defense of Ukraine's right to self-defense. But I have been puzzled by some of the delays in sending crucial military aid. I see signs that the Biden administration is afraid of what will happen if Ukraine is helped to push Russia back into its own borders. It is understandable to be concerned about the risks when dealing with a nuclear armed aggressor. But Putin has backed away from his nuclear saber-rattling in the face of Western resolve. And there are even greater risks in not stopping Russia's aggression now. In fact, in my view, we got where we are now because we acted too timidly in the past. Repeating that mistake now will only invite more aggression in the future. In early February of 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, I gave a speech wondering whether President Biden's tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's actions. I reminded the Senate that 12 years earlier, in the early days of the Obama-Biden administration, then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. Two years prior to Biden's speech, at the same annual conference, Vladimir Putin had sharply criticized the United States and suggested we were a threat to world peace. Moreover, just 6 months prior to calling for a ``reset,'' Russia had invaded and occupied a significant portion of the Republic of Georgia, which it still occupies to this day. Calling on the United States to ``hit the reset button,'' as Secretary of State Clinton later symbolically did with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, strongly suggested that the breakdown in relations with Russia was somehow our fault. President Reagan's Ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously identified a tendency among some of her fellow Democrats to ``blame America first.'' I put the shameful Obama-Biden Russia reset policy squarely in that tradition. Relations with Russia became bad because Putin saw the United States as an obstacle to his imperial aspirations. That is not our fault. I am concerned that some corners of the Biden administration have not fully dispensed with the naivety behind the so-called Russia reset. Let's recall just how mistaken the Obama-Biden Russia policy was. Many people remember the arrest of Anna Chapman and nine other deep cover Russian spies living as normal Americans. The FBI had been monitoring this spy network until agents saw signs that Chapman suspected the jig was up. The FBI needed to arrest the whole network before she had a chance to warn them and they all fled the country. However, it just so happened that Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President--at least in name--was in town. Medvedev was meeting with President Obama about all the areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia made possible by the reset, plus a photo op eating hamburgers together. To not upset this chummy meeting, the arrests of the Russian spies were postponed until Medvedev was on a plane back to Moscow. Remember, in order to get around term limits, Vladimir Putin drafted his loyalist, Medvedev, to be the puppet President until Putin could run for President again. This was a transparent shell game. But there was naive hopeful talk that Medvedev was a reformer who might steer Russia in a more democratic, pro-Western direction. Anyone following Medvedev's recent rhetoric about Ukraine knows that is far from true. He remains totally loyal to Putin and has been serving as his rhetorical attack dog. When Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Obama administration had angry words for Putin. The reset was on the rocks. But the practical response of the Obama administration was to deny Ukraine defensive weapons, sending only non-lethal aid. President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight to avoid escalation and to settle the matter diplomatically. Russia has a history of using negotiations to create frozen conflicts. Russia will snatch a piece of land, then demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten gains indefinitely. Obviously, maintaining the status quo with Russia occupying parts of Ukraine did not result in a lasting peace. It just led Putin to think he could get away with it again. Perhaps he would have if he hadn't gone big. Having succeeded in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, Putin figured he might as well go big and grab the whole country. It hasn't worked out for him as he hoped, but he hasn't given up on his initial goals either, even now. Those who had put hope in resetting relations with Russia have been mugged by reality. But behind the current tough talk, I worry that some in the Biden administration, maybe President Biden himself, still cling to a hope that we can reach an understanding with Putin. Like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who remained a Democrat throughout her service in the Reagan administration, there are many Democrats today who have a clear-eyed view of Russia, including many colleagues in this body. I just wish President Biden would listen to them rather than those in his administration who let concerns about antagonizing Putin keep us from doing everything we can to save Ukrainian lives. The administration has eventually relented and given Ukraine manyweapons systems it had repeatedly said ``no'' to. But there are still weapons we could transfer to Ukraine today that would bring the end of the war closer and save lives; yet the administration is refusing because of fear of ``escalation.'' We have seen that our HIMARS system has allowed the Ukrainian military to destroy ammunition depots and supply lines, making it possible for the Ukrainians to liberate significant territory. We have seen the videos of Ukrainian soldiers greeted with tears of joy by liberated civilians who have endured brutal Russian occupation. However, we did not transfer the HIMARS until June, months into the war. And we denied the Ukrainians longer range missiles for the HIMARS. There are reports that we even modified the systems before delivery to make sure they could not shoot longer range missiles. This is apparently based on a misguided concern about threatening Russian territory. Recently, the Biden administration has announced it will send Ukraine the ground-launched small-diameter bomb, which is double the range of the current HIMARS rockets, but which still fall far short of the range of the Army Tactical Missile System that Ukraine has been asking for. Despite its success in retaking some of its own territory, Russia cannot seriously claim to be concerned about a Ukrainian invasion. Ukraine is the one that is being brutally invaded and occupied by Russia. And Ukraine has every right under international law to target Russian bases from which Russia is launching missiles at electrical plants and apartment buildings. Moreover, as the Lithuanian Prime Minister pointed out on her most recent visit to the United States, Ukraine needs these longer range missiles to attack Russian positions inside Ukraine itself. The most clear-eyed leadership about the war is coming from those who know Russia the best, like the leaders of our Baltic allies. When Americans see Iranian-made drones and Russian cruise missiles crashing into apartment buildings, killing old women and young children, our hearts break. But knowing that many of these attacks are being launched from Russian-occupied Crimea, within range of the missiles we have been denying to Ukraine, makes the death and destruction even more heartbreaking. The more advanced weapons Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster the war will end. The U.S. and many of our allies have now announced delivery of tanks to Ukraine, something previously off the table. But it isn't clear if this decision was taken in time for the tanks to arrive in sufficient quantity to play a role in a spring counteroffensive or to help Ukraine defend against Russia's renewed offensive efforts, which are underway now. We should not be afraid of Ukraine winning. President Macron of France has expressed concern about humiliating Putin. It is true that a defeated Putin would be dangerous, but a victorious Putin would surely be even more dangerous. Precisely because Russia has long been dangerous, we have built up military stockpiles in case we need to defend our allies in Europe from a possible attack by Russia. Some of those stockpiles are now being used very effectively to degrade the Russian military and the threat it poses. This is being done by the Ukrainian military without a single American soldier in battle. Some people have expressed concerns that we could give too much military aid, reducing what we need in case we have to fight a war. Obviously, we need to ensure our own potential defense needs are taken care of. I have been following closely what we have left and what we have given. Our military stockpiles are not public, but I can say that do not see any cause for alarm. Keep in mind that the level of stocks our military has determined we need is based on possibly having to fight the Russian military, but the Russian military as it existed before the full scale invasion on February 24. Since the Ukrainians have significantly diminished the Russian military, the threat to the United States is greatly reduced. So our requirements for ammunition and equipment are also now also lower. The Russian war against Ukraine has also shaken us from our peacetime complacency about the state of our defense industrial base. Efforts are now underway to rejuvenate our ability to replenish our stockpiles of arms and ammunition. This will help not only with our efforts to aid Ukraine, but will greatly improve U.S. readiness to deal with potential threats in the near future, such as from China. There are also understandable concerns about the cost to the American taxpayers of replacing the equipment given to Ukraine. Aside from the fact that some of this would be replaced with upgraded versions soon anyway, the cost benefit of a Ukrainian soldier destroying a Russian tank with one of our Javelins is enormous. The Russian military is being destroyed for pennies on the dollar and zero cost in American blood. Then just think of what the cost in American blood and treasure would be if Russia did attack one of our NATO allies. And make no mistake, Russia's imperial ambitions do not stop with part, or even all of Ukraine. Estonia's Prime Minister often points out ``If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won this war, his appetite will only grow.'' That is exactly what happened after Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Putin's background is in the overlapping world of the KGB and Russian organized crime. In that world, only strength is respected, and weakness invites aggression. Let's not repeat past mistakes. Preventing future Russian aggression will greatly enhance American security and avoid major costs down the road. That makes it in America's national interest to support a decisive Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS420 | null | 5,834 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the media likes narratives that split issues neatly into two opposing positions and often Republican against Democrat. There is one narrative that has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom. It holds that President Biden and Democrats in Congress have been 100 percent committed to opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Republican support is softening. That misleading narrative was briefly scrambled when the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a horribly naive letter calling for President Biden to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia. Clearly, there are factions on both sides of the aisle hesitant about backing a Ukrainian victory. There is also confusion about who in U.S. politics is most behind Ukraine winning the war. Let's be clear, the most fervent supporters of victory for Ukraine are Republicans. Meanwhile, the Biden administration gets credit for being all in for Ukraine, when in fact it is more accurate to say that it is, at best, three-quarters of the way in. And it has been dragged this far by events, public opinion, and some of our bolder European allies. Speculation about future Republican support for Ukraine is often framed in terms of Biden's chances to get the aid he might want, but no one asks why President Biden let $2.2 billion worth of authority passed by Congress to draw down existing weapons for Ukraine expire on September 30 unused. I have been pleased for the most part with President Biden's rhetorical defense of Ukraine's right to self-defense. But I have been puzzled by some of the delays in sending crucial military aid. I see signs that the Biden administration is afraid of what will happen if Ukraine is helped to push Russia back into its own borders. It is understandable to be concerned about the risks when dealing with a nuclear armed aggressor. But Putin has backed away from his nuclear saber-rattling in the face of Western resolve. And there are even greater risks in not stopping Russia's aggression now. In fact, in my view, we got where we are now because we acted too timidly in the past. Repeating that mistake now will only invite more aggression in the future. In early February of 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, I gave a speech wondering whether President Biden's tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's actions. I reminded the Senate that 12 years earlier, in the early days of the Obama-Biden administration, then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. Two years prior to Biden's speech, at the same annual conference, Vladimir Putin had sharply criticized the United States and suggested we were a threat to world peace. Moreover, just 6 months prior to calling for a ``reset,'' Russia had invaded and occupied a significant portion of the Republic of Georgia, which it still occupies to this day. Calling on the United States to ``hit the reset button,'' as Secretary of State Clinton later symbolically did with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, strongly suggested that the breakdown in relations with Russia was somehow our fault. President Reagan's Ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously identified a tendency among some of her fellow Democrats to ``blame America first.'' I put the shameful Obama-Biden Russia reset policy squarely in that tradition. Relations with Russia became bad because Putin saw the United States as an obstacle to his imperial aspirations. That is not our fault. I am concerned that some corners of the Biden administration have not fully dispensed with the naivety behind the so-called Russia reset. Let's recall just how mistaken the Obama-Biden Russia policy was. Many people remember the arrest of Anna Chapman and nine other deep cover Russian spies living as normal Americans. The FBI had been monitoring this spy network until agents saw signs that Chapman suspected the jig was up. The FBI needed to arrest the whole network before she had a chance to warn them and they all fled the country. However, it just so happened that Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President--at least in name--was in town. Medvedev was meeting with President Obama about all the areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia made possible by the reset, plus a photo op eating hamburgers together. To not upset this chummy meeting, the arrests of the Russian spies were postponed until Medvedev was on a plane back to Moscow. Remember, in order to get around term limits, Vladimir Putin drafted his loyalist, Medvedev, to be the puppet President until Putin could run for President again. This was a transparent shell game. But there was naive hopeful talk that Medvedev was a reformer who might steer Russia in a more democratic, pro-Western direction. Anyone following Medvedev's recent rhetoric about Ukraine knows that is far from true. He remains totally loyal to Putin and has been serving as his rhetorical attack dog. When Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Obama administration had angry words for Putin. The reset was on the rocks. But the practical response of the Obama administration was to deny Ukraine defensive weapons, sending only non-lethal aid. President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight to avoid escalation and to settle the matter diplomatically. Russia has a history of using negotiations to create frozen conflicts. Russia will snatch a piece of land, then demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten gains indefinitely. Obviously, maintaining the status quo with Russia occupying parts of Ukraine did not result in a lasting peace. It just led Putin to think he could get away with it again. Perhaps he would have if he hadn't gone big. Having succeeded in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, Putin figured he might as well go big and grab the whole country. It hasn't worked out for him as he hoped, but he hasn't given up on his initial goals either, even now. Those who had put hope in resetting relations with Russia have been mugged by reality. But behind the current tough talk, I worry that some in the Biden administration, maybe President Biden himself, still cling to a hope that we can reach an understanding with Putin. Like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who remained a Democrat throughout her service in the Reagan administration, there are many Democrats today who have a clear-eyed view of Russia, including many colleagues in this body. I just wish President Biden would listen to them rather than those in his administration who let concerns about antagonizing Putin keep us from doing everything we can to save Ukrainian lives. The administration has eventually relented and given Ukraine manyweapons systems it had repeatedly said ``no'' to. But there are still weapons we could transfer to Ukraine today that would bring the end of the war closer and save lives; yet the administration is refusing because of fear of ``escalation.'' We have seen that our HIMARS system has allowed the Ukrainian military to destroy ammunition depots and supply lines, making it possible for the Ukrainians to liberate significant territory. We have seen the videos of Ukrainian soldiers greeted with tears of joy by liberated civilians who have endured brutal Russian occupation. However, we did not transfer the HIMARS until June, months into the war. And we denied the Ukrainians longer range missiles for the HIMARS. There are reports that we even modified the systems before delivery to make sure they could not shoot longer range missiles. This is apparently based on a misguided concern about threatening Russian territory. Recently, the Biden administration has announced it will send Ukraine the ground-launched small-diameter bomb, which is double the range of the current HIMARS rockets, but which still fall far short of the range of the Army Tactical Missile System that Ukraine has been asking for. Despite its success in retaking some of its own territory, Russia cannot seriously claim to be concerned about a Ukrainian invasion. Ukraine is the one that is being brutally invaded and occupied by Russia. And Ukraine has every right under international law to target Russian bases from which Russia is launching missiles at electrical plants and apartment buildings. Moreover, as the Lithuanian Prime Minister pointed out on her most recent visit to the United States, Ukraine needs these longer range missiles to attack Russian positions inside Ukraine itself. The most clear-eyed leadership about the war is coming from those who know Russia the best, like the leaders of our Baltic allies. When Americans see Iranian-made drones and Russian cruise missiles crashing into apartment buildings, killing old women and young children, our hearts break. But knowing that many of these attacks are being launched from Russian-occupied Crimea, within range of the missiles we have been denying to Ukraine, makes the death and destruction even more heartbreaking. The more advanced weapons Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster the war will end. The U.S. and many of our allies have now announced delivery of tanks to Ukraine, something previously off the table. But it isn't clear if this decision was taken in time for the tanks to arrive in sufficient quantity to play a role in a spring counteroffensive or to help Ukraine defend against Russia's renewed offensive efforts, which are underway now. We should not be afraid of Ukraine winning. President Macron of France has expressed concern about humiliating Putin. It is true that a defeated Putin would be dangerous, but a victorious Putin would surely be even more dangerous. Precisely because Russia has long been dangerous, we have built up military stockpiles in case we need to defend our allies in Europe from a possible attack by Russia. Some of those stockpiles are now being used very effectively to degrade the Russian military and the threat it poses. This is being done by the Ukrainian military without a single American soldier in battle. Some people have expressed concerns that we could give too much military aid, reducing what we need in case we have to fight a war. Obviously, we need to ensure our own potential defense needs are taken care of. I have been following closely what we have left and what we have given. Our military stockpiles are not public, but I can say that do not see any cause for alarm. Keep in mind that the level of stocks our military has determined we need is based on possibly having to fight the Russian military, but the Russian military as it existed before the full scale invasion on February 24. Since the Ukrainians have significantly diminished the Russian military, the threat to the United States is greatly reduced. So our requirements for ammunition and equipment are also now also lower. The Russian war against Ukraine has also shaken us from our peacetime complacency about the state of our defense industrial base. Efforts are now underway to rejuvenate our ability to replenish our stockpiles of arms and ammunition. This will help not only with our efforts to aid Ukraine, but will greatly improve U.S. readiness to deal with potential threats in the near future, such as from China. There are also understandable concerns about the cost to the American taxpayers of replacing the equipment given to Ukraine. Aside from the fact that some of this would be replaced with upgraded versions soon anyway, the cost benefit of a Ukrainian soldier destroying a Russian tank with one of our Javelins is enormous. The Russian military is being destroyed for pennies on the dollar and zero cost in American blood. Then just think of what the cost in American blood and treasure would be if Russia did attack one of our NATO allies. And make no mistake, Russia's imperial ambitions do not stop with part, or even all of Ukraine. Estonia's Prime Minister often points out ``If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won this war, his appetite will only grow.'' That is exactly what happened after Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Putin's background is in the overlapping world of the KGB and Russian organized crime. In that world, only strength is respected, and weakness invites aggression. Let's not repeat past mistakes. Preventing future Russian aggression will greatly enhance American security and avoid major costs down the road. That makes it in America's national interest to support a decisive Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS420 | null | 5,835 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the media likes narratives that split issues neatly into two opposing positions and often Republican against Democrat. There is one narrative that has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom. It holds that President Biden and Democrats in Congress have been 100 percent committed to opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Republican support is softening. That misleading narrative was briefly scrambled when the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a horribly naive letter calling for President Biden to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia. Clearly, there are factions on both sides of the aisle hesitant about backing a Ukrainian victory. There is also confusion about who in U.S. politics is most behind Ukraine winning the war. Let's be clear, the most fervent supporters of victory for Ukraine are Republicans. Meanwhile, the Biden administration gets credit for being all in for Ukraine, when in fact it is more accurate to say that it is, at best, three-quarters of the way in. And it has been dragged this far by events, public opinion, and some of our bolder European allies. Speculation about future Republican support for Ukraine is often framed in terms of Biden's chances to get the aid he might want, but no one asks why President Biden let $2.2 billion worth of authority passed by Congress to draw down existing weapons for Ukraine expire on September 30 unused. I have been pleased for the most part with President Biden's rhetorical defense of Ukraine's right to self-defense. But I have been puzzled by some of the delays in sending crucial military aid. I see signs that the Biden administration is afraid of what will happen if Ukraine is helped to push Russia back into its own borders. It is understandable to be concerned about the risks when dealing with a nuclear armed aggressor. But Putin has backed away from his nuclear saber-rattling in the face of Western resolve. And there are even greater risks in not stopping Russia's aggression now. In fact, in my view, we got where we are now because we acted too timidly in the past. Repeating that mistake now will only invite more aggression in the future. In early February of 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, I gave a speech wondering whether President Biden's tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's actions. I reminded the Senate that 12 years earlier, in the early days of the Obama-Biden administration, then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. Two years prior to Biden's speech, at the same annual conference, Vladimir Putin had sharply criticized the United States and suggested we were a threat to world peace. Moreover, just 6 months prior to calling for a ``reset,'' Russia had invaded and occupied a significant portion of the Republic of Georgia, which it still occupies to this day. Calling on the United States to ``hit the reset button,'' as Secretary of State Clinton later symbolically did with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, strongly suggested that the breakdown in relations with Russia was somehow our fault. President Reagan's Ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously identified a tendency among some of her fellow Democrats to ``blame America first.'' I put the shameful Obama-Biden Russia reset policy squarely in that tradition. Relations with Russia became bad because Putin saw the United States as an obstacle to his imperial aspirations. That is not our fault. I am concerned that some corners of the Biden administration have not fully dispensed with the naivety behind the so-called Russia reset. Let's recall just how mistaken the Obama-Biden Russia policy was. Many people remember the arrest of Anna Chapman and nine other deep cover Russian spies living as normal Americans. The FBI had been monitoring this spy network until agents saw signs that Chapman suspected the jig was up. The FBI needed to arrest the whole network before she had a chance to warn them and they all fled the country. However, it just so happened that Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President--at least in name--was in town. Medvedev was meeting with President Obama about all the areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia made possible by the reset, plus a photo op eating hamburgers together. To not upset this chummy meeting, the arrests of the Russian spies were postponed until Medvedev was on a plane back to Moscow. Remember, in order to get around term limits, Vladimir Putin drafted his loyalist, Medvedev, to be the puppet President until Putin could run for President again. This was a transparent shell game. But there was naive hopeful talk that Medvedev was a reformer who might steer Russia in a more democratic, pro-Western direction. Anyone following Medvedev's recent rhetoric about Ukraine knows that is far from true. He remains totally loyal to Putin and has been serving as his rhetorical attack dog. When Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Obama administration had angry words for Putin. The reset was on the rocks. But the practical response of the Obama administration was to deny Ukraine defensive weapons, sending only non-lethal aid. President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight to avoid escalation and to settle the matter diplomatically. Russia has a history of using negotiations to create frozen conflicts. Russia will snatch a piece of land, then demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten gains indefinitely. Obviously, maintaining the status quo with Russia occupying parts of Ukraine did not result in a lasting peace. It just led Putin to think he could get away with it again. Perhaps he would have if he hadn't gone big. Having succeeded in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, Putin figured he might as well go big and grab the whole country. It hasn't worked out for him as he hoped, but he hasn't given up on his initial goals either, even now. Those who had put hope in resetting relations with Russia have been mugged by reality. But behind the current tough talk, I worry that some in the Biden administration, maybe President Biden himself, still cling to a hope that we can reach an understanding with Putin. Like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who remained a Democrat throughout her service in the Reagan administration, there are many Democrats today who have a clear-eyed view of Russia, including many colleagues in this body. I just wish President Biden would listen to them rather than those in his administration who let concerns about antagonizing Putin keep us from doing everything we can to save Ukrainian lives. The administration has eventually relented and given Ukraine manyweapons systems it had repeatedly said ``no'' to. But there are still weapons we could transfer to Ukraine today that would bring the end of the war closer and save lives; yet the administration is refusing because of fear of ``escalation.'' We have seen that our HIMARS system has allowed the Ukrainian military to destroy ammunition depots and supply lines, making it possible for the Ukrainians to liberate significant territory. We have seen the videos of Ukrainian soldiers greeted with tears of joy by liberated civilians who have endured brutal Russian occupation. However, we did not transfer the HIMARS until June, months into the war. And we denied the Ukrainians longer range missiles for the HIMARS. There are reports that we even modified the systems before delivery to make sure they could not shoot longer range missiles. This is apparently based on a misguided concern about threatening Russian territory. Recently, the Biden administration has announced it will send Ukraine the ground-launched small-diameter bomb, which is double the range of the current HIMARS rockets, but which still fall far short of the range of the Army Tactical Missile System that Ukraine has been asking for. Despite its success in retaking some of its own territory, Russia cannot seriously claim to be concerned about a Ukrainian invasion. Ukraine is the one that is being brutally invaded and occupied by Russia. And Ukraine has every right under international law to target Russian bases from which Russia is launching missiles at electrical plants and apartment buildings. Moreover, as the Lithuanian Prime Minister pointed out on her most recent visit to the United States, Ukraine needs these longer range missiles to attack Russian positions inside Ukraine itself. The most clear-eyed leadership about the war is coming from those who know Russia the best, like the leaders of our Baltic allies. When Americans see Iranian-made drones and Russian cruise missiles crashing into apartment buildings, killing old women and young children, our hearts break. But knowing that many of these attacks are being launched from Russian-occupied Crimea, within range of the missiles we have been denying to Ukraine, makes the death and destruction even more heartbreaking. The more advanced weapons Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster the war will end. The U.S. and many of our allies have now announced delivery of tanks to Ukraine, something previously off the table. But it isn't clear if this decision was taken in time for the tanks to arrive in sufficient quantity to play a role in a spring counteroffensive or to help Ukraine defend against Russia's renewed offensive efforts, which are underway now. We should not be afraid of Ukraine winning. President Macron of France has expressed concern about humiliating Putin. It is true that a defeated Putin would be dangerous, but a victorious Putin would surely be even more dangerous. Precisely because Russia has long been dangerous, we have built up military stockpiles in case we need to defend our allies in Europe from a possible attack by Russia. Some of those stockpiles are now being used very effectively to degrade the Russian military and the threat it poses. This is being done by the Ukrainian military without a single American soldier in battle. Some people have expressed concerns that we could give too much military aid, reducing what we need in case we have to fight a war. Obviously, we need to ensure our own potential defense needs are taken care of. I have been following closely what we have left and what we have given. Our military stockpiles are not public, but I can say that do not see any cause for alarm. Keep in mind that the level of stocks our military has determined we need is based on possibly having to fight the Russian military, but the Russian military as it existed before the full scale invasion on February 24. Since the Ukrainians have significantly diminished the Russian military, the threat to the United States is greatly reduced. So our requirements for ammunition and equipment are also now also lower. The Russian war against Ukraine has also shaken us from our peacetime complacency about the state of our defense industrial base. Efforts are now underway to rejuvenate our ability to replenish our stockpiles of arms and ammunition. This will help not only with our efforts to aid Ukraine, but will greatly improve U.S. readiness to deal with potential threats in the near future, such as from China. There are also understandable concerns about the cost to the American taxpayers of replacing the equipment given to Ukraine. Aside from the fact that some of this would be replaced with upgraded versions soon anyway, the cost benefit of a Ukrainian soldier destroying a Russian tank with one of our Javelins is enormous. The Russian military is being destroyed for pennies on the dollar and zero cost in American blood. Then just think of what the cost in American blood and treasure would be if Russia did attack one of our NATO allies. And make no mistake, Russia's imperial ambitions do not stop with part, or even all of Ukraine. Estonia's Prime Minister often points out ``If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won this war, his appetite will only grow.'' That is exactly what happened after Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Putin's background is in the overlapping world of the KGB and Russian organized crime. In that world, only strength is respected, and weakness invites aggression. Let's not repeat past mistakes. Preventing future Russian aggression will greatly enhance American security and avoid major costs down the road. That makes it in America's national interest to support a decisive Ukrainian victory as soon as possible. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS420 | null | 5,836 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. YOUNG (for himself, Mr. Coons, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Carper, Mr. Casey, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Hickenlooper, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. King, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Ossoff, Mr. Risch, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Smith, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cotton, Mrs. Britt, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Vance, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Kelly) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 69 Whereas the National FFA Organization (referred to in this preamble as the ``FFA'') was established in 1928; Whereas the mission of the FFA is to make a positive difference in the lives of students by developing their potential for premier leadership, personal growth, and career success through agricultural education; Whereas the FFA has more than 850,000 members in 8,995 chapters in all 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C.; Whereas the FFA welcomes all students; Whereas more than 13,000 FFA advisors and agricultural education teachers deliver an integrated model of agricultural education, providing students with an innovative and cutting-edge education; Whereas the FFA facilitates formative experiences, altering the course of the lives of students for the better; Whereas FFA members develop the necessary career-readiness skills to continue their education in college or to enter the workforce immediately; Whereas the FFA prepares members to be globally conscious citizens of their communities, their States, their country, and the world; Whereas the FFA provides opportunities to demonstrate literacy, advocacy, and technical skills in agriculture, food, and natural resources; Whereas the origin of the blue FFA jacket dates back to 1933, when it was created by the Universal Uniform Company in Fredericktown, Ohio; Whereas the FFA jacket debuted at the 1933 National FFA Convention and was so popular that the official delegates of the convention made the jacket part of the official FFA attire; Whereas the 1,000,000th FFA jacket was sold in 1964, and by 1976, 2,000,000 FFA jackets had been sold; Whereas 80,000 FFA jackets are sold annually; and Whereas members of the FFA will celebrate ``National FFA Week'' during the week of February 18 through February 25, 2023: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) supports the designation of February 18 through February 25, 2023, as ``National FFA Week''; (2) recognizes the important role of the National FFA Organization in developing the next generation of globally conscious leaders who will change the world; and (3) celebrates the 95th anniversary of the National FFA Organization. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS430-2 | null | 5,837 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: S. Res. 68 Whereas National Entrepreneurship Week is a congressionally chartered event taking place annually during the third week of February for the purpose of democratizing and promoting entrepreneurship across the United States through education, connection, and collaboration; Whereas the United States is the most entrepreneurial country in the world and the entrepreneurial spirit woven into the national consciousness is central to the identity of the United States; Whereas that entrepreneurial spirit and the countless new businesses it has spawned have built the most innovative and productive economy in the history of the world; Whereas the United States is a nation of entrepreneurs, with new and small businesses comprising 99 percent of all businesses in the United States and employing nearly half of all workers in the United States; Whereas, given the importance of entrepreneurship to innovation, productivity gains, job creation, and expanding opportunity, a thriving entrepreneurial spirit is critical to economic growth in the United States; Whereas National Entrepreneurship Week celebrates the initiative, drive, creativity, and commitment embodied in the entrepreneurial spirit of the United States; Whereas National Entrepreneurship Week inspires students and the next generation of entrepreneurs by encouraging educators in grade schools, colleges, and universities across the United States to integrate entrepreneurship education into the classroom; and Whereas research has demonstrated that students who participate in entrepreneurship education programs have better attendance records, perform better in core subjects, and have lower drop-out rates than students who do not participate in such programs: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) designates the week of February 11 through February 18, 2023, as ``National Entrepreneurship Week''; (2) celebrates the importance of entrepreneurs and startups to the economy of the United States; (3) recognizes the contributions entrepreneurs make to expand opportunity, provide more inclusive prosperity, and increase the well-being of every community across the United States; (4) affirms the importance and urgency of enacting policies that promote, nurture, and support entrepreneurs and startups; and (5) encourages Federal, State, and local governments, schools, nonprofit organizations, and other civic organizations to observe National Entrepreneurship Week annually with special events and activities-- (A) to recognize the contributions of entrepreneurs in the United States; (B) to teach the importance of entrepreneurship to a strong and inclusive economy; and (C) to take steps to encourage, support, and celebrate future entrepreneurs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-15-pt1-PgS430 | null | 5,838 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | The Environment Mr. President, finally, ESG. Reports are out that Republicans will introduce a measure targeting a new rule from the Department of Labor that allows--repeat: allows; not requires--allows fiduciaries to consider the impacts of climate change and other ESG issues when making investment decisions. Across the country, hard-right State legislatures are up in arms trying to stop State investment funds from working with money managers who dare commit the oh-so-heinous offense of looking at the big picture when making investments, including how climate change and other issues can present financial risks. I just want to point out the obvious: Nothing in this DOL rule imposes any requirement on anyone. Let me say that again. Nothing in the DOL rule that they seek to repeal imposes any requirement on anyone. In fact, it goes out of its way to make sure decision-making remains solely in the hands of the fiduciary. Republicans love to talk about small government and letting the private sector do its work. But their obsession with eliminating ESG would do justthe opposite. Many companies realize that as we move to clean energy, their path to profitability depends on adapting to those changes. Hard-right MAGA Republicans--climate deniers, they are--are trying to straitjacket those companies with their ideological obsessions and prevent them from adapting to the future for their own good and for the good of the country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS434-2 | null | 5,839 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Medicaid Mr. President, now, on another important issue, I have a few, I think, very important things to talk about today, including the bill we passed last year and the briefing and its effect on what we should do in terms of debt ceiling and our budget. But here is another one: Medicaid. Yesterday, I joined with a few of my colleagues to shine light on how radical out-of-touch MAGA Republicans in the House are. In the House budget, they are putting pen to paper on proposals that would devastate American families and slash the programs that millions of people rely on. These are not abstract issues. They would cause immense pain to countless Americans. Republicans have been scrambling over the past few days to try to convince the American people that they won't touch Medicare or Social Security, even though we literally have years' worth of statements and speeches showing that many of them believe just the opposite. But another critical question remains unanswered and must be addressed. Are Republicans also going to target Medicaid? Medicaid is one of the most important programs in the country. One in four Americans rely on Medicaid to cover their healthcare needs. Let me say that again. One in four Americans rely on Medicaid to cover healthcare needs. It is not just low-income Americans that benefit from Medicaid--as important as helping them is, which, of course, it is--it is also middle-class families who have to pay, for instance, to put their parents in nursing homes. A couple in their mid forties, who have parents in nursing homes or assisted living, would have a huge burden placed upon them if Medicaid were slashed. These families work hard. Cutting Medicaid would put a huge economic burden on them as they struggle and work to stay in the middle class. And Medicaid helps others too: people with disabilities, pregnant women, children, and so many more. Let me say again: Medicaid is absolutely a middle-class issue in addition to helping low-income Americans. And we, on our side, want to help both. Are Republicans going to strip away coverage for one in four Americans? We really don't know because Republicans won't show us their plan. Americans are right to be worried about their Medicaid benefits because these MAGA proposals are coming right at them, at their expense. We must work to protect and strengthen programs like Medicaid, not put them on the chopping block. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS434 | null | 5,840 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Medicaid Mr. President, now, on another important issue, I have a few, I think, very important things to talk about today, including the bill we passed last year and the briefing and its effect on what we should do in terms of debt ceiling and our budget. But here is another one: Medicaid. Yesterday, I joined with a few of my colleagues to shine light on how radical out-of-touch MAGA Republicans in the House are. In the House budget, they are putting pen to paper on proposals that would devastate American families and slash the programs that millions of people rely on. These are not abstract issues. They would cause immense pain to countless Americans. Republicans have been scrambling over the past few days to try to convince the American people that they won't touch Medicare or Social Security, even though we literally have years' worth of statements and speeches showing that many of them believe just the opposite. But another critical question remains unanswered and must be addressed. Are Republicans also going to target Medicaid? Medicaid is one of the most important programs in the country. One in four Americans rely on Medicaid to cover their healthcare needs. Let me say that again. One in four Americans rely on Medicaid to cover healthcare needs. It is not just low-income Americans that benefit from Medicaid--as important as helping them is, which, of course, it is--it is also middle-class families who have to pay, for instance, to put their parents in nursing homes. A couple in their mid forties, who have parents in nursing homes or assisted living, would have a huge burden placed upon them if Medicaid were slashed. These families work hard. Cutting Medicaid would put a huge economic burden on them as they struggle and work to stay in the middle class. And Medicaid helps others too: people with disabilities, pregnant women, children, and so many more. Let me say again: Medicaid is absolutely a middle-class issue in addition to helping low-income Americans. And we, on our side, want to help both. Are Republicans going to strip away coverage for one in four Americans? We really don't know because Republicans won't show us their plan. Americans are right to be worried about their Medicaid benefits because these MAGA proposals are coming right at them, at their expense. We must work to protect and strengthen programs like Medicaid, not put them on the chopping block. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS434 | null | 5,841 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, on one final matter, yesterday, the Judiciary Committee witnessed another disaster of a performance from one of President Biden's nominees. This time, the President wants a lifetime appointment for a New Hampshire lawyer who represented an ultra-elite private high school against a 15-year-old girl who was suing the school after she had been sexually assaulted on campus. Lawyers serve unpopular tasks all the time, but while representing the powerful prep school, Michael Delaney subjected the teenage victim and her family to unusually aggressive hardball tactics. They were, frankly, shocking. The young lady and her family had hoped to file a lawsuit anonymously as Jane Doe and persuade the school to change its ways. That was the path to accountability. But Mr. Delaney fought the girl's desire for privacy and anonymity to use as a weapon against her. He said he would only let the girl remain anonymous if she was subjected to a gag order about the incident. And he threatened that if the family refused to settle on terms favorable to the school and went to trial, he would ask the court to reveal her name. In other words, Delaney tried to turn a teenage victim's privacy into a hostage to help a prep school avoid accountability. The girl's father saw Delaney's behavior for what it was. He called it a ``threat.'' The victim says she spoke to the Biden Department of Justice while they were vetting Mr. Delaney. Apparently, the administration ignored her. So, apparently, did her two Senators. According to the Boston Globe, the victim's parents pleaded their case against Delaney to both our colleagues from New Hampshire. But instead of taking the family's pain to heart, both of their Senators returned blue slips anyway. They even personally introduced Delaney at his hearing. Democrats have long claimed they want empathy in their judges. I prefer, frankly, neutrality and faithfulness to the Constitution, myself, but empathy is what liberals say they want. I defy anyone to watch yesterday's hearing and find one ounce of empathy in Delaney for this child victim. My colleagues across the aisle will have to catch a rerun because almost none--listen to this--almost none of the Judiciary Committee Democrats could even bring themselves to show up for yesterday's hearing. They avoided the hearing. They didn't want to hear it. But guess who did attend. The brave young woman's family was there. They wanted Delaney to know they will never forget how he treated their daughter. So I would urge the President to reconsider this nomination and urge my colleagues to reject it. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS435-4 | null | 5,842 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ukraine Mr. President, on February 25, 1 year ago, award-winning Chicago Chef Tony Priolo woke up early to work out on his elliptical machine. He turned on his TV, and he couldn't believe what he was seeing: bombs, gunfire, convoys of armored vehicles. Russia's war on Ukraine had begun. Chef Priolo thought of a young Ukrainian woman who had worked for a summer in one of his restaurants and wondered whether she and her family were safe. He asked himself: What can I do? And then he had an idea. He contacted the Illinois Restaurant Association and 30 of his closest chef friends in the area and said: Let's use our talents to feed people and to feed the people of Ukraine who have been forced from their homes by this terrible war. Less than 3 weeks later, chefs representing 70 restaurants around Chicago dished out meals to a crowd of 2,000 people at an event called Chicago Chefs Cook for Ukraine. They sold out a rather large venue known as Navy Pier in Chicago. They raised $650,000 in that one night and another $200,000 after. They donated all of it to the World Central Kitchen, the nonprofit organization founded by Chef and noted humanitarian Jose Andres. I had a chance to meet Chef Andres just a few weeks before the start of the war in Ukraine. I love that man. He is always so full of ideas and hope and determination. The chef came to America from Spain when he was 21 years old, with nothing but a set of knives and 50 bucks. He is now an American citizen with an empire of award-winning restaurants. Through his work with World Central Kitchen, which he founded in 2010, Jose Andres also has earned a reputation as the world's leading ``first responder for food.'' Wherever disaster strikes, it seems the World Central Kitchen is there to feed hungry and displaced people, usually within 24 hours. For Chef Tony Priolo in Chicago, it wasn't enough, though, simply to raise money for the World Central Kitchen, as noble as that effort is. After the success of Chicago Cooks for Ukraine, Tony tracked down his former employee on Instagram and asked: Are you OK? She replied: Notreally. My mom and dog and I are hiding in the subway in Ukraine. So Tony decided he had to go to Ukraine himself personally and help. Two other starter chefs from Chicago, Giuseppe Tentori and Paul Kahan, decided to join him. When one of Tony's regular customers heard that the chefs were paying for the trip to Poland and Ukraine out of their own pockets, he said: I have 5 million frequent flier miles. I will buy your tickets. They volunteered for a week last April, cooking from early morning to late at night, feeding hot meals to as many as 30,000 people a day at a Polish refugee camp just six miles from the border. Helping others was not new to Tony. He is known for his support of charities, including Meals on Wheels Chicago, St. Jude's Hospital, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. But what Tony saw in that refugee camp near the Polish-Ukrainian border broke his heart: an elderly couple who appeared to have left everything they owned behind, now dependent on the kindness of strangers for even a simple glass of water or a meal; terrified women and children who had been forced to flee their homes, carrying only what they could fit into suitcases and shopping bags. ``Often,'' Tony said, ``I had to look away to hide the tears.'' For his humanitarian work to aid Ukrainians displaced by war and his many other charitable endeavors, Chef Priolo was recently honored by Chicago magazine as a ``Chicagoan of the Year,'' a well-deserved tribute. Around the same time that Chef Priolo was watching the horrors unfold last year, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and I sat in a dark, nearly empty departure lounge in Vilnius, Lithuania early one morning. We were there to express support for Lithuania, that small NATO member on the front line of democracy, who has a long history of Russian tyranny. And then while we sat, the unthinkable occurred in modern Europe. News broke that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin had launched a massive military invasion of Ukraine. It was an ill-fated throwback to an era when aggressor nations tried to seize their neighbor's territory by force, all in the blind pursuit of some warped Soviet nostalgia trip. Putin was willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Ukrainians and even Russians, the reputation of his country, and the international order established after the horror of World War II. Perhaps having listened to too many years of his own country's brainwashing propaganda, Putin also thought Ukraine would fall into his lap in a matter of days or hours. He thought the transatlantic alliance in the community of democracies was a thing of the past and wouldn't dare to respond. Well, he was wrong on every single front. The Ukrainian people repelled Putin's invasion. They heroically clawed back seized territory. They withstood brutal, deliberate attacks on civilian targets and critical infrastructure--war crimes by any standard of human conduct. They are united in their resistance to Russia and their desire to be free to choose their own path in the future. The United States and its allies around the world have stood together in support of Ukraine and against Russia, and NATO is on the cusp of adding two new formidable members--Finland and Sweden. President Biden deserves great praise for leading this global effort, and praise too to the American people for recognizing a courageous effort against tyranny and standing on the right side of history. But we should not lose sight of the crimes committed by Putin in the war, crimes for which he and his enablers must and will be held accountable. Entire villages have been destroyed. From Bucha to Izyum to Kherson, there is evidence of horrific mass killing, torture, and sexual violence against innocent people. Dead and mutilated bodies litter the street. Babies have been found in mass graves. Thousands have been abducted. These are the acts of a war criminal. That is why Congress recently strengthened our Nation's tools for cooperation with the International Criminal Court when it comes to Ukraine and why we recently enacted a bill I introduced entitled Justice for Victims of War Crimes. And it is why Congress provided $45 billion in aid to Ukraine in the most recent spending bill, a measure, thank goodness, with broad bipartisan support. Just like the Nuremburg trials after World War II, and, more recently, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the world will hold Putin and the Russians accountable for unleashing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. As President Biden said in his State of the Union Address, the fight against tyranny in Ukraine is ``a test for the ages. A test for America. [And] a test for the world.'' We cannot fail. I agree with the President. We must continue to stand loyally by Ukraine. I will close with a memory I will never forget. It was the year 2014--9 years ago. I was walking through Kyiv's Maidan Square with my friend, the late Senator John McCain. It was a trip we made to the area, and he was a celebrity. John McCain stood by their side when others wouldn't, and they loved him for it. And we started to walk into Maidan Square together. All around us were makeshift shrines dedicated to the victims killed during peaceful protests simply asking for the opportunity to have a democracy. It was evident then and reflective of what we have seen during the last year in Ukraine, the unshakable determination of the Ukrainian people to be free, to be able to democratically choose their own future, just as we do in the United States. Senator McCain understood it, and I stood by his side. It is long overdue that President Putin understands it as well. Until then, we will stand together with the Ukrainian people in that journey toward democracy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS442-3 | null | 5,843 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Ukraine Mr. President, on February 25, 1 year ago, award-winning Chicago Chef Tony Priolo woke up early to work out on his elliptical machine. He turned on his TV, and he couldn't believe what he was seeing: bombs, gunfire, convoys of armored vehicles. Russia's war on Ukraine had begun. Chef Priolo thought of a young Ukrainian woman who had worked for a summer in one of his restaurants and wondered whether she and her family were safe. He asked himself: What can I do? And then he had an idea. He contacted the Illinois Restaurant Association and 30 of his closest chef friends in the area and said: Let's use our talents to feed people and to feed the people of Ukraine who have been forced from their homes by this terrible war. Less than 3 weeks later, chefs representing 70 restaurants around Chicago dished out meals to a crowd of 2,000 people at an event called Chicago Chefs Cook for Ukraine. They sold out a rather large venue known as Navy Pier in Chicago. They raised $650,000 in that one night and another $200,000 after. They donated all of it to the World Central Kitchen, the nonprofit organization founded by Chef and noted humanitarian Jose Andres. I had a chance to meet Chef Andres just a few weeks before the start of the war in Ukraine. I love that man. He is always so full of ideas and hope and determination. The chef came to America from Spain when he was 21 years old, with nothing but a set of knives and 50 bucks. He is now an American citizen with an empire of award-winning restaurants. Through his work with World Central Kitchen, which he founded in 2010, Jose Andres also has earned a reputation as the world's leading ``first responder for food.'' Wherever disaster strikes, it seems the World Central Kitchen is there to feed hungry and displaced people, usually within 24 hours. For Chef Tony Priolo in Chicago, it wasn't enough, though, simply to raise money for the World Central Kitchen, as noble as that effort is. After the success of Chicago Cooks for Ukraine, Tony tracked down his former employee on Instagram and asked: Are you OK? She replied: Notreally. My mom and dog and I are hiding in the subway in Ukraine. So Tony decided he had to go to Ukraine himself personally and help. Two other starter chefs from Chicago, Giuseppe Tentori and Paul Kahan, decided to join him. When one of Tony's regular customers heard that the chefs were paying for the trip to Poland and Ukraine out of their own pockets, he said: I have 5 million frequent flier miles. I will buy your tickets. They volunteered for a week last April, cooking from early morning to late at night, feeding hot meals to as many as 30,000 people a day at a Polish refugee camp just six miles from the border. Helping others was not new to Tony. He is known for his support of charities, including Meals on Wheels Chicago, St. Jude's Hospital, and the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. But what Tony saw in that refugee camp near the Polish-Ukrainian border broke his heart: an elderly couple who appeared to have left everything they owned behind, now dependent on the kindness of strangers for even a simple glass of water or a meal; terrified women and children who had been forced to flee their homes, carrying only what they could fit into suitcases and shopping bags. ``Often,'' Tony said, ``I had to look away to hide the tears.'' For his humanitarian work to aid Ukrainians displaced by war and his many other charitable endeavors, Chef Priolo was recently honored by Chicago magazine as a ``Chicagoan of the Year,'' a well-deserved tribute. Around the same time that Chef Priolo was watching the horrors unfold last year, Senator Chris Coons of Delaware and I sat in a dark, nearly empty departure lounge in Vilnius, Lithuania early one morning. We were there to express support for Lithuania, that small NATO member on the front line of democracy, who has a long history of Russian tyranny. And then while we sat, the unthinkable occurred in modern Europe. News broke that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin had launched a massive military invasion of Ukraine. It was an ill-fated throwback to an era when aggressor nations tried to seize their neighbor's territory by force, all in the blind pursuit of some warped Soviet nostalgia trip. Putin was willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands of Ukrainians and even Russians, the reputation of his country, and the international order established after the horror of World War II. Perhaps having listened to too many years of his own country's brainwashing propaganda, Putin also thought Ukraine would fall into his lap in a matter of days or hours. He thought the transatlantic alliance in the community of democracies was a thing of the past and wouldn't dare to respond. Well, he was wrong on every single front. The Ukrainian people repelled Putin's invasion. They heroically clawed back seized territory. They withstood brutal, deliberate attacks on civilian targets and critical infrastructure--war crimes by any standard of human conduct. They are united in their resistance to Russia and their desire to be free to choose their own path in the future. The United States and its allies around the world have stood together in support of Ukraine and against Russia, and NATO is on the cusp of adding two new formidable members--Finland and Sweden. President Biden deserves great praise for leading this global effort, and praise too to the American people for recognizing a courageous effort against tyranny and standing on the right side of history. But we should not lose sight of the crimes committed by Putin in the war, crimes for which he and his enablers must and will be held accountable. Entire villages have been destroyed. From Bucha to Izyum to Kherson, there is evidence of horrific mass killing, torture, and sexual violence against innocent people. Dead and mutilated bodies litter the street. Babies have been found in mass graves. Thousands have been abducted. These are the acts of a war criminal. That is why Congress recently strengthened our Nation's tools for cooperation with the International Criminal Court when it comes to Ukraine and why we recently enacted a bill I introduced entitled Justice for Victims of War Crimes. And it is why Congress provided $45 billion in aid to Ukraine in the most recent spending bill, a measure, thank goodness, with broad bipartisan support. Just like the Nuremburg trials after World War II, and, more recently, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the world will hold Putin and the Russians accountable for unleashing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. As President Biden said in his State of the Union Address, the fight against tyranny in Ukraine is ``a test for the ages. A test for America. [And] a test for the world.'' We cannot fail. I agree with the President. We must continue to stand loyally by Ukraine. I will close with a memory I will never forget. It was the year 2014--9 years ago. I was walking through Kyiv's Maidan Square with my friend, the late Senator John McCain. It was a trip we made to the area, and he was a celebrity. John McCain stood by their side when others wouldn't, and they loved him for it. And we started to walk into Maidan Square together. All around us were makeshift shrines dedicated to the victims killed during peaceful protests simply asking for the opportunity to have a democracy. It was evident then and reflective of what we have seen during the last year in Ukraine, the unshakable determination of the Ukrainian people to be free, to be able to democratically choose their own future, just as we do in the United States. Senator McCain understood it, and I stood by his side. It is long overdue that President Putin understands it as well. Until then, we will stand together with the Ukrainian people in that journey toward democracy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS442-3 | null | 5,844 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Willow Project Mr. President, you have seen this speech a couple times, and I am going to keep talking about it. Senator Murkowski is going to keep talking about it. Congresswoman Peltola, over on the House side, is going to keep talking about it. This is the bipartisan priority we have for Alaska and America. It is called the Willow Project. The Willow Project. People across Alaska are speaking, unified in one voice, about the importance of this very big, very environmentally safe energy project in our State. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in our State legislature, I believe, are getting ready to pass a resolution to the Biden White House and the Biden Department of the Interior, saying: Finally, make this happen. What is this? It is a very large project, a $9 billion investment, with 2,500 construction jobs, 75 percent of which will be the building trades, unions; peak production of 200,000 barrels a day into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, not much infrastructure needed; highest environmental standards in the world and lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any major project this size. It has enormous support from unions, building trades, Alaska Natives. I have been on the floor talking about this a lot. Last week, we were frustrated. I made the point that our friends in the national media never talk about who actually really supports the project. They quote lower-48 radical environmental groups--who don't live in Alaska, by the way--who are all opposed, we know that. They don't want anything built in America. Heck, you can't build a bridge here without groups like this opposing it. But what I said is listen to the Native people, listen to the indigenous people of Alaska. They want this. Ihave gone through all these groups. Every major Alaska Native group, every major union, and every major economic group in our State and across the country supports it. So I do want to thank some of the reporters who joined me and Senator Murkowski and so many of our Alaska Native leaders in a press conference a couple of days ago, and guess what. They did start reporting on the broader support in the indigenous community in my State because prior to that they were canceling the indigenous voices. The Native people--the vast majority want this project. I want to spend a few minutes on process. The process for this project is what we are in right now. All big projects on Federal lands go through this. It is what you get when you have the Federal Agencies review a project. It is called an environmental impact statement, an EIS. After the EIS is issued, there is something called a Record of Decision, usually 30 days after that. So when that process goes smoothly, you get permission to start working on it. We are in the final throes of that process. Now, it sounds a little bit boring, but what I want to do is explain what has happened because it is really important to know. This project has been reviewed by different administrations, starting with the Obama administration, then the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration. And every single time the career scientists in our Federal Agencies, the career professionals in the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and the EPA--every time they have done this study on the environmental impacts to review this project, they have passed it with flying colors. That has happened here with the Willow Project. Let me just give you a little bit of background. First of all, this is in the area of Alaska called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was set aside by Congress over 70 years ago. For what? Think about it. It is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was for oil and gas development. It used to be called the Naval Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. So it is not controversial. It is not like ANWR or other places in Alaska. This is set aside. It makes sense, as this is where our oil is, and our country needs oil. The leases in this area were first acquired, believe it or not, during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the company ConocoPhillips all in paid a total of about $120 million with rental requirements. So the company is paying the Feds. That is a contract. The Feds say: We will take your money, and we are going to help you develop it. That is the deal. A lot of people forget that. That is the deal, all right? So preliminary work went in. The producer filed for Federal permits to produce in 2018 and received final approval. This was after many years of exploration. It then went into the environmental impact statement process and reached a Record of Decision at the end of the Trump administration. OK. That sounds good. Those were the professional scientists who said: You can do this in an environmentally sensitive way. Unfortunately, all things get litigated in the great State of Alaska. The Department of the Interior, after some litigation, said: Well, we are going to do another environmental analysis. So the Biden administration did another environmental analysis--2 more years--and we finally got the final environmental impact statement 2 weeks ago. There are over 500 additional pages. Here is what this environmental impact statement from the professional staff of the Biden administration said, which was similar to what the Trump administration's professional staff said: After the environmental analysis, the Biden administration's EIS found that this project would not have a detrimental impact on climate, wildlife, people, places, things. Like I said before, it passed the environmental review. Here is a quote on the impact on climate: ``In the absence of production from [Willow], energy produced from the Project's oil would be replaced by other [places],'' like Venezuela, where they are much dirtier in terms of their processes and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact statement even acknowledges this. These are the career scientists from our Federal Government who wrote this EIS. They are not political appointees; they are career. So, 2 weeks ago, that is what you would think, that we are going to get approval. Not so fast. There are 30 days left--30 days left--and guess what. Every radical environmental group in America is coming out, knocking on the door of Joe Biden's White House and knocking on the door of John Podesta's office, saying: Stop this. We don't care about the science. Just kill it. Wait. I thought the Democratic Party was the party of science. The science is in. The project is good to go. You can tell we are worried. Senator Murkowski and I are giving a lot of speeches on this. If they kill this, it won't be based on science; it will be based on raw political power. Let me repeat that. If the Biden administration in the next 30 days decides to kill this project, it won't be based on science, because their scientists have already spoken. Their scientists have said: Good to go. By the way, the Trump administration's scientists said: Good to go. By the way, we know they are the same scientists, right? They are career Federal employees. They are doing a good job of it. So everybody is saying it is good to go. If it gets killed, we are watching. The enviros are knocking on the door. They are the only group, by the way, in the whole country who doesn't think we need an additional 200,000 barrels a day for America and 2,500 jobs. So keep a close eye on this, America. If the Biden administration kills it, it will be the result of radical environmental muscle going to the White House and saying: Kill it. Let's not let that happen. If you are watching and if you care about American energy security, write blm.gov. Tell them to approve the Willow Project. Come on. Don't politicize this. You guys are supposed to be the party of science. That is what you say. Well, the science is in. Prove it. I want to make one final point here. You know, it might concern some people, but I am going to make it anyway. The Department approved this, and then the Department of the Interior, without any, really, acknowledgment of who said it, said that the Department still has substantial concerns about the Willow Project, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions--I am not sure what that even means--and impacts to the wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence. Hmm. Now, that is not what the career scientists said. Go read the EIS. Why would the Department of the Interior put that out--Deb Haaland of the Department of the Interior? Why would they put that out? They know that their scientists said this was good to go. What are they trying to do here? Well, some of us are nervous that they are trying to set up the killing of the project. But do you know what is really frustrating? I mentioned this before. They mentioned that they are worried about Native subsistence. Last week, we had all of the leaders and the biggest experts in Alaska here who live on the North Slope, who know about Native subsistence rights and hunting better than any group in the world--better than any group in the world. What is really maddening is, if the Secretary of the Interior wants to know about Native subsistence rights, which her Department says she does, why wouldn't she meet with these great Alaskans? As a matter of fact, five different times, this group has flown from the top of the world--Barrow, AK, and Utqiagvik, AK--to come and meet with her, and she won't meet with them--five different times, dozens of my constituents. They are the experts in the world on Native subsistence, but she won't meet with them. Well, that is because they support the project, and they are experts on the issues that Interior is raising. So I find that interesting, and I find that disappointing. Let me just make one other comment. Do you know what? Some of my colleagues say, ``Hey, don't say this, Dan. You know, you are going to rile up the Secretary,'' but I am going to say it anyway. Here is something else that is frustrating, in my view, even scandalous--even scandalous. Our media won't ever report on this, but I am going to try again. The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. OK. That is interesting. Guess which State--my State can't get barely a lease. We beg. We make speeches. We fly dozens of people into DC to get leases on the Federal lands in my State to move forward. Guess which State has gotten, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, more than half of all Federal permits to drill on Federal lands? Do you think it is Alaska? No. Is it Texas? My friend from Texas is here. It is not Texas. It is not North Dakota. It is not any of those places. Guess which it is. Oh, my goodness. It is New Mexico--New Mexico. Isn't that an interesting story for somebody? The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. The senior Senator from New Mexico is from New Mexico, obviously, and they are getting all of the leases. They are getting all of the leases. Here is the thing. New Mexico is on a tear in terms of producing oil. Now, look, I have nothing against that. The country needs it. The country needs it. But look at these numbers. These are millions of barrels. Red is New Mexico. Gray is Alaska. We are kind of steady. We need more oil. New Mexico is in red. Look at that. Holy cow. It is through the roof--through the roof. And guess what is coming with all of that production. Greenhouse gas emissions through the roof in New Mexico. Where is the reporting on that topic? You know, sometimes the media likes to talk about ``climate bombs'' in the country. I don't really like the phrase. I think it is silly. But if there is a climate bomb from the production of oil in America, it is right there. It is right there. Again, I think it is fine that this State is doing well. It is good for the country, and it is good for the workers in New Mexico. But what I don't like is the rank hypocrisy. The media is always focusing on Alaska, on our production. Yet look at this: There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill, which were approved during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, in New Mexico. Yes, that is right--over 9,000--while my State can barely get 1. And 52 percent of all permits to drill in the country are in New Mexico. The Secretary is from New Mexico. Where is that story? Where is that story? The Secretary of the Interior has been shutting down Alaska energy production while approving massive drilling activity in her own State, and the media won't touch that story with a 10,000-foot pole. New Mexico has increased production by 700,000 barrels a day since 2019. They are at 1.7 million barrels a day. My State is at about 500,000, and we are trying to increase. Where is that story? You know, the senior Senator from New Mexico is always trying to shut down any oil development in Alaska. I have talked about it on the floor. I am not going to go into it a lot here, but he has gone to extreme measures, like writing banks and insurance companies and saying: Don't invest in Alaska. But it is ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico. No one writes that story, and I think it is hypocritical, too, because the greenhouse gas emissions in that State are going through the roof. So there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. In my State, my constituents--the Native people, the working people--just want the most environmentally sensitive project in the world, which is the Willow Project, to keep our economy going and to help our country. That is all we want. I think, given what the Secretary of the Interior is doing for her own State--like I said, ``drill, baby, drill,'' with a climate bomb in New Mexico--it is time to finalize the Willow Project according to the scientists and the final EIS that was granted by the Biden administration 2 weeks ago and not use political muscle and political power to kill a project in my State when this blue State is drilling like crazy and producing like crazy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS444 | null | 5,845 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Willow Project Mr. President, you have seen this speech a couple times, and I am going to keep talking about it. Senator Murkowski is going to keep talking about it. Congresswoman Peltola, over on the House side, is going to keep talking about it. This is the bipartisan priority we have for Alaska and America. It is called the Willow Project. The Willow Project. People across Alaska are speaking, unified in one voice, about the importance of this very big, very environmentally safe energy project in our State. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in our State legislature, I believe, are getting ready to pass a resolution to the Biden White House and the Biden Department of the Interior, saying: Finally, make this happen. What is this? It is a very large project, a $9 billion investment, with 2,500 construction jobs, 75 percent of which will be the building trades, unions; peak production of 200,000 barrels a day into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, not much infrastructure needed; highest environmental standards in the world and lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any major project this size. It has enormous support from unions, building trades, Alaska Natives. I have been on the floor talking about this a lot. Last week, we were frustrated. I made the point that our friends in the national media never talk about who actually really supports the project. They quote lower-48 radical environmental groups--who don't live in Alaska, by the way--who are all opposed, we know that. They don't want anything built in America. Heck, you can't build a bridge here without groups like this opposing it. But what I said is listen to the Native people, listen to the indigenous people of Alaska. They want this. Ihave gone through all these groups. Every major Alaska Native group, every major union, and every major economic group in our State and across the country supports it. So I do want to thank some of the reporters who joined me and Senator Murkowski and so many of our Alaska Native leaders in a press conference a couple of days ago, and guess what. They did start reporting on the broader support in the indigenous community in my State because prior to that they were canceling the indigenous voices. The Native people--the vast majority want this project. I want to spend a few minutes on process. The process for this project is what we are in right now. All big projects on Federal lands go through this. It is what you get when you have the Federal Agencies review a project. It is called an environmental impact statement, an EIS. After the EIS is issued, there is something called a Record of Decision, usually 30 days after that. So when that process goes smoothly, you get permission to start working on it. We are in the final throes of that process. Now, it sounds a little bit boring, but what I want to do is explain what has happened because it is really important to know. This project has been reviewed by different administrations, starting with the Obama administration, then the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration. And every single time the career scientists in our Federal Agencies, the career professionals in the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and the EPA--every time they have done this study on the environmental impacts to review this project, they have passed it with flying colors. That has happened here with the Willow Project. Let me just give you a little bit of background. First of all, this is in the area of Alaska called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was set aside by Congress over 70 years ago. For what? Think about it. It is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was for oil and gas development. It used to be called the Naval Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. So it is not controversial. It is not like ANWR or other places in Alaska. This is set aside. It makes sense, as this is where our oil is, and our country needs oil. The leases in this area were first acquired, believe it or not, during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the company ConocoPhillips all in paid a total of about $120 million with rental requirements. So the company is paying the Feds. That is a contract. The Feds say: We will take your money, and we are going to help you develop it. That is the deal. A lot of people forget that. That is the deal, all right? So preliminary work went in. The producer filed for Federal permits to produce in 2018 and received final approval. This was after many years of exploration. It then went into the environmental impact statement process and reached a Record of Decision at the end of the Trump administration. OK. That sounds good. Those were the professional scientists who said: You can do this in an environmentally sensitive way. Unfortunately, all things get litigated in the great State of Alaska. The Department of the Interior, after some litigation, said: Well, we are going to do another environmental analysis. So the Biden administration did another environmental analysis--2 more years--and we finally got the final environmental impact statement 2 weeks ago. There are over 500 additional pages. Here is what this environmental impact statement from the professional staff of the Biden administration said, which was similar to what the Trump administration's professional staff said: After the environmental analysis, the Biden administration's EIS found that this project would not have a detrimental impact on climate, wildlife, people, places, things. Like I said before, it passed the environmental review. Here is a quote on the impact on climate: ``In the absence of production from [Willow], energy produced from the Project's oil would be replaced by other [places],'' like Venezuela, where they are much dirtier in terms of their processes and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact statement even acknowledges this. These are the career scientists from our Federal Government who wrote this EIS. They are not political appointees; they are career. So, 2 weeks ago, that is what you would think, that we are going to get approval. Not so fast. There are 30 days left--30 days left--and guess what. Every radical environmental group in America is coming out, knocking on the door of Joe Biden's White House and knocking on the door of John Podesta's office, saying: Stop this. We don't care about the science. Just kill it. Wait. I thought the Democratic Party was the party of science. The science is in. The project is good to go. You can tell we are worried. Senator Murkowski and I are giving a lot of speeches on this. If they kill this, it won't be based on science; it will be based on raw political power. Let me repeat that. If the Biden administration in the next 30 days decides to kill this project, it won't be based on science, because their scientists have already spoken. Their scientists have said: Good to go. By the way, the Trump administration's scientists said: Good to go. By the way, we know they are the same scientists, right? They are career Federal employees. They are doing a good job of it. So everybody is saying it is good to go. If it gets killed, we are watching. The enviros are knocking on the door. They are the only group, by the way, in the whole country who doesn't think we need an additional 200,000 barrels a day for America and 2,500 jobs. So keep a close eye on this, America. If the Biden administration kills it, it will be the result of radical environmental muscle going to the White House and saying: Kill it. Let's not let that happen. If you are watching and if you care about American energy security, write blm.gov. Tell them to approve the Willow Project. Come on. Don't politicize this. You guys are supposed to be the party of science. That is what you say. Well, the science is in. Prove it. I want to make one final point here. You know, it might concern some people, but I am going to make it anyway. The Department approved this, and then the Department of the Interior, without any, really, acknowledgment of who said it, said that the Department still has substantial concerns about the Willow Project, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions--I am not sure what that even means--and impacts to the wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence. Hmm. Now, that is not what the career scientists said. Go read the EIS. Why would the Department of the Interior put that out--Deb Haaland of the Department of the Interior? Why would they put that out? They know that their scientists said this was good to go. What are they trying to do here? Well, some of us are nervous that they are trying to set up the killing of the project. But do you know what is really frustrating? I mentioned this before. They mentioned that they are worried about Native subsistence. Last week, we had all of the leaders and the biggest experts in Alaska here who live on the North Slope, who know about Native subsistence rights and hunting better than any group in the world--better than any group in the world. What is really maddening is, if the Secretary of the Interior wants to know about Native subsistence rights, which her Department says she does, why wouldn't she meet with these great Alaskans? As a matter of fact, five different times, this group has flown from the top of the world--Barrow, AK, and Utqiagvik, AK--to come and meet with her, and she won't meet with them--five different times, dozens of my constituents. They are the experts in the world on Native subsistence, but she won't meet with them. Well, that is because they support the project, and they are experts on the issues that Interior is raising. So I find that interesting, and I find that disappointing. Let me just make one other comment. Do you know what? Some of my colleagues say, ``Hey, don't say this, Dan. You know, you are going to rile up the Secretary,'' but I am going to say it anyway. Here is something else that is frustrating, in my view, even scandalous--even scandalous. Our media won't ever report on this, but I am going to try again. The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. OK. That is interesting. Guess which State--my State can't get barely a lease. We beg. We make speeches. We fly dozens of people into DC to get leases on the Federal lands in my State to move forward. Guess which State has gotten, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, more than half of all Federal permits to drill on Federal lands? Do you think it is Alaska? No. Is it Texas? My friend from Texas is here. It is not Texas. It is not North Dakota. It is not any of those places. Guess which it is. Oh, my goodness. It is New Mexico--New Mexico. Isn't that an interesting story for somebody? The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. The senior Senator from New Mexico is from New Mexico, obviously, and they are getting all of the leases. They are getting all of the leases. Here is the thing. New Mexico is on a tear in terms of producing oil. Now, look, I have nothing against that. The country needs it. The country needs it. But look at these numbers. These are millions of barrels. Red is New Mexico. Gray is Alaska. We are kind of steady. We need more oil. New Mexico is in red. Look at that. Holy cow. It is through the roof--through the roof. And guess what is coming with all of that production. Greenhouse gas emissions through the roof in New Mexico. Where is the reporting on that topic? You know, sometimes the media likes to talk about ``climate bombs'' in the country. I don't really like the phrase. I think it is silly. But if there is a climate bomb from the production of oil in America, it is right there. It is right there. Again, I think it is fine that this State is doing well. It is good for the country, and it is good for the workers in New Mexico. But what I don't like is the rank hypocrisy. The media is always focusing on Alaska, on our production. Yet look at this: There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill, which were approved during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, in New Mexico. Yes, that is right--over 9,000--while my State can barely get 1. And 52 percent of all permits to drill in the country are in New Mexico. The Secretary is from New Mexico. Where is that story? Where is that story? The Secretary of the Interior has been shutting down Alaska energy production while approving massive drilling activity in her own State, and the media won't touch that story with a 10,000-foot pole. New Mexico has increased production by 700,000 barrels a day since 2019. They are at 1.7 million barrels a day. My State is at about 500,000, and we are trying to increase. Where is that story? You know, the senior Senator from New Mexico is always trying to shut down any oil development in Alaska. I have talked about it on the floor. I am not going to go into it a lot here, but he has gone to extreme measures, like writing banks and insurance companies and saying: Don't invest in Alaska. But it is ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico. No one writes that story, and I think it is hypocritical, too, because the greenhouse gas emissions in that State are going through the roof. So there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. In my State, my constituents--the Native people, the working people--just want the most environmentally sensitive project in the world, which is the Willow Project, to keep our economy going and to help our country. That is all we want. I think, given what the Secretary of the Interior is doing for her own State--like I said, ``drill, baby, drill,'' with a climate bomb in New Mexico--it is time to finalize the Willow Project according to the scientists and the final EIS that was granted by the Biden administration 2 weeks ago and not use political muscle and political power to kill a project in my State when this blue State is drilling like crazy and producing like crazy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS444 | null | 5,846 |
formal | every single time | null | white supremacist | Willow Project Mr. President, you have seen this speech a couple times, and I am going to keep talking about it. Senator Murkowski is going to keep talking about it. Congresswoman Peltola, over on the House side, is going to keep talking about it. This is the bipartisan priority we have for Alaska and America. It is called the Willow Project. The Willow Project. People across Alaska are speaking, unified in one voice, about the importance of this very big, very environmentally safe energy project in our State. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in our State legislature, I believe, are getting ready to pass a resolution to the Biden White House and the Biden Department of the Interior, saying: Finally, make this happen. What is this? It is a very large project, a $9 billion investment, with 2,500 construction jobs, 75 percent of which will be the building trades, unions; peak production of 200,000 barrels a day into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, not much infrastructure needed; highest environmental standards in the world and lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any major project this size. It has enormous support from unions, building trades, Alaska Natives. I have been on the floor talking about this a lot. Last week, we were frustrated. I made the point that our friends in the national media never talk about who actually really supports the project. They quote lower-48 radical environmental groups--who don't live in Alaska, by the way--who are all opposed, we know that. They don't want anything built in America. Heck, you can't build a bridge here without groups like this opposing it. But what I said is listen to the Native people, listen to the indigenous people of Alaska. They want this. Ihave gone through all these groups. Every major Alaska Native group, every major union, and every major economic group in our State and across the country supports it. So I do want to thank some of the reporters who joined me and Senator Murkowski and so many of our Alaska Native leaders in a press conference a couple of days ago, and guess what. They did start reporting on the broader support in the indigenous community in my State because prior to that they were canceling the indigenous voices. The Native people--the vast majority want this project. I want to spend a few minutes on process. The process for this project is what we are in right now. All big projects on Federal lands go through this. It is what you get when you have the Federal Agencies review a project. It is called an environmental impact statement, an EIS. After the EIS is issued, there is something called a Record of Decision, usually 30 days after that. So when that process goes smoothly, you get permission to start working on it. We are in the final throes of that process. Now, it sounds a little bit boring, but what I want to do is explain what has happened because it is really important to know. This project has been reviewed by different administrations, starting with the Obama administration, then the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration. And every single time the career scientists in our Federal Agencies, the career professionals in the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and the EPA--every time they have done this study on the environmental impacts to review this project, they have passed it with flying colors. That has happened here with the Willow Project. Let me just give you a little bit of background. First of all, this is in the area of Alaska called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was set aside by Congress over 70 years ago. For what? Think about it. It is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was for oil and gas development. It used to be called the Naval Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. So it is not controversial. It is not like ANWR or other places in Alaska. This is set aside. It makes sense, as this is where our oil is, and our country needs oil. The leases in this area were first acquired, believe it or not, during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the company ConocoPhillips all in paid a total of about $120 million with rental requirements. So the company is paying the Feds. That is a contract. The Feds say: We will take your money, and we are going to help you develop it. That is the deal. A lot of people forget that. That is the deal, all right? So preliminary work went in. The producer filed for Federal permits to produce in 2018 and received final approval. This was after many years of exploration. It then went into the environmental impact statement process and reached a Record of Decision at the end of the Trump administration. OK. That sounds good. Those were the professional scientists who said: You can do this in an environmentally sensitive way. Unfortunately, all things get litigated in the great State of Alaska. The Department of the Interior, after some litigation, said: Well, we are going to do another environmental analysis. So the Biden administration did another environmental analysis--2 more years--and we finally got the final environmental impact statement 2 weeks ago. There are over 500 additional pages. Here is what this environmental impact statement from the professional staff of the Biden administration said, which was similar to what the Trump administration's professional staff said: After the environmental analysis, the Biden administration's EIS found that this project would not have a detrimental impact on climate, wildlife, people, places, things. Like I said before, it passed the environmental review. Here is a quote on the impact on climate: ``In the absence of production from [Willow], energy produced from the Project's oil would be replaced by other [places],'' like Venezuela, where they are much dirtier in terms of their processes and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact statement even acknowledges this. These are the career scientists from our Federal Government who wrote this EIS. They are not political appointees; they are career. So, 2 weeks ago, that is what you would think, that we are going to get approval. Not so fast. There are 30 days left--30 days left--and guess what. Every radical environmental group in America is coming out, knocking on the door of Joe Biden's White House and knocking on the door of John Podesta's office, saying: Stop this. We don't care about the science. Just kill it. Wait. I thought the Democratic Party was the party of science. The science is in. The project is good to go. You can tell we are worried. Senator Murkowski and I are giving a lot of speeches on this. If they kill this, it won't be based on science; it will be based on raw political power. Let me repeat that. If the Biden administration in the next 30 days decides to kill this project, it won't be based on science, because their scientists have already spoken. Their scientists have said: Good to go. By the way, the Trump administration's scientists said: Good to go. By the way, we know they are the same scientists, right? They are career Federal employees. They are doing a good job of it. So everybody is saying it is good to go. If it gets killed, we are watching. The enviros are knocking on the door. They are the only group, by the way, in the whole country who doesn't think we need an additional 200,000 barrels a day for America and 2,500 jobs. So keep a close eye on this, America. If the Biden administration kills it, it will be the result of radical environmental muscle going to the White House and saying: Kill it. Let's not let that happen. If you are watching and if you care about American energy security, write blm.gov. Tell them to approve the Willow Project. Come on. Don't politicize this. You guys are supposed to be the party of science. That is what you say. Well, the science is in. Prove it. I want to make one final point here. You know, it might concern some people, but I am going to make it anyway. The Department approved this, and then the Department of the Interior, without any, really, acknowledgment of who said it, said that the Department still has substantial concerns about the Willow Project, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions--I am not sure what that even means--and impacts to the wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence. Hmm. Now, that is not what the career scientists said. Go read the EIS. Why would the Department of the Interior put that out--Deb Haaland of the Department of the Interior? Why would they put that out? They know that their scientists said this was good to go. What are they trying to do here? Well, some of us are nervous that they are trying to set up the killing of the project. But do you know what is really frustrating? I mentioned this before. They mentioned that they are worried about Native subsistence. Last week, we had all of the leaders and the biggest experts in Alaska here who live on the North Slope, who know about Native subsistence rights and hunting better than any group in the world--better than any group in the world. What is really maddening is, if the Secretary of the Interior wants to know about Native subsistence rights, which her Department says she does, why wouldn't she meet with these great Alaskans? As a matter of fact, five different times, this group has flown from the top of the world--Barrow, AK, and Utqiagvik, AK--to come and meet with her, and she won't meet with them--five different times, dozens of my constituents. They are the experts in the world on Native subsistence, but she won't meet with them. Well, that is because they support the project, and they are experts on the issues that Interior is raising. So I find that interesting, and I find that disappointing. Let me just make one other comment. Do you know what? Some of my colleagues say, ``Hey, don't say this, Dan. You know, you are going to rile up the Secretary,'' but I am going to say it anyway. Here is something else that is frustrating, in my view, even scandalous--even scandalous. Our media won't ever report on this, but I am going to try again. The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. OK. That is interesting. Guess which State--my State can't get barely a lease. We beg. We make speeches. We fly dozens of people into DC to get leases on the Federal lands in my State to move forward. Guess which State has gotten, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, more than half of all Federal permits to drill on Federal lands? Do you think it is Alaska? No. Is it Texas? My friend from Texas is here. It is not Texas. It is not North Dakota. It is not any of those places. Guess which it is. Oh, my goodness. It is New Mexico--New Mexico. Isn't that an interesting story for somebody? The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. The senior Senator from New Mexico is from New Mexico, obviously, and they are getting all of the leases. They are getting all of the leases. Here is the thing. New Mexico is on a tear in terms of producing oil. Now, look, I have nothing against that. The country needs it. The country needs it. But look at these numbers. These are millions of barrels. Red is New Mexico. Gray is Alaska. We are kind of steady. We need more oil. New Mexico is in red. Look at that. Holy cow. It is through the roof--through the roof. And guess what is coming with all of that production. Greenhouse gas emissions through the roof in New Mexico. Where is the reporting on that topic? You know, sometimes the media likes to talk about ``climate bombs'' in the country. I don't really like the phrase. I think it is silly. But if there is a climate bomb from the production of oil in America, it is right there. It is right there. Again, I think it is fine that this State is doing well. It is good for the country, and it is good for the workers in New Mexico. But what I don't like is the rank hypocrisy. The media is always focusing on Alaska, on our production. Yet look at this: There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill, which were approved during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, in New Mexico. Yes, that is right--over 9,000--while my State can barely get 1. And 52 percent of all permits to drill in the country are in New Mexico. The Secretary is from New Mexico. Where is that story? Where is that story? The Secretary of the Interior has been shutting down Alaska energy production while approving massive drilling activity in her own State, and the media won't touch that story with a 10,000-foot pole. New Mexico has increased production by 700,000 barrels a day since 2019. They are at 1.7 million barrels a day. My State is at about 500,000, and we are trying to increase. Where is that story? You know, the senior Senator from New Mexico is always trying to shut down any oil development in Alaska. I have talked about it on the floor. I am not going to go into it a lot here, but he has gone to extreme measures, like writing banks and insurance companies and saying: Don't invest in Alaska. But it is ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico. No one writes that story, and I think it is hypocritical, too, because the greenhouse gas emissions in that State are going through the roof. So there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. In my State, my constituents--the Native people, the working people--just want the most environmentally sensitive project in the world, which is the Willow Project, to keep our economy going and to help our country. That is all we want. I think, given what the Secretary of the Interior is doing for her own State--like I said, ``drill, baby, drill,'' with a climate bomb in New Mexico--it is time to finalize the Willow Project according to the scientists and the final EIS that was granted by the Biden administration 2 weeks ago and not use political muscle and political power to kill a project in my State when this blue State is drilling like crazy and producing like crazy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS444 | null | 5,847 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Willow Project Mr. President, you have seen this speech a couple times, and I am going to keep talking about it. Senator Murkowski is going to keep talking about it. Congresswoman Peltola, over on the House side, is going to keep talking about it. This is the bipartisan priority we have for Alaska and America. It is called the Willow Project. The Willow Project. People across Alaska are speaking, unified in one voice, about the importance of this very big, very environmentally safe energy project in our State. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in our State legislature, I believe, are getting ready to pass a resolution to the Biden White House and the Biden Department of the Interior, saying: Finally, make this happen. What is this? It is a very large project, a $9 billion investment, with 2,500 construction jobs, 75 percent of which will be the building trades, unions; peak production of 200,000 barrels a day into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, not much infrastructure needed; highest environmental standards in the world and lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any major project this size. It has enormous support from unions, building trades, Alaska Natives. I have been on the floor talking about this a lot. Last week, we were frustrated. I made the point that our friends in the national media never talk about who actually really supports the project. They quote lower-48 radical environmental groups--who don't live in Alaska, by the way--who are all opposed, we know that. They don't want anything built in America. Heck, you can't build a bridge here without groups like this opposing it. But what I said is listen to the Native people, listen to the indigenous people of Alaska. They want this. Ihave gone through all these groups. Every major Alaska Native group, every major union, and every major economic group in our State and across the country supports it. So I do want to thank some of the reporters who joined me and Senator Murkowski and so many of our Alaska Native leaders in a press conference a couple of days ago, and guess what. They did start reporting on the broader support in the indigenous community in my State because prior to that they were canceling the indigenous voices. The Native people--the vast majority want this project. I want to spend a few minutes on process. The process for this project is what we are in right now. All big projects on Federal lands go through this. It is what you get when you have the Federal Agencies review a project. It is called an environmental impact statement, an EIS. After the EIS is issued, there is something called a Record of Decision, usually 30 days after that. So when that process goes smoothly, you get permission to start working on it. We are in the final throes of that process. Now, it sounds a little bit boring, but what I want to do is explain what has happened because it is really important to know. This project has been reviewed by different administrations, starting with the Obama administration, then the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration. And every single time the career scientists in our Federal Agencies, the career professionals in the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and the EPA--every time they have done this study on the environmental impacts to review this project, they have passed it with flying colors. That has happened here with the Willow Project. Let me just give you a little bit of background. First of all, this is in the area of Alaska called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was set aside by Congress over 70 years ago. For what? Think about it. It is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was for oil and gas development. It used to be called the Naval Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. So it is not controversial. It is not like ANWR or other places in Alaska. This is set aside. It makes sense, as this is where our oil is, and our country needs oil. The leases in this area were first acquired, believe it or not, during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the company ConocoPhillips all in paid a total of about $120 million with rental requirements. So the company is paying the Feds. That is a contract. The Feds say: We will take your money, and we are going to help you develop it. That is the deal. A lot of people forget that. That is the deal, all right? So preliminary work went in. The producer filed for Federal permits to produce in 2018 and received final approval. This was after many years of exploration. It then went into the environmental impact statement process and reached a Record of Decision at the end of the Trump administration. OK. That sounds good. Those were the professional scientists who said: You can do this in an environmentally sensitive way. Unfortunately, all things get litigated in the great State of Alaska. The Department of the Interior, after some litigation, said: Well, we are going to do another environmental analysis. So the Biden administration did another environmental analysis--2 more years--and we finally got the final environmental impact statement 2 weeks ago. There are over 500 additional pages. Here is what this environmental impact statement from the professional staff of the Biden administration said, which was similar to what the Trump administration's professional staff said: After the environmental analysis, the Biden administration's EIS found that this project would not have a detrimental impact on climate, wildlife, people, places, things. Like I said before, it passed the environmental review. Here is a quote on the impact on climate: ``In the absence of production from [Willow], energy produced from the Project's oil would be replaced by other [places],'' like Venezuela, where they are much dirtier in terms of their processes and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact statement even acknowledges this. These are the career scientists from our Federal Government who wrote this EIS. They are not political appointees; they are career. So, 2 weeks ago, that is what you would think, that we are going to get approval. Not so fast. There are 30 days left--30 days left--and guess what. Every radical environmental group in America is coming out, knocking on the door of Joe Biden's White House and knocking on the door of John Podesta's office, saying: Stop this. We don't care about the science. Just kill it. Wait. I thought the Democratic Party was the party of science. The science is in. The project is good to go. You can tell we are worried. Senator Murkowski and I are giving a lot of speeches on this. If they kill this, it won't be based on science; it will be based on raw political power. Let me repeat that. If the Biden administration in the next 30 days decides to kill this project, it won't be based on science, because their scientists have already spoken. Their scientists have said: Good to go. By the way, the Trump administration's scientists said: Good to go. By the way, we know they are the same scientists, right? They are career Federal employees. They are doing a good job of it. So everybody is saying it is good to go. If it gets killed, we are watching. The enviros are knocking on the door. They are the only group, by the way, in the whole country who doesn't think we need an additional 200,000 barrels a day for America and 2,500 jobs. So keep a close eye on this, America. If the Biden administration kills it, it will be the result of radical environmental muscle going to the White House and saying: Kill it. Let's not let that happen. If you are watching and if you care about American energy security, write blm.gov. Tell them to approve the Willow Project. Come on. Don't politicize this. You guys are supposed to be the party of science. That is what you say. Well, the science is in. Prove it. I want to make one final point here. You know, it might concern some people, but I am going to make it anyway. The Department approved this, and then the Department of the Interior, without any, really, acknowledgment of who said it, said that the Department still has substantial concerns about the Willow Project, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions--I am not sure what that even means--and impacts to the wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence. Hmm. Now, that is not what the career scientists said. Go read the EIS. Why would the Department of the Interior put that out--Deb Haaland of the Department of the Interior? Why would they put that out? They know that their scientists said this was good to go. What are they trying to do here? Well, some of us are nervous that they are trying to set up the killing of the project. But do you know what is really frustrating? I mentioned this before. They mentioned that they are worried about Native subsistence. Last week, we had all of the leaders and the biggest experts in Alaska here who live on the North Slope, who know about Native subsistence rights and hunting better than any group in the world--better than any group in the world. What is really maddening is, if the Secretary of the Interior wants to know about Native subsistence rights, which her Department says she does, why wouldn't she meet with these great Alaskans? As a matter of fact, five different times, this group has flown from the top of the world--Barrow, AK, and Utqiagvik, AK--to come and meet with her, and she won't meet with them--five different times, dozens of my constituents. They are the experts in the world on Native subsistence, but she won't meet with them. Well, that is because they support the project, and they are experts on the issues that Interior is raising. So I find that interesting, and I find that disappointing. Let me just make one other comment. Do you know what? Some of my colleagues say, ``Hey, don't say this, Dan. You know, you are going to rile up the Secretary,'' but I am going to say it anyway. Here is something else that is frustrating, in my view, even scandalous--even scandalous. Our media won't ever report on this, but I am going to try again. The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. OK. That is interesting. Guess which State--my State can't get barely a lease. We beg. We make speeches. We fly dozens of people into DC to get leases on the Federal lands in my State to move forward. Guess which State has gotten, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, more than half of all Federal permits to drill on Federal lands? Do you think it is Alaska? No. Is it Texas? My friend from Texas is here. It is not Texas. It is not North Dakota. It is not any of those places. Guess which it is. Oh, my goodness. It is New Mexico--New Mexico. Isn't that an interesting story for somebody? The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. The senior Senator from New Mexico is from New Mexico, obviously, and they are getting all of the leases. They are getting all of the leases. Here is the thing. New Mexico is on a tear in terms of producing oil. Now, look, I have nothing against that. The country needs it. The country needs it. But look at these numbers. These are millions of barrels. Red is New Mexico. Gray is Alaska. We are kind of steady. We need more oil. New Mexico is in red. Look at that. Holy cow. It is through the roof--through the roof. And guess what is coming with all of that production. Greenhouse gas emissions through the roof in New Mexico. Where is the reporting on that topic? You know, sometimes the media likes to talk about ``climate bombs'' in the country. I don't really like the phrase. I think it is silly. But if there is a climate bomb from the production of oil in America, it is right there. It is right there. Again, I think it is fine that this State is doing well. It is good for the country, and it is good for the workers in New Mexico. But what I don't like is the rank hypocrisy. The media is always focusing on Alaska, on our production. Yet look at this: There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill, which were approved during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, in New Mexico. Yes, that is right--over 9,000--while my State can barely get 1. And 52 percent of all permits to drill in the country are in New Mexico. The Secretary is from New Mexico. Where is that story? Where is that story? The Secretary of the Interior has been shutting down Alaska energy production while approving massive drilling activity in her own State, and the media won't touch that story with a 10,000-foot pole. New Mexico has increased production by 700,000 barrels a day since 2019. They are at 1.7 million barrels a day. My State is at about 500,000, and we are trying to increase. Where is that story? You know, the senior Senator from New Mexico is always trying to shut down any oil development in Alaska. I have talked about it on the floor. I am not going to go into it a lot here, but he has gone to extreme measures, like writing banks and insurance companies and saying: Don't invest in Alaska. But it is ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico. No one writes that story, and I think it is hypocritical, too, because the greenhouse gas emissions in that State are going through the roof. So there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. In my State, my constituents--the Native people, the working people--just want the most environmentally sensitive project in the world, which is the Willow Project, to keep our economy going and to help our country. That is all we want. I think, given what the Secretary of the Interior is doing for her own State--like I said, ``drill, baby, drill,'' with a climate bomb in New Mexico--it is time to finalize the Willow Project according to the scientists and the final EIS that was granted by the Biden administration 2 weeks ago and not use political muscle and political power to kill a project in my State when this blue State is drilling like crazy and producing like crazy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS444 | null | 5,848 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Willow Project Mr. President, you have seen this speech a couple times, and I am going to keep talking about it. Senator Murkowski is going to keep talking about it. Congresswoman Peltola, over on the House side, is going to keep talking about it. This is the bipartisan priority we have for Alaska and America. It is called the Willow Project. The Willow Project. People across Alaska are speaking, unified in one voice, about the importance of this very big, very environmentally safe energy project in our State. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in our State legislature, I believe, are getting ready to pass a resolution to the Biden White House and the Biden Department of the Interior, saying: Finally, make this happen. What is this? It is a very large project, a $9 billion investment, with 2,500 construction jobs, 75 percent of which will be the building trades, unions; peak production of 200,000 barrels a day into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, not much infrastructure needed; highest environmental standards in the world and lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any major project this size. It has enormous support from unions, building trades, Alaska Natives. I have been on the floor talking about this a lot. Last week, we were frustrated. I made the point that our friends in the national media never talk about who actually really supports the project. They quote lower-48 radical environmental groups--who don't live in Alaska, by the way--who are all opposed, we know that. They don't want anything built in America. Heck, you can't build a bridge here without groups like this opposing it. But what I said is listen to the Native people, listen to the indigenous people of Alaska. They want this. Ihave gone through all these groups. Every major Alaska Native group, every major union, and every major economic group in our State and across the country supports it. So I do want to thank some of the reporters who joined me and Senator Murkowski and so many of our Alaska Native leaders in a press conference a couple of days ago, and guess what. They did start reporting on the broader support in the indigenous community in my State because prior to that they were canceling the indigenous voices. The Native people--the vast majority want this project. I want to spend a few minutes on process. The process for this project is what we are in right now. All big projects on Federal lands go through this. It is what you get when you have the Federal Agencies review a project. It is called an environmental impact statement, an EIS. After the EIS is issued, there is something called a Record of Decision, usually 30 days after that. So when that process goes smoothly, you get permission to start working on it. We are in the final throes of that process. Now, it sounds a little bit boring, but what I want to do is explain what has happened because it is really important to know. This project has been reviewed by different administrations, starting with the Obama administration, then the Trump administration, and now the Biden administration. And every single time the career scientists in our Federal Agencies, the career professionals in the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, and the EPA--every time they have done this study on the environmental impacts to review this project, they have passed it with flying colors. That has happened here with the Willow Project. Let me just give you a little bit of background. First of all, this is in the area of Alaska called the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was set aside by Congress over 70 years ago. For what? Think about it. It is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. It was for oil and gas development. It used to be called the Naval Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. So it is not controversial. It is not like ANWR or other places in Alaska. This is set aside. It makes sense, as this is where our oil is, and our country needs oil. The leases in this area were first acquired, believe it or not, during the Clinton administration. In 1999, the company ConocoPhillips all in paid a total of about $120 million with rental requirements. So the company is paying the Feds. That is a contract. The Feds say: We will take your money, and we are going to help you develop it. That is the deal. A lot of people forget that. That is the deal, all right? So preliminary work went in. The producer filed for Federal permits to produce in 2018 and received final approval. This was after many years of exploration. It then went into the environmental impact statement process and reached a Record of Decision at the end of the Trump administration. OK. That sounds good. Those were the professional scientists who said: You can do this in an environmentally sensitive way. Unfortunately, all things get litigated in the great State of Alaska. The Department of the Interior, after some litigation, said: Well, we are going to do another environmental analysis. So the Biden administration did another environmental analysis--2 more years--and we finally got the final environmental impact statement 2 weeks ago. There are over 500 additional pages. Here is what this environmental impact statement from the professional staff of the Biden administration said, which was similar to what the Trump administration's professional staff said: After the environmental analysis, the Biden administration's EIS found that this project would not have a detrimental impact on climate, wildlife, people, places, things. Like I said before, it passed the environmental review. Here is a quote on the impact on climate: ``In the absence of production from [Willow], energy produced from the Project's oil would be replaced by other [places],'' like Venezuela, where they are much dirtier in terms of their processes and greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact statement even acknowledges this. These are the career scientists from our Federal Government who wrote this EIS. They are not political appointees; they are career. So, 2 weeks ago, that is what you would think, that we are going to get approval. Not so fast. There are 30 days left--30 days left--and guess what. Every radical environmental group in America is coming out, knocking on the door of Joe Biden's White House and knocking on the door of John Podesta's office, saying: Stop this. We don't care about the science. Just kill it. Wait. I thought the Democratic Party was the party of science. The science is in. The project is good to go. You can tell we are worried. Senator Murkowski and I are giving a lot of speeches on this. If they kill this, it won't be based on science; it will be based on raw political power. Let me repeat that. If the Biden administration in the next 30 days decides to kill this project, it won't be based on science, because their scientists have already spoken. Their scientists have said: Good to go. By the way, the Trump administration's scientists said: Good to go. By the way, we know they are the same scientists, right? They are career Federal employees. They are doing a good job of it. So everybody is saying it is good to go. If it gets killed, we are watching. The enviros are knocking on the door. They are the only group, by the way, in the whole country who doesn't think we need an additional 200,000 barrels a day for America and 2,500 jobs. So keep a close eye on this, America. If the Biden administration kills it, it will be the result of radical environmental muscle going to the White House and saying: Kill it. Let's not let that happen. If you are watching and if you care about American energy security, write blm.gov. Tell them to approve the Willow Project. Come on. Don't politicize this. You guys are supposed to be the party of science. That is what you say. Well, the science is in. Prove it. I want to make one final point here. You know, it might concern some people, but I am going to make it anyway. The Department approved this, and then the Department of the Interior, without any, really, acknowledgment of who said it, said that the Department still has substantial concerns about the Willow Project, including direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions--I am not sure what that even means--and impacts to the wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence. Hmm. Now, that is not what the career scientists said. Go read the EIS. Why would the Department of the Interior put that out--Deb Haaland of the Department of the Interior? Why would they put that out? They know that their scientists said this was good to go. What are they trying to do here? Well, some of us are nervous that they are trying to set up the killing of the project. But do you know what is really frustrating? I mentioned this before. They mentioned that they are worried about Native subsistence. Last week, we had all of the leaders and the biggest experts in Alaska here who live on the North Slope, who know about Native subsistence rights and hunting better than any group in the world--better than any group in the world. What is really maddening is, if the Secretary of the Interior wants to know about Native subsistence rights, which her Department says she does, why wouldn't she meet with these great Alaskans? As a matter of fact, five different times, this group has flown from the top of the world--Barrow, AK, and Utqiagvik, AK--to come and meet with her, and she won't meet with them--five different times, dozens of my constituents. They are the experts in the world on Native subsistence, but she won't meet with them. Well, that is because they support the project, and they are experts on the issues that Interior is raising. So I find that interesting, and I find that disappointing. Let me just make one other comment. Do you know what? Some of my colleagues say, ``Hey, don't say this, Dan. You know, you are going to rile up the Secretary,'' but I am going to say it anyway. Here is something else that is frustrating, in my view, even scandalous--even scandalous. Our media won't ever report on this, but I am going to try again. The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. OK. That is interesting. Guess which State--my State can't get barely a lease. We beg. We make speeches. We fly dozens of people into DC to get leases on the Federal lands in my State to move forward. Guess which State has gotten, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, more than half of all Federal permits to drill on Federal lands? Do you think it is Alaska? No. Is it Texas? My friend from Texas is here. It is not Texas. It is not North Dakota. It is not any of those places. Guess which it is. Oh, my goodness. It is New Mexico--New Mexico. Isn't that an interesting story for somebody? The Secretary of the Interior is from New Mexico. The senior Senator from New Mexico is from New Mexico, obviously, and they are getting all of the leases. They are getting all of the leases. Here is the thing. New Mexico is on a tear in terms of producing oil. Now, look, I have nothing against that. The country needs it. The country needs it. But look at these numbers. These are millions of barrels. Red is New Mexico. Gray is Alaska. We are kind of steady. We need more oil. New Mexico is in red. Look at that. Holy cow. It is through the roof--through the roof. And guess what is coming with all of that production. Greenhouse gas emissions through the roof in New Mexico. Where is the reporting on that topic? You know, sometimes the media likes to talk about ``climate bombs'' in the country. I don't really like the phrase. I think it is silly. But if there is a climate bomb from the production of oil in America, it is right there. It is right there. Again, I think it is fine that this State is doing well. It is good for the country, and it is good for the workers in New Mexico. But what I don't like is the rank hypocrisy. The media is always focusing on Alaska, on our production. Yet look at this: There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill, which were approved during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, in New Mexico. Yes, that is right--over 9,000--while my State can barely get 1. And 52 percent of all permits to drill in the country are in New Mexico. The Secretary is from New Mexico. Where is that story? Where is that story? The Secretary of the Interior has been shutting down Alaska energy production while approving massive drilling activity in her own State, and the media won't touch that story with a 10,000-foot pole. New Mexico has increased production by 700,000 barrels a day since 2019. They are at 1.7 million barrels a day. My State is at about 500,000, and we are trying to increase. Where is that story? You know, the senior Senator from New Mexico is always trying to shut down any oil development in Alaska. I have talked about it on the floor. I am not going to go into it a lot here, but he has gone to extreme measures, like writing banks and insurance companies and saying: Don't invest in Alaska. But it is ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico. No one writes that story, and I think it is hypocritical, too, because the greenhouse gas emissions in that State are going through the roof. So there is a lot of hypocrisy going on. In my State, my constituents--the Native people, the working people--just want the most environmentally sensitive project in the world, which is the Willow Project, to keep our economy going and to help our country. That is all we want. I think, given what the Secretary of the Interior is doing for her own State--like I said, ``drill, baby, drill,'' with a climate bomb in New Mexico--it is time to finalize the Willow Project according to the scientists and the final EIS that was granted by the Biden administration 2 weeks ago and not use political muscle and political power to kill a project in my State when this blue State is drilling like crazy and producing like crazy. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS444 | null | 5,849 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate voted on the nomination of Judge Daniel Calabretta, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Born in Union City, TN, Judge Calabretta received his bachelor's degree, summa cum laude, from Princeton University, and his J.D, magna cum laude, from the University of Chicago. After clerking for the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and working in private practice for 3 years, Judge Calabretta spent the majority of his legal career--15 years in public service in California. As the Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary for California Governor Jerry Brown, Judge Calabretta advised officials on executive orders following emergency declarations. He then went on to work for the California Department of Justice, where he defended the Attorney General and other State officials in litigation on a variety of matters in Federal and State court. In 2019, Judge Calabretta was appointed to the California Superior Court as a Juvenile Court judge, where he has presided over approximately 200 bench trials. The American Bar Association rated Judge Calabretta as unanimously ``well qualified,'' and he has the strong support of Senators Feinstein and Padilla. In addition to his qualifications and deep ties to the California legal community, Judge Calabretta will be the first openly LGBTQ+ person to serve on U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. I thank my colleagues for confirming him. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS452-2 | null | 5,850 |
formal | entitlement | null | racist | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to expand on my recent comments on the need to stand up to Putin to prevent future aggression and the death and suffering it causes. Specifically, I would like to address the calls from well-meaning people for a diplomatic solution. Many people understandably want an end to the killing in Ukraine. I certainly do. So why not sit down and talk? As I have said before, we tried that after 2014, and it didn't work. We ended up with a full-scale invasion a year ago. More fundamentally, it is important to consider what there is to negotiate over. To start with, what is the nature of the disagreement? In other words, assuming you could get Putin or his representative to a negotiating table, what are the opposing positions and the potential middle ground? Vladimir Putin has continued to repeat his original stated war aims, ``demilitarization and denazification.'' Denazification in the context Putin uses it clearly means regime change. It is pretty clear that Putin thought he could take out the current elected government and install a puppet regime. President Biden publicly released the intelligence we had to that effect before the war began, which I think was a smart move. Demilitarization means that Ukraine has to give up its right to defend itself, allowing Russia a free hand to intervene with force if Ukraine ever again tries to assert its right to act independently of Russia. Obviously, President Zelenskyy cannot ever agree to meet those two demands. No President of a sovereign country could. Of course, in Putin's mind, Ukraine is not a sovereign country. That is the problem. Putin repeats a false version of history that says Ukraine is an artificially created country and rightfully part of Russia. Ukraine has a long history of independence before it was ever conquered by Russia, in fact long before Russia even existed. But, for decades, Putin has pushed a warped, imperialistic view of history that is all too common among Russians. When Putin repeatedly invokes Peter the Great, we should be concerned. Remember, Peter the Great was a Russian expansionist emperor who conquered lands like Finland and the Baltics from Sweden. It may be comforting to buy into Putin's propaganda that he feels concern for the people in parts of Ukraine where they speak Russian and that perhaps those people want to be Russian. That makes his motives seem like they might have some justification. It also lulls us into the belief that Putin will be appeased once he cleaves off a chunk of eastern Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, nor has Putin actually said that. The Russian Federation in its current borders has subsumed many non-Russian ethnicities and languages from past imperial conquests. Not speaking Russian never stopped them before. In 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Winter War despite its language and culture being very, very different from Russia. It was a nakedly imperial quest to reconquer lost territory of the Russian empire. Finland fought back and kept its independence, but Russia kept a big chunk of Karelia. This is an area that spoke a dialect of Finnish and was not historically Russian in any deep cultural or linguistic sense. Sadly today, in that region, Karelians maintaining their native language and culture represent a tiny minority of the population. Over the years, it has been thoroughly russified. In Ukraine, mass graves and reports of widespread rape from areas liberated from Russian occupation should suffice to dispel the myth that Ukrainians welcome occupation or that Russians see Ukrainians as brothers. The fact that many people in eastern Ukraine speak Russian never made them Russian, just as English-speaking Irish citizens do not long to be governed by London. Eastern Ukraine was subject to a policy of russification under the Russian Empire and then under the Soviet Union, when many Russian workers were imported to the area. But it should be clear to everyone now that the Ukrainian national identity cannot be easily suppressed, regardless of the language they speak at home. Still that does not stop Russians from trying. Thousands of Ukrainian children from Russian occupied areas in eastern Ukraine have been forcibly deported to Russia and adopted into Russian families. Members of the Putin regime talk openly about how these children came with pro-Ukrainian attitudes but have now been brainwashed to adopt pro-Russian sentiments. This alone meets the definition of genocide. In Putin's 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, his critique of the United States included the assertion that we seek a unipolar world where we impose our values on others, and called for a multipolar world--in other words, one with different spheres of influence. When Putin talks about countries like Ukraine and other formerly Russian dominated countries, it is clear that he sees them as either in his sphere of influence, or someone else's. Putin cannot accept that Ukrainians might want to leave behind the corrupt, Russian dominated post-Soviet system where oligarchs get rich and the average person's economic and political freedom are limited. Putin talks about ``NATO expansion'' into the Baltics as though NATO is a rival empire. In reality, the Baltic countries begged to join NATO. And they were admitted at a time of naive optimism in the West that Russia was becoming a peaceful democracy. The Baltic countries are actually a useful case study to understand how many Russians think about their former imperial subject countries. This month, Estonia and Lithuania celebrate the 106th anniversary of the birth of their republics in their current independent form. It is important to understand that the Baltic countries are historically Western in their culture and outlook. Like Ukraine, they experienced attempts at russification, during the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, including importing of Russian-speaking workers, threatening their unique cultures and languages. After regaining their freedom from Soviet occupation in 1991, the Baltics quickly built thriving, free market democracies. Given their history, it is natural that they sought to protect their way of life from Russian domination by joining the most successful defensive alliance in history. Putin and many Russians speak with resentfulness about the Baltics. Their very existence as prosperous, Western-style free-market democracies not dependent on Russia politically or economically is clearly threatening. Russian state media tries, absurdly, to convince Russians that their prosperity is due to development efforts under the Soviet occupation or that they are about to become failed states any day now. Many Russians are convinced that their joining NATO makes them U.S. puppets, reflecting the spheres of influence worldview. Again, joining NATO was their fervent wish, not some policy of expansion for expansion's sake on the part of NATO, and their populations are some of the most pro-American anywhere in the world. Putin dismisses the wishes of his smaller neighbors as irrelevant to great power geopolitics. He thinks they are inevitably pawns to be bartered over by big empires. Given our origin as a tiny collection of Colonies seeking independence from a powerful empire, Americans ought to think differently. Putin is threatened by NATO expansion not because he believes NATO countries might attack the Russian Federation. Our NATO allies bordering Russia did not host any long-term deployments of troops from other allies before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Multiple NATO allies have since provided small rotational forces to our eastern flank allies intended to deter Russian aggression. Those forces have naturally grown since the full scale invasion of Ukraine in February. But, frankly, they are still insufficient to repel the kind of full-scale invasion we saw in Ukraine, much less pose any kind of threat to Russian territory. Putin's military leaders, for all their mistakes in Ukraine, are not stupid. They do not see NATO as a military threat to current Russian territory. Rather, Putin sees NATO as a threat to his dream of reconstituting the Russian Empire. President Macron of France has suggested offering Putin security guarantees. That plays into Putin's false propaganda that he faces any kind of threat from NATO. When Putin talks about security guarantees, he has made clear that he means a dismantling of NATO in areas he sees as his rightful sphere of influence, enabling him to bully them. Keep in mind that, when he invaded Ukraine initially in 2014, Ukraine was militarily neutral, but seeking closer economic relations with the European Union. In February 2014, months of popular protests by ordinary Ukrainians culminated in what Ukrainians call their ``Revolution of Dignity.'' The Ukrainian President at the time yielded to pressure from Putin and refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union after it passed overwhelmingly in the Parliament. The Ukrainian Parliament ultimately voted to remove the President. He then fled to Russia, but not before violent confrontations between special riot police and protestors. Putin has falsely claimed this was a U.S.-sponsored coup rather than a grassroots rejecting of his meddling in Ukraine's sovereign affairs. Russia then invaded Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. To be clear, the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO, the U.S., or any military threat to Russia. Rather, Ukraine's decision to seek closer economic ties to Europe threatened Putin's sense of entitlement to have Ukraine dominated by Russia. Putin has said ``true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.'' This reflects his notion that Ukraine can never be truly independent. In his mind, Ukraine is either in Russia's sphere of influence, which he sees as its natural state, or it is somehow controlled by shadowy Western forces. We should not fall into the same imperialistic trap of sidelining or minimizing the wishes of Ukrainians. President Biden has said, ``nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,'' and he must stick to that. We must also be clear-eyed about what is and is not possible to negotiate with Putin. As I have said before, Putin only understands strength and weakness is provocative. As Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission President and former German Defense Minister under Angela Merkel said, ``We should have listened to the voices inside our Union--in Poland, in the Baltics, and all across Central and Eastern Europe- they have been telling us for years that Putin would not stop.'' President Biden should take that lesson to heart as well. Estonian Prime Minister Kallas puts it this way: ``History shows that appeasement only strengthens and encourages aggressors and that aggressors can be stopped only with force. As the prime minister of Estonia, a frontline NATO country that endured half a century of Soviet occupation, I know what peace on Russia's terms really means. Russian peace would not mean the end of suffering but rather more atrocities.'' I wish it was possible to negotiate with Putin to put an end to Ukraine's suffering. But what he wants is domination of Ukraine, and that is not ours to offer. We have only two options left. We could sit on the sidelines and watch Ukraine get slowly crushed, which would embolden Putin and open the possibility that he would eventually attack one of our allies. Or we can support Ukraine's victory and independence. As I have said before, backing a Ukrainian victory comes with costs and risks. But the risks and costs of not stopping Putin now will be much higher. That makes repelling Russia's invasion of its sovereign neighbor in the U.S. national interest. The Russian threat will not go away, so for our national interest and in theinterest of long term peace in Europe, supporting a decisive victory for Ukraine is the right thing to do. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS452-3 | null | 5,851 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Sullivan): S. 485. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize the President to provide hazard mitigation assistance for mitigating and preventing post-wildfire flooding and debris flow, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Mr. PADILLA, Madam President, I rise to introduce the Fire Suppression and Response Funding Act and the Hazard and Flooding Mitigation Funding Equity Act, two bills that would help both California and our Nation meet the increasing challenges posed by natural disasters. Currently, FEMA's Fire Management Assistance Grant, FMAG, program is available to State, local, and Tribal governments for the mitigation, management, and control of fires that threaten such destruction that they would constitute a major disaster. However, current law does not account for extreme circumstances like consecutive events or have any flexibility like other Federal assistance programs and only allows for reimbursement of expenses incurred after an FMAG is granted. The Fire Suppression and Response Funding Act would explicitly allow for FMAGs to cover the predeployment of assets and resources during times of extreme risk before a catastrophic fire breaks out. These predeployed assets are critical tools to help State, local, and Tribal governments suppress and contain a fire in its early stages before it constitutes a major disaster declaration. Additionally, this bill states that the Federal cost share of FMAGs shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of such assistance, making FMAGs consistent with other FEMA disaster assistance and allowing for necessary flexibility to address consecutive wildfires in the same area. This bill does not mandate any cost share increase but simply allows for flexibility as FEMA considers FMAGs on an incident-by-incident basis. As we have seen in the West, wildfires strip away vegetation in the form of burn scars, leaving the soil vulnerable to erosion and mudslides. When these burn scars are met with heavy rainfall, they often produce debris flows of loose mud, soil, and rock that pose serious threats to life, property, and public infrastructure. Post-fire events of this type are well documented throughout Southern California and across the Western United States. After the most recent atmospheric river event in California, thousands of people were evacuated due to large scale flooding and fears of debris flows in areas recently affected by wildfires. The Hazard and Flooding Mitigation Funding Equity Act would make FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP, which covers flood protection, consistent with other FEMA disaster assistance by stating that the Federal cost share of HMGP shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of such assistance. This bill does not mandate any increase but simply allows for flexibility and increased Federal assistance where necessary to address concurrent extreme weather and wildfire events. This bill will better support State and local governments to rebuild and mitigate future risk from flooding like we saw recently in California and postfire risks we have seen across the West. These bills represent commonsense ways to proactively mitigate, effectively respond, and equitably recover from disasters. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact them as soon as possible. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS459-3 | null | 5,852 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Brown, Ms. Warren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Casey): S. 496. A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to reaffirm the importance of workers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS459-4 | null | 5,853 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Brown, Ms. Warren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Booker, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Casey): S. 496. A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to reaffirm the importance of workers; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS459-4 | null | 5,854 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Scott of Florida, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Young) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 72 Whereas the Russian Federation's illegal, premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal war against Ukraine includes extensive, systematic, and flagrant atrocities against the people of Ukraine; Whereas article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (in this preamble referred to as the ``Genocide Convention''), adopted and opened for signature in 1948 and entered into force in 1951, defines genocide as ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group''; Whereas, on October 3, 2018, the Senate unanimously agreed to Senate Resolution 435, 115th Congress, which commemorated the 85th anniversary of the Holodomor and ``recognize[d] the findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine as submitted to Congress on April 22, 1988, including that `Joseph Stalin and those around him committed genocide against the Ukrainians in 1932-1933' ''; Whereas substantial and significant evidence documents widespread, systematic actions against the Ukrainian people committed by Russian forces under the direction of political leadership of the Russian Federation that meet one or more of the criteria under article II of the Genocide Convention, including-- (1) killing members of the Ukrainian people in mass atrocities through deliberate and regularized murders of fleeing civilians and civilians in passing as well as purposeful targeting of homes, schools, hospitals, shelters, and other residential and civilian areas; (2) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the Ukrainian people by launching indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian areas, conducting willful strikes on humanitarian evacuation corridors, and employing widespread and systematic sexual violence against Ukrainian civilians, including women, children, and men; (3) deliberately inflicting upon the Ukrainian people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part, including displacement due to annihilated villages, towns, and cities left devoid of food, water, shelter, electricity, and other basic necessities, starvation caused by the destruction of farmlands and agricultural equipment, the placing of Russian landmines across thousands of acres of useable fields, and blocking the delivery of humanitarian food aid; (4) imposing measures intended to prevent births among the Ukrainian people, demonstrated by the Russian military's expansive and direct targeting of maternity hospitals and other medical facilities and systematic attacks against residential and civilian areas as well as humanitarian corridors intended to deprive Ukrainians of safe havens within their own country and the material conditions conducive to childrearing; and (5) forcibly mass transferring millions of Ukrainian civilians, hundreds of thousands of whom are children, to the Russian Federation or territories controlled by the Russian Federation; Whereas the intent of the Russian Federation and those acting on its behalf in favor of those heinous crimes against humanity has been demonstrated through frequent pronouncements and other forms of official communication denying Ukrainian nationhood, including President Putin's ahistorical claims that Ukraine is part of a ``single whole'' Russian nation with ``no historical basis'' for being an independent country; Whereas some Russian soldiers and brigades accused of committing war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine, and elsewhere were rewarded with medals by President Putin; Whereas the Russian state-owned media outlet RIA Novosti published the article ``What Should Russia do with Ukraine'', which outlines ``de-Nazification'' as meaning ``de- Ukrainianization'' or the destruction of Ukraine and rejection of the ``ethnic component'' of Ukraine; Whereas article I of the Genocide Convention confirms ``that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [the Contracting Parties] undertake to prevent and to punish''; Whereas although additional documentation and analysis of atrocities committed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine may be needed to punish those responsible, the substantial and significant documentation already undertaken, combined with statements showing intent, compel urgent action to prevent future acts of genocide; and Whereas the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) authorizes the President to impose economic sanctions on, and deny entry into the United States to, foreign individuals identified as engaging in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns those acting on behalf of the Russian Federation for committing acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people; (2) calls on the United States, in cooperation with allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, to undertake measures to support the Government of Ukraine to prevent acts of Russian genocide against the Ukrainian people; (3) supports tribunals and international criminal investigations to hold Russian political leaders and military personnel to account for a war of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide; and (4) urges the President to use the authorities under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (22 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) to impose economic sanctions on those responsible for, or complicit in, genocide in Ukraine by the Russian Federation and those acting on its behalf. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS461 | null | 5,855 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warnock, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Coons, Mr. Welch, Mr. Braun, Mrs. Capito, and Mr. Van Hollen) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 74 Whereas, in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2022, Congress declared that it deplored the religious persecution by the Government of Iran of the Baha'i community and would hold the Government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights of all Iranian nationals, including members of the Baha'i faith; Whereas, since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed or executed more than 200 Baha'i leaders, and more than 10,000 Baha'is have been dismissed from government and university jobs; Whereas, on December 15, 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution (A/C.3/77/L.34) criticizing Iran for human rights abuses and calling on Iran to carry out wide-ranging reforms, including-- (1) to end its ``continuing disregard for protections under Iranian law or internationally recognized safeguards relating to the imposition of the death penalty'' and ``to commute the sentences for child offenders on death row''; (2) ``to ensure, in law and in practice, that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment''; (3) ``to cease the widespread and systematic use of arbitrary arrests and detention''; (4) ``to release persons detained for the exercise of their human rights and fundamental freedoms''; (5) ``to address the poor conditions of prisons''; (6) ``to eliminate, in law and in practice, all forms of systemic discrimination and other human rights violations against women and girls''; (7) to cease ``the increased harassment, intimidation, persecution, arbitrary arrest and detention of, and incitement to hatred that leads to violence against, persons belonging to recognized and unrecognized religious minorities, including Christians (particularly converts from Islam), Gonabadi Dervishes, Jews, Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Yarsanis, Zoroastrians, and, in particular, Baha'is, who have been subjected to a sudden increase in persecution, who have faced increasing restrictions and systemic persecution by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on account of their faith and have been reportedly subjected to mass arrests and lengthy prison sentences, as well as the arrest of prominent members and increased confiscation and destruction of property''; and (8) ``to release all religious practitioners imprisoned for their membership in or activities on behalf of a minority religious group, to cease the desecration of cemeteries and to ensure that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief''; Whereas, in the 2022 Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom issued in April 2022, it is reported that-- (1) the Government of Iran ``arrested scores of Baha'is across Iran'', many of whom ``were held incommunicado or taken to undisclosed locations''; (2) ``Iranian universities continued to deny education to Baha'is on account of their faith''; (3) government agents ``closed six Baha'i businesses''; (4) government officials ``demolished the homes of three Baha'is without warning''; and (5) the Government of Iran ``announced the auction of thirteen Baha'i farms''; Whereas the Iran section of the Department of State's 2021 Report on International Religious Freedom issued in June 2022 provides, in part-- (1) ``Authorities continued to confiscate Baha'i properties as part of an ongoing state-led campaign of economic persecution against Baha'is.''; (2) ``Authorities reportedly continued to deny the Baha'i, Sabean-Mandaean, and Yarsani religious communities, as well as members of other unrecognized religious minorities, access to education and government employment unless they declared themselves as belonging to one of the country's recognized religions on their application forms.''; and (3) ``Government officials continued to disseminate anti- Baha'i and antisemitic messages using traditional and social media.''; Whereas, in response to a surge in persecution in June and July 2022, involving the subjection of over 100 Baha'is to arrests, arraignments, sentencing, and raids on their homes and businesses across Iran, including the sentencing in June of 26 individuals in the city of Shiraz to a combined total of 85 years in prison, the Department of State's Office of International Religious Freedom issued a statement on August 2, 2022, indicating that ``[a]mid a continued rise in arrests, sentences, and imprisonments, the U.S. urges Iran to halt its ongoing oppression of the Baha'i community and honor its international obligations to respect the right of all Iranians to freedom of religion or belief''; Whereas, on November 21, 2022, Mahvash Sabet and Fariba Kamalabadi, 2 former members of the informal 7-person leadership group of the Baha'is of Iran, who each served 10- year sentences from 2008 to 2018 and have been detained since July 31, 2022, in Evin prison, were sentenced to 10 years in prison each after a summary trial lasting 1 hour; Whereas, on December 11, 2022, the Baha'i International Community organization stated that ``Dr. Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel laureate and defence lawyer for Mahvash and Fariba during their first trial, said in 2008 that `not a shred of evidence' was offered to prove the national security charges or other allegations. Nor was any new evidence forthcoming at this latest trial''; Whereas, on December 11, 2022, the Baha'i International Community organization reported, ``More than 320 Baha'is have been affected by individual acts of persecution since the arrest of Mahvash and Fariba. Dozens were arrested at various points in Shiraz, across Mazandaran province, and elsewhere throughout the country. Homes owned by Baha'is in the village of Roshankouh were demolished. Government plans to tar the Baha'is through hate speech and propaganda were also exposed. And at least 90 Baha'is are currently in prison or subject to degrading ankle-band monitoring.''; Whereas Iran is a member of the United Nations and a signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, among other international human rights treaties, without reservation; Whereas section 105 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8514) authorizes the President to impose sanctions on individuals who are ``responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran or their family members on or after June 12, 2009''; and Whereas the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) amends and expands the authorities established under the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-195) to sanction Iranian human rights abusers: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) condemns the Government of Iran's state-sponsored persecution of the Baha'i minority in Iran and the continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (2) calls on the Government of Iran-- (A) to immediately release the imprisoned or detained Baha'is and all other prisoners held solely on account of their religion; (B) to end its state-sponsored campaign of hate propaganda against the Baha'is; and (C) to reverse state-imposed policies denying Baha'is and members of other religious minorities equal opportunities to higher education, earning a livelihood, due process under the law, and the free exercise of religious practices; (3) calls on the President and the Secretary of State, in cooperation with responsible nations, to immediately condemn the Government of Iran's continued violation of human rights, and demand the immediate release of prisoners held solely on account of their religion; and (4) urges the President and the Secretary of State to utilize available authorities to impose sanctions on officials of the Government of Iran and other individuals directly responsible for serious human rights abuses, including abuses against the Baha'i community of Iran. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS462 | null | 5,856 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer some words in support of Ukraine as we approach the 1-year anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion. Although the U.S. Government made public warnings about this premeditated attack for months in advance, it is still, frankly, shocking, in retrospect, when you think about what has occurred over the last 12 months: Russia trying to expand its borders through invasion. Now, maybe we were naive to think that this practice went by the wayside after World War II. It was common practice for powers for centuries beforehand, but the world has seen a level of brutality and devastation that is hard to contemplate. How unthinkable it was that in 2022 a major power wouldlaunch a land war, a war of aggression, in the middle of Europe. Now, pundits and analysts, right, said that Kyiv would fall within a matter of days. That was the expectation. But the Ukrainian people had different plans. They fought back bravely, and we watched in awe--we still watch in awe--as President Zelenskyy stayed in Kyiv and rallied his country in defiance of Russia's attempt to recolonize Ukraine. The world responded, practically overnight, thanks to President Biden, who saw this coming, who rallied the world to Ukraine's defense, getting them the aid that they needed, especially in those early days, and treating Russia like a global pariah. It was clear from the beginning that Russia's aggressions was not going to be able to be rationalized or minimized. We didn't have the luxury as the United States, the world's preeminent power, of sitting on the sidelines. The American people got this then, and they still get it now. Across the political spectrum in this country, progressives, moderates, and conservatives understand how much is at stake in Ukraine, both morally and strategically. Because what have we seen? We have seen Russia launch this unprovoked barbaric war of conquest against its democratic neighbor. We have watched how they deliberately target apartment buildings, hospitals, churches, electricity grids, to try to bring the maximum amount of misery to Ukrainian families; how the Russian military uses murder, rape, and torture as systematic tools against the Ukrainian civilian population; and how Russian propagandists boast of kidnapping Ukrainian children and threaten to wipe out Ukrainian language and culture. There are 40 camps with upward of 6,000 children who have literally been kidnapped out of Ukraine and brought to Russia. The scale of this barbarity is hard to explain. The images that we have seen from Bucha and Mariupol are seared into our collective conscience. Americans also--I really think this--understand the strategic consequences that would come to America if Russia was just allowed to crush Ukraine, if we hadn't stood in their way along with the Ukrainian people. What would have happened is that Putin would have been emboldened. It would have given him the green light to march on other NATO allies, potentially drawing the United States into a longer, far more costly war and putting American troops in harm's way. That is what I believe, and that is what most Americans believe. But this is important stuff, right? This is war and peace. We are talking about tens of billions of American taxpayer dollars that are being sent to Ukraine for the defense of Ukraine. So, of course, those of us who support Ukraine should welcome a debate over whether the United States should be involved in this war. But I am just going to tell you that the growing chorus of opposition to supporting Ukraine from Republicans--mostly radical Republicans in the House of Representatives--does not feel to me like on-the-level criticism of U.S. support for the war. Listen, I am going to be honest with my colleagues. I think Democrats probably got too wound up in trying to figure out if Donald Trump was involved in some hidden conspiracy with Vladimir Putin. All of this focus on intrigue kind of made us blind to what was right in front of our face: that Donald Trump had this huge crush on Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian rule of Russia, and he still does. Donald Trump wanted to turn himself into a quasi-dictator here in the United States. That is what January 6 was about. That is why the floor of the Senate was occupied by his supporters. And Trump was jealous when he watched how easy it was for Putin to stay in power permanently and what a hassle it was for Donald Trump to have to go through these pesky, free elections. Now, Trump's admiration for Putin has turned into a collective rightwing obsession. Turn on Tucker Carlson virtually any night, and you are going to hear him lionizing Putin and pushing--often, line for line--Russian disinformation. Elon Musk uncritically blasts out Russian propaganda about the war to his 120 million plus followers. Steve Bannon says that Putin is the leader of the ``anti-woke'' fight globally. Donald Trump, Jr.--I follow him on social media--is relentlessly making fun of Zelenskyy online. QAnon sites say that Russia's war on Ukraine is righteous because it is just the next front in the war against these global sex traffickers that apparently are operating out of pizza parlors in northwest DC and Ukraine. I could go on and on, but you get it, right? And Putin, he gets it too. He is counting on the right wing to advance Russian propaganda and exploit our internal divisions. It is not surprising or shocking. The hot new thinkers on the right aren't really for democracy any longer. The new right, the alt-right--whatever you want to call it--they think that democracy has outlived its usefulness and needs to be destroyed, replaced by something else, like a quasi-monarchy or a CEO-style government. The conservative movement today is awash with proponents of doing away with participatory democracy, and so it is really no secret that there is a growing affection for the most prominent dictator in the world. Now, I want to be careful about how I talk about this because, often, opponents of a war are accused of being anti-American or unpatriotic or parroting our enemies' talking points. But in this case, there is literally a wing of the Republican Party that is lifting up Putin as an example to follow and is claiming that he is involved in a righteous fight. That same element of the Republican Party is trying to destroy American democracy. They are not hiding that fact. They are being transparent about it. Some of the most influential thinkers on the right today are literally monarchists. And I guess a defense of the anti-Ukraine strain of Republican thinking today would be that their opposition to Ukraine is part of a coherent world view. I might not agree with that world view, but it would be a defense. But the same Republicans who are trying to defund Ukraine are often the loudest voices clamoring for a confrontational and reckless approach to China. Many of them criticized President Biden mercilessly when he withdrew from Afghanistan. If their opposition to Ukraine was part of a broader theory of nonintervention, maybe it would look more on the level, but that is not what is happening here. Ukraine is being singled out, and all signs point to this rightwing Republican affection for Vladimir Putin as one of the primary reasons. But here is the good news. The good news is that, in spite of this turn inside the Republican Party against Ukraine, support for Ukraine remains popular among the American people. Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the United States continuing to send aid to Ukraine. Seventy percent of Americans just supported the recent decision to send M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, and less than 10 percent of Americans--a bigger number are of the Republican Party, but less than 10 percent of Americans--have a favorable view of Putin, showing, frankly, how deeply out of step Trump and these extreme MAGA Republicans are. And while there are more Republican Senators questioning whether we should stick with Ukraine today than there might have been 6 months ago, it is still true that most Republicans in this body--in the U.S. Senate--still support Ukraine. A year ago, nobody was predicting that Ukraine would still be standing today, beating back Russian forces out of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson. It is equally difficult to predict what is going to happen in the year ahead, and we should all admit that. But I will say this: We should be clear-eyed about the likelihood that either side is going to achieve all its political objectives on the battlefield. Like most of my constituents in Connecticut, I would like nothing more than for this war to end and for diplomacy to secure a free Ukraine. But Ukraine can't negotiate a peace settlement with itself, and right now Vladimir Putin is not interested in negotiations or a peaceful settlement. For those people telling Zelenskyy that he should sit down with Putin, today, any agreement they write wouldn't be worth the paper it is written on. The day may come when Putin judges that continued aggression no longer serves his personal interests,and our job as the collective West is to convince him of that by demonstrating the limits of his power. And that is essentially what I believe--that you have to show Putin, demonstrate for him, the limits of his power, and I just suspect that there is still some way to go before we reach that point. The new contemplated Russian offensive tells us that much. So while there will come a time for diplomacy, right now Ukraine must fight for its existence, and, right now, despite what these pro-Putin Republicans say, it is in our interest to continue to support Ukraine. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2023-02-16-pt1-PgS477-3 | null | 5,857 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 118th CONGRESS House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, February 17, 2023. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of House Rule XI, the Committee on Appropriations adopted its rules for the 118th Congress on February 8, 2023, and I submit them now for publication in the Congressional Record. Sincerely, Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Committee on Appropriations. Resolved, That the rules and practices of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, in the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, except as otherwise provided hereinafter, shall be and are hereby adopted as the rules and practices of the Committee on Appropriations in the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress. The foregoing resolution adopts the following rules: Sec. 1: Power to Sit and Act (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee and each of its subcommittees is authorized: (1) To sit and act at such times and places within the United States whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it deems necessary; and (2) To require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, reports, correspondence, memorandums, papers, and documents as it deems necessary. (b) The Chair, or any Member designated by the Chair, may administer oaths to any witness. (c) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or its subcommittees under subsection (a)(2) in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the Members of the Committee voting, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subsection (a)(2) may be delegated to the Chair pursuant to such rules and under such limitations as the Committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chair or by any Member designated by the Committee. (d) Compliance with any subpoena issued by the Committee or its subcommittees may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House. Sec. 2: Subcommittees (a) The Majority Caucus of the Committee shall establish the number of subcommittees and shall determine the jurisdiction of each subcommittee. (b) Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the Committee all matters referred to it. (c) All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate jurisdiction within 2 weeks unless, by majority vote of the majority Members of the full Committee, consideration is to be by the full Committee. (d) The Majority Caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members for each subcommittee. The Chair is authorized to negotiate that ratio with the Minority; Provided, however, That party representation in each subcommittee, including ex-officio members, shall be no less favorable to the Majority than the ratio for the full Committee. (e) The Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee are each authorized to sit as a member of all subcommittees and to participate, including voting, in all of the work of the subcommittees. Sec. 3: Staffing (a) Committee Staff--The Chair is authorized to appoint the staff of the Committee, and make adjustments in the job titles and compensation thereof subject to the maximum rates and conditions established in clause 9(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. In addition, she or he is authorized, in her or his discretion, to arrange for their specialized training. The Chair is also authorized to employ additional personnel as necessary. (b) Assistants to Members: (1) Each chair and ranking minority member of a subcommittee or the full Committee may select and designate not more than two staff members who shall serve at the pleasure of that Member. (2) Staff members designated under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate, determined by the Member, not to exceed 75 per centum of the maximum established in clause 9(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and subject to other terms and conditions established by the Chair. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the Chair may prescribe such terms and conditions she or he deems necessary to regulate the number and compensation of Assistants to Members and retain Assistants to Members previously designated by a Member of the Committee prior to the adoption of the Rules of the House establishing the Committee for the 112th Congress. (4) Members designating staff members under this subsection must specifically certify by letter to the Chair that the employees are needed and will be utilized for Committee work. Sec. 4: Committee Meetings (a) Regular Meeting Day--The regular meeting day of the Committee shall be the first Wednesday of each month while the House is in session if notice is given pursuant to paragraph (d)(3). (b) Additional and Special Meetings: (1) The Chair may call and convene, as she or he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the Chair. (2) If at least three Committee Members desire that a special meeting of the Committee be called by the Chair, those Members may file in the Committee Offices a written request to the Chair for that special meeting. Such request shall specify the measure or matter to be considered. Upon the filing of the request, the Committee clerk shall notify the Chair. (3) If within 3 calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chair does not call the requested special meeting to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the Committee Members may file in the Committee offices their written notice that a special meeting will be held, specifying the date and hour of such meeting, and the measure or matter to be considered. The Committee shall meet on that date and hour. (4) Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the Committee clerk shall notify all Committee Members that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered. Such notice shall also be made publicly available in electronic form and shall be deemed to satisfy paragraph (d)(3). Only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at the special meeting. (c) Vice Chair To Preside in Absence of Chair--A member of the majority party on the Committee or subcommittee thereof designated by the Chair of the full Committee shall be vice chair of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, and shall preside at any meeting during the temporary absence of the Chair. If the Chair and vice chair of the Committee or subcommittee are not present at any meeting of the Committee or subcommittee, the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall preside at that meeting. (d) Business Meetings: (1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the Committee and its subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the Committee or the subcommittee concerned, in open session and with a majority present, determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed. (2) No person other than Committee Members and such congressional staff and departmental representatives as they may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed. (3) The Chair shall announce the date, place, and subject matter of each committee meeting for the transaction of business, which may not commence earlier than the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which members have notice thereof, unless the Chair, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, or the Committee by majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business, determines there is good cause to begin the meeting sooner, in which case the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. An announcement shall be published promptly in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic form. (4) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a meeting for the markup of a bill or resolution, or at the time an announcement is made pursuant to the preceding subparagraph within 24 hours before such meeting, the Chair shall cause the text of such bill or resolution to be made publicly available in electronic form. (e) Committee Records: (1) The Committee shall keep a complete record of all Committee action, including a record of the votes on any question on which a roll call is taken. The result of each roll call vote shall be publicly available in electronic form within 48 hours of such record vote. The information made so available shall include a description of the amendment, motion, or other proposition, and the name of each Member voting for and each Member voting against, and the names of those Members present but not voting. (2) Committee records (including hearings, data, charts, and files) shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the Chair of the Committee. Such records shall be the property of the House, and all Members of the House shall have access thereto. (3) The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House, except that the Committee authorizes use of any record to which clause 3 (b)(4) of rule VII of the Rules of the House would otherwise apply after such record has been in existence for 20 years. The Chair shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3 (b)(3) or clause 4 (b) of rule VII of the Rules of the House, to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination upon the written request of any Member of the Committee. (f) Availability of Amendments Adopted--Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of an amendment to a bill or resolution, or 48 hours after the disposition or withdrawal of any other amendment, the Chair shall cause the text of each such amendment to be made publicly available in electronic form. Sec. 5: Committee and Subcommittee Hearings (a) Overall Budget Hearings--Overall budget hearings by the Committee, including the hearing required by section 242 (c) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and clause 4 (a)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, shall be conducted in open session except when the Committee in open session and with a majority present, determines by roll call vote that the testimony to be taken at that hearing on that day may be related to a matter of national security; except that the Committee may by the same procedure close one subsequent day of hearing. A transcript of all such hearings shall be printed and a copy furnished to each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. (b) Other Hearings: (1) All other hearings conducted by the Committee or its subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee in open session and with a majority present determines by roll call vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security or would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those present at a hearing conducted by the Committee or any of its subcommittees, there being in attendance the number required under section 5 (c) of these rules to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, (1) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security or violate clause 2 (k)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives or (2) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in clause 2 (k)(5) of such rule. No Member of the House of Representatives may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or its subcommittees unless the House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or any of its subcommittees, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members by the same procedures designated in this subsection for closing hearings to the public; Provided, however, That the Committee or its subcommittees may by the same procedure vote to close 5 subsequent days of hearings. (2) Subcommittee chairs shall coordinate the development of schedules for meetings or hearings after consultation with the Chair and other subcommittee chairs with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings. (3) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or any of its subcommittees as the case may be, insofar as is practicable, shall file in advance of such appearance, a written statement of the proposed testimony and shall limit the oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary, except that this provision shall not apply to any witness appearing before the Committee in the overall budget hearings. (4) Each witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity before the Committee, or any of its subcommittees as the case may be, shall, to the greatest extent practicable, submit a written statement including: a curriculum vitae; a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof), or contracts, grants, or payments originating from a foreign government, received during the past 36 months by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness and related to the subject matter of the hearing; and a disclosure of whether the witness is a fiduciary (including but not limited to a director, officer, advisor, or resident agent) of any organization or entity that has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing. Such statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of witnesses, shall be made publicly available in electronic form, 24 hours before the witness appears to the extent practicable, but not later than 1 day after the witness appears. The disclosure referred to in this paragraph shall include the amount and source of each Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) related to the subject matter of the hearing, and the amount and country of origin of any payment, grant, or contract related to the subject matter of the hearing originating with a foreign government. (c) Quorum for Taking Testimony--The number of Members of the Committee which shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence in any hearing of the Committee shall be two. (d) Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses: (1) The Minority Members of the Committee or its subcommittees shall be entitled, upon request to the Chair or subcommittee chair, by a majority of them before completion of any hearing, to call witnesses selected by the Minority to testify with respect to the matter under consideration during at least 1 day of hearings thereon. (2) The Committee and its subcommittees shall observe the 5-minute rule during the interrogation of witnesses until such time as each Member of the Committee or subcommittee who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness. (e) Broadcasting and Photographing of Committee Meetings and Hearings--Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the full Committee or any of its subcommittees is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and still photography, and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements set forth in clause (4)(f) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Neither the full Committee Chair or subcommittee chair shall limit the number of television or still cameras to fewer than two representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space or safety, in which case pool coverage shall be authorized). To the maximum practicable, the Committee shall provide audio and video coverage of each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the proceedings and shall maintain the recordings of such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the public. (f) Subcommittee Meetings--No subcommittee shall sit while the House is reading an appropriation measure for amendment under the 5-minute rule or while the Committee is in session. (g) Public Notice of Committee Hearings--The Chair of the Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any Committee or subcommittee hearing at least 1 week before the commencement of the hearing. If the Chair of the Committee or subcommittee, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member of the Committee or respective subcommittee, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chair or subcommittee chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this subsection shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest and made publicly available in electronic form. Sec. 6: Procedures for Reporting Bills and Resolutions (a) Prompt Reporting Requirement: (1) It shall be the duty of the Chair to report, or cause to be reported promptly to the House any bill or resolution approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. (2) In any event, a report on a bill or resolution which the Committee has approved shall be filed within 7 calendar days (exclusive of days in which the House is not in session) after the day on which there has been filed with the Committee Clerk a written request, signed by a majority of Committee Members, for the reporting of such bill or resolution. Upon the filing of any such request, the Committee Clerk shall notify the Chair immediately of the filing of the request. This subsection does not apply to the reporting of a regular appropriation bill or to the reporting of a resolution of inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department. (b) Presence of Committee Majority--No measure or recommendation shall be reported from the Committee unless a majority of the Committee was actually present. (c) Roll Call Votes--With respect to each roll call vote on a motion to report any measure or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, and the names of those Members voting for and against, shall be included in the Committee report on the measure or matter. (d) Compliance With Congressional Budget Act--A Committee report on a bill or resolution which has been approved by the Committee shall include the statement required by section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and clearly identified, if the bill or resolution provides new budget authority. (e) Changes in Existing Law--Each Committee report on a general appropriation bill shall contain a concise statement describing fully the effect of any provision of the bill which directly or indirectly changes the application of existing law. (f) Rescissions and Transfers--Each bill or resolution reported by the Committee shall include separate headings for rescissions and transfers of unexpended balances with all proposed rescissions and transfers listed therein. The report of the Committee accompanying such a bill or resolution shall include a separate section with respect to such rescissions or transfers. (g) Listing of Unauthorized Appropriations--Each Committee report on a general appropriation bill shall contain a list of all appropriations contained in the bill for any expenditure not currently authorized by law for the period concerned (except for classified intelligence or national security programs, projects, or activities) along with a statement of the last year for which such expenditures were authorized, the level of expenditures authorized for that year, the actual level of expenditures for that year, and the level of appropriations in the bill for such expenditures. (h) Duplicative Programs--Each Committee report on a bill or joint resolution that establishes or reauthorizes a Federal program shall contain a statement indicating whether such program is known to be duplicative of another program, pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. (i) Supplemental or Minority Views: (1) If, at the time the Committee approves any measure or matter, any Committee Member gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views, all Members shall be entitled to not less than 2 additional calendar days after the day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) in which to file such written and signed views (including in electronic form) with the Clerk of the Committee. All such views so filed shall be included in and shall be a part of the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. (2) The Committee report on that measure or matter shall be printed in a single volume which-- (i) shall include all supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views which have been submitted by the time of the filing of the report, and (ii) shall have on its cover a recital that any such supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views are included as part of the report. (3) This subsection does not preclude-- (i) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views has been made as provided by such subsection; or (ii) the filing by the Committee of a supplemental report on a measure or matter which may be required for correction of any technical error in a previous report made by the Committee on that measure or matter. (4) If, at the time a subcommittee approves any measure or matter for recommendation to the full Committee, any Member of that subcommittee who gives notice of intention to offer supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views shall be entitled, insofar as is practicable and in accordance with the printing requirements as determined by the subcommittee, to include such views in the Committee Print with respect to that measure or matter. (j) Availability of Reports--A copy of each bill, resolution, or report shall be made available to each Member of the Committee at least 3 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) in advance of the date on which the Committee is to consider each bill, resolution, or report; Provided, That this subsection may be waived by agreement between the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee. (k) Performance Goals and Objectives--Each Committee report shall contain a statement of general performance goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding. (1) Related Hearings--Each Committee report shall contain a list of related Committee and subcommittee hearings and a designation of at least one Committee or subcommittee hearing that was used to develop or consider the measure being reported; Provided, That this subsection shall not apply to a bill or joint resolution continuing appropriations for a fiscal year, or containing an emergency designation under section 251(b)(2) or section 252(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. (m) Motion to go to Conference--The Chair is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever the Chair considers it appropriate. Sec. 7: Voting (a) No vote by any Member of the Committee or any of its subcommittees with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. (b) The vote on any question before the Committee shall be taken by the yeas and nays on the demand of one-fifth of the Members present. (c) The Chair of the Committee or the chair of any of its subcommittees may-- (1) postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting an amendment; (2) resume proceedings on a postponed question at any time after reasonable notice. When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. Sec. 8: Studies and Examinations The following procedure shall be applicable with respect to the conduct of studies and examinations of the organization and operation of Executive Agencies under authority contained in section 202 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 and in clause (3)(a) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives: (a) The Chair is authorized to appoint such staff and, in her or his discretion, arrange for the procurement of temporary services of consultants, as from time to time may be required. (b) Studies and examinations will be initiated upon the written request of a subcommittee which shall be reasonably specific and definite in character, and shall be initiated only by a majority vote of the subcommittee, with the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking minority member thereof participating as part of such majority vote. When so initiated such request shall be filed with the Clerk of the Committee for submission to the Chair and the Ranking Minority Member and their approval shall be required to make the same effective. Notwithstanding any action taken on such request by the chair and ranking minority member of the subcommittee, a request may be approved by a majority of the Committee. (c) Any request approved as provided under subsection (b) shall be immediately turned over to the staff appointed for action. (d) Any information obtained by such staff shall be reported to the chair of the subcommittee requesting such study and examination and to the Chair and Ranking Minority Member, shall be made available to the members of the subcommittee concerned, and shall not be released for publication until the subcommittee so determines. (e) Any hearings or investigations which may be desired, aside from the regular hearings on appropriation items, when approved by the Committee, shall be conducted by the subcommittee having jurisdiction over the matter. Sec. 9: Temporary Investigative Task Forces (a) The Chair of the full Committee, in consultation with the Ranking Member of the full Committee, may establish and appoint members to serve on task forces of the Committee, to examine specific activities for a limited period of time in accordance with clause 5(b)(2)(C) of rule X of the Rules of the House. (b) The Chair of the full Committee shall issue a written directive, in consultation with the Ranking Member of the full Committee, delineating the specific activities to be reviewed by a task force constituted pursuant to the preceding paragraph. (c) A task force constituted under this section shall provide a written report of its findings and recommendations to the full Committee Chair and Ranking Member and members of the relevant subcommittees having jurisdiction over the matters reviewed. Such report shall be approved by a majority vote of the task force and shall include any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views submitted by a Member of the task force or a member of a subcommittee having jurisdiction over the matter reviewed. (d) Any information obtained during the course of such investigation, and any report produced by, a task force pursuant to this section, shall not be released until the Chair of the full Committee has authorized such release. (e) The Chair is authorized to appoint such staff, and, in her or his discretion, arrange for the procurement of temporary services, as from time to time may be required. Sec. 10: Official Travel (a) The chair of a subcommittee shall approve requests for travel by subcommittee members and staff for official business within the jurisdiction of that subcommittee. The ranking minority member of a subcommittee shall concur in such travel requests by minority members of that subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member shall concur in such travel requests for Minority Members of the Committee. Requests in writing covering the purpose, itinerary, and dates of proposed travel shall be submitted for final approval to the Chair. Specific approval shall be required for each and every trip. (b) The Chair is authorized during the recess of the Congress to approve travel authorizations for Committee Members and staff, including travel outside the United States. (c) As soon as practicable, the Chair shall direct the head of each Government agency concerned to honor requests of subcommittees, individual Members, or staff for travel, the direct or indirect expenses of which are to be defrayed from an executive appropriation, only upon request from the Chair. (d) In accordance with clause 8 of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 502 (b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, local currencies owned by the United States shall be available to Committee Members and staff engaged in carrying out their official duties outside the United States, its territories, or possessions. No Committee Member or staff member shall receive or expend local currencies for subsistence in any country at a rate in excess of the maximum per diem rate set forth in applicable Federal law. (e) Travel Reports: (1) Members or staff shall make a report to the Chair on their travel, covering the purpose, results, itinerary, expenses, and other pertinent comments. (2) With respect to travel outside the United States or its territories or possessions, the report shall include: (1) an itemized list showing the dates each country was visited, the amount of per diem furnished, the cost of transportation furnished, and any funds expended for any other official purpose; and (2) a summary in these categories of the total foreign currencies and/or appropriated funds expended. All such individual reports on foreign travel shall be filed with the Chair no later than 60 days following completion of the travel for use in complying with reporting requirements in applicable Federal law, and shall be open for public inspection. (3) Each Member or employee performing such travel shall be solely responsible for supporting the amounts reported by the Member or employee. (4) No report or statement as to any trip shall be publicized making any recommendations on behalf of the Committee without the authorization of a majority of the Committee. (f) Members and staff of the Committee performing authorized travel on official business pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Committee shall be governed by applicable laws or regulations of the House and of the Committee on House Administration pertaining to such travel, and as promulgated from time to time by the Chair. Sec. 11. Activities Reports (a) Not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, the Committee shall submit to the House a report on the activities of the Committee. (b) After adjournment sine die of a regular session of Congress, or after December 15, whichever occurs first, the Chair may file the report with the Clerk of the House at any time and without the approval of the Committee, provided that a copy of the report has been available to each Member of the Committee for at least 7 calendar days and the report includes any supplemental, minority, additional, or dissenting views submitted by a Member of the Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-02-17-pt1-PgH845-6 | null | 5,858 |
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. [Omitted from the Record of February 14, 2023] | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-02-17-pt1-PgH854 | null | 5,859 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. CRENSHAW: H.J. Res. 33. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution The single subject of this legislation is: Veterans Affairs | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-02-17-pt1-PgH856-20 | null | 5,860 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Ms. MACE: H.J. Res. 34. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article 1, Section 8 The single subject of this legislation is: Expressing the sense of Congress that a woman's ability to engage in interstate travel and receive services available in another state that would otherwise not be available in her own state is protected under Article IV of the Constitution. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-02-17-pt1-PgH856-21 | null | 5,861 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Reverend William Gurnee, St. Joseph's Catholic Church, Washington, D.C., offered the following prayer: Father of peace, we pray today for the Members of this body who have been given the privilege and responsibility of conducting the people's business. They have tremendous tasks before them. They must seek to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Clearly, no one person by themselves is equal to such a task. However, guided by Your loving hand and working together, such goals can be achieved. Therefore, be with them this day and every day they serve here. Give them the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job, and the compassion of the Good Samaritan so that at the end of their days they may have the sure and certain knowledge that they have served their country well. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-02-21-pt1-PgH859-3 | null | 5,862 |
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-2023-02-21-pt1-PgH867 | null | 5,863 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | By Mr. DesJARLAIS: H.J. Res. 35. Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Article V of the Constitutional authorizes Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses ``deem it necessary,'' to propose amendments to the Constitution. The single subject of this legislation is: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require individuals to demonstrate cognitive competence as a condition of holding the office of President or Vice President | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | House | CREC-2023-02-21-pt1-PgH868-19 | null | 5,864 |
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-2023-02-24-pt1-PgH875 | null | 5,865 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH886-7 | null | 5,866 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1108) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to grant a license or construction permit through a system of competitive bidding. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LATTA | House | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH890 | null | 5,867 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Motions to suspend the rules with respect to the following measures: H. Res. 132; H.R. 538; 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-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH896-3 | null | 5,868 |
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 agree to the resolution (H. Res. 132) responding to the earthquakes in Turkiye and Syria on February 6, 2023, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH896-4 | null | 5,869 |
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-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH897-2 | null | 5,870 |
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. 538) to require the disclosure of a camera or recording capability in certain internet-connected devices, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH897 | null | 5,871 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | rules of the committee on financial services for the 118th congress House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC, February 27, 2023. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker McCarthy: Please find attached a copy of the Rules of the Committee on Financial Services for submission into the Congressional Record. Pursuant to clause 2 of Rule XI of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopted the Rules of the Committee on February 1, 2023. Sincerely, Patrick McHenry, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services. rule 1--general provisions (a) The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on Financial Services (hereinafter in these rules referred to as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are privileged motions in the Committee and shall be considered without debate. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to the members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such day). (b) Each subcommittee is a part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. (c) The provisions of clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House are incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to the extent applicable. rule 2--meetings Calling of Meetings (a)(1) The Committee shall regularly meet on the first Tuesday of each month when the House is in session. (2) A regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with if, in the judgment of the Chair of the Committee, there is no need for the meeting. (3) Additional regular meetings and hearings of the Committee may be called by the Chair, in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. (4) Special meetings shall be called and convened by the Chair as provided in clause 2(c)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. Notice for Meetings. (b)(1) The Chair shall notify each member of the Committee of the agenda of each regular meeting of the Committee at least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on any such day) before the time of the meeting. (2) The Chair shall provide to each member of the Committee, at least three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on any such day) before the time of each regular meeting for each measure or matter on the agenda a copy of-- (A) the measure or materials relating to the matter in question; and (B) an explanation of the measure or matter to be considered, which, in the case of an explanation of a bill, resolution, or similar measure, shall include a summary of the major provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the relationship of the measure to present law, and a summary of the need for the legislation. (3) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a meeting for the markup of legislation, the Chair shall cause the text of such legislation to be made publicly available in electronic form. (4) The provisions of this subsection may be waived by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or by the Chair with the concurrence of the ranking minority member. rule 3--meeting and hearing procedures In General (a)(1) Meetings and hearings of the Committee shall be called to order and presided over by the Chair or, in the Chair's absence, by a member designated by the Chair to carry out such duties. (2) Meetings and hearings of the committee shall be open to the public unless closed in accordance with clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. (3) Any meeting or hearing of the Committee that is open to the public shall be open to coverage by television broadcast, radio broadcast, and still photography in accordance with the provisions of clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House (which are incorporated by reference as part of these rules). Operation and use of any Committee operated broadcast system shall be fair and nonpartisan and in accordance with clause 4(b) of rule XI and all other applicable rules of the Committee and the House. (4) To the extent feasible, members and witnesses may use the Committee equipment for the purpose of presenting static exhibits electronically during a meeting or hearing, provided the information is transmitted to the appropriate Committee staff in an appropriate electronic format at least one business day before the meeting or hearing so as to ensure display capacity and quality. The content of all materials must relate to the pending business of the Committee and conform to the rules of the House. The confidentiality of the material will be maintained by the technical staff until its official presentation to the Committee members. For the purposes of maintaining the official records of the Committee, printed copies of exhibits presented, to the extent practicable, must accompany the presentations. (5) No person, other than a Member of Congress, Committee staff, or an employee of a Member when that Member has an amendment under consideration, may stand in or be seated at the rostrum area of the Committee rooms unless the Chair determines otherwise. Quorum (b)(1) For the purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. (2) A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a subpoena (other than a subpoena authorized and issued by the Chair pursuant to subsection (e)(1)), of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)) of releasing executive session material pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of rule XI of the Rules of the House. (3) For the purpose of taking any action other than those specified in paragraph (2) one-third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum. Voting (c)(1) No vote may be conducted on any measure or matter pending before the Committee unless the requisite number of members of the Committee is actually present for such purpose. (2) A record vote of the Committee shall be provided on any question before the Committee upon the request of one-fifth of the members present. (3) No vote by any member of the Committee on any measure or matter may be cast by proxy. (4) In addition to any other requirement of these rules or the Rules of the House, including clause 2(e)(1)(B) of rule XI, the Chair shall make the record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded publicly available in electronic form on the Committee's Web site not later than 24 hours after such vote is taken. Such record shall include in electronic form the text of the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the name of each member voting for and each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members of the Committee present but not voting. With respect to any record vote on any motion to report or record vote on any amendment, a record of such votes shall be included in the report of the Committee showing the total number of votes cast for and against and the names of those members of the committee present but not voting. (5) POSTPONED RECORD VOTES.--(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Chair may postpone further proceedings when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chair may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time, but no later than the next meeting day. (B) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph (A), the Chair shall take all reasonable steps necessary to notify members on the resumption of proceedings on any- postponed record vote. (C) When proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was postponed. (D) The Chair's authority to postpone recorded votes will not be used to prejudice a member with regard to the offering of another amendment. In the application of this rule, the Chair will consult regularly with the ranking minority member regarding the scheduling of the resumption of postponed votes. (6) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or an amendment thereto if the stated provisions of such measure-- (A) are known to have the net effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of either (i) the current year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years following that budget year; or (ii) the current year, the budget year, and the nine fiscal years following that budget year, or (B) authorize an increase in authorizations, appropriations, or direct spending in any given year, unless fully offset by at least an equal reduction in current spending; or (C) authorize discretionary appropriations using terms such as ``such sums as may be necessary'' or similar language that fails to specify the actual amount of funding being authorized by the bill or amendment; or (D) authorize appropriations without including a sunset provision. Hearing Procedures (d)(1)(A) The Chair shall notice the date, place, and subject matter of any Committee hearing at least one week before the commencement of the hearing, unless the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by majority vote with a quorum present for the transaction of business, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner; in which case the Chair shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (B) Not less than three calendar days before the commencement of a hearing (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on any such day) announced under this paragraph, the Chair shall provide to the members of the Committee a concise summary of the subject of the hearing, or, in the case of a hearing on a measure or matter, a copy of the measure or materials relating to the matter in question and a concise explanation of the measure or matter to be considered. At the same time the Chair provides the information required by the preceding sentence, the Chair shall also provide to the members of the Committee a list of the witnesses expected to appear before the Committee at that hearing. The witness list may not be modified within 24 hours of a hearing, unless the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines there is good cause for such modification. (2) To the greatest extent practicable-- (A) each witness who is to appear before the Committee shall file with the Committee 48 hours in advance of the appearance sufficient copies (including a copy in electronic form), as determined by the Chair, of a written statement of proposed testimony and shall limit the oral presentation to the Committee to a brief summary thereof; and (B) each witness appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include with the written statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae, a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or sub grant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years, and a disclosure of whether the witness is a fiduciary (including, but not limited to, a director, officer, advisor, or resident agent) of any organization or entity, that has an interest in the subject matter of the hearing. Such disclosure statements, with appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness, shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later than one day after the witness appears. (3) The requirements of paragraph (2)(A) may be modified or waived by the Chair when the Chair determines it to be in the best interest of the Committee. (4)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the five-minute rule shall be observed in the questioning of witnesses before the Committee or any of its subcommittees until each present member thereof has had an opportunity to question the witnesses. The Chair shall, so far as practicable, recognize alternately based on seniority of the majority and minority members present at the time the hearing was called to order and others based on their arrival at the hearing. The Chair shall, so far as practicable, defer to the ranking member with respect to the order of recognition for minority Members. No member shall be recognized for a second period of five minutes to question witnesses until each present member of the Committee or such subcommittee has been recognized once for that purpose. (B) The Chair may permit a specified number of members to question one or more witnesses for a specified period of time not to exceed 60 minutes in the aggregate, equally divided between and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member. (5) Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee on any measure or matter, the minority party members of the Committee shall be entitled, upon the request of a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon. The Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, will determine the date, time, and place of such hearing. (6) At any hearing of the Committee, opening statements by members of the Committee shall be limited to 10 minutes in the aggregate. The Chair shall control five minutes and recognize members in the Chair's sole discretion. The ranking minority member shall control five minutes; the Chair shall recognize members for such time according to the direction of the ranking minority member as communicated to the Chair. (7) Notwithstanding any member's oral delivery of an opening statement, written opening statements by any member of the Committee submitted to the Chair within 5 legislative days after the adjournment of a hearing shall be made a part of the official hearing record thereof. Subpoenas and Oaths (e)(1) The power to authorize and issue subpoenas is delegated to the Chair. Unless there are exigent circumstances, the Chair will provide written notice to the ranking minority member at least 48 hours in advance of the authorization and issuance of a subpoena, and such notice shall include a full copy of the proposed subpoena, including any proposed document schedule. (2) Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chair or by any member designated by the Committee and may be served by any person designated by the Chair or such member. The Chair or any person designated by the Chair to serve a subpoena will copy the ranking minority member or designated minority staff when a subpoena is issued and served electronically. (3) The Chair, or any member of the Committee designated by the Chair, may administer oaths to witnesses before the Committee. Depositions (f) The Regulations for the Use of Deposition Authority as passed by the Committee on Rules pursuant to H. Res. 5 titled--Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, and for other purposes--are incorporated by reference and shall be considered the rules of the Committee. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH909 | null | 5,872 |
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-2023-02-27-pt1-PgH916 | null | 5,873 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Inflation Madam President, now on one final matter, January was the 21st month in a row with year-on-year inflation of at least 5 percent. The U.S. economy has seen prices rising at an annual rate of 5 percent or more every single month following President Biden's first 100 days. Democrats' reckless spending has made soaring costs a fixture of everyday life for families all across our country. Real-wage declines have become a tragic reality for workers in every single State. Last week, new data proved yet again that persistent inflation has become actually embedded in our economy. One key measure of consumer behavior, the personal consumption expenditure index, grew at triple the monthly rate from December and at its fastest pace since June of last year. Inflation in the services sector in particular is 5.7 percent higher than it was a year ago. The Democrats' inflation is not just driving up the prices for groceries and essentials that families pay themselves at the checkout counter; it is also baked into the costs families pay indirectly through service providers, from plumbers to contractors to medical providers and beyond. In every corner of the economy, workers and businesses are still having to hunker down against the ongoing consequences of Democrats' reckless mistakes. What an odd time, then, for the Biden administration to declare victory over a problem it helped actually create. The White House Press Secretary declared earlier this month that ``the President's economic plan is indeed working.'' Well, today, 57 percent of Americans say they have less money in their pocket than they did a year ago. Nearly two-thirds say they are living paycheck to paycheck. The White House calls this mission accomplished. The American people call it a nightmare for 2 years and counting. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgS493-2 | null | 5,874 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Munich Security Conference Madam President, the Senator from Texas was in Munich at the security conference. It was such an inspiring get-together. Leaders from all over Europe and from many parts of the world all came together and were virtually unanimous in their opinion that this aggression by Vladimir Putin needed to be stopped and we needed to do everything in our power, either through NATO or other alliances and friendships, to show our solidarity. I thank the Senator from Texas for his statements. What a sharp contrast in leadership last week. First, Presidents Biden andZelenskyy, together in Kyiv, standing resolutely in the face of Russian aggression. President Biden went to neighboring Poland, where he told an enthusiastic crowd of thousands: One year ago, the world was bracing for the fall of Kyiv. . . . I can report: Kyiv stands strong. Kyiv stands proud. It stands tall, and most important, it stands free. That was a statement by President Biden visiting Poland. He vowed the United States and its allies will never waiver in their support of Ukraine and that NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire. I couldn't agree more with President Biden. The same sentiments were on display at this Munich security summit that I referenced. Nearly 30 of my Senate colleagues joined us in this international conference. It was a bipartisan show of unity and resolve, with both Senator Schumer--the Democrat leader of the Senate--and Senator McConnell--the Republican leader of the Senate--urging sustained determined support for Ukraine against Russian tyranny. Compare these messages of transatlantic and bipartisan unity to the rambling set of manufactured grievances delivered at nearly the same time by the Russian war criminal, Vladimir Putin. The contrast could not have been starker. Many Russian officials in attendance at Putin's speech sat stone-faced. Some even dozed off. They may have wondered what kind of nightmare had befallen the Russian people in the pursuit of one man's murderous folly. Following the Munich Security Conference, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, of New Hampshire, and I had the opportunity to visit the former Soviet-dominated countries of Georgia and Romania. Both nations remember Russian tyranny all too well and have spent their decades of independence working to be part of the transatlantic community of democracies. Georgia suffered most recently at the hands of Russian imperialism when Putin militarily seized 20 percent of the land mass of Georgia, territory still occupied illegally by the Russians today. Georgia has so much talent and so much potential. The overwhelming majority of the people in that country see their future in Europe and the West. The Georgia military has worked closely with the United States, and we have strong cooperative relations on a wide range of issues. It is my hope that Georgia will continue its path toward the European Union and eventual NATO membership. That is for the Georgians to decide, but I believe they would be valuable allies of the NATO alliance. It has some serious issues to resolve, incidentally. Georgia is still facing some political questions, which the world is watching closely, and a few potentially self-inflicted setbacks to avoid, such as the proposed law on disclosure by nongovernmental organizations--a step, I am afraid, that is backward for a nation aspiring to freedom. But with the right political will and vision, these issues can be overcome in a way that ensures a better and more secure future for the Georgian people. In the same Black Sea region, Senator Shaheen and I visited Romania--my first time--the Eastern European nation already firmly in the EU and NATO. What a NATO ally it is. We stopped at MK Air Base in eastern Romania, where thousands of U.S. soldiers from the legendary 101st Airborne are stationed. They are the U.S. military forces closest to the fight in Ukraine. Nearby, we could see rows of grain ships departing Ukraine and occupied Crimea only a short distance away. That vital commerce in such a strategic area is a reminder of the importance of advancing Senators Shaheen and Romney's bipartisan legislation to establish a U.S.-Black Sea regional strategy, legislation which I have cosponsored. Senator Shaheen and I had a chance to speak to the brave Americans serving in Romania in defense of NATO. I am proud to say--and I hope my colleague hears this too, and I am sure she will--from the home State of Illinois, we had soldiers from Danville, Forest Park, Chicago Ridge, and even Red Bud, IL--downstate--and many more. But we got to meet and have lunch with those soldiers. We also had the chance to speak with Romanian Prime Minister Ciuca, who was clear-eyed both on the threat of Russian aggression and Romania's proud role in the larger battle. He also understood the threat Russia poses to the neighboring democracy of Moldova, where Russia already occupies some of their territory. Because of this, President Biden also met with Moldovan President Sandu while in Poland and reaffirmed strong U.S. support for her country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which I also want to reiterate here on the Senate floor. Many of my colleagues here today know that my mother left as a little girl from Russian-occupied Lithuania many years ago. She barely would recognize today's vibrant and free member of the EU and NATO from the country she left behind. Later this year, Lithuania will host a historic NATO summit, by which time I hope we have added Finland and Sweden to the alliance. That thriving, peaceful, democratic future is what the Ukrainian people are still fighting for and what we must continue to support to make sure that Ukraine is secure in the future. mobility legislation Madam President, I would like to start today by sharing a story about the value of U.S. foreign assistance. As my colleagues in the Senate know, U.S. foreign assistance makes up less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. And yet, it can yield millions in returns--both financially and in lives saved--by making our world safer, healthier, and more stable. It also reflects our values as Americans. Just look at the immediate offer of assistance to Turkey following its recent catastrophic earthquake. That was the right thing to do. Sometimes, even the simplest of tools can make all the difference: mosquito nets, paste made from peanuts, and even bicycles. One NGO based in Chicago, IL, World Bicycle Relief, has distributed more than 600,000 bicycles around the world as of last year. These bicycles have helped girls in Malawi get to and from school safely, aid workers in Colombia distribute food and clean water during the COVID-19 pandemic, and farmers in Zambia make milk deliveries. Stories like these are common around the world, showing the value of a simple, relatively inexpensive, ``green,'' and easy-to-repair means of mobility that helps meet important development objectives. I have seen myself how a bicycle ambulance in rural Tanzania can change lives, and not long ago my staff saw World Bicycle Relief's efforts in Kenya, where nearly 50,000 sustainable rugged bicycles have been provided. These bikes are uniquely designed for their local environments. Community members are trained to maintain them with minimal and locally sourced parts, keeping them sustainable and creating jobs. Since 2019, I have worked through the Appropriations Committee to push USAID to invest in bicycles and study how to make the programs locally sustainable. USAID has used these lessons and opportunities with increasing success, thanks to the work of so many dedicated groups around the world, including World Bicycle Relief. This month, I introduced legislation with Representative Blumenauer in the House that will codify these important efforts and formalize the creation of a mobility program within USAID's Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. I look forward to seeing this bill enacted one day, to help lock in the incredible progress that can be made with even small investments and the simplest of tools, such as a bicycle. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgS495 | null | 5,875 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Munich Security Conference Madam President, the Senator from Texas was in Munich at the security conference. It was such an inspiring get-together. Leaders from all over Europe and from many parts of the world all came together and were virtually unanimous in their opinion that this aggression by Vladimir Putin needed to be stopped and we needed to do everything in our power, either through NATO or other alliances and friendships, to show our solidarity. I thank the Senator from Texas for his statements. What a sharp contrast in leadership last week. First, Presidents Biden andZelenskyy, together in Kyiv, standing resolutely in the face of Russian aggression. President Biden went to neighboring Poland, where he told an enthusiastic crowd of thousands: One year ago, the world was bracing for the fall of Kyiv. . . . I can report: Kyiv stands strong. Kyiv stands proud. It stands tall, and most important, it stands free. That was a statement by President Biden visiting Poland. He vowed the United States and its allies will never waiver in their support of Ukraine and that NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire. I couldn't agree more with President Biden. The same sentiments were on display at this Munich security summit that I referenced. Nearly 30 of my Senate colleagues joined us in this international conference. It was a bipartisan show of unity and resolve, with both Senator Schumer--the Democrat leader of the Senate--and Senator McConnell--the Republican leader of the Senate--urging sustained determined support for Ukraine against Russian tyranny. Compare these messages of transatlantic and bipartisan unity to the rambling set of manufactured grievances delivered at nearly the same time by the Russian war criminal, Vladimir Putin. The contrast could not have been starker. Many Russian officials in attendance at Putin's speech sat stone-faced. Some even dozed off. They may have wondered what kind of nightmare had befallen the Russian people in the pursuit of one man's murderous folly. Following the Munich Security Conference, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, of New Hampshire, and I had the opportunity to visit the former Soviet-dominated countries of Georgia and Romania. Both nations remember Russian tyranny all too well and have spent their decades of independence working to be part of the transatlantic community of democracies. Georgia suffered most recently at the hands of Russian imperialism when Putin militarily seized 20 percent of the land mass of Georgia, territory still occupied illegally by the Russians today. Georgia has so much talent and so much potential. The overwhelming majority of the people in that country see their future in Europe and the West. The Georgia military has worked closely with the United States, and we have strong cooperative relations on a wide range of issues. It is my hope that Georgia will continue its path toward the European Union and eventual NATO membership. That is for the Georgians to decide, but I believe they would be valuable allies of the NATO alliance. It has some serious issues to resolve, incidentally. Georgia is still facing some political questions, which the world is watching closely, and a few potentially self-inflicted setbacks to avoid, such as the proposed law on disclosure by nongovernmental organizations--a step, I am afraid, that is backward for a nation aspiring to freedom. But with the right political will and vision, these issues can be overcome in a way that ensures a better and more secure future for the Georgian people. In the same Black Sea region, Senator Shaheen and I visited Romania--my first time--the Eastern European nation already firmly in the EU and NATO. What a NATO ally it is. We stopped at MK Air Base in eastern Romania, where thousands of U.S. soldiers from the legendary 101st Airborne are stationed. They are the U.S. military forces closest to the fight in Ukraine. Nearby, we could see rows of grain ships departing Ukraine and occupied Crimea only a short distance away. That vital commerce in such a strategic area is a reminder of the importance of advancing Senators Shaheen and Romney's bipartisan legislation to establish a U.S.-Black Sea regional strategy, legislation which I have cosponsored. Senator Shaheen and I had a chance to speak to the brave Americans serving in Romania in defense of NATO. I am proud to say--and I hope my colleague hears this too, and I am sure she will--from the home State of Illinois, we had soldiers from Danville, Forest Park, Chicago Ridge, and even Red Bud, IL--downstate--and many more. But we got to meet and have lunch with those soldiers. We also had the chance to speak with Romanian Prime Minister Ciuca, who was clear-eyed both on the threat of Russian aggression and Romania's proud role in the larger battle. He also understood the threat Russia poses to the neighboring democracy of Moldova, where Russia already occupies some of their territory. Because of this, President Biden also met with Moldovan President Sandu while in Poland and reaffirmed strong U.S. support for her country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which I also want to reiterate here on the Senate floor. Many of my colleagues here today know that my mother left as a little girl from Russian-occupied Lithuania many years ago. She barely would recognize today's vibrant and free member of the EU and NATO from the country she left behind. Later this year, Lithuania will host a historic NATO summit, by which time I hope we have added Finland and Sweden to the alliance. That thriving, peaceful, democratic future is what the Ukrainian people are still fighting for and what we must continue to support to make sure that Ukraine is secure in the future. mobility legislation Madam President, I would like to start today by sharing a story about the value of U.S. foreign assistance. As my colleagues in the Senate know, U.S. foreign assistance makes up less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. And yet, it can yield millions in returns--both financially and in lives saved--by making our world safer, healthier, and more stable. It also reflects our values as Americans. Just look at the immediate offer of assistance to Turkey following its recent catastrophic earthquake. That was the right thing to do. Sometimes, even the simplest of tools can make all the difference: mosquito nets, paste made from peanuts, and even bicycles. One NGO based in Chicago, IL, World Bicycle Relief, has distributed more than 600,000 bicycles around the world as of last year. These bicycles have helped girls in Malawi get to and from school safely, aid workers in Colombia distribute food and clean water during the COVID-19 pandemic, and farmers in Zambia make milk deliveries. Stories like these are common around the world, showing the value of a simple, relatively inexpensive, ``green,'' and easy-to-repair means of mobility that helps meet important development objectives. I have seen myself how a bicycle ambulance in rural Tanzania can change lives, and not long ago my staff saw World Bicycle Relief's efforts in Kenya, where nearly 50,000 sustainable rugged bicycles have been provided. These bikes are uniquely designed for their local environments. Community members are trained to maintain them with minimal and locally sourced parts, keeping them sustainable and creating jobs. Since 2019, I have worked through the Appropriations Committee to push USAID to invest in bicycles and study how to make the programs locally sustainable. USAID has used these lessons and opportunities with increasing success, thanks to the work of so many dedicated groups around the world, including World Bicycle Relief. This month, I introduced legislation with Representative Blumenauer in the House that will codify these important efforts and formalize the creation of a mobility program within USAID's Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. I look forward to seeing this bill enacted one day, to help lock in the incredible progress that can be made with even small investments and the simplest of tools, such as a bicycle. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgS495 | null | 5,876 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Munich Security Conference Madam President, the Senator from Texas was in Munich at the security conference. It was such an inspiring get-together. Leaders from all over Europe and from many parts of the world all came together and were virtually unanimous in their opinion that this aggression by Vladimir Putin needed to be stopped and we needed to do everything in our power, either through NATO or other alliances and friendships, to show our solidarity. I thank the Senator from Texas for his statements. What a sharp contrast in leadership last week. First, Presidents Biden andZelenskyy, together in Kyiv, standing resolutely in the face of Russian aggression. President Biden went to neighboring Poland, where he told an enthusiastic crowd of thousands: One year ago, the world was bracing for the fall of Kyiv. . . . I can report: Kyiv stands strong. Kyiv stands proud. It stands tall, and most important, it stands free. That was a statement by President Biden visiting Poland. He vowed the United States and its allies will never waiver in their support of Ukraine and that NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire. I couldn't agree more with President Biden. The same sentiments were on display at this Munich security summit that I referenced. Nearly 30 of my Senate colleagues joined us in this international conference. It was a bipartisan show of unity and resolve, with both Senator Schumer--the Democrat leader of the Senate--and Senator McConnell--the Republican leader of the Senate--urging sustained determined support for Ukraine against Russian tyranny. Compare these messages of transatlantic and bipartisan unity to the rambling set of manufactured grievances delivered at nearly the same time by the Russian war criminal, Vladimir Putin. The contrast could not have been starker. Many Russian officials in attendance at Putin's speech sat stone-faced. Some even dozed off. They may have wondered what kind of nightmare had befallen the Russian people in the pursuit of one man's murderous folly. Following the Munich Security Conference, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, of New Hampshire, and I had the opportunity to visit the former Soviet-dominated countries of Georgia and Romania. Both nations remember Russian tyranny all too well and have spent their decades of independence working to be part of the transatlantic community of democracies. Georgia suffered most recently at the hands of Russian imperialism when Putin militarily seized 20 percent of the land mass of Georgia, territory still occupied illegally by the Russians today. Georgia has so much talent and so much potential. The overwhelming majority of the people in that country see their future in Europe and the West. The Georgia military has worked closely with the United States, and we have strong cooperative relations on a wide range of issues. It is my hope that Georgia will continue its path toward the European Union and eventual NATO membership. That is for the Georgians to decide, but I believe they would be valuable allies of the NATO alliance. It has some serious issues to resolve, incidentally. Georgia is still facing some political questions, which the world is watching closely, and a few potentially self-inflicted setbacks to avoid, such as the proposed law on disclosure by nongovernmental organizations--a step, I am afraid, that is backward for a nation aspiring to freedom. But with the right political will and vision, these issues can be overcome in a way that ensures a better and more secure future for the Georgian people. In the same Black Sea region, Senator Shaheen and I visited Romania--my first time--the Eastern European nation already firmly in the EU and NATO. What a NATO ally it is. We stopped at MK Air Base in eastern Romania, where thousands of U.S. soldiers from the legendary 101st Airborne are stationed. They are the U.S. military forces closest to the fight in Ukraine. Nearby, we could see rows of grain ships departing Ukraine and occupied Crimea only a short distance away. That vital commerce in such a strategic area is a reminder of the importance of advancing Senators Shaheen and Romney's bipartisan legislation to establish a U.S.-Black Sea regional strategy, legislation which I have cosponsored. Senator Shaheen and I had a chance to speak to the brave Americans serving in Romania in defense of NATO. I am proud to say--and I hope my colleague hears this too, and I am sure she will--from the home State of Illinois, we had soldiers from Danville, Forest Park, Chicago Ridge, and even Red Bud, IL--downstate--and many more. But we got to meet and have lunch with those soldiers. We also had the chance to speak with Romanian Prime Minister Ciuca, who was clear-eyed both on the threat of Russian aggression and Romania's proud role in the larger battle. He also understood the threat Russia poses to the neighboring democracy of Moldova, where Russia already occupies some of their territory. Because of this, President Biden also met with Moldovan President Sandu while in Poland and reaffirmed strong U.S. support for her country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which I also want to reiterate here on the Senate floor. Many of my colleagues here today know that my mother left as a little girl from Russian-occupied Lithuania many years ago. She barely would recognize today's vibrant and free member of the EU and NATO from the country she left behind. Later this year, Lithuania will host a historic NATO summit, by which time I hope we have added Finland and Sweden to the alliance. That thriving, peaceful, democratic future is what the Ukrainian people are still fighting for and what we must continue to support to make sure that Ukraine is secure in the future. mobility legislation Madam President, I would like to start today by sharing a story about the value of U.S. foreign assistance. As my colleagues in the Senate know, U.S. foreign assistance makes up less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. And yet, it can yield millions in returns--both financially and in lives saved--by making our world safer, healthier, and more stable. It also reflects our values as Americans. Just look at the immediate offer of assistance to Turkey following its recent catastrophic earthquake. That was the right thing to do. Sometimes, even the simplest of tools can make all the difference: mosquito nets, paste made from peanuts, and even bicycles. One NGO based in Chicago, IL, World Bicycle Relief, has distributed more than 600,000 bicycles around the world as of last year. These bicycles have helped girls in Malawi get to and from school safely, aid workers in Colombia distribute food and clean water during the COVID-19 pandemic, and farmers in Zambia make milk deliveries. Stories like these are common around the world, showing the value of a simple, relatively inexpensive, ``green,'' and easy-to-repair means of mobility that helps meet important development objectives. I have seen myself how a bicycle ambulance in rural Tanzania can change lives, and not long ago my staff saw World Bicycle Relief's efforts in Kenya, where nearly 50,000 sustainable rugged bicycles have been provided. These bikes are uniquely designed for their local environments. Community members are trained to maintain them with minimal and locally sourced parts, keeping them sustainable and creating jobs. Since 2019, I have worked through the Appropriations Committee to push USAID to invest in bicycles and study how to make the programs locally sustainable. USAID has used these lessons and opportunities with increasing success, thanks to the work of so many dedicated groups around the world, including World Bicycle Relief. This month, I introduced legislation with Representative Blumenauer in the House that will codify these important efforts and formalize the creation of a mobility program within USAID's Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment. I look forward to seeing this bill enacted one day, to help lock in the incredible progress that can be made with even small investments and the simplest of tools, such as a bicycle. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgS495 | null | 5,877 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and celebrate Ser Familia, an organization in Atlanta focused on helping Georgia's Latino families gain the tools and resources to solve challenges and flourish in their communities. Natives of Puerto Rico, Belisa and Miguel Urbina cofounded Ser Familia in 2001. For more than 20 years, Ser Familia's vision to assist Latino families reach their full potential and become contributing members of their communities has changed the lives of hundreds of families across Georgia. From teaching youth character building and leadership skills to offering counseling services on behavioral and mental health, Ser Familia continues to expand its positive impact on the Latino community by developing programs that are tailored to address the greatest needs of youth, couples, parents, and families. As I have said before, the State of Georgia is home to a vibrant and diverse Latino community, and I am grateful for the extraordinary contributions of people like Belisa and Miguel Urbina who work tirelessly every single day to guarantee that all members of the Latino community have access to opportunities that help them thrive. I have enjoyed working closely with Belisa and Miguel to deliver the resources to help Ser Familia open a family resource center in Clayton County, helping expand their comprehensive services to the community. I join with our Latino community to commemorate the remarkable work and contributions of Ser Familia to the Atlanta community, the State of Georgia, and the United States. Their leadership is a reminder of the outstanding contributions of Latino Americans who are committed to moving Georgia and our country forward. As Georgia's U.S. Senator, it is my honor to recognize and commend Belisa and Miguel Urbina for their service on behalf of Georgia's Latino families and congratulate them on Ser Familia's success. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. OSSOFF | Senate | CREC-2023-02-27-pt1-PgS505 | null | 5,878 |
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 166; and Adoption of House Resolution 166, if ordered. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgH930-3 | null | 5,879 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 30) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgH941-2 | null | 5,880 |
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-2023-02-28-pt1-PgH971 | null | 5,881 |
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to East Palestine. Yesterday, I called on Norfolk Southern's CEO Alan Shaw to come before the Senate and answer questions under oath about the derailment in East Palestine. The accident has been deemed 100 percent preventable. So Mr. Shaw should be transparent, forthright, and he should not duck but, instead, testify before America, before the Senate, as soon as possible. Norfolk Southern owes the American people some answers to some very important questions. Why, for example, did Norfolk Southern spend years pushing the Federal Government, and particularly the Trump administration, to repeal--repeal--safety regulations intended to prevent accidents similar to the one in East Palestine? Why has Norfolk Southern laid off thousands of workers while reporting over $3 billion in profits in 2022? And why did Norfolk Southern launch a $10 billion stock buyback program last year, when they could have used that money to upgrade safety equipment, hire more workers, or pay their employees better wages? Disasters like the one in East Palestine are precisely what can happen when safety takes a backseat to maximizing profits. It is a pattern that has played out to devastating effect over the years: Corporate interests lobby the government to loosen safety rules, then they cut costs, cut workers, reward shareholders; and sooner or later, disaster strikes. And it is so typical--so typical--for people like Donald Trump to do the bidding of special interests, cause harm to the American people--that is what he did when he loosened railroad regulations--and then point the finger at someone else when something terrible happens. That is just what he did here. It just doesn't wash. The American people see right through it. So, once again, I hope the CEO of Norfolk Southern testifies as soon as possible. Norfolk Southern has broken their trust to the American public and must--must--be held accountable. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS510-3 | null | 5,882 |
formal | special interests | null | antisemitic | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on to East Palestine. Yesterday, I called on Norfolk Southern's CEO Alan Shaw to come before the Senate and answer questions under oath about the derailment in East Palestine. The accident has been deemed 100 percent preventable. So Mr. Shaw should be transparent, forthright, and he should not duck but, instead, testify before America, before the Senate, as soon as possible. Norfolk Southern owes the American people some answers to some very important questions. Why, for example, did Norfolk Southern spend years pushing the Federal Government, and particularly the Trump administration, to repeal--repeal--safety regulations intended to prevent accidents similar to the one in East Palestine? Why has Norfolk Southern laid off thousands of workers while reporting over $3 billion in profits in 2022? And why did Norfolk Southern launch a $10 billion stock buyback program last year, when they could have used that money to upgrade safety equipment, hire more workers, or pay their employees better wages? Disasters like the one in East Palestine are precisely what can happen when safety takes a backseat to maximizing profits. It is a pattern that has played out to devastating effect over the years: Corporate interests lobby the government to loosen safety rules, then they cut costs, cut workers, reward shareholders; and sooner or later, disaster strikes. And it is so typical--so typical--for people like Donald Trump to do the bidding of special interests, cause harm to the American people--that is what he did when he loosened railroad regulations--and then point the finger at someone else when something terrible happens. That is just what he did here. It just doesn't wash. The American people see right through it. So, once again, I hope the CEO of Norfolk Southern testifies as soon as possible. Norfolk Southern has broken their trust to the American public and must--must--be held accountable. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS510-3 | null | 5,883 |
formal | hard-working Americans | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Washington Democrats' reckless spending has embedded painful inflation deep in our economy. Runaway prices are making families' monthly budgets harder to balance. And as interest rates rise, the financial markets where millions of Americans invest their life savings are becoming literally more volatile. Short-term bond yields are trading at their highest levels since the precipice of the Great Recession in 2007. Indications of expected stock market volatility appear to be actually on the upswing. But with Americans' retirement accounts already in jeopardy, Democrats have gone looking for still more ways to put workers' savings at even greater risk. The Biden administration is trying to enact a radical new regulation that would help liberals use Americans' very own retirement savings as financial muscle for political causes they may not even support. The Labor Department's proposed new rule would water down financial managers' fiduciary obligation to get the best return for their clients. This administration wants to let the fund managers prioritize extraneous factors--from companies' carbon footprints to various HR policies--when deciding where to invest hard-working Americans' savings. The Biden administration wants to let Wall Street use its workers' hard-earned savings to pursue leftwing political initiatives instead of trying to maximize the returns for their clients' retirements. Democrats want to let money managers making these unrelated ideological goals a higher priority than getting their clients, ordinary American workers, the best returns for their own retirements. Not surprisingly, studies suggest that investment funds where the managers put a political thumb on the scale in this particular fashion tend, not surprisingly, to underperform normal investments. When you put ideology ahead of seeking the highest returns, well, the returns, of course, suffer. And if the Democrats have their way, the losers will be ordinary American workers who have spent their whole careers putting money away for their retirement. In effect, we are talking about letting financial companies garnish the retirement savings of workers, without their permission, in order to pursue unrelated liberal political goals. The Biden administration wants to put American workers in a position where portions of their potential returns on their retirement savings could be effectively donated away to leftwing political causes without their consent. What a disastrous way to pile onto the pain they have already caused millions of American families. I am grateful to my colleague from Indiana, Senator Braun, and to my friend and fellow Kentuckian Congressman Andy Barr for leading a bipartisan resolution in both Houses to make sure that Americans' retirement accounts are about one thing: maximizing returns on investments. I will be proud to support this commonsense measure later this week. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS510-5 | null | 5,884 |
formal | hard-working American | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Washington Democrats' reckless spending has embedded painful inflation deep in our economy. Runaway prices are making families' monthly budgets harder to balance. And as interest rates rise, the financial markets where millions of Americans invest their life savings are becoming literally more volatile. Short-term bond yields are trading at their highest levels since the precipice of the Great Recession in 2007. Indications of expected stock market volatility appear to be actually on the upswing. But with Americans' retirement accounts already in jeopardy, Democrats have gone looking for still more ways to put workers' savings at even greater risk. The Biden administration is trying to enact a radical new regulation that would help liberals use Americans' very own retirement savings as financial muscle for political causes they may not even support. The Labor Department's proposed new rule would water down financial managers' fiduciary obligation to get the best return for their clients. This administration wants to let the fund managers prioritize extraneous factors--from companies' carbon footprints to various HR policies--when deciding where to invest hard-working Americans' savings. The Biden administration wants to let Wall Street use its workers' hard-earned savings to pursue leftwing political initiatives instead of trying to maximize the returns for their clients' retirements. Democrats want to let money managers making these unrelated ideological goals a higher priority than getting their clients, ordinary American workers, the best returns for their own retirements. Not surprisingly, studies suggest that investment funds where the managers put a political thumb on the scale in this particular fashion tend, not surprisingly, to underperform normal investments. When you put ideology ahead of seeking the highest returns, well, the returns, of course, suffer. And if the Democrats have their way, the losers will be ordinary American workers who have spent their whole careers putting money away for their retirement. In effect, we are talking about letting financial companies garnish the retirement savings of workers, without their permission, in order to pursue unrelated liberal political goals. The Biden administration wants to put American workers in a position where portions of their potential returns on their retirement savings could be effectively donated away to leftwing political causes without their consent. What a disastrous way to pile onto the pain they have already caused millions of American families. I am grateful to my colleague from Indiana, Senator Braun, and to my friend and fellow Kentuckian Congressman Andy Barr for leading a bipartisan resolution in both Houses to make sure that Americans' retirement accounts are about one thing: maximizing returns on investments. I will be proud to support this commonsense measure later this week. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS510-5 | null | 5,885 |
formal | handout | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the SCOTUS oral arguments on student debt. Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments on President Biden's student debt relief plan, a plan that could give tens of millions of Americans a new lease on life. Republicans talk a big game about helping working people, but today's case before the Supreme Court--pushed by Republican officeholders who oppose the President's plan--is a slap in the face of working Americans across the country, young and old alike. Let me be clear: 90 percent--90 percent--of the relief going to out-of-school borrowers will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. This isn't a handout to the wealthy. Far from it. This is critical relief to working- and middle-class families. For generations, higher education was the ladder up into the middle class, especially for millions of Black, Latino, and Asian Americans. But over the years, the student debt that comes with a college degree has become not a ladder up but an anchor weighing Americans down--making it harder for them to put a down payment on a house, buy a car, start a family, and save for retirement. In other words, the burden of student debt makes it harder--harder--to achieve the American Dream. That is what is at stake before the Supreme Court, not just the chance to relieve the crushing weight of student debt for millions upon millions of people but also to make the American dream a little more accessible for millions more--their families, as well as themselves. That is all we are trying to do, and I am confident we will get there because I believe the law is on our side. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS510 | null | 5,886 |
formal | middle class | null | racist | Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, now on the SCOTUS oral arguments on student debt. Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing oral arguments on President Biden's student debt relief plan, a plan that could give tens of millions of Americans a new lease on life. Republicans talk a big game about helping working people, but today's case before the Supreme Court--pushed by Republican officeholders who oppose the President's plan--is a slap in the face of working Americans across the country, young and old alike. Let me be clear: 90 percent--90 percent--of the relief going to out-of-school borrowers will go to those earning less than $75,000 a year. This isn't a handout to the wealthy. Far from it. This is critical relief to working- and middle-class families. For generations, higher education was the ladder up into the middle class, especially for millions of Black, Latino, and Asian Americans. But over the years, the student debt that comes with a college degree has become not a ladder up but an anchor weighing Americans down--making it harder for them to put a down payment on a house, buy a car, start a family, and save for retirement. In other words, the burden of student debt makes it harder--harder--to achieve the American Dream. That is what is at stake before the Supreme Court, not just the chance to relieve the crushing weight of student debt for millions upon millions of people but also to make the American dream a little more accessible for millions more--their families, as well as themselves. That is all we are trying to do, and I am confident we will get there because I believe the law is on our side. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS510 | null | 5,887 |
formal | law and order | null | racist | Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, crime in our Nation's Capital is literally out of control. Washington, DC, has already seen about three dozen homicides in just the first 2 months of the year. This is a 35-percent increase over last year's pace. There have been more than 1,300 thefts from autos--a 25-percent increase over last year's pace--and more than 1,100 thefts of motor vehicles, including carjackings, more than doubling last year's pace for a shattering 109-percent increase. At best, the liberal city politicians who have presided over this ongoing collapse in law and order are doing basically nothing. The Mayor recently announced that the city will hand out free steering wheel locks to residents who own certain kinds of vehicles. But some local officials are not content with doing nothing and have set their minds to making the situation actually worse. The city council just passed a new criminal code designed to go even softer still on crime, reducing penalties for a number of violent offenses and property crimes. To a unique degree, unlike any other city in America, Washington, DC, issues are national issues. The District of Columbia doesn't belong to a handful of local politicians; it belongs to more than 330 million American citizens. The people need their government to function in safety. Families and school groups need to be able to come tour the Capital, which their own tax dollars help finance, in peace of body and peace of mind. This is why the Constitution entrusts our seat of government to a Federal district. It is why Federal law gives Congress the ability to step in and help govern our Nation's Capital City if local politicians fail to take care of basic business. Now, amazingly, the same Washington Democrats who have spent the last several years trying to steamroll localism and federalism in every way possible are now, all of a sudden, indignant at the notion that Congress might toughen up penalties for violent crime here in the District. Just last year alone, Democrats, right here in this Chamber, tried to break the Senate rules so they could micromanage every county in America's election laws. They tried to ram through a bill that would have swept away State and local laws and forced every community in America to adopt radical abortion laws on par with China and North Korea. Over the last 2 years, Democrats have passed bill after bill that spent trillions of dollars to interfere in American families' lives and put more of our society under the thumb of Federal bureaucrats. So when it comes to radical far-left priorities, Washington Democrats have no qualms whatsoever about this city steamrolling 50 States and local communities. They vote for that outcome 8 days a week. But now, when public safety is in free fall in our Federal city itself, now Washington Democrats pretend they have become small government federalists and they want Congress out of the picture. This is a desperate attempt to change the subject, and it could not be less persuasive. Democrats want Washington, DC, to take over every State law, even small business decisions and every family's financial choices. But we are supposed to believe that cleaning up violent crime in Washington, DC, itself, would be a bridge too far. Really? They are just trying to duck the real debate. Democrats want to debate anything and everything beside violent crime itself because the modern Democratic Party and its coalitions have decided it is more important to have compassion for serial violent felons than for innocent citizens who just want to live their lives. That is the issue here--a binary choice. Should we be softer on crime like Democrats want at the State, local, and Federal levels, or should we be tougher on crime like Republicans and the American people want? That is the debate. I want to thank Senator Hagerty for spearheading the commonsense resolution that would nullify the DC Council's insane pro-criminal legislation and bring at least an ounce of common sense back to the American people's Federal city. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS511 | null | 5,888 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Border Security Mr. President, Joe Biden's reckless border policies have allowed human trafficking and smuggling to grow into a $13 billion industry, with criminal cartels earning up to $14 million every day for trafficking families, women, and children into the country. I want to be crystal clear about what is happening here. This is not some sort of humanitarian mission. The cartels are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. These are violent criminals who have figured out how to make millions of dollars every single day. They are kidnapping young girls and exploiting them for sex and labor over and over again. The left wants you to believe this is a myth or that reports of trafficking and exploitation are exaggerated, but while I was down at the border, I heard from two women who can provide a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Former Mexican Congresswoman Rosa Maria de la Garza joined us to talk about her advocacy on behalf of the survivors of this horrific abuse. She has been dedicated to this all her life. She puts her time into preventing and targeting human trafficking in her own country, and she has seen firsthand the ease with which the cartels use our open border to make a buck and how they expand the slave trade into our country, profiting from it. We also had the chance to speak with Karla Romero, who is a survivor of cross-border sex trafficking. Karla fell into the hands of her captors when she was 12 years old and was enslaved as a sex-trafficked individual for 4 years. During that time, she estimates that she was raped over 40,000 times--a child in the hands of a cartel. That is what they did to her. This is a humanitarian catastrophe that is enabled not only by the Biden administration's refusal to secure the border but by incentives buried in the law that encourage criminal behavior. At the end of last year, the Justice Department committed over $90 million in funding to combat human trafficking. It is an incredible investment of taxpayer resources. But, unbelievably enough, the American people are subsidizing the lifestyles of these criminals even as they invest millions to bring down these trafficking rings. As it stands right now, the law allows accused traffickers to live in government housing and receive government benefits even after they are apprehended by law enforcement and charged with a crime. If we are going to get serious about combating trafficking at the border, we need to eliminate this incentive for illegal conduct. I know it seems unbelievable that you have these cartels members who are getting U.S. Government benefits, living in government housing, and getting unemployment checks, but it is happening. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy is a prime example of how successful tactics can work. By requiring asylumseekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court date, we ensured that migrants weren't rewarded for illegally crossing the border. These programs work, and that is why I, along with Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Britt, introduced the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Traffickers Act. It makes clear that anyone charged with drug or human trafficking at our border cannot receive Federal Government benefits until their case is resolved. It would block them from receiving any retirement, welfare, Social Security, health, or disability benefits. It also means that traffickers would not be able to receive a grant, contract, loan, or professional or commercial license from the U.S. Government. This is something that needs to happen. Prohibiting traffickers from receiving taxpayer funds is just plain common sense, and there is no reason why this legislation shouldn't pass the Senate immediately. I can't imagine that anyone would be for allowing these drug traffickers and sex traffickers to continue to live in government housing and receive these benefits. In the same way that drug traffickers are directly profiting from the opioid epidemic that has killed millions of Americans, human traffickers are reaping the rewards of this administration's complacency. It is time to start paying attention to some of the details of what is happening at our southern border. The American people are paying attention, and they are waiting on this President and on this body to join them in doing something about it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS515 | null | 5,889 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Border Security Mr. President, Joe Biden's reckless border policies have allowed human trafficking and smuggling to grow into a $13 billion industry, with criminal cartels earning up to $14 million every day for trafficking families, women, and children into the country. I want to be crystal clear about what is happening here. This is not some sort of humanitarian mission. The cartels are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. These are violent criminals who have figured out how to make millions of dollars every single day. They are kidnapping young girls and exploiting them for sex and labor over and over again. The left wants you to believe this is a myth or that reports of trafficking and exploitation are exaggerated, but while I was down at the border, I heard from two women who can provide a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Former Mexican Congresswoman Rosa Maria de la Garza joined us to talk about her advocacy on behalf of the survivors of this horrific abuse. She has been dedicated to this all her life. She puts her time into preventing and targeting human trafficking in her own country, and she has seen firsthand the ease with which the cartels use our open border to make a buck and how they expand the slave trade into our country, profiting from it. We also had the chance to speak with Karla Romero, who is a survivor of cross-border sex trafficking. Karla fell into the hands of her captors when she was 12 years old and was enslaved as a sex-trafficked individual for 4 years. During that time, she estimates that she was raped over 40,000 times--a child in the hands of a cartel. That is what they did to her. This is a humanitarian catastrophe that is enabled not only by the Biden administration's refusal to secure the border but by incentives buried in the law that encourage criminal behavior. At the end of last year, the Justice Department committed over $90 million in funding to combat human trafficking. It is an incredible investment of taxpayer resources. But, unbelievably enough, the American people are subsidizing the lifestyles of these criminals even as they invest millions to bring down these trafficking rings. As it stands right now, the law allows accused traffickers to live in government housing and receive government benefits even after they are apprehended by law enforcement and charged with a crime. If we are going to get serious about combating trafficking at the border, we need to eliminate this incentive for illegal conduct. I know it seems unbelievable that you have these cartels members who are getting U.S. Government benefits, living in government housing, and getting unemployment checks, but it is happening. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy is a prime example of how successful tactics can work. By requiring asylumseekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court date, we ensured that migrants weren't rewarded for illegally crossing the border. These programs work, and that is why I, along with Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Britt, introduced the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Traffickers Act. It makes clear that anyone charged with drug or human trafficking at our border cannot receive Federal Government benefits until their case is resolved. It would block them from receiving any retirement, welfare, Social Security, health, or disability benefits. It also means that traffickers would not be able to receive a grant, contract, loan, or professional or commercial license from the U.S. Government. This is something that needs to happen. Prohibiting traffickers from receiving taxpayer funds is just plain common sense, and there is no reason why this legislation shouldn't pass the Senate immediately. I can't imagine that anyone would be for allowing these drug traffickers and sex traffickers to continue to live in government housing and receive these benefits. In the same way that drug traffickers are directly profiting from the opioid epidemic that has killed millions of Americans, human traffickers are reaping the rewards of this administration's complacency. It is time to start paying attention to some of the details of what is happening at our southern border. The American people are paying attention, and they are waiting on this President and on this body to join them in doing something about it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS515 | null | 5,890 |
formal | buck | null | racist | Border Security Mr. President, Joe Biden's reckless border policies have allowed human trafficking and smuggling to grow into a $13 billion industry, with criminal cartels earning up to $14 million every day for trafficking families, women, and children into the country. I want to be crystal clear about what is happening here. This is not some sort of humanitarian mission. The cartels are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. These are violent criminals who have figured out how to make millions of dollars every single day. They are kidnapping young girls and exploiting them for sex and labor over and over again. The left wants you to believe this is a myth or that reports of trafficking and exploitation are exaggerated, but while I was down at the border, I heard from two women who can provide a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Former Mexican Congresswoman Rosa Maria de la Garza joined us to talk about her advocacy on behalf of the survivors of this horrific abuse. She has been dedicated to this all her life. She puts her time into preventing and targeting human trafficking in her own country, and she has seen firsthand the ease with which the cartels use our open border to make a buck and how they expand the slave trade into our country, profiting from it. We also had the chance to speak with Karla Romero, who is a survivor of cross-border sex trafficking. Karla fell into the hands of her captors when she was 12 years old and was enslaved as a sex-trafficked individual for 4 years. During that time, she estimates that she was raped over 40,000 times--a child in the hands of a cartel. That is what they did to her. This is a humanitarian catastrophe that is enabled not only by the Biden administration's refusal to secure the border but by incentives buried in the law that encourage criminal behavior. At the end of last year, the Justice Department committed over $90 million in funding to combat human trafficking. It is an incredible investment of taxpayer resources. But, unbelievably enough, the American people are subsidizing the lifestyles of these criminals even as they invest millions to bring down these trafficking rings. As it stands right now, the law allows accused traffickers to live in government housing and receive government benefits even after they are apprehended by law enforcement and charged with a crime. If we are going to get serious about combating trafficking at the border, we need to eliminate this incentive for illegal conduct. I know it seems unbelievable that you have these cartels members who are getting U.S. Government benefits, living in government housing, and getting unemployment checks, but it is happening. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy is a prime example of how successful tactics can work. By requiring asylumseekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court date, we ensured that migrants weren't rewarded for illegally crossing the border. These programs work, and that is why I, along with Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Britt, introduced the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Traffickers Act. It makes clear that anyone charged with drug or human trafficking at our border cannot receive Federal Government benefits until their case is resolved. It would block them from receiving any retirement, welfare, Social Security, health, or disability benefits. It also means that traffickers would not be able to receive a grant, contract, loan, or professional or commercial license from the U.S. Government. This is something that needs to happen. Prohibiting traffickers from receiving taxpayer funds is just plain common sense, and there is no reason why this legislation shouldn't pass the Senate immediately. I can't imagine that anyone would be for allowing these drug traffickers and sex traffickers to continue to live in government housing and receive these benefits. In the same way that drug traffickers are directly profiting from the opioid epidemic that has killed millions of Americans, human traffickers are reaping the rewards of this administration's complacency. It is time to start paying attention to some of the details of what is happening at our southern border. The American people are paying attention, and they are waiting on this President and on this body to join them in doing something about it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS515 | null | 5,891 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | Border Security Mr. President, Joe Biden's reckless border policies have allowed human trafficking and smuggling to grow into a $13 billion industry, with criminal cartels earning up to $14 million every day for trafficking families, women, and children into the country. I want to be crystal clear about what is happening here. This is not some sort of humanitarian mission. The cartels are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. These are violent criminals who have figured out how to make millions of dollars every single day. They are kidnapping young girls and exploiting them for sex and labor over and over again. The left wants you to believe this is a myth or that reports of trafficking and exploitation are exaggerated, but while I was down at the border, I heard from two women who can provide a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Former Mexican Congresswoman Rosa Maria de la Garza joined us to talk about her advocacy on behalf of the survivors of this horrific abuse. She has been dedicated to this all her life. She puts her time into preventing and targeting human trafficking in her own country, and she has seen firsthand the ease with which the cartels use our open border to make a buck and how they expand the slave trade into our country, profiting from it. We also had the chance to speak with Karla Romero, who is a survivor of cross-border sex trafficking. Karla fell into the hands of her captors when she was 12 years old and was enslaved as a sex-trafficked individual for 4 years. During that time, she estimates that she was raped over 40,000 times--a child in the hands of a cartel. That is what they did to her. This is a humanitarian catastrophe that is enabled not only by the Biden administration's refusal to secure the border but by incentives buried in the law that encourage criminal behavior. At the end of last year, the Justice Department committed over $90 million in funding to combat human trafficking. It is an incredible investment of taxpayer resources. But, unbelievably enough, the American people are subsidizing the lifestyles of these criminals even as they invest millions to bring down these trafficking rings. As it stands right now, the law allows accused traffickers to live in government housing and receive government benefits even after they are apprehended by law enforcement and charged with a crime. If we are going to get serious about combating trafficking at the border, we need to eliminate this incentive for illegal conduct. I know it seems unbelievable that you have these cartels members who are getting U.S. Government benefits, living in government housing, and getting unemployment checks, but it is happening. The ``Remain in Mexico'' policy is a prime example of how successful tactics can work. By requiring asylumseekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting a court date, we ensured that migrants weren't rewarded for illegally crossing the border. These programs work, and that is why I, along with Senator Hyde-Smith and Senator Britt, introduced the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Traffickers Act. It makes clear that anyone charged with drug or human trafficking at our border cannot receive Federal Government benefits until their case is resolved. It would block them from receiving any retirement, welfare, Social Security, health, or disability benefits. It also means that traffickers would not be able to receive a grant, contract, loan, or professional or commercial license from the U.S. Government. This is something that needs to happen. Prohibiting traffickers from receiving taxpayer funds is just plain common sense, and there is no reason why this legislation shouldn't pass the Senate immediately. I can't imagine that anyone would be for allowing these drug traffickers and sex traffickers to continue to live in government housing and receive these benefits. In the same way that drug traffickers are directly profiting from the opioid epidemic that has killed millions of Americans, human traffickers are reaping the rewards of this administration's complacency. It is time to start paying attention to some of the details of what is happening at our southern border. The American people are paying attention, and they are waiting on this President and on this body to join them in doing something about it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS515 | null | 5,892 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today as Black History Month comes to a close to pay tribute to Black Americans who have played pivotal roles in shaping American foreign policy and advancing national security abroad. As leaders and change-makers who have served the American people around the world, translating their own experiences fighting for justice and freedom in the United States into their passion for advancing democracy, human rights, and the rule of law overseas. From the first Black diplomat Ebenezer Bassett, who served as Ambassador to Haiti from 1869 to 1877, to Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who today serves as U.S. Representative to the United Nations, Black Americans have been at the forefront of advancing U.S. foreign policy. Black Americans like Nobel Laureate Dr. Ralph Bunche, who mediated the 1949 Armistice Agreement and assisted in the creation of the United Nation's Universal Declaration for Human Rights; Ambassador Edward Perkins, who was instrumental in the 1992 creation of the Thomas R. Pickering Foreign Affairs Fellowship; and Peace Corps Director Aaron Williams, who advanced the 2009 reopening of programs in Colombia, Sierra Leone, and Indonesia, have broken down barriers and made our world a better place. And yet, while we have made great strides in increasing representation throughout our diplomatic and development corps' ranks, our work is clearly far from over. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's first-ever government-wide diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility--DEIA--report, released earlier this month, Black Americans comprise just 12 percent of the Senior Executive Service--SES--workforce. And thesefindings are not limited to our domestic agencies. As I said at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's first-ever DEIA hearing convened last year, between 2002 and 2021, the overall proportion of Black employees at the State Department decreased from 17 percent to 15 percent. At the time of our hearing, there were only four career Black Ambassadors serving abroad. This failure to harness America's diverse talent pool is not only a grave error, but it also places us at a significant disadvantage when we seek to engage our allies and counter our adversaries on the world stage. That is why, as the highest ranking Latino in the U.S. Congress and the first chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of Latino descent, one of my top priorities has been to promote and expand diversity in our domestic and international affairs agencies, including in our most senior levels. That is why I introduced diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility--DEIA--provisions as part of last year's State Department authorization bill, which passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2023. And, why it is so important to support paid internship programs and fellowships in Congress, the State Department, USAID, Peace Corps, and all of our international affairs agencies. Because without these opportunities, many students of color would be unable to afford to come work in Washington, DC. Our diversity continues to be our Nation's greatest source of strength, and we must act on this moral and strategic imperative to cultivate a representative workforce, because, in every single world crisis that the United States faces, a more diverse and more representative U.S. diplomatic corps would be a valuable asset. A few years ago, when I was traveling in China, the diplomat in charge of democracy and human rights programs at our Embassy had participated in the civil rights struggle. His personal history, his personal eyewitness accounts of trying to change the course of events in our country as an African American man, were a powerful example to those fighting for democracy and human rights in China. I can recount easily dozens of moments in different parts of the world where Americans from diverse backgrounds have made a powerful case for our country. These life experiences cannot be replicated, they cannot be purchased, and they cannot be bought. So, as Black History Month comes to a close, let us not only remember the critical contributions of African-Americans in the formulation and execution of U.S. foreign policy, let us also recommit to doing our part to prepare the leaders who will strengthen and secure our national security in the future. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MENENDEZ | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS524-2 | null | 5,893 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 11:33 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 538. An act to require the disclosure of a camera or recording capability in certain internet-connected devices. H.R. 1059. An act to authorize notaries public to perform, and to establish minimum standards for, electronic notarizations and remote notarizations that occur in or affect interstate commerce, to require any Federal court to recognize notarizations performed by a notarial officer of any State, to require any State to recognize notarizations performed by a notarial officer of any other State when the notarization was performed under or relates to a public Act, record, or judicial proceeding of the notarial officer's State or when the notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce, and for other purposes. H.R. 1108. An act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to grant a license or construction permit through a system of competitive bidding. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS525-4 | null | 5,894 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-513. A communication from the Chief of the Division of Regulations, Jurisdiction, and Special Park Uses, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mount Rainier National Park; Fishing'' (RIN1024-AE66) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-514. A communication from the Chief of the Division of Regulations, Jurisdiction, and Special Park Uses, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments'' (RIN1024-AE78) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-515. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Dishwasher'' (RIN1904-AD96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-516. A communication from the Program Analyst, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska'' (RIN0596-AD51) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-517. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reorganization of Title 30-Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf'' ((RIN1082-AA03) (Docket ID BOEM-2022-0042)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-518. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reorganization of Title 30-Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf'' ((RIN1082-AA03) (Docket ID BOEM-2022-0042)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-519. A communication from the Policy Advisor of Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties; 2023 Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties'' (RIN1018-BG74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-520. A communication from the Administrative Assistant of Administrative Support Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Five Species That Occur on San Clemente Island From the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants'' (RIN1018- BE73) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-521. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 2015 Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 9950-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-522. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; California; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District; Correction'' (FRL No. 10031-03-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-523. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Excess Emissions'' (FRL No. 10186-02-R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-524. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Approval of Single Source Order'' (FRL No. 10415-02-R1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-525. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Finding of Failure to Attain and Reclassification of the Detroit Area as Moderate for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 10611-01-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-526. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds - Exclusion of (2E)- 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (HFO-1336mzz(E))'' (FRL No. 8371-01-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-527. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Texas; Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter'' (FRL No. 9401-02-R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-528. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Gasoline Dispensing, Stage I, Stage II and Transport Vehicles'' (FRL No. 9610-02-R2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-529. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Alabama; Rescission of the Finding of Failure to Submit a State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Qulaity Standards (NAAQS)'' (FRL No. 9895-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-530. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits'' (FRL No. 9939-02-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-531. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Reasonably Available Control Technology - Combustion Sources'' (FRL No. 10025-03-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-532. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 10209-01-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-533. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Marginal Nonattainment Plan for the St. Louis Area for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 10388-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-534. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta Area Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 10401-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-535. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions'' (FRL No. 10437-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-536. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Packaging Corporation of America Nitrogen Oxides SIP Call Alternative Monitoring'' (FRL No. 10503-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-537. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Murray County Area Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 10511-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-538. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth & Families, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-539. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicaid Fee-For-Service, and Medicaid Managed Care Programs for Years 2020 and 2021'' (RIN0938-AT59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-540. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled ``To provide for certain costs associated with an electric passenger carrier for transportation, and for other purposes''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-541. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Determination Under Section 506(a) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-542. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a notification of intent to provide assistance to Ukraine, including for self-defense and border security operations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-543. A communication from the Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the report on other U.S. contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies during fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-544. A communication from the Director, Office of the White House Liaison, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary, Department of Education, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-545. A communication from the Director, White House Liaison, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Education, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-546. A communication from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Financial Assistance by PBGC- Withdrawal Liability Condition Exception'' (RIN1212-AB53) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-547. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Listing of Color Additive Exempt From Certification; Calcium Carbonate; Confirmation of Effective Date'' (Docket No. FDA-2017-C-6238) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-548. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``The Fourteenth Review of the Backlog of Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-549. A communication from the General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-550. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Eliminating Continuing Legal Education Certification and Recognition for Patent Practitioners'' (RIN0651-AD62) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-551. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to Congress; First Quarter of fiscal year 2023''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-552. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to Congress; Fourth Quarter of fiscal year 2022''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-553. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Statutory Increase in Operations and Maintenance Grant Funding'' (RIN2900-AR71) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-554. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Amendments'' (RIN2900-AR79) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-555. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``VA Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition of Information Technology; and Other Contracts for Goods and Services involving Information, VA Sensitive Information, and Information Security; and Liquidated Damages Requirements for Data Breach'' (RIN2900- AQ41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-556. A communication from the Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Promoting Telehealth in Rural America'' ((RIN3060-AF85) (FCC 23-6) (WC Docket No. 17-310)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-557. A communication from the Chairman of the Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties--2023 Adjustment'' (Docket No. EP 716) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-558. A communication from the Program Analyst, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Order on Reconsideration and Declaratory Ruling'' ((FCC 22-100) (CG Docket No. 02-278)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-559. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Revised 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; 2018 Catch Limit'' (RIN0648- BH30) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-560. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Windowpane Flounder Emergency Rule Extension'' (RIN0648-BH11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-561. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Island Fisheries; Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish'' (RIN0648- BI54) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-562. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule for the Commercial Scup Quota Period Modification Framework Adjustment 10'' (RIN0648-BH26) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-563. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region'' (RIN0648-BH46) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-564. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic'' (RIN0648-BI11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-565. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement 2019 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications'' (RIN0648-XG562) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-566. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Island Fisheries; Reclassifying Management Unit Species to Ecosystem Component Species'' (RIN0648-BH63) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-567. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulatory Amendment to authorize an Oregon recreational fishery for midwater groundfish species'' (RIN0648-BG40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-568. A communication from the Director of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Swordfish General Commercial Permit Retention Limit Inseason Adjustment for Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions'' (RIN0648-XT030) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-569. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2018 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season'' (RIN0648-XF486) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-570. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Framework Adjustment 58 to the Northwest Multispecies Fishery Management Plan'' (RIN0648-BI64) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-571. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implement Nontrawl Lead Level 2 Observer Requirements'' (RIN0648-BG96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-572. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Fishing Year 2018 Recreational Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BH55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-573. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fishing Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries, Restrictions on the Use of Fish Aggregating Devices in Purse Seine Fisheries, and Transshipment Prohibitions; effectiveness of collection- of-information requirements'' (RIN0648-BH77) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-574. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mid-Atlantic Blueline Tilefish Fishery; 2019 and Projected 2020-2021 Specifications'' (RIN0648-BI57) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-575. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Highly Migratory Fisheries; Amendment 4 to Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Revisions to the Biennial Management Cycle'' (RIN0648-BH36) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-576. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Acceptable Biological Catch Framework Adjustment'' (RIN0648-BE65) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-577. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment 119 to the BSAI FMP and 107 to the GOA FMP'' (RIN0648-BJ03) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-578. A communication from the Director of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Temporary rule; Inseason General category Quota Transfer (January 2020 Subquota Period)'' (RIN0648-XT031) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-579. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions to Catch Sharing Plan and Domestic Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BH91) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-580. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2019 Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BI05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-581. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Shortraker Rockfish in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XC499) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-582. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XC510) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-583. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In-season Closure of the Lane Snapper Recreational and Commercial Fishing Season in Federal Waters of the Gulf of Mexico for the 2022 Fishing Year'' (RIN0648-XC537) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-584. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Inseason Adjustment to the 2022 Atlantic Herring Specifications'' (RIN0648-XC475) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-585. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Blueline Tilefish Fishery; Final 2022 and 2023 and Projected 2024 Specifications'' (RIN0648-XC411) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-586. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; General category December Quota Transfer'' (RIN0648-XC483) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-587. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Closure of the General Category October through November Fishery for 2022'' (RIN0648-XC431) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-588. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Inseason Adjustment to the 2022 Atlantic Herring Specifications'' (RIN0648-XC475) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-589. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Orders'' (RIN0648-XC446) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-590. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Correction to the Final Rule to Implement the 2019-20 Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BH93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-591. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Increase the Duration of Aircraft Registration; Confirmation of Effective Date and Correction'' ((RIN2120-AL45) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1514)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-592. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Eastern United States'' ((RIN2120- AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0932)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-593. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1028)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-594. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-156, and V-285 in the Vicinity of Kalamazoo, MI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1107)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-595. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of V-6, V-10, V-30, V-100, and V- 233 in the Vicinity of Litchfield, MI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1113)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-596. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-214, V- 285, and V-305, and Revocation of V-96 in the Vicinity of Kokomo, IN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0822)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-597. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mount Sterling and Pittsfield, IL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1318)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-598. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple North Dakota Towns'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1316)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-599. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Manchester and Nashua, NH'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA- 2022-1207)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-600. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1333)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-601. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ness City, KS'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0249)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-602. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revocation of Class E Airspace; Marfa, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1351)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-603. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Selma, AL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0922)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-604. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Manassas, VA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA- 2022-1827)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-605. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class C Airspace; Buffalo, NY'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1640)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-606. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Plymouth and Winamac, IN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1225)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-607. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4035'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31458)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-608. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4037'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31460)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-609. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4043'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31467)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-610. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4041'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31465)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-611. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4044'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31468)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-612. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-22280'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1234)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-613. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39- 22263'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0979)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-614. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-22250'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1154)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-615. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-22282'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1583)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-616. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-22236'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0989)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-617. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; AIRBUS; Amendment 39-22273'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1235)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-618. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22242'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0890)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-619. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes; Amendment 39-22230'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0677)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-620. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines; Amendment 39-22306'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0021)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-621. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines; Amendment 39-22305'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0020)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-622. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Turboprop Engines; Amendment 39-22301'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1302)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-623. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-22294'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-1664)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-624. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-22283'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0141)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-625. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-22252'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0015)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-626. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Mar SAS Parachutes; Amendment 39-22244'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1476)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-627. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-22296'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0818)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-628. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22086'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1105)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-629. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39- 22291'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1246)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-630. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-22257'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1051)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-631. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders; Amendment 39-22310'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1421)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-632. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes; Amendment 39-22309'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1305)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS526 | null | 5,895 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-513. A communication from the Chief of the Division of Regulations, Jurisdiction, and Special Park Uses, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mount Rainier National Park; Fishing'' (RIN1024-AE66) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-514. A communication from the Chief of the Division of Regulations, Jurisdiction, and Special Park Uses, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustments'' (RIN1024-AE78) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-515. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy Efficiency, Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Dishwasher'' (RIN1904-AD96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-516. A communication from the Program Analyst, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Areas; Roadless Area Conservation; National Forest System Lands in Alaska'' (RIN0596-AD51) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-517. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reorganization of Title 30-Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf'' ((RIN1082-AA03) (Docket ID BOEM-2022-0042)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-518. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Reorganization of Title 30-Renewable Energy and Alternate Uses of Existing Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf'' ((RIN1082-AA03) (Docket ID BOEM-2022-0042)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-519. A communication from the Policy Advisor of Law Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Penalties; 2023 Inflation Adjustments for Civil Monetary Penalties'' (RIN1018-BG74) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-520. A communication from the Administrative Assistant of Administrative Support Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Five Species That Occur on San Clemente Island From the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants'' (RIN1018- BE73) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-521. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 2015 Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 9950-02-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-522. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; California; San Diego County Air Pollution Control District; Correction'' (FRL No. 10031-03-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-523. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Excess Emissions'' (FRL No. 10186-02-R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-524. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Approval of Single Source Order'' (FRL No. 10415-02-R1) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-525. A communication from the Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Finding of Failure to Attain and Reclassification of the Detroit Area as Moderate for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 10611-01-R5) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-526. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Quality: Revision to the Regulatory Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds - Exclusion of (2E)- 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (HFO-1336mzz(E))'' (FRL No. 8371-01-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-527. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Texas; Control of Air Pollution from Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter'' (FRL No. 9401-02-R6) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-528. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York; Gasoline Dispensing, Stage I, Stage II and Transport Vehicles'' (FRL No. 9610-02-R2) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-529. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Alabama; Rescission of the Finding of Failure to Submit a State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Qulaity Standards (NAAQS)'' (FRL No. 9895-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-530. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Tuolumne County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits'' (FRL No. 9939-02-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-531. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Reasonably Available Control Technology - Combustion Sources'' (FRL No. 10025-03-R9) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-532. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (FRL No. 10209-01-OAR) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-533. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Marginal Nonattainment Plan for the St. Louis Area for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (FRL No. 10388-02-R7) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-534. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Atlanta Area Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 10401-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-535. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Revisions to Control of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions'' (FRL No. 10437-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-536. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Packaging Corporation of America Nitrogen Oxides SIP Call Alternative Monitoring'' (FRL No. 10503-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-537. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Murray County Area Limited Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' (FRL No. 10511-02-R4) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-538. A communication from the Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner, Administration for Children, Youth & Families, Department of Health and Human Services, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-539. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicaid Fee-For-Service, and Medicaid Managed Care Programs for Years 2020 and 2021'' (RIN0938-AT59) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Finance. EC-540. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting a legislative proposal entitled ``To provide for certain costs associated with an electric passenger carrier for transportation, and for other purposes''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-541. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Determination Under Section 506(a) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine''; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-542. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, pursuant to law, a notification of intent to provide assistance to Ukraine, including for self-defense and border security operations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-543. A communication from the Director, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the report on other U.S. contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated agencies during fiscal year 2021; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. EC-544. A communication from the Director, Office of the White House Liaison, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary, Department of Education, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-545. A communication from the Director, White House Liaison, Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Department of Education, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-546. A communication from the Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Special Financial Assistance by PBGC- Withdrawal Liability Condition Exception'' (RIN1212-AB53) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-547. A communication from the Director of Regulations and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Listing of Color Additive Exempt From Certification; Calcium Carbonate; Confirmation of Effective Date'' (Docket No. FDA-2017-C-6238) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-548. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``The Fourteenth Review of the Backlog of Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments''; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. EC-549. A communication from the General Counsel, Office of Management and Budget, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy in the position of Administrator of Federal Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget, received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. EC-550. A communication from the Agency Representative, Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule Eliminating Continuing Legal Education Certification and Recognition for Patent Practitioners'' (RIN0651-AD62) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on the Judiciary. EC-551. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to Congress; First Quarter of fiscal year 2023''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-552. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) Quarterly Report to Congress; Fourth Quarter of fiscal year 2022''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-553. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Statutory Increase in Operations and Maintenance Grant Funding'' (RIN2900-AR71) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-554. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Amendments'' (RIN2900-AR79) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-555. A communication from the Regulation Development Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``VA Acquisition Regulation: Acquisition of Information Technology; and Other Contracts for Goods and Services involving Information, VA Sensitive Information, and Information Security; and Liquidated Damages Requirements for Data Breach'' (RIN2900- AQ41) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. EC-556. A communication from the Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Promoting Telehealth in Rural America'' ((RIN3060-AF85) (FCC 23-6) (WC Docket No. 17-310)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-557. A communication from the Chairman of the Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties--2023 Adjustment'' (Docket No. EP 716) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-558. A communication from the Program Analyst, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Order on Reconsideration and Declaratory Ruling'' ((FCC 22-100) (CG Docket No. 02-278)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-559. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Revised 2018 Commercial Fishing Restrictions for Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean; 2018 Catch Limit'' (RIN0648- BH30) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-560. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Windowpane Flounder Emergency Rule Extension'' (RIN0648-BH11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-561. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Island Fisheries; Annual Catch Limit and Accountability Measures; Main Hawaiian Islands Deep 7 Bottomfish'' (RIN0648- BI54) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-562. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule for the Commercial Scup Quota Period Modification Framework Adjustment 10'' (RIN0648-BH26) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-563. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement Abbreviated Framework Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region'' (RIN0648-BH46) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-564. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic'' (RIN0648-BI11) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-565. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Rule to Implement 2019 Atlantic Bluefish Specifications'' (RIN0648-XG562) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-566. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Island Fisheries; Reclassifying Management Unit Species to Ecosystem Component Species'' (RIN0648-BH63) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-567. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulatory Amendment to authorize an Oregon recreational fishery for midwater groundfish species'' (RIN0648-BG40) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-568. A communication from the Director of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Swordfish General Commercial Permit Retention Limit Inseason Adjustment for Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean regions'' (RIN0648-XT030) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-569. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2018 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season'' (RIN0648-XF486) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-570. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Framework Adjustment 58 to the Northwest Multispecies Fishery Management Plan'' (RIN0648-BI64) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-571. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implement Nontrawl Lead Level 2 Observer Requirements'' (RIN0648-BG96) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-572. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Fishing Year 2018 Recreational Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BH55) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-573. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fishing Limits in Purse Seine and Longline Fisheries, Restrictions on the Use of Fish Aggregating Devices in Purse Seine Fisheries, and Transshipment Prohibitions; effectiveness of collection- of-information requirements'' (RIN0648-BH77) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-574. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mid-Atlantic Blueline Tilefish Fishery; 2019 and Projected 2020-2021 Specifications'' (RIN0648-BI57) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-575. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Highly Migratory Fisheries; Amendment 4 to Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fisheries; Revisions to the Biennial Management Cycle'' (RIN0648-BH36) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-576. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Omnibus Acceptable Biological Catch Framework Adjustment'' (RIN0648-BE65) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-577. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment 119 to the BSAI FMP and 107 to the GOA FMP'' (RIN0648-BJ03) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-578. A communication from the Director of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Temporary rule; Inseason General category Quota Transfer (January 2020 Subquota Period)'' (RIN0648-XT031) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-579. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Revisions to Catch Sharing Plan and Domestic Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BH91) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-580. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries off West Coast States; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; 2019 Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BI05) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-581. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Shortraker Rockfish in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska'' (RIN0648-XC499) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-582. A communication from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Several Groundfish Species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XC510) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-583. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``In-season Closure of the Lane Snapper Recreational and Commercial Fishing Season in Federal Waters of the Gulf of Mexico for the 2022 Fishing Year'' (RIN0648-XC537) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-584. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Inseason Adjustment to the 2022 Atlantic Herring Specifications'' (RIN0648-XC475) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-585. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Mid-Atlantic Blueline Tilefish Fishery; Final 2022 and 2023 and Projected 2024 Specifications'' (RIN0648-XC411) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-586. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; General category December Quota Transfer'' (RIN0648-XC483) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-587. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Closure of the General Category October through November Fishery for 2022'' (RIN0648-XC431) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-588. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Inseason Adjustment to the 2022 Atlantic Herring Specifications'' (RIN0648-XC475) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-589. A communication from the Acting Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Fisheries; Inseason Orders'' (RIN0648-XC446) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-590. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Correction to the Final Rule to Implement the 2019-20 Pacific Coast Groundfish Harvest Specifications and Management Measures'' (RIN0648-BH93) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-591. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Increase the Duration of Aircraft Registration; Confirmation of Effective Date and Correction'' ((RIN2120-AL45) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1514)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-592. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes; Eastern United States'' ((RIN2120- AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0932)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-593. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment and Revocation of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Eastern United States'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1028)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-594. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-156, and V-285 in the Vicinity of Kalamazoo, MI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1107)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-595. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of V-6, V-10, V-30, V-100, and V- 233 in the Vicinity of Litchfield, MI'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1113)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-596. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-214, V- 285, and V-305, and Revocation of V-96 in the Vicinity of Kokomo, IN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2021-0822)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-597. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Mount Sterling and Pittsfield, IL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1318)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-598. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Multiple North Dakota Towns'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1316)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-599. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Manchester and Nashua, NH'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA- 2022-1207)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-600. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1333)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-601. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ness City, KS'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0249)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-602. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revocation of Class E Airspace; Marfa, TX'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1351)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-603. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class D Airspace and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Selma, AL'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0922)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-604. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace; Manassas, VA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA- 2022-1827)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-605. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class C Airspace; Buffalo, NY'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1640)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-606. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Plymouth and Winamac, IN'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1225)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-607. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4035'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31458)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-608. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4037'' ((RIN2120-AA65) (Docket No. 31460)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-609. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4043'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31467)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-610. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4041'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31465)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-611. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments; Amendment No. 4044'' ((RIN2120- AA65) (Docket No. 31468)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-612. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-22280'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1234)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-613. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39- 22263'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0979)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-614. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-22250'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1154)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-615. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-22282'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1583)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-616. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines; Amendment 39-22236'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0989)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-617. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; AIRBUS; Amendment 39-22273'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1235)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-618. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22242'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0890)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-619. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes; Amendment 39-22230'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0677)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-620. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines; Amendment 39-22306'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0021)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-621. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines; Amendment 39-22305'' ((RIN2120- AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-0020)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-622. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Turboprop Engines; Amendment 39-22301'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022- 1302)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-623. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-22294'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2023-1664)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-624. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes; Amendment 39-22283'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0141)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-625. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters; Amendment 39-22252'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0015)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-626. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Mar SAS Parachutes; Amendment 39-22244'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1476)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-627. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters; Amendment 39-22296'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-0818)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-628. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes; Amendment 39-22086'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2020-1105)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-629. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Yabora Industria Aeronautica S.A.; Embraer S.A) Airplanes; Amendment 39- 22291'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1246)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-630. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes; Amendment 39-22257'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1051)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-631. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Stemme AG Gliders; Amendment 39-22310'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1421)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. EC-632. A communication from the Management and Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes; Amendment 39-22309'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2022-1305)) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on February 7, 2023; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS526 | null | 5,896 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Cramer): S. 544. A bill to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to provide a sunset for certain ways in which credit unions may be Agent members of the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS533-2 | null | 5,897 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | By Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mr. Cramer): S. 544. A bill to amend the Federal Credit Union Act to provide a sunset for certain ways in which credit unions may be Agent members of the National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. | 2020-01-06 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS533 | null | 5,898 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Warren, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Sanders) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: S. Res. 82 Whereas, in 1938, a group of employees in Wisconsin banded together to eliminate political influence in the jobs of those employees as revenue collectors, marking the beginning of the National Treasury Employees Union (referred to in this preamble as ``NTEU''); Whereas that group persisted for 14 years and finally won civil service protections, leading to the establishment of the professional workforce at the Internal Revenue Service that exists today; Whereas, in 1972, NTEU signed the first negotiated bargaining agreement of NTEU, which developed a shared set of responsibilities for managers and bargaining unit employees that were designed to improve the workforce and achieve the mission of the Internal Revenue Service; Whereas, since that initial agreement, NTEU has promoted new and innovative workplace policies that benefit Federal employees and agencies, such as alternative work schedules and telework policies; Whereas NTEU-- (1) serves as a powerful voice for the members of NTEU and for Federal employees in general; (2) has successfully sought to promote and defend Federal service as a noble calling involving a variety of challenging and rewarding professions; and (3) has fought tirelessly to ensure that Federal employees are free from discrimination, politicization, and retaliation for disclosing Federal Government waste, fraud, and abuse; Whereas the work of NTEU and the knowledge and skills of the highly trained individuals represented by NTEU who work for the Federal Government contribute significantly to the greatness and prosperity of the United States; Whereas NTEU has grown to represent approximately 150,000 employees from 34 different Federal agencies, and the members of NTEU, among other things-- (1) collect the revenue that funds the Federal Government; (2) help protect the borders of the United States; (3) ensure that individuals in the United States have clean air and water; (4) protect consumers, investors, bank depositors, and agriculture commodity traders; (5) serve the beneficiaries of important health and social programs and ensure the safety of food and drugs in the United States; and (6) protect and preserve the national parks and public lands of the United States; Whereas the mission of NTEU, to help create workplaces in which every Federal employee is treated with dignity and respect, has been met by the efforts of NTEU to-- (1) advocate for fair pay and benefits; (2) negotiate for work-life balance initiatives; and (3) ensure a merit-based, nonpartisan civil service; Whereas, whether advocating on Capitol Hill, at the bargaining table, or in workplaces across the United States, NTEU continues to make history through its accomplishments; and Whereas, in 2023, NTEU is celebrating its 85th anniversary: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the National Treasury Employees Union on its 85th anniversary; and (2) commends-- (A) the work of the National Treasury Employees Union; and (B) the members of the National Treasury Employees Union for their outstanding contributions to the United States. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2023-02-28-pt1-PgS536 | null | 5,899 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.